Ece,ven 0 n u MAY 10 2019 BY=-·----- May9 , 2019 U.S. Department of Homeland Security National Records Center P.O. Box 648010 Lee's Summit , MO 64064-80 I0 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services COW2018000784 and NRC2018159375 Cerissa Cafasso American Oversight 1030 15th St NW, Ste B255 Washington, DC 20005 Dear Cerissa Cafasso: This is a response to your Freedom of lnfonnation Act/Privacy Act (FOlA/PA) request received in this office relating to e-mails from Director Cissna and Associate Director Higgin s, wh ich was assigned control number COW20 I 8000784, and USCIS employee Robert Law, which was assigned control number NRC2018159378. We have completed the search for responsive records and are currentl y reviewing and proce ssing records responsive to your request. Records will be provided on a rolling basis in accordance with the parties' agreement. Enclosed is the first production of responsive records , which consists of 406 pages. We have reviewed and have determined to release all infonnation except those portions that are exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(S) and (b)(6) of the FOlA. Exemption (b)(S) provides protection for inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters, which would not be avai lab le by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. The types of documents and/or infonnation we have withheld under this exemption may consist of documents containing pre-deci siona l infonnation , documents or other memoranda prepared in contemplation of litigation , or confidentia l communications between attorney and client. Exemption (b)(6) permits the government to withho ld all information about individuals in personne l, medical and similar files where the disclosure of such infonnation wou ld constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The types of documents and/or infonnation we have withheld may consist of birth certificates, naturalization certificates, drivers ' licenses, social sec urity numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, or var ious other documents and/or information be longing to a third party that are. During our review, we also located records that originated with the White House , Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Justice and U.S. Customs and Border Protect ion. We have referred the records to that agency for their direct response to you. ~7~ Jill A. Eggleston Director, FOlA Operations AM f I I pVERSIGHT www.uscis.gov From: DaleWilcox [mailtol I (b~~ Sent:Wednesday, October 25, 2017 9:46 AM ' To: Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO ,----------t; Veprek, Andrew M. EOP/WHO ISubject:[EXTERNAL]RefugeecrisisI (b~~ Good morning gentlemen, As we've discussedpreviously,IRLI is very concernedabout the role the United Nations High Commissionerfor Refugees(UNHCR)is playing in the U.S. refugee process. We believe this role has resultedin the misapplicationof U.S. refugee law. IRLI's two retired immigrationjudge board membershave championedthis issue and have recentlywritten a short white paper on the topic. Please find the paper attached here for your elucidation. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Best regards, Dale L. Wilcox Executive Director & General Counsel 0 .£..2·• ·~ .'.~ . t.R .f.•. J_;:~;;, II.GR .· ,,:1.·1 ..0.•·N.'rtf.FORM INSTJTIJTE AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000001 1 25 MassachusettsAve. NW, Suite335 Washington,DC 20001 Tel:(202) 232-5590 Fax: (202)464-3590 >www.irli.org< ---------------------------------------CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission is covered by the Electronics Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and is legally privileged. This transmission, and any documents attached, may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the Attorney-Client Privilege, Work Product Doctrine and/or other privileges. The information is intended only for the use of the individuals and/or entities named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you may not read, disclose, forward, print, copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this communication in error, please reply and notify the sender (only), or call (202) 232-5590, and destroy and/or delete this message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000002 2 The United States cannot allow the United Nations High Commissionerfor Refugees (UNHCR)to continue to make the initial determinationof who is approved for refugee status and referred for resettlement in the United States. The U.S. Department of Statejustifies the UNHCR involvementin our refugee program as being effective and efficient. It is never appropriateto delegate national sovereigntyissues to foreign nationals. Persons who are not intimately familiar with the highly complex Immigration& Nationality Act are not capable of making an informed decision about who qualifies for refugee status under our laws. The UNHHCR definition of who is eligible for refugee status does not conform to our refugee law as written, and they do not accurately identify genuine refugees who qualify for resettlementin the United States. The failure of the UNHCR to base their determinationson the criteria establishedin our refugee and asylum laws results in grants of refugee status, resettlement,admission to our country, and permanent residence to aliens who are not statutorilyeligible for the protections and benefits of our refugee program. We must acknowledgethe differencebetween a "United Nations refugee" and a" United States refugee". Unfortunatelythere is a tendency by the media and partisan groups to blur that definition and say, "a refugee is a refugee," but that is simply not the case. A person who is eligible to be shelteredby United States refugee status and allowed to enter the United States is specificallyidentifiedby type and category under U.S. law. A United Nations refugee is essentially a displaced person without further considerationof other exclusionaryfactors. The Refugee Act of 1980 sets forth the statutory definition of a refugee and the criteria that must be consideredin determiningwhether refugee status should be granted. The definition is clear, concise, and totally focused on protecting those who have been persecuted or have a well-foundedfear of persecutionby the governmentor a group that the governmentis unable or unwilling to control on account of race, religion, nationality, membershipin a particular social group, or political opinion. There is no provision for granting refugee status for other humanitarianreasons. There are certain mandatory grounds which require denial of an applicationfor refugee status. An applicant will be denied ifhe has persecuted others, committed an aggravatedfelony in the United States, committed a serious nonpoliticalcrime outside of the United States, or has been convicted of a particularly serious crime which constitutesa danger to the community.An applicant who has firmly Page 1 of 4 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000003 3 resettled in a third countryor is considereda securityrisk to the United Statesmay not receiverefugee status.An applicantcannotbe admittedto the United States if that applicantis inadmissibleunder our immigrationlaws. The definitionof a refugee under U.S. law does not includeeconomicmigrantsor persons displaced by civil war or civil strife or victims of crimes. Refugee admissionand resettlementpolicies must be in conformitywith statutory requirementsand other provisionsof the Immigrationand NationalityAct. There has been no delegationof authorityto the executivebranch to eliminatethe thresholdrequirementsfor refugee status,broaden or replace the statutory definitionof refugee, or change the groundsfor refugee inadmissibility.However, there were many attemptsby the previous administrationto expandthe definition of refugee and broadenthe scope of refugeeprogramsby executivepolicies and orders which greatly increasedthe numbersand classes of migrantswho benefited from the refugeeprogram. The UNHCRmust not be allowedto play an instrumentalrole in influencingthe implementationand administrationof our refugeeprogram.The UNHCRis not without bias and not without conflictof interestin its involvementin determining who qualifiesfor resettlementas a refugee in our country. The UNHCRhas long been a strong advocatefor expandingrefugee status to all classes of migrants.The UNHCRhas broadenedtheir definitionof refugee to includepersons affectedby the indiscriminateeffects of armed conflict, generalizedviolence,crime, or other manmadedisasters.The UNHCRmandates that applicantswho may be vulnerableand have special needs, applicants manifestlyin need of protectiveintervention,victims of torture and trauma, and women with specialneeds are entitledto refugeeprotection.The differencehere is that while these groupsmay need UNHCRprotection,they do not necessarily qualify for refugee status under U.S. law. The UNHCRHandbookstates that there are situationswhere large populationsare displacedand it would not be possibleto make an individualdeterminationof refugee status for each member of the population.In such circumstances,the UNHCRmakes a group determinationof refugee status whereby each memberof the populationin questionis regardedas primafacie eligibleas a refugee absent evidenceto the contrary.Since the UNHCRuses its own definitionof a refugee, uses its own guidelinesand criteria in assessingclaims, and uses its own proceduresand mandatesin determiningrefugee status rather that applyingU.S. Page 2 of 4 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000004 4 law, standards,and procedures,they will grant refugee status to applicantswho are clearly ineligibleunder our refugee law. The applicationused by the UNHCRto determinerefugee status is clearly inadequateto establishrefugee status under our refugeeprogram.It is inadequate not only in terms of the minimal informationrequiredto be includedin the application,but also in terms of the informationwhich was not requested.The UNHCR applicationdoes require informationrelating to the need for refugee protection.However,little informationis required about the crucial issues of concernrelatingto eligibilityfor refugee status in the United States.There are only two questionsrelevantto whetherthe applicanthas been persecutedor has a wellfoundedfear of persecutionby the governmentor by a group the governmentis unable or unwillingto control: 1. Why did you leave your home country? 2. What do you believe would happen to you or membersof your householdif you returnedto your home country?Explainwhy. The applicantis not even asked if he/she has been persecutedbased on one of the five groundsenumeratedin U.S. refugee law or who was the persecutor.The applicationdoes not require disclosureof informationrelating to the bars to refugee status, criminalhistory,terrorist activities,or national securityconcerns. SeniorU.S. governmentofficialsdeny that the UNHCRis selectingthe applicants for resettlementin our nation. It is evident,however,that the UNHCRmakes the critical initial determinationof refugee eligibilityand great deferenceis given to that determinationas U.S. officialsdo their processingand make the ultimate determinationof refugee status. This processingincludesbackgroundnational securitychecks for terrorism,crime, and groundsof inadmissibility.There are no observableindicationsthat U.S. officialschallengethe UNHCRrefugee status determinationor make independentinquiriesto ensure that all applicantsmeet all statutoryeligibilityrequirementsfor refugee status and resettlementin the United States. The involvementof UNHCRin our refugeeprogrammust be eliminatedto achieve the President's immigrationpolicy objectivesto ensure safe and lawful admissions, defend the safety and securityof our country,and protect Americanworkers and taxpayers. Page 3 of 4 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000005 5 Most of the world's crises are in fact mass migrationcrises driven by economicor political factorswhich do not qualifythe affectedgroups to immigrateas refugees under U.S. law. We cannot accept a refugee systemwhich allows every individual to immigrateinternationallyjust to avoid hardshipin his or her home countryand move at will to a differentcountry of one's choice. Page 4 of 4 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000006 6 Cissna,Francis Monday, October 30, 2017 2:41 PM Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy RE:Role of UNHCRin USRAP RefugeeCrisis.docx (b)X~ From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: From:NuebelKovarik,Kathy Sent: Monday,October30, 20171:50 PM To: Veprek,AndrewM. EOP/WHO; Cissna,Francis Cc: Zadrozny,JohnA. EOP/WHO; Bash,ZinaG. EOP/WHO; Wetmore,DavidH. EOP/WHO; Whetstone, TrevorD. EOP/WHO Subject: RE:Roleof UNHCR in USRAP Happy to do. I will email Francis'scheduler to see if there's a good time. Do you think State's political leadership should be involved? Obviously, your call, but they're the ones that work with UNHCRon the referrals and may need to be part of the discussionat some point. Kathy Nuebel Kovarik Chief,Officeof Policy and Strategy U.S.Citizenshipand Immigration Services Directj Cell:I I (bW.m I , 1f..\"'-f This emai I, a I ong with any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain information that is sensitive or protected by applicable law. Unauthorized use or dissemination of this email and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete or destroy a 11copies. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000007 7 From: DaleWilcox[~ Sent:Wednesday, October 25, 2017 9:46 AM (b):~ r..o_:_za_d_ro_z_nv_,_J_oh_n_A_._E_o_P /_w_H_o___.J.,.. _________ tSubject:[EXTERNAL]Refugeecrisisi ►; Veprek, Andrew M. EOP/WHO (b):~ Good morning gentlemen, As we've discussedpreviously,IRLI is very concernedabout the role the United Nations High Commissionerfor Refugees(UNHCR)is playing in the U.S. refugee process. We believe this role has resulted in the misapplicationofU.S. refugee law. IRLI's two retired immigrationjudge board membershave championedthis issue and have recentlywritten a short white paper on the topic. Please find the paper attached here for your elucidation. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Best regards, Dale LmWilcox ExecutiveDirector& GeneralCounsel ~ . ~ "..Z.nGRATlON rrnmriM IK.Ll ;:;\~~ INSTITIJTE 25 MassachusettsAve. NW, Suite 335 Washington,DC 20001 Tel: (202) 232-5590 Fax: (202) 464-3590 >www.irli.org< CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission is covered by the Electronics Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and is legally privileged. This transmission, and any documents attached, may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the Attorney-Client Privilege, Work Product Doctrine and/or other privileges. The information is intended only for the use of the individuals and/or entities named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000008 8 message, you may not read, disclose, forward, print, copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this communication in error, please reply and notify the sender (only), or call (202) 232-5590, and destroy and/or delete this message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000009 9 The United States cannot allow the United Nations High Commissionerfor Refugees (UNHCR)to continue to make the initial determinationof who is approved for refugee status and referred for resettlement in the United States. The U.S. Department of Statejustifies the UNHCR involvementin our refugee program as being effective and efficient. It is never appropriateto delegate national sovereigntyissues to foreign nationals. Persons who are not intimately familiar with the highly complex Immigration& Nationality Act are not capable of making an informed decision about who qualifies for refugee status under our laws. The UNHHCR definition of who is eligible for refugee status does not conform to our refugee law as written, and they do not accurately identify genuine refugees who qualify for resettlementin the United States. The failure of the UNHCR to base their determinationson the criteria establishedin our refugee and asylum laws results in grants of refugee status, resettlement,admission to our country, and permanent residence to aliens who are not statutorilyeligible for the protections and benefits of our refugee program. We must acknowledgethe differencebetween a "United Nations refugee" and a" United States refugee". Unfortunatelythere is a tendency by the media and partisan groups to blur that definition and say, "a refugee is a refugee," but that is simply not the case. A person who is eligible to be shelteredby United States refugee status and allowed to enter the United States is specificallyidentifiedby type and category under U.S. law. A United Nations refugee is essentially a displaced person without further considerationof other exclusionaryfactors. The Refugee Act of 1980 sets forth the statutory definition of a refugee and the criteria that must be consideredin determiningwhether refugee status should be granted. The definition is clear, concise, and totally focused on protecting those who have been persecuted or have a well-foundedfear of persecutionby the governmentor a group that the governmentis unable or unwilling to control on account of race, religion, nationality, membershipin a particular social group, or political opinion. There is no provision for granting refugee status for other humanitarianreasons. There are certain mandatory grounds which require denial of an applicationfor refugee status. An applicant will be denied ifhe has persecuted others, committed an aggravatedfelony in the United States, committed a serious nonpoliticalcrime outside of the United States, or has been convicted of a particularly serious crime which constitutesa danger to the community.An applicant who has firmly Page 1 of 4 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000010 10 resettled in a third countryor is considereda securityrisk to the United Statesmay not receiverefugee status.An applicantcannotbe admittedto the United States if that applicantis inadmissibleunder our immigrationlaws. The definitionof a refugee under U.S. law does not includeeconomicmigrantsor persons displaced by civil war or civil strife or victims of crimes. Refugee admissionand resettlementpolicies must be in conformitywith statutory requirementsand other provisionsof the Immigrationand NationalityAct. There has been no delegationof authorityto the executivebranch to eliminatethe thresholdrequirementsfor refugee status,broaden or replace the statutory definitionof refugee, or change the groundsfor refugee inadmissibility.However, there were many attemptsby the previous administrationto expandthe definition of refugee and broadenthe scope of refugeeprogramsby executivepolicies and orders which greatly increasedthe numbersand classes of migrantswho benefited from the refugeeprogram. The UNHCRmust not be allowedto play an instrumentalrole in influencingthe implementationand administrationof our refugeeprogram.The UNHCRis not without bias and not without conflictof interestin its involvementin determining who qualifiesfor resettlementas a refugee in our country. The UNHCRhas long been a strong advocatefor expandingrefugee status to all classes of migrants.The UNHCRhas broadenedtheir definitionof refugee to includepersons affectedby the indiscriminateeffects of armed conflict, generalizedviolence,crime, or other manmadedisasters.The UNHCRmandates that applicantswho may be vulnerableand have special needs, applicants manifestlyin need of protectiveintervention,victims of torture and trauma, and women with specialneeds are entitledto refugeeprotection.The differencehere is that while these groupsmay need UNHCRprotection,they do not necessarily qualify for refugee status under U.S. law. The UNHCRHandbookstates that there are situationswhere large populationsare displacedand it would not be possibleto make an individualdeterminationof refugee status for each member of the population.In such circumstances,the UNHCRmakes a group determinationof refugee status whereby each memberof the populationin questionis regardedas primafacie eligibleas a refugee absent evidenceto the contrary.Since the UNHCRuses its own definitionof a refugee, uses its own guidelinesand criteria in assessingclaims, and uses its own proceduresand mandatesin determiningrefugee status rather that applyingU.S. Page 2 of 4 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000011 11 law, standards,and procedures,they will grant refugee status to applicantswho are clearly ineligibleunder our refugee law. The applicationused by the UNHCRto determinerefugee status is clearly inadequateto establishrefugee status under our refugeeprogram.It is inadequate not only in terms of the minimal informationrequiredto be includedin the application,but also in terms of the informationwhich was not requested.The UNHCR applicationdoes require informationrelating to the need for refugee protection.However,little informationis required about the crucial issues of concernrelatingto eligibilityfor refugee status in the United States.There are only two questionsrelevantto whetherthe applicanthas been persecutedor has a wellfoundedfear of persecutionby the governmentor by a group the governmentis unable or unwillingto control: 1. Why did you leave your home country? 2. What do you believe would happen to you or membersof your householdif you returnedto your home country?Explainwhy. The applicantis not even asked if he/she has been persecutedbased on one of the five groundsenumeratedin U.S. refugee law or who was the persecutor.The applicationdoes not require disclosureof informationrelating to the bars to refugee status, criminalhistory,terrorist activities,or national securityconcerns. SeniorU.S. governmentofficialsdeny that the UNHCRis selectingthe applicants for resettlementin our nation. It is evident,however,that the UNHCRmakes the critical initial determinationof refugee eligibilityand great deferenceis given to that determinationas U.S. officialsdo their processingand make the ultimate determinationof refugee status. This processingincludesbackgroundnational securitychecks for terrorism,crime, and groundsof inadmissibility.There are no observableindicationsthat U.S. officialschallengethe UNHCRrefugee status determinationor make independentinquiriesto ensure that all applicantsmeet all statutoryeligibilityrequirementsfor refugee status and resettlementin the United States. The involvementof UNHCRin our refugeeprogrammust be eliminatedto achieve the President's immigrationpolicy objectivesto ensure safe and lawful admissions, defend the safety and securityof our country,and protect Americanworkers and taxpayers. Page 3 of 4 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000012 12 Most of the world's crises are in fact mass migrationcrises driven by economicor political factorswhich do not qualifythe affectedgroups to immigrateas refugees under U.S. law. We cannot accept a refugee systemwhich allows every individual to immigrateinternationallyjust to avoid hardshipin his or her home countryand move at will to a differentcountry of one's choice. Page 4 of 4 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000013 13 1 (b)X~ From: Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy [mailto:._l __________ Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 5:30 PM To: Veprek, Andrew M. EOP/WHO ----------Cc:Zadrozny, John A. EOP/WHO Bash, ___ Zina G. EOP/WHO --~~~~~~...,.11111111_....;. ..;.... __ _ t 1we~tm_o_re~,_D_av_id_H_.E_o_P~/W_H_o~--~~-~-~--Whetstone, Trevor D. EOP/WHO ; Cissna, Francis ------------- 'Subject:RE: Role of UNHCR I in USRAP,(b)X~ I discussed with Francis a bit. I would like to droo Francis and brin2 in Jennifer Hii;i;ins. I __________________ .. I Jennifer Higgins will be key to that discussion, I think. (b)X~ KathyNuebel Kovarik Chief,Officeof Policy and Strategy U.S.Citizenshipand Immigration Services Directl Celli (b)X~ I I This email, along with any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain information that is sensitive or protected by applicable law. Unauthorized use or dissemination of this emai I and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,pleasenotifythe AMEHICAN PVERSIGHT sender and delete or destroy all copies. DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000014 14 From: Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy ['-:'"m~a=ilt=o~I ___________ (b~~ Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 1:50 PM To: Veprek, Andrew M. EOP/WHO-I 1 I> ►; Cissna,Francis _________ ..... ___________ _ t: ------------- Cc:Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO Wetmore, Whetstone, Trevor D. EOP/WHO Subject:RE:Role of UNHCRin USRAP (b~~ I ___.I Bash,Zina G. EOP/WHO Happy to do. I will email Francis'scheduler to see if there's a good time. Do you think State's political leadership should be involved? Obviously, your call, but they're the ones that work with UNHCRon the referrals and may need to be part of the discussion at some point. Kathy Nuebel Kovarik Chief,Officeof Policy and Strategy U.S.Citizenshi and Immigration Services This email, along with any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain information that is sensitive or protected by applicable law. Unauthorized use or dissemination of this emai I and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,pleasenotifythe sender and delete or destroy all copies. I From: Dale Wilcox [mailtol Sent:Wednesday, October 25, 2017 9:46 AM (b~~ To: Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO-t ..----------►; Veprek, Andrew M. EOP/WHO AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000015 15 ISubject:[EXTERNAL] I (bJX~ Refugeecrisis , Good morning gentlemen, As we've discussedpreviously,IRLI is very concernedabout the role the United Nations High Commissionerfor Refugees(UNHCR)is playing in the U.S. refugee process. We believe this role has resulted in the misapplicationof U.S. refugee law. IRLI's two retired immigrationjudge board membershave championedthis issue and have recentlywritten a short white paper on the topic. Please find the paper attached here for your elucidation. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Best regards, Dale L. Wilcox Executive Director& GeneralCounsel ~ . ~ . ·..z.IM ..(NSTITIJTE lKLl ;:;\~~ l'\i.f[GR .A1 ..·1 ·•·o·N··RlffORM 25 MassachusettsAve. NW, Suite 335 Washington,DC 20001 Tel: (202) 232-5590 Fax: (202) 464-3590 > >>www.irli.org<<< CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmissionis covered by the ElectronicsCommunicationsPrivacyAct, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and is legally privileged.This transmission,and any documents attached, may contain confidential informationbelongingto the sender which is protectedby the Attorney-ClientPrivilege, Work ProductDoctrine and/or other privileges. The informationis intended only for the use of the individualsand/or entities named above. If you are not the intended recipientof this message,you may not read, disclose,forward, print, copy or disseminatethis information. If you have receivedthis communicationin error, please reply and notify the sender (only), or call (202) 232-5590, and destroy and/or delete this message. Unauthorizedinterceptionof this e-mail is a violationof federal criminal law. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000016 16 l____________..I From: Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy [mailto.. Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 5:30 PM (b~~ To: Veprek, Andrew M. EOP/WHO ----------Cc:Zadrozny, John A. EOP/WHO Bash, Zina G. EOP/WHO t;We~t_m_o_r-e,~D~a-v~id~H-.~EO~P~/~W~H~O~-•---------- I ____________ _ .,_ Whetstone, Trevor D. EOP/WHO I I Cissna, Francis (b~~ Subject:RE: Role of UNHCRfn USRAP (bJX'lS I discussed with Francis a bit. I would like to drop Francis and bring in Jennifer Higgins.I I I Jennifer Higgins will be key to that discussion, I think. ------------------Kathy Nuebel Kovarik Chief,Officeof Policy and Strategy U.S.Citizenshipand Immigration Services (bW~ Directj Cell 1f..\"'I I I I This emai I, along with any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s)and may contain information that is sensitive or protected by applicable law. Unauthorizeduse or dissemination of this emai I and any attachments is strictly prohibited. lfyou a re not the intended recipient, pl easenotify the sender and delete or destroy a11copies. AMEHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000017 17 From: Nuebel Kovarik,Kathy [~m~a=ilt-'--'.0~1 ___________ Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 1:50 PM To: Veprek, Andrew M. EOP/WHOI..----------- ___. (b~~ h Cissna,Francis .. iCc:Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO i Bash,Zina G. EOP/WHO I t;We"'!!t_m_o-re-,""!!!D!""a~vi~d""!"H!"". "!!"EO~P 'l!"!W~H"!"!O~_. _________ _ ~------------ whetstone, Trevor D. EOP/WHO Subject:RE:Roleof UNHCRih USRAP (b~~ Happy to do. I will email Francis'scheduler to see if there's a good time. Do you think State's political leadership should be involved? Obviously, your call, but they're the ones that work with UNHCRon the referrals and may need to be part of the discussionat some point. Kathy Nuebel Kovarik Chief,Officeof Policy and Strategy U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Services DirecU Celli ~b~~ I I This emai 1,along with any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain information that is sensitive or protected by applicable law. Unauthorized use or dis semi nation of this ema i I and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you a re not the intended recipient, pl ease notify the sender and delete or destroy a 11copies. AMEHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000018 18 (bJX~ I From: DaleWilcox [mailtol Sent:Wednesday, October 25, 2017 9:46 AM To: Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO.. , ----------t i 1 Subject:[EXTERNAL] Refugeecrisis Veprek, Andrew M. EOP/WHO (bJX~ Good morning gentlemen, As we've discussedpreviously,IRLI is very concernedabout the role the United Nations High Commissionerfor Refugees(UNHCR)is playing in the U.S. refugee process. We believe this role has resulted in the misapplicationofU.S. refugee law. IRLI's two retired immigrationjudge board membershave championedthis issue and have recentlywritten a short white paper on the topic. Please find the paper attached here for your elucidation. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Best regards, Dale L. Wilcox Executive Director & General Counsel ~ ~• -2. ;MIGRATION REFORM JKLl ;:~~;, INSTITUTE 25 MassachusettsAve. NW, Suite 335 Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 232-5590 Fax: (202) 464-3590 >>>www.irli.orq<<< ---------------------------------------CONFIDE NTl AL IT Y NOTICE: This transmission is covered by the Electronics Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and is legally privileged. This transmission, and any documents attached, may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the Attorney-Client Privilege, Work Product Doctrine and/or other privileges. The information is intended only for the use of the individuals and/or entities named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you may not read, disclose, forward, print, copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this communication in error, please reply and notify the sender (only), or call (202) 232-5590, and destroy and/or delete this message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000019 19 From: Sent: To: Subject: Cissna,Francis Wednesday, November 29, 2017 7:46 AM Ries,Lora L; Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy RE:Thursday panel. Anyone else we can invite from USCIS?? By all means attend (don't be on the panel, though). Recall, POTUSendorsed the RAISEAct. We did send technical assistance, right? I am still perplexed by some of the provisions in the bill, which I hope are improved, assuming they pay attention to our technical assistance. Anyway, do go if you can and bring along some junior OP&S staffer so they can hear all of it. And say hi to the gregarious Teitelbaum for me. I know him well and he's an excellent fellow. Teitelbaum is also one of the key people that has studied the "STEM shortage" issue (he doesn't think there is one): https://www. theatla ntic. com/ education/a rchive/2014/0 3/the-myt h-of-the-science-a nd-e ngi nee ringsho rtage/284359/. From:Ries,LoraL Sent: Tuesday,November28, 201711:22PM To: NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Cissna,Francis Subject: RE:Thursdaypanel.Anyoneelsewe can invitefrom USCIS?? Why not? Lora Ries Chief of Staff U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Department of Homeland Security (bJX~ I l(c) From:NuebelKovarik,Kathy Sent: Tuesday,November28, 201711:20PM To: Ries,LoraL; Cissna,Francis Subject: FW:Thursdaypanel.Anyoneelsewe can invitefrom USCIS?? WDVT? I could go, maybe get recognized, but not sit on the panel. ? I From: MargueriteTelford[mailtof (bJX~ Sent: Tuesday,November28, 20 7 2:28 PM , To: NuebelKovarik,Kathy Subject:Thursdaypanel.Anyoneelsewe can invitefrom USCIS?? ~mmigrationfixes: From the JoirdaniComm~ss~onto the RAISE Act U.S. Senator David Perdue and Jordan Commission Vice Chair discuss legal immigration policy AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000020 20 The Center for ImmigrationStudies will host an invitation-onlypanel discussion on Thursday, November30, focusing on past and present attemptsto changethe immigrationsystem.The speakerswill include U.S. Senator David Perdue (R-Ga), co-authorof the ReformingAmerican Immigrationfor a Strong Economy(RAISE) Act, MichaelTeitlebaum,Vice Chairmanof the bipartisanU.S. Commissionon ImmigrationReform(which was the last officially appointed advisorygroup to offer detailed immigrationrecommendationschaired by the late civil rights icon Barbara Jordan), and JessicaVaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Centerfor ImmigrationStudiesand author of an extensivereport on chain migration. The debate over the DeferredAction for ChildhoodArrivals Programhas brought the issue of chain migration,and legal immigrationin general, to the forefront. While the RAISEAct and the recommendationsof the Jordan Commissiondiffer in certain respects,both seek to end chain migrationby focusing on the nuclear family and put an emphasison skills usefulto the United States. Senator Perdue, Dr. Teitelbaum,and Ms. Vaughanwill discussthese issues and more. WHAT: Panel discussionon proposedlegal immigrationreforms. WHEN: Thursday, November30, 2017, at 9 a.m. WHERE: National Press Club, Lisagor Room, 529 14th St, NW, 13th Floor, Washington,D.C. WHO: U.S. SENATOR DAVID PERDUE (R-GA) David Perdue is the only Fortune 500 CEO in Congressand is serving his first term in the United States Senate,where he representsGeorgia on the Armed Services, Banking,Budget,and Agriculture Committees.He is a co-authorof the Reforming American Immigrationfor Strong Employment(RAISEAct) and a congressional leader on legal immigrationreform. DR. MICHAELTEITLEBAUM MichaelTeitlebaumserved as Vice Chair and Acting Chair of the U.S. Commission on ImmigrationReform("the Jordan Commission").An internationallyrecognized expert on migration,he is a senior advisorto the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,a Wertheim Fellow at Harvard Law School, and a member of the Centerof Migration Studies Board of Trustees. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000021 21 JESSICAVAUGHAN JessicaVaughan is Directorof PolicyStudies at the Center for ImmigrationStudies and author of a recent report, "ImmigrationMultipliers:Trends in Chain Migration", which examinesthe impact of the U.S. family-basedimmigrationsystem. MARK KRIKORIAN{Moderator) ExecutiveDirector,Center for ImmigrationStudies RSVP: This invitationis non-transferableand RSVPsare requiredto attend. Please RSVPto MargueriteTelford, mrt@cis.org,by Wednesday,November29. Attendeesshould be preparedto show valid ID or press credentialsand the attachedcode for admittanceto the event. MargueriteTelford Director of Communications Center for ImmigrationStudies 1629 K Street NW, Suite 600 Washington,DC 20006 (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076 rnrt@cis.org www .c1s.org AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000022 22 From: Sent: To: Subject: Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy Monday, January22, 2018 3:27 PM Cissna,Francis;Stoddard, Kaitlin V RE:[EXTERNAL] Will gang members get amnesty? 500 Ex-DACA Criminals and GangMembers at Large Wait - we did publish it here - in PDF. https://www.uscis.gov/daca2017 From:Cissna,Francis Sent: Monday,January22, 20184: 19 PM To: NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Stoddard,KaitlinV Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] Willgangmembersget amnesty?500Ex-DACACriminalsandGangMembers at Large So the data isn't accurate? From: NuebelKovarik,Kathy Sent: Monday,January22, 20184:15:49PM To: Cissna,Francis;Stoddard,KaitlinV Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] Willgangmembersget amnesty?500 Ex-DACA CriminalsandGangMembers at Large No, we gave out but then OPA took issue with it! So, it's not published anywhere. I'll share the info with Jon, if KShasn't already. From:Cissna,Francis Sent: Monday,January22, 20183:54 PM To: NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Stoddard,KaitlinV Subject: FW:[EXTERNAL] Willgangmembersget amnesty?500Ex-DACACriminalsandGangMembers at Large Is the Grassleydata somethingwe've published? AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000023 23 (b)(6 From: Marguerite Telford [_ma_ilt--iol....._ _ __. Sent: Monday, January22, 2018 10:31 AM To: Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO-, (b)(6 (bJX~ -------1 Subject:[EXTERNAL] Will gang members get amnesty? 500 Ex-DACACriminals and GangMembers at Large 500 Ex=DACACriminals& Gang Members StillAt Large:WillThey Get AmnestyToo? AMEHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000024 24 JFacebool(TwitterGooglie+ EmailPrint By Jessica Vaughan on January 22, 2018 More than 500 individualswho obtainedDACAbenefits that were later revoked due to criminal and/or gang involvementapparentlyare still living in the country and at large, accordingto statisticsprovidedby USCIS to Sen. Chuck Grassley,chairman of the SenateJudiciary Committee.These cases are 25 percent of those who lost DACA status due to criminaland/or gang activity as of November2017. Only about 30 percent of the ex-DACAcriminal alienshave been removed or were in ICE custody as of November 2017. Accordingto USCIS, a total of 2,127 individualshad their DACA status terminatedfor criminal activity and/or gang activity as of November 22, 2017.In no more than 3 percent of these cases did the terminationoccur merely because of gang involvement;nearly all of the terminations followed criminal convictionsor arrests, accordingto related data on the USCIS website. USCIS providedthe followingbreakdownof the outcome of the cases of these DACA terminations: • Removed from the United States: 562 • In ICE Custody:90 • Released from ICE Custody:535 • No Record of Removal,Detention or Release by ICE: 940 • Total: 2,127 While it is reassuringthat USCIS is revoking DACA benefits for criminalgang membersit identifies,it is concerningthat almost as many criminal alien DACA beneficiarieshave been released as have been removedto their home country.Most of the terminationsoccurredmore than a year before these statistics were compiled.I assumethat at least some of the 940 criminals who had DACA but who have not been removed are still in state or local custody serving time, but it is possible, even likely, that some were releasedby sanctuaryjurisdictions,and ICE has not re-apprehendedthem USCIS also provided a list of more than 45 gang affiliationsof the ex-DACA criminals.It includes some of the most violent and dangerousgangs in the United States, such asMS-13, 18th Street, the Latin Kings, and the Trinitarios. It includes some lesser-knowngangs as well, with names like Last GenerationKorean Killers and Maniac Latin Disciples. USCIS has not releasedinformationon where these gang members were living,but the gang names sometimesidentifytheir location: Oakland 30 Nortenos,Orange County,Angelino Heights Surenos,East San Diego, Inland Empire, PacoimaVan Nuys Boys, and West Merced Nortenos,all of which are presumablyin California. AMEHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000025 25 Under current law, gang members are not automaticallybarred from receiving immigration benefits such as green cards,work permits, and TemporaryProtectedStatus,and clearlymany have obtainedthese benefitsin recent years. A fix to this loopholeshouldbe a non-negotiable elementof any bill that gives amnestyto DACArecipients.The bill sponsoredby several House Republicanimmigrationcommitteeleaders (includingGoodlatte,Labrador,McCaul, and McSalley), known as the SecuringAmerica'sFuture Act, includesa sectionthat would update the law so that criminalgang memberswould be barred from all immigrationbenefits, including the DACA amnesty,and be inadmissibleand deportable.This fix also is on the White House list of urgent prioritiesfor immigrationreform. MargueriteTelford Director of Communications Center for ImmigrationStudies 1629K StreetNW, Suite 600 Washington,DC 20006 (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076 mrt@cis.org >www.cis.org< AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000026 26 memiQM?mam?mmorcement gb)(6 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000027 27 me?mfgig?a?mmam?m?r?orcement gb)(6 W6 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000028 28 l From: Marguerite Telford [.:..:..;m=ai=lt-=--iol..._ ___ Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 10:31 AM (b):~ To: Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO➔---------Subject:[EXTERNAL] Will gang members get amnesty? 500 Ex-DACACriminals and Gang Members at Large 500 Ex=DACACriminals& Gang Members Still At Large: WillThey Get AmnestyToo? f acebool(TwitterGoogle+ EmailPrint By Jessica Vaughanon January22, 2018 More than 500 individualswho obtainedDACAbenefits that were later revokeddue to criminal and/or gang involvementapparentlyare still living in the country and at large, accordingto statisticsprovidedby USCIS to Sen. Chuck Grassley,chairmanof the SenateJudiciary Committee.These cases are 25 percent of those who lostDACA status due to criminaland/or gang activity as of November2017. Only about 30 percent of the ex-DACAcriminalalienshave been removedor were in ICE custodyas of November2017. Accordingto USCIS, a total of 2,127 individualshad their DACA status terminatedfor criminal activity and/or gang activity as of November22, 2017. In no more than 3 percentof these cases did the terminationoccur merely becauseof gang involvement;nearly all of the terminations followedcriminalconvictionsor arrests, accordingto related data on the USCIS website. USCIS providedthe followingbreakdownof the outcomeof the cases of these DACA terminations: • Removedfrom the United States: 562 • In ICE Custody:90 • Releasedfrom ICE Custody:535 • No Record of Removal,Detentionor Release by ICE: 940 • Total: 2,127 While it is reassuringthat USCIS is revokingDACA benefits for criminalgang membersit identifies,it is concerningthat almost as many criminalalien DACA beneficiarieshave been releasedas have been removedto their home country.Most of the terminationsoccurredmore than a year before these statisticswere compiled. I assumethat at least some of the 940 criminals who had DACA but who have not been removedare still in state or local custodyservingtime, AMEHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000029 29 but it is possible, even likely, that some were releasedby sanctuaryjurisdictions, and ICE has not re-apprehendedthem USCIS also provided a list of more than 45 gang affiliationsof the ex-DACA criminals.It includes some of the most violent and dangerousgangs in the United States, such as MS-13, 18th Street, the Latin Kings, and the Trinitarios.It includes some lesser-knowngangs as well, with names like Last GenerationKorean Killers and Maniac Latin Disciples. USCIS has not released informationon where these gang members were living,but the gang names sometimesidentifytheir location: Oakland 30 Nortenos, Orange County,Angelino Heights Surenos,East San Diego, Inland Empire, Pacoima Van Nuys Boys, and West Merced Nortenos, all of which are presumablyin California. Under current law, gang members are not automaticallybarred from receiving immigration benefits such as green cards, work permits, and TemporaryProtected Status, and clearlymany have obtainedthese benefits in recent years. A fix to this loophole shouldbe a non-negotiable element of any bill that gives amnestyto DACArecipients.The bill sponsoredby several House Republicanimmigrationcommitteeleaders (includingGoodlatte,Labrador,McCaul, and McSalley),known as the SecuringAmerica'sFuture Act, includes a sectionthat would update the law so that criminal gang memberswould be barred from all immigrationbenefits, including the DACA amnesty,and be inadmissibleand deportable.This fix also is on the White House list of urgent prioritiesfor immigrationreform. MargueriteTelford Director of Communications Center for ImmigrationStudies 1629K StreetNW, Suite 600 Washington,DC 20006 (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076 rnrt@cis.org >>www.cis.org<< AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000030 30 I From: Marguerite Telford Sent: Friday, March 30, 201_8_2-:l_S_P_M_ (b)X~ ..T_o_: w_ol_d,_T_h_eo_J_ . _Eo_P_/_w_H_o_.j..,_ _________ 1 I>;Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO I Subject:[EXTERNAL] Central Americans I have heard that the 1000-1500CentralAmericansheaded this way are being trained on what to say (crediblefear) to be allowed entry. Who is funding this? CBP and USCIS asylum officerswill be the first contact.I am sure Cissna is on top of this ... we are screeningevery singleperson? Obamawould have waved them in! Mexico is just waving them through ... has Mexicobeen given a heads-upto have a plan to take care of all of these folks since we won't be letting them in. Media is giving it so little coverage... guess they want to increase odds they will make it to the border. We will try to get somethingout the door. MargueriteTelford Director of Communications Center for ImmigrationStudies 1629 K StreetNW, Suite 600 Washington,DC 20006 (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076 mrt@cis.org >www.cis.org< AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000031 31 From: Sent: To: Subject: Cissna,Francis Friday,March 30, 2018 2:24 PM Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO;NuebelKovarik,Kathy; Symons,Craig M; Law, Robert T RE:[EXTERNAL] CentralAmericans Yes,there is a 1,500+ person "refugee caravan" from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador that is expected to reach the U.S.border at various California Ports of Entry in early April. (See article pasted below.) Here is video of the group crossing a Mexican border checkpoint on March 26: https://www.facebook.com/PuebloSF/videos/2106857236007633/. *** A 'RefugeeCaravan'Is Headedto the U.S. and GettingBigger Every Day Jorge Rivas Image: Pueblo Sin Fronteras AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000032 32 An estimated 1,500 migrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador started a month-longjourneyon Sunday to the United States, where they intend to seek political asylum. Organizers say the "refugee caravan" includes many women, unaccompanied minors, and entire families who are migrating through Mexico any way they can. The migrants started their journey in Tapachula, Chiapas, near the Guatemala -Mexico border around 7 AM on Sunday. They walked, took public transportation, and hitchhiked their way to their first destination in the town of Huixtla, where many of the migrants camped outdoors. Their entire journey is more than 2,000 miles long. "The turnout surprised all of us," Rodrigo Abeja, a Mexico-based organizer with Pueblo Sin Fronteras, the immigrant rights group behind the caravan, told Splinter. Abeja said the group's most recent caravans last year only had about 450 migrants. About 80% of the migrants in this latest caravan are from Honduras; Abeja speculated that the swelling numbers could be due to recent political instability in that country. The caravan comes just months after the Trump administration has called for a stricter vetting process for asylum seekers. Abeja said the caravan has grown as migrants learn about the group as it journeys through Mexico. So far, the critical mass of migrants marching through towns seems to be working. On Face book, the group claimed the caravan is so large that Mexican immigration officials on Sunday abandoned a check point. Abeja said there are month-old infants being carried by young mothers alongside elders in their seventies who are making the journey. There's also a small contingent of people who identify as LGBTQ. He said most migrants are escaping political persecution and gang violence. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000033 33 Those participating in the caravan will attend workshops to prepare them to request asylum when they reach the U.S. The migrants are expected to reach U.S. points of entries in California sometime next month. Abeja said the number of people on this journey illustrates the desperation people have to stay alive. "The journey is extreme. People say that if they stay where they are they'll die. So they're here because they're trying to stay alive," Abeja said. The next stop for the group is in the town of Mapastepec, where, according to Pueblo Sin Fronteras, a local school has agreed to shelter the refugee caravan. https://sp Ii nternews.com/a-refugee-ca rava n-is-headed-to-the-u-s-a nd-getting-big-1824087 413 See also: https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Central-American-Migrants-in-StruggleCarava n-Heads-to-Mexico-US-for-Dign ity-Asylu m-20180326-0006.html I From: Marguerite Telford Sent: Friday, March 30, 201_8_2-:l_S_P_M_ (b)X~ J~.----------•; ..ro_:_w_o_ld_,_T_he_o_J_. E_o_P_/w_H_o ... 1 i Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO Subject:[EXTERNAL] Central Americans AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000034 34 I have heard that the 1000-1500CentralAmericansheaded this way are being trained on what to say (crediblefear) to be allowedentry. Who is fundingthis? CBP and USCIS asylum officerswill be the first contact.I am sure Cissna is on top of this ... we are screeningevery singleperson? Obamawould have waved them in! Mexico is just waving them through ... has Mexicobeen given a heads-upto have a plan to take care of all of these folks since we won't be letting them in. Media is giving it so little coverage... guess they want to increase odds they will make it to the border. We will try to get somethingout the door. MargueriteTelford Director of Communications Center for ImmigrationStudies 1629K StreetNW, Suite 600 Washington,DC 20006 (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076 rnrt@cis.org >www.cis.org< AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000035 35 ?3 I DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000036 36 From: Sent: To: Subject: Stoddard, Kaitlin V Friday, March 30, 2018 2:45 PM Cissna,Francis;Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy; Symons,CraigM; Law, RobertT RE:[EXTERNAL] Central Americans Noted. From:Cissna,Francis Sent: Friday,March30, 2018 3:40 PM To: Stoddard,KaitlinV; NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Symons,CraigM; Law,RobertT Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] CentralAmericans Don't think we'd want to say the highlighted portion publicly. From:Stoddard,KaitlinV Sent: Friday,March30, 2018 3:40 PM To: Cissna,Francis;NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Symons,CraigM; Law,RobertT Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] CentralAmericans Makes sense. I will make sure Paul talks to OPA. The woman from CIS is right-literally coverage on this. no media From:Cissna,Francis Sent: Friday,March30, 2018 3:38 PM To: Stoddard,KaitlinV; NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Symons,CraigM; Law,RobertT Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] CentralAmericans I emailed with Homan and McAleenan and they said S1 is well aware of this, so I decided not to send my email. From:Stoddard,KaitlinV Sent: Friday,March30, 2018 3:36 PM To: Cissna,Francis;NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Symons,CraigM; Law,RobertT Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] CentralAmericans AMERICAN PVERSIGHT (b)'.~ DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000037 37 (b)X{51 From: Cissna,Francis Sent: Friday,March30, 20183:33 PM To: NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Symons,CraigM; Law,RobertT; Stoddard,KaitlinV Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] CentralAmericans RemovingJZ and adding Kaitlin. S1 is indeed aware. ICEand CBPtoo. Any reaction to this must, I think, come from DHSHQ, or at least be led by CBP. Unfortunately, as Jennifer Higgins hassaid, AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT (b)X{51 DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000038 38 From: Cissna,Francisj ~ Sent: Friday, March 30-,-20-18-3:-24_P_M __ _______ ________ _ (bJX~ To: Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO ...,. ...,__ .. · Symons,Craig M >; Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy · Law, Robert Subject:RE:[EXTERNAL] Central Americans Yes,there is a 1,500+ person "refugee caravan" from Honduras,Guatemala, and ElSalvadorthat is expectedto reach the U.S.border at various California Ports of Entry in early April. (See article pasted below.) Here is video of the group crossinga Mexican border checkpoint on March 26: >https://www .facebook.com/PuebloSF/videos/2106857236007633/<. *** A 'RefugeeCaravan'Is Headedto the U.S. and GettingBigger Every Day Jorge Rivas [3/26/I 8] AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000039 39 Image: Pueblo Sin Fronteras An estimated 1,500 migrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador started a month-longjourneyon Sunday to the United States, where they intend to seek political asylum. Organizers say the "refugee caravan" includes many women, unaccompanied minors, and entire families who are migrating through Mexico any way they can. The migrants started their journey in Tapachula, Chia pas, near the Guatemala -Mexico border around 7 AM on Sunday. They walked, took public transportation, and hitchhiked their way to their first destination in the town of Huixtla, where many of the migrants camped outdoors. Their entire journey is more than 2,000 miles long. "The turnout surprised all of us," Rodrigo Abeja, a Mexico-based organizer with Pueblo Sin Fronteras, the immigrant rights group behind the caravan, told Splinter. Abeja said the group's most recent caravans last year only had about 450 migrants. About 80% of the migrants in this latest caravan are from Honduras; Abeja speculated that the swelling numbers could be due to recent political instability in that country. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000040 40 The caravan comes just months after the Trump administration has called for a stricter vetting process for asylum seekers. Abeja said the caravan has grown as migrants learn about the group as it journeys through Mexico. So far, the critical mass of migrants marching through towns seems to be working. On Facebook, the group claimed the caravan is so large that Mexican immigration officials on Sunday abandoned a check point. Abeja said there are month-old infants being carried by young mothers alongside elders in their seventies who are making the journey. There's also a small contingent of people who identify as LGBTQ. He said most migrants are escaping political persecution and gang violence. Those participating in the caravan will attend workshops to prepare them to request asylum when they reach the U.S. The migrants are expected to reach U.S. points of entries in California sometime next month. Abeja said the number of people on this journey illustrates the desperation people have to stay alive. "The journey is extreme. People say that if they stay where they are they'll die. So they're here because they're trying to stay alive," Abeja said. The next stop for the group is in the town of Mapastepec, where, according to Pueblo Sin Fronteras, a local school has agreed to shelter the refugee caravan. >https://sp Iinternews.com/a-refugee-caravan-is-headed-to-the-u-s-and-getting-big1824087413< AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000041 41 See also: >https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Central-American-Migrants-in-StruggleCarava n-Heads-to-Mexico-US-for-Dign ity-Asylu m-20180326-0006.html< From: Marguerite Telford 1 t (b"",m Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 2:15 PM /f..\"'f i..----------1; To: Wold, Theo J. EOP/WHO Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO iSubject:[EXTERNAL]Central Americans I have heard that the 1000-1500CentralAmericansheaded this way are being trained on what to say (crediblefear) to be allowedentry. Who is fundingthis? CBP and USCIS asylum officerswill be the first contact.I am sure Cissnais on top of this ... we are screeningevery singleperson? Obamawould have waved them in! Mexico is just waving them through ... has Mexicobeen given a heads-upto have a plan to take care of all of these folks since we won't be letting them in. Media is giving it so little coverage... guess they want to increase odds they will make it to the border. We will try to get somethingout the door. MargueriteTelford Director of Communications Center for ImmigrationStudies 1629K StreetNW, Suite 600 Washington,DC 20006 (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076 mrt@cis.org >>www.cis.org<< AMEHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000042 42 ?3 I DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000043 43 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Cissna,Francis Friday, March 30, 2018 2:52 PM Stoddard, Kaitlin V; Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy; Symons,Craig M; Law, RobertT RE:[EXTERNAL] Central Americans Carl's Credible FearFixes;RE:Carl'sCredible FearFixes (bJX~ From:Stoddard,KaitlinV Sent: Friday,March30, 2018 3:36 PM To: Cissna,Francis;NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Symons,CraigM; Law,RobertT Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] CentralAmericans (bJX~ AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000044 44 From:Cissna,Francis Sent: Friday,March30, 20183:33 PM To: NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Symons,CraigM; Law,RobertT; Stoddard,KaitlinV Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] CentralAmericans Removing JZ and adding Kaitlin. S1 is indeed aware. ICEand CBPtoo . Any reaction to this must I think come from OHSHQ or at least r-b_e_l_ed_b...,.C_B_P_ . _u_nf_o_rt_un_a_te_l ....._as_J_e_nn_if_e_r _H .iiii1 ili,in_s_h,_a..,s _sa_id ___________ ...,. __ __, (b~~ i_______ l From: Cissna,Francis Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:24 PM To: Zadrozny, John A. EOP/WHO (b~~ ; Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy ; Law, Robert !!!"11111--------.----------Symons, Craig M Subject:RE:[EXTERNAL]Central Americans AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000045 45 Yes, there is a 1,500+ person "refugee caravan" from Honduras, Guatemala, and ElSalvadorthat is expected to reach the U.S.border at various California Ports of Entry in early April. (See article pasted below.) Here is video of the group crossinga Mexican border checkpoint on March 26: >https://www .facebook.com/PuebloSF/videos/2106857236007633/<. *** A 'RefugeeCaravan'Is Headed to the U.S. and Getting Bigger Every Day Jorge Rivas Image: Pueblo Sin Fronteras An estimated 1,500 migrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador started a month-longjourneyon AMERICAN PVERSIGHT Sunday to the United States, where they intend to seek political DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000046 46 asylum. Organizers say the "refugee caravan" includes many women, unaccompanied minors, and entire families who are migrating through Mexico any way they can. The migrants started their journey in Tapachula, Chiapas, near the Guatemala -Mexico border around 7 AM on Sunday. They walked, took public transportation, and hitchhiked their way to their first destination in the town of Huixtla, where many of the migrants camped outdoors. Their entire journey is more than 2,000 miles long. "The turnout surprised all of us," Rodrigo Abeja, a Mexico-based organizer with Pueblo Sin Fronteras, the immigrant rights group behind the caravan, told Splinter. Abeja said the group's most recent caravans last year only had about 450 migrants. About 80% of the migrants in this latest caravan are from Honduras; Abeja speculated that the swelling numbers could be due to recent political instability in that country. The caravan comes just months after the Trump administration has called for a stricter vetting process for asylum seekers. Abeja said the caravan has grown as migrants learn about the group as it journeys through Mexico. So far, the critical mass of migrants marching through towns seems to be working. On Facebook, the group claimed the caravan is so large that Mexican immigration officials on Sunday abandoned a check point. Abeja said there are month-old infants being carried by young mothers alongside elders in their seventies who are making the journey. There's also a small contingent of people who identify as LGBTQ. He said most migrants are escaping political persecution and gang violence. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000047 47 Those participating in the caravan will attend workshops to prepare them to request asylum when they reach the U.S. The migrants are expected to reach U.S. points of entries in California sometime next month. Abeja said the number of people on this journey illustrates the desperation people have to stay alive. "The journey is extreme. People say that if they stay where they are they'll die. So they're here becaus e they're trying to stay alive," Abeja said. The next stop for the group is in the town of Mapastepec, where, according to Pueblo Sin Fronteras, a local school has agreed to shelter the refugee caravan. >https://sp Iinternews.com/a-refugee-ca rava n-is-headed-to-th e-u-s-a nd-getting-b ig- 1824087413< See also: >https://www.telesurtv .net/english/news/Central-American-Migrants-in-StruggleCarava n-Heads-to-Mexico-US-for-Dign ity-Asylu m-20180326-0006.html< I From: Marguerite Telford Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 2:15 PM I (b):~ E_o_P_/w_H_o_i ........ ________ ..ro_ · :_w_o_ld_,_T_he_o_J_ . iSubject: [EXTERNAL]Central Americans AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT t;Zadrozny, John A. EOP/WHO DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000048 48 I have heard that the 1000-1500CentralAmericansheaded this way are being trained on what to say (crediblefear) to be allowedentry. Who is funding this? CBP and USCIS asylum officerswill be the first contact.I am sure Cissna is on top of this ... we are screeningevery single person? Obamawould have waved them in! Mexico is just waving them through ... has Mexicobeen given a heads-upto have a plan to take care of all of these folks since we won't be letting them in. Media is giving it so little coverage... guess they want to increase odds they will make it to the border. We will try to get somethingout the door. MargueriteTelford Director of Communications Center for ImmigrationStudies 1629K StreetNW, Suite 600 Washington,DC 20006 (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076 rnrt@cis.org >>www.cis.org<< AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000049 49 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Nuebel Kovarik,Kathy Friday,February16, 2018 12:11 PM Stoddard, Kaitlin V; Symons,CraigM; Cissna,Francis Carl'sCredibleFearFixes CFPM_2016-10-25.pdf From:Risch,Carl C Sent: Monday,March06, 2017 3:53 PM To: Symons,Craig M; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Subject: RE: Feedbackon CF/RFTraining AMERICAN PVERSIGHT (bJX(5j DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000050 50 (b)X{51 From: Kim,Ted H Sent: Sunday,March05, 2017 10:57AM To: Risch,CarlC; Ruppel,Joanna;Lafferty,John L; Symons,CraigM; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Subject: RE:Feedbackon CF/RFTraining I forgot to note that certain provisionsin the SOP have been supersededby memos and other guidancethat have not yet been incorporatedinto the SOP. In the supervisoryreview section, for example,we have not yet updated the languageabout all negative determinationscomingto AMEHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000051 51 HQ. That requirementwas supersededby guidance severalyears ago that a random samplingof both positive and negative determinationscome to HQ for QA review in equal proportions. I will send that guidanceto you separatelytomorrow,along with our plans for incorporatingthe separatepieces of guidanceinto the SOP. We can also brief you in person when we meet to provide more details into what goes into the supervisoryreview from a QA perspective--things that are not necessarilycontainedin a proceduraldocumentlike our CFPM. For now, we just wanted to forward our CFPM to you as promised, so you could see how we organizeour proceduresapart from our lesson plans. From: Kim, Ted H Sent: Sunday,March05, 2017 9:16:14 AM To: Risch,Carl C; Ruppel,Joanna; Lafferty, John L; Symons,Craig M; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Subject: RE: Feedbackon CF/RFTraining Here is the CFSOP. Supervisoryreview is addressedon p.21. Ted From: Risch,Carl C Sent: Saturday,March04, 2017 9:13 AM To: Ruppel,Joanna; Lafferty, John L; Symons,Craig M; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Cc: Kim, Ted H Subject: RE: Feedbackon CF/RFTraining Thanks,Joanna. If there's a CFSOPwhich addressessupervisoryreview, we would like to review it. It can certainly wait until Monday. Carl From: Ruppel,Joanna Sent: Saturday,March04, 2017 8:08 AM To: Lafferty, John L; Risch,Carl C; Symons,Craig M; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Cc: Kim, Ted H Subject: RE: Feedbackon CF/RFTraining I will be traveling backto D.C.Tuesdaymorning and not into the office until around 3:00. But it is fine if you want to meet to discusswithout me. Amal Bradly has my calendar if you prefer that I be there and this can wait until I get back. Also, just want to be sure that the team reviewing the lessonplans also hasthe SOPs.Asylumgenerally providessubstantivecontent via lessonplan and proceduralguidancevia SOP. Joanna Joanna Ruppel Acting AssociateDirector USCISRefugee,Asylum and International Operations _____ l(b~ AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000052 52 From: Lafferty,John L Sent: Friday,March03, 20179:24 PM To: Risch,CarlC; Symons,CraigM; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Cc: Ruppel,Joanna;Kim,Ted H Subject: RE:Feedbackon CF/RFTraining Carl, Thanksfor the response.I don't haveaccessto Joanna'scalendarto confirm that she is availableat that time, but Ted and I will be availableon Tuesday. Havea good weekend. John From: Risch,CarlC Sent: Friday,March03, 20178:26 PM To: Lafferty,John L; Symons,CraigM; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Cc: Ruppel,Joanna;Kim,Ted H Subject: RE:Feedbackon CF/RFTraining Couldwe meet immediatelyafter the ExpandedLeadershipMeeting on Tuesday? (b~~ Carl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000053 53 From: Walters,JessicaS Sent: Friday,February10, 20176:34 PM To: Shah,Dimple;Symons,CraigM; Risch,CarlC; Hamilton,Gene;KovarikNuebel,Kathy;Maher, Joseph;Nielsen,Kirstjen;Cissna,Tiffany; Higgins,Jennifer Cc: Scialabba,Lori L; Renaud,TracyL; Young,Todd P; Walters,JessicaS Subject: RE:CF/RFBriefingMemoand ExecutiveSummariesof Changesto the LessonPlans Hi Dimple, Craig and Carl: (bJX~ Pleaselet us know if you would like additional information. Thanks, Jessica JessicaS. Walters Senior Advisor I Office of the Director and Deputy Director U.S.Citizenshipand Immigration Services I U.S.Department of Homeland SecurityI Ofct Cell:_____________ _ II (bJX~ AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000054 54 RefflBn:ettdx::W~Dl'.lf l:4)tflemrel~urity - .. From:Symons,Craig M Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 8:21 AM To: Walters, JessicaS (b):~ Cc:Scialabba,Lori L ; Renaud,Tracy L j Young,Todd P ; Walters, JessicaSI Shah, Dimple ; Hamilton, Gene Nuebel, Kathy ; Risch,Carl C Joseph Cissna,Tiffany I t I l Hamilton(~; j t; f; ; Kovarik ; Maher, ; Nielsen, Kirstjen t;Higgins,Jennifer Subject:RE:CF/RFBriefing Memo and ExecutiveSummariesof Changesto the LessonPlans Hi Jessica, Attached pleasefind the consolidated thoughts and concernsthat Dimple, Carl, and I have. Dimple and Carl - pleaselet us know if I missed anything. Thank you, Craig From: Nielsen,Kirstjen Sent: Friday,February10, 2017 12:14AM To: Walters,JessicaS; Hamilton,Gene;Higgins,Jennifer Cc:Scialabba,Lori L; Renaud,Tracy L; Young,Todd P; Walters,JessicaS; Shah,Dimple;Hamilton, Gene;KovarikNuebel,Kathy;Symons,CraigM; Risch,CarlC; Maher,Joseph;Cissna,Tiffany Subject: RE:CF/RFBriefingMemoand ExecutiveSummariesof Changesto the LessonPlans Hi Jessica I have cced Gene,Dimple,Kathy, Craig, Carl and Joe whom I ask to send commentsand thoughtsdirectly. I was collectingbut this will be more efficient.Then I will send throughexec sec process. All- pis send Jessicathoughtsas soon as possible Thx AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000055 55 From:Walters,JessicaS Sent: Thursday,February09, 2017 2:02:41 PM To: Hamilton,Gene;Nielsen,Kirstjen;Higgins,Jennifer Cc: Scialabba,Lori L; Renaud,Tracy L; Young,Todd P; Walters,JessicaS Subject: CF/RFBriefingMemoand ExecutiveSummariesof Changesto the LessonPlans Good afternoon: Pleasefind attached USCIS'briefing memo regarding updates to the Credible Fearand ReasonableFear lesson plans, signed by Acting Director Lori Scialabba. Also attached are executive summariesof the changesto the lessonplans. Pleaselet us know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jessica JessicaS. Walters Senior Advisor I Office of the Director and Deputy Director U.S.Citizenshipand Immigration ServicesI U.S.Department of Homeland SecurityI Ofc:I I Cell:I I (b~~ From: Lafferty,John L Sent: Friday,March03, 2017 1:37 PM To: Risch,CarlC; Symons,CraigM; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Cc: Ruppel,Joanna;Kim,Ted H Subject: FW: Feedbackon CF/RFTraining Kathy, Carl and Craig, I thought that it might be useful for us to meet to have a follow-up discussionon the issueshighlighted below and in the attached document. Pleaselet me know if you would like to meet and discussin greater detail. I'm in all next week and we will do everything that we can to work around your busy schedules. John From: Farnam,Julie E Sent: Wednesday,March01, 20174:06 PM To: Lafferty,John L; Kim,Ted H Cc: Ruppel,Joanna Subject: Feedbackon CF/RFTraining AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000056 56 John/Ted- If you'd liketo set up a meetingwith Carl,Kathy,and Craig,to discussfurther pleaselet me know. Thankyou, JulieFarnam SeniorAdvisor FieldOperationsDirectorate U.S.Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices :~J I (bill This communication, along with any attachments, may contain confidential information and is covered by federal laws governing electronic communications . Electronic communications may also be monitored by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited . If you have received this in error, please delete this message and all attachments and immediately notify the sender. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000057 57 Page Content Credible Fear ProceduresManualTable of Contents I. Background Information I.A. Manual Contents I. B. References II. The Expedited Removal Process II.A. Secondary Inspection II .B. Creating an Alien File III. The Credible Fear Process III.A. INS District Office Detains Alien for a Credible Fear Determination III.B. INS District Office Refers Alien to the Asylum Office III.C. Asylum Office Receives Referral from INS District Office III.D. Asylum Office Schedules Interview III.E. APSO Conducts Credible Fear Interview III.F . APSO Concludes a Credible Fear Interview III.G. Researching a Case III.H. Preparing a Determination III.I. SAPSO Reviews Determination III.J. Serving the Determination on the Alien III.K. Post-Service Processing IV. Expanded Topics {in alphabetical order by subject) IV.A. Aliens Who do not Receive a Credible Fear Determination IV.B. Confidentiality Issues IV.C. Detention and Parole of Aliens IV.D. Dissolution of a Credible Fear Claim IV.E. File Management IV.F. Interpreters - Documenting Costs IV .G. Mandatory Bars - FOUO IV.H. NACARA-Eligible Aliens IV.I. Quality Assurance Review IV.J. Status Claims IV.K. Stowaways IV.L. Visa Waiver Permanent Program (VWPP) IV.M. Withdrawal of an Application for Admission IV.N . Non-Detained Aliens I.A. MANUALCONTENTS Reviewed. No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: . I Will be Updated. Changes Pending Review i Sections: Finalized Updates Sections: This Manual provides information on how to proceed with credible fear of persecution or torture determinations for aliens subject to expedited removal from the United States pursuant to section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and alien stowaways who are processed pursuant to 8 CFR 235.l(d)(4). Unless specifically indicated, an asylum office Director determines which personnel (i.e., Asylum Officer, Asylum Clerk) perform certain procedures outlined in AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000058 PVERSIGHT Page 1 of 34 10/25/2016 58 this Manual. The Manual is divided into four (4) sections. The first section, "Background Information," lists references that all asylum personnel should be familiar with in order to process a credible fear claim. The second section, "The Expedited Removal Process," illustrates how an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Inspector places an alien into the credible fear part of the expedited removal process. The third section, "The Credible Fear Process," follows the processing of a credible fear claim from the time an INS district officer refers the alien to the asylum office until the asylum office files the appropriate documents, if any, with the Immigration Court, or returns the case to Deportation for execution of an expedited removal order. The fourth and most lengthy section, "Expanded Topics," provides more detail on some topics referred to in previous sections, and includes new subjects that bear upon the processing of a credible fear claim . While it is not possible to anticipate all possible issues that may arise in the credible fear program, this section addresses the most common. Unless otherwise noted, "aliens" in this Manual refers to both aliens in expedited removal and stowaways. I.B. REFERENCES Reviewed, No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: Will be Updated, Changes Pending Review [.sections: Finalized Updates ]Sections: 1. Written Materials This Manual is the main procedural guide to the credible fear process. Other reference materials are available to asylum office personnel and may be consulted for procedural guidance on other issues that may affect an alien in the credible fear process: 0 0 0 e e e e Affirmative Asylum Procedures Manual ABC/NACARA Procedures Manual APSS User's Manual User's Guide to Entering Information in the Asylum Pre-Screening System (APSS) Inspector's Field Manual AOBTC Basic Training Materials (specific lesson plans are referred to in this Manual) Immigration and Naturalization Service Easy Research & Transmittal System (hereinafter referred to as INSERTS). INSERTS is a CD-ROM that contains INS field manuals, administrative manuals, legal opinions and laws and regulations . It may also be accessed through the INS Intranet. 2. Legal Authorities The credible fear process is governed by: & & & & & Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR) Precedent Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decisions Precedent Federal Court decisions (including U.S. District Courts, U.S. Courts of Appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court) INS General Counsel (GENCOU) Opinions. 3. Computer Databases The Asylum Pre-Screening System (APSS) tracks the processing of a credible fear case. Many of its commands and screens are based upon those found in the Refugee, Asylum and Parole System (RAPS). Asylum office personnel have access to update and change information in APSS. Asylum office personnel may wish to consult other databases to see if they contain any information about an alien in the credible fear process. These databases include: e Refugee Asylum and Parole System (RAPS) Central Index System (CIS) Deportable Alien Control System (DACS) @ Computer Linked Information Management System (CLAIMS 3) e National Automated Immigration Lookout System II (NAILS II) e Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS). @ @ AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000059 PVERSIGHT Page 2 of34 10/25/2016 59 See the Affirmative Asylum Procedures Manual section on computer databases for a description of these systems. 4. Acronyms The credible fear process is commonly referred to as the APSO program. "APSO" stands for Asylum Pre-Screening Officer, a term coined by the Headquarters Asylum Division when Asylum Officers first began screening Haitian migrants for credible fear of persecution claims in Guantanamo Bay during 1991 - 1992 . A Supervisory Asylum Officer in charge of executing the day-to-day functions of an asylum office's APSO program is referred to in this manual as a Supervisory Asylum Pre-Screening Officer (SAPSO). An Asylum Officer who makes credible fear determinations is referred to in this Manual as an Asylum Pre-Screening Officer (APSO). II.A. SECONDARY INSPECTION Reviewed. No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: Will be Updated. Changes Pending Review Finalized Updates ·Sections: [sections: During secondary inspection, an Inspector records an alien's testimony on Form I-867, Record of Sworn Statement in Proceedings Under Section 235(b)(l) of the Act, Parts A&B. If the Inspector determines that the alien is subject to expedited removal pursuant to section 235 of the INA, he or she completes the top portion of Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal. Appendix A: Form I-867 A&B, Record of Sworn Statement in Proceedings Under Section 235(b)(l) of the Act. Appendix B: Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedite Removal. 1. Determining whether to Refer an Alien to the Credible Fear Process During the secondary interview process, an Inspector should refer to an asylum office any alien who indicates either an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution or torture. An Inspector should not assess the merits of an expressed fear, but simply refer to an asylum office all cases where a fear is expressed. An Inspector should also refer an alien for a credible fear determination if there is any uncertainty about whether the alien expressed a fear of return, even if the Inspector is unable to communicate with the alien, or the alien refuses to talk to the Inspector. Although an Inspector will not be able to complete Form I-867, Parts A&B for an alien with whom he or she is unable to communicate, the Inspector should place a note in the alien -file (A-file), in memorandum format, which describes the particular communication problem, and then refer the alien to an asylum office. An alien stowaway is not subject to expedited removal. An Inspector must, however, refer to an asylum office for a credible fear determination any alien stowaway who expresses a fear of harm or persecution or who is unable to communicate with an Inspector. The referral procedures are the same for both stowaways and aliens in expedited removal, except that an alien stowaway does not receive a Form I-860. Appendix C: Virtue, Paul. INS Office of Programs. Supplemental Training Materials on Credible Fear Referrals, Memorandum to Regional and Expedited Removal "Experts" (Washington, DC: 6 February 1998), 6 p. See the Inspector's Field Manual on INSERTS for more information about an Inspector's responsibilities. See this Manual's section IV .K on stowaways for more information on alien stowaways. a. Alien Does Not Indicate an Intention to Apply for Asylum or a Fear of Persecution or Torture If the alien does not indicate either an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution or torture, INS may order the alien removed if the alien is otherwise subject to expedited removal. An Inspector completes the bottom portion (the top portion should already be complete) of Form I-860 and serves it on the alien along with a Form I-296, Notice to Alien Ordered Removed. Appendix D: Form I-296, Notice to Alien Ordered Removed. b. Alien Does Indicate an Intention to Apply for Asylum or a Fear of Persecution or Torture AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000060 PVERSIGHT Page 3 of34 10/25/2016 60 If an alien does indicate an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution or torture, the Inspector places the alien into the credible fear process according to procedures in the following section . 2. Placing an Alien into the Credible Fear Process Once an Inspector has determined that an alien requires a credible fear determination, she or he takes the following action: • Ensures only the top portion of Form I-860 is complete, which includes the ground(s) of inadmissibility under which the INS is charging the alien and a narrative description of each charge . • Gives the alien a Form M-444, Information About Credible Fear Interview. The form must be explained to the alien in a language she or he understands. • The alien must sign and date two (2) copies of the M-444. If the alien refuses to sign, the officer serving the form must date and initial the form, and write "[name of alien] refused to sign" on the line where the alien's signature should appear. • Gives one (1) of the signed (or refused to sign) copies to the alien. • Places one (1) of the signed (or refused to sign) copies in the individual's A-file . • Provides the alien with a list of free legal services providers. Form I-860 does not pertain to stowaways, however, stowaways receive Form M-444. Appendix E: Form M-444, Information About Credible Fear Interview II.B. CREATING AN ALIENFILE(A-File) Reviewed, No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: Will be Updated, Changes Pending Review I Finalized Updates !Sections: Sections: Unless an A-number already exists for an alien, an Inspector must assign an A-number to the alien by creating an A-file. Entry of an A- number and preliminary information obtained from the A-file into CIS is accomplished according to local INS district office policy. If an alien is ordered removed and is removed without ever being detained, Inspections staff enters the case into DACS. If an alien requires detention at any time during the expedited removal process, Detention staff enters the case into DACS. III.A. INS DISTRICTOFFICEDETAINSALIENFORA CREDIBLE FEARDETERMINATION Reviewed, No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: Will be Updated, Changes Pending Review [sections: Finalized Updates Sections: 8 CFR 235.3(b)(2)(iii) requires the detention of an alien whose inadmissibility is being considered ordered removed. Therefore, the alien's detention is mandatory, unless parole of the individual is medical emergency or is necessary for a legitimate law enforcement objective . Once an Inspector credible fear process, the responsibility for the alien's detention lies with Detention staff. See this Expanded Topics, Detention and Parole of Aliens, for more information on detention and parole. or who has been required to meet a places an alien into the Manual's section IV.C, III.B. INS DISTRICTOFFICEREFERSALIENTO THEASYLUM OFFICE AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000061 PVERSIGHT Page 4 of34 10/25/2016 61 Reviewed, No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: Finalized Updates Will be Updated. Changes Pending Review Sections: [sections: In the majority of cases, Detention staff is responsible for informing an asylum office that an alien requires a credible fear interview. There may be some instances, however, when an Inspector contacts an asylum office about an alien who requires a credible fear interview. Contact by an Inspector usually occurs when the alien is at a port of entry on the U.S./Canadian or U.S./Mexican border, or when an interview takes place at an airport. The individual responsible for referring the case to the asylum office (e .g ., Inspector or Detention Officer) is called a "Referring Officer ." A Referring Officer should refer an alien to an asylum office according to the set of procedures that has been developed between the asylum office and the INS district office having jurisdiction over the alien's location (e.g., detention site or port of entry). III.C. ASYLUMOFFICE RECEIVESREFERRALFROM INS DISTRICT OFFICE Reviewed. No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: Finalized Updates Will be Updated. Changes Pending Review [sections: 'Sections: Most asylum offices' jurisdictions encompass many airports, ports of entry, and detention sites. Therefore, an asylum office may need to coordinate with individuals from more than one (1) INS district office to process an alien through a credible fear determination by an APSO. 1. Log of Referred Cases The SAPSO must maintain a log of the aliens who were referred to the asylum office by a Referring Officer. called a "Log of Referred Cases." At a minimum, the log must contain all of the following: 0 0 0 0 This is A-number of the alien referred Full name of the alien referred Date the asylum office received the referral from the Referral Officer Type of case (e.g., "expedited removal" or "stowaway"). 2. INS Forms Pertaining to Credible Fear Referral In order for an asylum office to have jurisdiction over an alien in the expedited removal process, the alien must have sought admission to the U.S. either through misrepresentation or without documentation, and either expressed a fear of return or was unable to communicate with the Inspector. An asylum office has jurisdiction to hear a credible fear claim from a stowaway who expresses a fear of return or who is unable to communicate with an Inspector. Form I-860 lists the charges of inadmissibility for an alien in expedited removal, and Form I-867, Parts A&B is the sworn statement taken by an Inspector that contains some indication of an alien's fear of return, or refusal/inability to communicate with an Inspector. The M-444, signed by the alien or with a notation that the alien refused to sign, shows that the alien was apprised of his or her rights under the credible fear process, including the right to a consultant. The asylum office has jurisdiction to conduct a credible fear interview after receiving and reviewing copies of the following documents: 0 0 0 Form I-867, Parts A&B Form I-860 - only for an alien in expedited removal Form M-444, signed and dated by the alien, or with a notation that the alien refused to sign. AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000062 PVERSIGHT Page 5 of34 10/25/2016 62 Depending upon local policy, the Referring Officer may transmit copies of these documents as part of the referral process, or the asylum office may receive them after being notified of the case by the Referring Officer (e.g., at the time of an orientation). To ensure that an asylum office does not waste valuable time and resources, the SAPSO must review Form I-860 prior to arranging for a credible fear interview at a remote interview location. This review will verify that the asylum office has jurisdiction to make a credible fear determination . Once the SAPSO receives the above forms and verifies that the asylum office has jurisdiction to make a credible fear determination, asylum office staff updates as much information on the Preliminary Record (PREC) screen in APSS as possible. The "CLOCK IN DATE" field on the PREC screen is the date the asylum office receives the referral of the case from the district office. Such a referral is accomplished when the asylum office receives Form I-860 or, in the rare event that the INS district office cannot deliver the Form I-860 to the asylum office due to logistical problems, when other confirmation of jurisdiction is established. Asylum office staff must update the preliminary information on the PRECscreen within three (3) business days of receiving the forms or other confirmation of jurisdiction. III.D. ASYLUMOFFICE SCHEDULESINTERVIEW Reviewed, No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: Will be Updated, Changes Pending Review 'sections: ________ Finalized Updates i [sections: 1.b. (2016-03[~);_lJ)_._ (2015-07-24); 1. 48-Hour Hiatus It is a policy of the Asylum Program to allow a minimum of 48 hours to transpire between the arrival of an alien at a detention site and any credible fear interview. This 48-hour period provides an alien an opportunity to rest, collect his or her thoughts, and contact a relative, representative, attorney, or friend whom the alien may want to act as a consultant during the credible fear interview. If INS transfers an alien to a new detention site, the 48-hour period begins anew from the alien's arrival at the new detention location. a. Waiver of 48-Hour Period Although an asylum office must wait at least 48 hours from the alien's arrival at a detention site before interviewing the alien, an alien may, at his or her request, waive the 48-hour period before a credible fear interview. The asylum office should make every effort to interview the alien as soon as possible after receiving such a request. If the interview takes place within the 48-hour period, the APSO asks the alien to sign a Waiver of the 48-Hour Period. Appendix F: Waiver of the 48-Hour Period b. Orientation At the time a referring officer (a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officer or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Officer) places an alien into the credible fear process, he or she provides the alien with a Form M-444, Information About Credible Fear Interview. [1] The form, which has been translated into many languages, describes the credible fear interview process and informs the alien of his or her rights. AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000063 PVERSIGHT Page 6 of34 10/25/2016 63 The Asylum Division cannot proceed with an interview of an alien for credible fear unless a Form M-444, signed and dated by the alien, or with a notation that the alien refused to sign it, is included in the credible fear referral packet. See CFPMsection III.C.2., OHS Forms Pertaining to a Credible Fear Interview. Upon receipt of the referral documents from CBP or ICE, Asylum Office personnel should verify that the Form M-444 has been received by the alien. If the alien has not received the Form M444 and the attached list of legal service providers, or if the M-444 is not signed and dated by the alien or does not have a notation that the alien refused to sign it, Asylum Office personnel should not accept the referral and should coordinate with the referring officer to ensure that the form is executed. During the credible fear interview, the APSO must verify that the alien has received and understood the Form M-444. This should be done prior to beginning the substantive part of the interview. If the alien indicates that he or she did not understand the form, even if a prior M-444 was already signed and dated, the APSO should conduct the orientation and, after answering any questions, ask the alien to sign and date the Form M-444. If the alien refuses to sign the form, the APSO should note the alien's refusal in the alien's signature space. Information about whether an alien has received and signed a Form M-444 is required at box 1.9 on the Form 1-870. An APSO updates this information at the time he or she completes the Form 1-870. If the alien has signed and dated two M-444s the APSO shall note both dates on the Form 1-870. If ICE transfers a detained alien who has already been referred to the Asylum Division to a detention facility that is located in another Asylum Office's jurisdiction, Asylum Office personnel at the new Asylum Office should ensure the alien receives a list of legal service providers for the new location. This guidance does not apply to aliens who are non-detained. See CFPMsection IV.N., NonDetained Aliens, for orientation guidance. [1] 8 C.F.R. 235.3(b)(4)(i). Appendix G: Form 1-870, Record of Determination/Credible Fear Worksheet See this Manual, section III.E, APSO Conducts a Credible Fear Interview, for information about contacting an interpreter generally; see also section 111.H,Preparing a Determination, for instructions on completing Form 1-870. Form 1-870 Updates Required:Boxes 1.5, 1.9 2. Interview Scheduling and Notification Procedures a. Scheduling an Interview Each asylum office has developed a system for scheduling credible fear interviews in coordination with the INS district office having jurisdiction over the alien's place of detention. A SAPSO should create an interview calendar that can be used by the APSOs assigned to credible fear AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000064 PVERSIGHT Page 7 of34 10/25/2016 64 interviews and those INS district office staff members who work in conjunction with the SAPSO. If a SAPSO knows before scheduling an interview that an alien wishes to have a particular consultant at the interview, the SAPSO contacts the consultant to arrange a date and time for the interview that suits all interested parties (e.g., APSO, INS district office staff members, and consultant). Although an alien is permitted by regulation to have a consultant present at a credible fear interview, the availability of a consultant cannot unreasonably delay the process. A consultant may participate by telephone, if necessary, and if the location of the interview allows for such a system. A SAPSO should document in the alien's work folder all contact with a consultant, including any conversations about scheduling or rescheduling a credible fear interview. See this Manual, section III.E, APSO Conducts a Credible Fear Interview, on the role of a consultant. for more information b. Notifying the Alien of an Interview Date An asylum office shall provide a written notice of interview to an alien, unless it is impractical to do so due to complex INS district office scheduling and transportation situations. This will allow an alien the opportunity to prepare for the interview and to notify any consultant the alien wishes to be present. An asylum office shall use Form G-56, Interview Notice, which includes the SAPSO's name and telephone number. Although not required, the SAPSO should provide a copy of the interview notice to the alien's consultant (if known). If a written notice of an interview is not given to the applicant, the SAPSO coordinates with the INS district office staff members responsible for the alien's detention, to verbally inform the alien of the interview date and time. Appendix H: Form G-56, Interview Notice. 3. Interview Space INS district office staff members must provide appropriate interview space for a credible fear interview, either on a permanent or ad hoc basis. The interview space is appropriate when it includes, at a minimum, the following: c c e 0 0 Provisions for APSO and alien safety Provisions for privacy so that the alien can discuss personal or confidential issues Installed telephone jack that supports a speaker phone Table Chairs. If an APSO has concerns about the safety or privacy of a particular interview space, he or she should notify the SAPSO, who will speak with the INS district office staff members responsible for the space. If they cannot resolve conflicts over appropriate interview space, the asylum office Director may refer the problem to the credible fear program manager at Asylum Headquarters (HQASM). Appendix I: Perryman, Brian R. INS Office of Field Operations. Security and Privacy Provisions for Credible Fear Interviews Under Expedited Removal, Memorandum to Regional AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000065 PVERSIGHT Page 8 of34 10/25/2016 65 Directors, District Directors, Assistant District Directors for Detention and Deportation and Asylum Office Directors (Washington, DC: 1 July 1997), 2 p. 4. Pre-Interview Preparation by Asylum Officer Even though credible fear and affirmative asylum interviews differ in many ways, they are both nonadversarial cornerstones of the adjudication/determination processes. In a credible fear interview, as in an affirmative asylum interview, the APSO has an affirmative duty to elicit from the alien all relevant and useful information bearing on whether the applicant has a credible fear of persecution or torture. APSOs who conduct credible fear interviews must be thoroughly familiar with affirmative asylum interviews. See the AOBTC Basic Training Materials, Interviewing Part I: Overview of the Nonadversarial Asylum Interview, Interviewing Part III: Eliciting Testimony, Interviewing Part IV: Cross-Cultural Communication, and Interviewing Part V: Physical Abuse, Torture and Trauma-Related Conditions, and Credible Fear. 8 CFR 208.30(d) III.E. APSOCONDUCTSA CREDIBLE FEARINTERVIEW Reviewed. No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: 1. Mode of Interview: Will be Updated. Changes Pending Review ]Sections: [.sections: "Live" Finalized Updates and Telephonic An asylum office Director maintains the discretion to have an APSO conduct a credible fear interview in-person with the alien or by telephone. Decisions to conduct telephonic interviews should be made on a case-by-case basis. An asylum office Director should consider, but is not limited to considering, the following issues when deciding whether an APSO should conduct a telephonic interview or an in-person interview: ® ® ® ® ® The office's resources or finances would be taxed by having an APSO travel to an interview at a remote location. An alien would be detained for a period of time that is unreasonable. An INS officer (e.g., Detention Officer), not contract personnel, can assist the APSO in conducting the interview telephonically . This requires the INS offi cer to provide all service documents to the alien, obtain all necessary signatures, and assist with operation of the telephone . The INS district office staff members are able to secure a room for the interview, which ensures the confidentiality of the credible fear interview. The alien is of an age and maturity level that would not inhibit him or her from being able to communicate a credible fear claim over the telephone. Although not prohibited, interviewing an unaccompanied minor via telephone is generally not encouraged, particularly if the alien is of a young age (generally less than 14 years old). The APSO must terminate the telephonic interview and conduct the interview in-person with the alien if there is any indication that the alien does not understand the process, or if the APSO finds that the alien does not have a credible fear of persecution or torture. If an APSO determines that the alien may not have a credible fear, then the SAPSO must schedule a live follow-up interview. APSS Update Required: "INTC," Mode of Interview 2. Family Members Arriving Concurrently with the Applicant Each applicant for admission to the United States is considered to have made that application for admission independently. Each applicant for admission subject to expedited removal who has been referred for a credible fear interview has the right to have his or her credible fear claim considered independently. The regulations do provide, however, that [a] spouse or child of an alien may be included in that alien's credible fear evaluation and determination if such spouse or child: AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000066 PVERSIGHT Page 9 of34 10/25/2016 66 (1) Arrived in the United States concurrently with the principal alien; and (2) Desires to be included in the principal alien's determination. A "principal/dependent" relationship can ensure that each immediate family member is treated in the same manner. APSOs should remember that it is the choice of the individual alien whether he or she is to be included in a principal alien's application. It is also important that potential asylees be given the opportunity to be heard regardless of which parent is the principal. The procedures that follow have been designed to preserve the right to individual choice and protect all potential asylees. For all credible fear cases involving more than one immediate family member, an APSO meets with the family to determine whether a spouse or (unmarried) child[ren] under 21 wishes to be included as dependent[s] in the credible fear determination of the spouse or parent. The APSO must not attempt to influence the decision. If a principal/dependent relationship is established, the APSO then interviews the principal. If the principal is found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture: 0 0 0 0 No separate credible fear determination is made for the other immediate family members. The Form I-870 is updated with information about dependent family members. The APSO fills out the appropriate information in Section 2.13 through 2.18 on the principal's Form I-870. The APSO photocopies the principal's Form I-870 and places the copies in the file(s) of the other immediate family member(s) who are dependents. The APSO prepares, serves, and processes each individual's credible fear documentation according to relevant procedures set forth in this Manual for a positive credible fear determination. If the principal is found not to have a credible fear of persecution or torture: 0 0 The APSO determines if any dependent family member who has articulated a fear of return has a claim separate from that of the principal. Special attention should be paid to the privacy of each family member and the possibility that victims of domestic abuse, rape and other forms of persecution might not be comfortable speaking in front of other family members. If any member of the immediate family is found to have a credible fear (either a spouse or child of the principal), the principal and any other immediate family members who choose may be included in the positive finding and will not need separate credible fear determinations. For those cases where the principal does not have a credible fear but another immediate family member (either his or her spouse, or one of his or her children) does: 0 0 0 The immediate family member with the positive credible fear becomes the principal applicant, for purposes of the credible fear determination. The positive finding is used as the basis for finding credible fear for the entire immediate family that arrived concurrently, including any immediate family member unable to establish credible fear in his or her own interview . The APSO photocopies the I-870 and case analysis of the family member found to have a credible fear and places it in the file of the other family member[s]. The APSO prepares, serves, and processes each individual's credible fear documentation according to relevant procedures set forth in this Manual for a positive credible fear determination. For those cases where no family members are found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture, the APSO follows procedures for preparing, serving, and processing each family member's decision for a negative credible fear determination as set forth in this Manual. 8 CFR 208.30(b). Note: "Family," or "immediate family" as used in this section of the Manual, refers to an alien, and any spouse and/or children who arrived concurrently with that alien. Also see section IV.A, Aliens who Do Not Receive a Credible Fear Determination, for information about minors. If an APSO questions the bona fides of any relationship, he or she should notify the SAPSO and the SAPSO should notify the credible fear program manager at HQASM. Form I-870 Updates Required: Boxes 2.13-2.18 See sections III. H - K, Preparing a Determination, SAPSO Review of the Determination, Serving the Determination on the Alien, and Post-Service Processing. 3. Interpreters AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000067 PVERSIGHT Page 10 of 34 10/25/2016 67 8 CFR 208.30(d)(5) requires the INS to arrange for the assistance of an interpreter in conducting a credible fear interview if the alien is unable to proceed effectively in English. Because APSOs routinely need to secure interpreter services on short notice, at remote locations, and in a variety of languages, the INS uses telephonic interpreter services. a. Contracting Telephonic Interpreter Services The Asylum Division currently has a contract with Language Services Associates (LSA). APSOs must use LSA's interpreter services, unless an interpreter cannot be found for a particular interview. If LSA cannot accommodate a request for an interpreter, an APSO may contract interpreter services with either AT&T, Language, Language Learning Enterprises (LLE-LINK), or Berlitz under the following conditions: • The APSO has received permission from asylum office management to contract a non-LSA interpreter . • The asylum office has immediate funds to cover the cost of interpreter services. Any non-LSA interpreter service is billed to the asylum office using whatever method is employed at the asylum office. HQASM will reimburse the asylum office for the interpretation costs. To receive reimbursement, either the SAPSOor the administrative officer should send a cc:mail message to the Office of International Affairs (HQIAO) Budget Division and the credible fear program manager, which outlines the cost of the interpretation service. The HQIAO Budget Division may require proof that services were rendered, so the asylum office should send the cc: mail message at the time it receives the bill. See section IV .F, Interpreters - Documenting Costs. i. Obtaining an interpreter for an interview To improve the likelihood of interpreter availability, the APSO should provide the interpreter service with as much notice as possible to locate a qualified interpreter for a future interview. Each asylum office has an identification code that the APSO must provide when contacting an interpreter service . The SAPSO has a list of all interpreter service providers and the asylum office's identification code. The APSO writes the name of the language that the interpreter and alien will use during the interview in box 1.16 of the Form I-870. If an APSO does not change an interpreter during the interview, the APSO puts a" "in box 1.20 on Form I870. If an interpreter was changed, see step (d) below for the proper Form I-870 updates. Form I-870 Updates Required: Box 1.16 and box 1.20, if interpreter was not changed. ii. Documenting an interpreter's identification The APSO puts a " " in box 1.17 on Form I-870 and writes the name of the interpreter service and the interpreter's ID information . The APSO uses the initials LSA, ATT, LLE, or Berlitz to identify the interpreter service. Most interpreters who work for one of the interpreter services have an ID number, which is sufficient for identifying the individual. If the interpreter does not have an ID number, the APSO asks for another means of identifying the interpreter for that interview (last name, for instance). An APSO may not allow an alien to request the interpreter's name or ask the interpreter questions about the interpreter's ethnicity or political affiliations. If such questions arise, the APSO reminds the alien that he or she can switch interpreters if the interpreter does not appear neutral or competent, and that the APSO will also be alert to such issues. Form I-870 Updates Required: 1.17, and box Yes or No b. Providing an Interpreter with Forms The interpreter should have a copy of an APSO Packet, which consists of the following: Form Form e Form e Form • Form e e M-444, Information about Credible Fear Interview I-870, Record of Determination/ Credible Fear Work Sheet I-862, Notice to Appear (NTA) I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge I-869, Record of Negative Credible Fear Finding and Request for Review by Immigration Judge. If the interpreter does not have a copy of these documents, the APSO faxes the packet to the interpreter . If faxing is not convenient, the SAPSO informs the language service after the interview that the packet was not distributed to the interpreter. If the interpreter has the forms, the interview is likely to move more quickly and the interpretation to be more accurate; however, having the forms is not a prerequisite for the interpreter to conduct an interview. AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000068 PVERSIGHT Page 11 of 34 10/25/2016 68 The APSO puts a " " in the "yes" or "no" section of box 1. 17 on Form I-870 to indicate whether the interpreter possessed the requisite forms at the time of the interview. c. Interpreter's Role Interpreters are required to provide competent, neutral translation. In addition, interpreters are required to maintain the confidentiality of matters disclosed during the credible fear interview, including an alien's identity and the nature of the claim . See the AOBTC Basic Training Materials, Interviewing Part VI: Working with an Interpreter. Additional guidance about the role of an interpreter specifically within the credible fear process can be found in the Asylum Division memorandum, Interpreters in the Credible Fear Process (Appendix J). Appendix J: Langlois, Joseph E. INS Asylum Division. Interpreters in the Credible Fear Process, Memorandum to Asylum Directors, Supervisory Asylum Officers and Asylum Officers (Washington, DC: 10 February 1998), 4 p. d. Problems with Interpretation and Changing Interpreters If the alien, the alien's consultant, or the APSO believes that the interpreter is either not competent or not neutral, the APSO can request and use another interpreter. If another interpreter is not immediately available, the APSO reschedules the interview. If, either before or during the interview, the alien requests a male or female interpreter, the APSO should accommodate such a request, when possible. If an APSO changes an interpreter, he or she puts a" "in box 1.21 on Form I-870, indicating the reason for the change in boxes 1.22- 1.27. The APSO also completes box 1.18 or 1.19 with the new interpreter's information. If an APSO experiences problems with an interpreter on more than one occasion or more than one (1) APSO experiences problems with the same interpreter, the APSO informs the SAPSO. The SAPSO contacts the credible fear program manager at HQASM about the problems the APSO experienced. For more information on abuse of an interpreter's role, see the Affirmative Asylum Procedures Manual section on interpreters. Form I-870 Updates Required: Box 1.21 (and boxes 1.22 - 1.27, whichever apply) and box 1.18 e. Aliens Who Provide Their Own Interpreters If the alien requests to use a relative, friend, or other source as an interpreter, the APSO proceeds with the interview using the alien's interpreter. Because the regulations at§ 208.30(d)(5) require an APSO to arrange for assistance of an interpreter, an APSO must obtain the services of a telephonic interpreter for the interview, who will listen to the interview and ensure the interpreter provided by the alien is interpreting correctly . The APSO puts a" "in box 1.17 on the I-870 and writes the name and ID of the telephonic interpreter. The APSO also puts a " " in box 1.18 and writes the name of the alien's interpreter, indicating that the individual interpreted at the request of the alien . The APSO explains to all parties, including the telephonic interpreter, that the INS must verify that the alien's interpreter is accurate and neutral while interpreting. The APSO explains that the telephonic interpreter is to interject if he or she believes that the alien's interpreter is not accurate or is not neutral. If the telephonic interpreter notes that the alien's interpreter is not neutral or does not translate the alien's or the APSO's statements and questions accurately, the APSO informs the alien that the telephonic interpreter will be used exclusively for the remainder of the interview . The APSO must reflect the change in interpreters in box 1.21 of the Form I-870, indicating the reason for the change in boxes 1.22 1.27. Form I-870 Updates Required: Boxes 1.17, 1.18, and 1.21- 1.27, if applicable. If the change of interpreter was due to the alien's interpreter misrepresenting an alien's statements, incompetence, or the use of abusive or intimidating language with the alien, the APSO informs the SAPSO. Depending upon the circumstances in the case, the asylum office Director or his or her designee may seek to bar the individual from interpreting in the future. Check with local asylum office management for any procedures for barring interpreters in the credible fear process. AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000069 PVERSIGHT Page 12 of 34 10/25/2016 69 f. Monitoring of Interpreters' Performance The interpreter services may have supervisors monitoring some of their calls as a quality assurance measure. If the APSO, alien, or alien's consultant expresses any reason for not wanting the interview monitored, the APSO informs the interpreter service that the call may not be monitored. If the interpreter service does not appear to be complying, the APSO notifies the SAPSO, who contacts the asylum office's liaison at the interpreter service. The SAPSO also contacts the credible fear program manager at HQASM. 4. Consultants 8 CFR 208.30(d)(4) permits an alien to consult with any person or persons of his or and for a consultant to be present at the credible fear interview. A consultant may attorney, or representative. If the consultant is an attorney or representative, he or G-28, Notice of Entry or Appearance as Attorney or Representative, but may submit her choosing prior to the interview, be a relative, friend, clergy person, she is not required to submit a Form one if he or she desires. Because a consultant does not "represent" an alien, even if an attorney has been disbarred by a state, possession, territory, or Commonwealth of the District of Columbia, he or she may act as a consultant. The individual may act as a consultant even if the Attorney General has taken disciplinary action against, suspended, or barred the attorney from practice before the EOIR or INS. The APSO puts a" "in box 1.10 on Form I-860, indicating whether the alien has a consultant. If the alien has a consultant, the APSO completes box 1.11 on Form I-870. If the alien's consultant is an attorney or an accredited representative, asylum office personnel update APSS using the Add Attorney/Representative to Interview (REPR) command to retrieve or create an attorney ID number. For all cases in which the alien has a consultant, asylum office personnel update the "INTC" screen, Consultant field by typing in a "Y." A consultant may also be a fellow detainee in the same facility as the alien being interviewed by an APSO. As long as the logistics of having a fellow detainee present at the credible fear interview do not unduly delay the process, INS must permit a fellow detainee to act as a consultant during an interview. Form I-870 Updates Required: Boxes 1.10 and 1.11, if applicable. APSS Updates Required: "INTC," CONSULTANT(Y/N) field; "REPR" a. Consultant's Role The role of a consultant is similar to the role of an attorney or representative in an affirmative asylum interview. An APSO must explain the consultant's role to the consultant and the alien at the beginning of the interview. A consultant may make a statement, comment on the evidence, or ask the alien additional relevant questions that the APSO did not ask, at the end of the interview. To avoid misunderstandings, it sometimes will be appropriate for a consultant to make comments during, instead of at the end, of the interview. Only in unusual circumstances, such as mental disability, will a consultant be permitted to answer for the alien. A consultant who repeatedly interrupts or otherwise disrupts an interview must be asked to refrain from doing so and reminded that he or she has an opportunity at the end of the interview to make comments. An APSO may ask a consultant who continuously fails to abide by the rules of the interview to leave the interview. Should this occur, the APSO continues with the interview. The APSO must clearly outline in the interview notes what occurred during the interview that prompted the consultant's dismissal from the interview. If the consultant appears for the interview, the APSO puts a" "in box 1.13 on Form I-870, indicating that a consultant was present. Appendix K: Langlois, Joseph E. INS Asylum Division. Role of Consultants in the Credible Fear Interview, Memorandum to Asylum Directors, Supervisory Asylum Officers and Asylum Officers (Washington, DC: 14 November 1997), 2 p. Form I-870 Updates Required: Box 1.13 b. Failure of Consultant to Attend Interview AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000070 PVERSIGHT Page 13 of 34 10/25/2016 70 If the SAPSO made previous arrangements with a consultant to appear at the interview, and the consultant does not appear, the APSO may continue with the credible fear interview, with the alien's consent. The APSO records the alien's consent to proceed with the interview in the interview notes, and puts a" "in box 1.15 on Form I-870, indicating that no one other than the alien and the APSO were present at the interview. All requests by an alien to not proceed with an interview without a consultant must be handled on a case-by-case basis. The SAPSO should make every effort to ensure that a consultant is present at an interview, if an alien desires such a person's presence and it does not unreasonably delay the process. Before deciding whether to reschedule or proceed with the interview, the APSO must ascertain whether the alien has a specific person in mind for a consultant (if so, the APSO obtains his or her name and telephone number), and whether the alien has contacted and spoken to this person. Rescheduling requests are considered by the SAPSO pursuant to policies developed at the local asylum office . Every effort should be made for the alien to have a consultant present, as long as such consultation does not unreasonably delay the process. A SAPSO may deny a request to reschedule an interview if the asylum office has documented chronic problems with a particular consultant who consistently submits rescheduling requests or fails to attend credible fear interviews. Form I-870 Updates Required: Box 1.15 5. Witnesses 8 CFR 208.30 does not specifically allow an alien to present "witnesses," as stated in §208.9(b), which governs affirmative asylum interviews. Section 208 .30( d)( 4) does state, however, that any person or persons with whom the alien wishes to consult may be present at the interview and may be permitted, at the discretion of the APSO, to present a statement. A consultant, therefore, may also act as a witness on the alien's behalf. An APSO should not refuse a witness the opportunity to testify ; however, an APSO may place a reasonable limit on the length and subject matter of a witness's statement(s), and may request a witness's statement in writing, as long as the submission of the statement does not delay the determination. The APSO puts a" "in box 1.14 on Form I-860, by placing the witness's name on the "Other(s)" line and indicating that he or she is acting as a witness. See Memos, Interpreters in the Credible Fear Process (Appendix J) and Role of Consultants in the Credible Fear Interview (Appendix K) for further information on witnesses . Form I-870 Update Required: Box 1.14 6. Administeringan Oath Before beginning an interview, the APSO places the alien, interpreter, if any, and any witness under oath . An alien does not need to sign a written applicant's oath, and an interpreter does not need to sign a written interpreter's oath. The following, which will be interpreted for the alien, shall constitute the interpreter's oath: Do you affirm that you will truthfully, literally and fully interpret the questions asked by the asylum officer and the answers given by the applicant; that you will not you add to, delete from, comment on, or otherwise change the matter to be interpreted; and that you will immediately notify the officer in this case if you become aware of your inability to interpret in a neutral manner on account of a bias against the applicant or the applicant's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion? 7. Form 1-870, Recordof Determination/CredibleFear Worksheet The Form I-870 is a guide for conducting an interview, and it contains five (5) sections: Section I: Interview Preparation Section II: Biographic Information Section III: Credible Fear Interview Section IV: Credible Fear Findings and Section V: Asylum Officer/Supervisor Names and Signatures. In addition, an Additional Information/Continuation Sheet is attached to the form . Each check-off box, or line, is numbered throughout the form . An APSO must update any numbered item on the form AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000071 PVERSIGHT Page 14 of 34 10/25/2016 71 that applies to the alien's case. The following describes how an APSO updates each numbered item: a. Section I: Interview Preparation Boxes 1.1 through 1.8 - Self-explanatory Box 1.9 - Before beginning an interview, an APSO ensures that the alien has received and signed a Form M444. In addition, an APSO must determine that the alien has an understanding of the credible fear process. See this Manual's section III. D on orientation if the alien's file does not contain a Form M-444. 0 Boxes 1.10 through 1.12 - See this Manual's sections on consultants and witnesses (III.E.4 - III.E .5). 0 Boxes 1.16 through 1.27 - See this Manual's section III.Eon interpreters . o Box 1.28 - The APSO must read the paragraph to the alien at the beginning of the interview and place a" "in the box to document that the paragraph was read. o o b. Section II: Biographic Information o Boxes 2.1 through 2.16 - Self-explanatory • Boxes 2.17 though 2.18 - These questions concern the applicant's children, if any. If the applicant has any U.S. citizen children, the APSO must write each child's address in the space marked "Present location." •Seethe Family Members Arriving Concurrently with the Applicant section of this Manual (III.E.2) for information on processing the credible fear claims of such family members. • For any dates of birth - If the alien does not know the exact month or day of his or her own, or a spouse's or child's date of birth or a date of marriage, but knows the year of birth or marriage, the APSO writes, "1/1/[year]." • Boxes 2.19 through 2.21 - The APSO reviews these questions with the alien, indicating whether any medical conditions exist. An APSO should follow local procedures on notifying INS or Public Health Service (PHS) if an alien claims to have a particular medical condition, or if the APSO observes that a medical condition, either physical or mental, may exist. • Boxes 2.22 and 2.23 - The APSO must ask the alien whether he or she has any ties to the community or a sponsor . A district Director may use the answers to these questions when determining whether to parole the alien. c. Section III: Credible Fear Interview o Box 3.1, a, b, and c - See this Manual's section III.H.1, Completing the Form I-870 for details about completing this item. o Box 3.2 - The APSO reads the paragraph to the alien at the conclusion of the interview. o If the alien does not ask any questions, indicate this on the lines provided. o If the alien does ask questions, record them in the interview notes. o Interview Notes - See Section III.E.8, Note-Taking by the APSO During a Credible Fear Interview, in this Manual. o Negative Credible Fear Finding - The APSO is only required to provide a typed summary and analysis of a claim (assessment) if he or she makes a negative credible fear determination. d. Section IV: Credible Fear Findings This part of the form is divided into three (3) sections: (A) Credible Fear Determination, which includes credibility, nexus, and the credible fear finding; (B) Possible Bars, and (C) Identity. See this Manual's section III.H, Preparing a Determination, for more information on how to update this part of the form. e. Section V: Asylum Officer/Supervisor Names and Signatures Boxes 5.1 through 5.3 - The APSO completes these boxes upon completion of the Form I-870. The date in box 5.3 is the date the APSO completes the case and submits it to the SAPSO for review. o Boxes 5.4 through 5.6 - The SAPSO completes these boxes upon review and concurrence with the credible fear determination. o AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000072 PVERSIGHT Page 15 of 34 10/25/2016 72 f. Additional Information/Continuation Sheet An APSO may use this sheet if additional space is needed to record information provided by an alien. 8. Note-Taking by the APSO During a Credible Fear Interview Most interviews will require standard note-taking as outlined in the AOBTC Basic Training Materials, Interviewing Part II: Note-Taking. An APSO may either handwrite notes or type them on a computer. Notes may be taken on the I-870 itself, on the Additional Information/Continuation Sheet. There is no standard format for note taking during a credible fear interview, unless it appears to the APSO during the interview that the alien does not have a credible fear of persecution or torture. Regardless of whether the APSO is writing the notes by hand or typing them on a computer, the APSO begins taking notes in the Q&A format when it appears to the APSO that the alien may not have a credible fear of persecution or torture. See this Manual, section III.H, Preparing a Determination, on preparing notes after an interview. Because the Q&A notes may form the basis of a negative credible fear determination, the APSO must ensure that they contain all information relevant to the claim. For example, if an APSO previously asked questions that were not captured on the Q&A statement and these questions are relevant to whether the alien may not have a credible fear, the APSO must ask the alien these questions again to record them on the Q&A statement. The Q&A must contain the alien's Anumber, the date of the interview, and the APSO's name. 9. Conducting an Interview in a Language other than English Each asylum office has a local policy on whether an APSO may conduct a credible fear interview in a language other than English. If the local policy allows an APSO to conduct interviews in a language other than English, either the INS or Department of State (DOS) must certify that the APSO is proficient in that language. Language certification may be obtained through the Immigration Officer Academy (Glynco) in Brunswick, GA. The APSO must make a clear notation in the interview notes that the interview was conducted in a language other than English and indicate the language used by the APSO. In addition, the APSO updates box 1.16 on Form I-870, indicating the language used by the alien and that the interview was conducted in that language. If there is any concern that the alien is having diffi culty understanding the APSO, or might later claim that the APSO did not interpret correctly, the APSO should use an interpreter and put a" "in box 1.17 on Form I-870. Form I-870 Updates Required: Box 1.16 and box 1.17, if applicable. 10. Aliens Unable to Testify on their own Behalf An alien may be incapable of testifying on his/her own behalf due to mental incompetence or a physical disability . These include individuals who suffer from acute mental disorders, or have suffered an injury, such as a stroke, that makes them unable to communicate. If an APSO believes that a particular alien is not sufficiently competent to be interviewed, he or she must contact the SAPSO. The APSO must also complete boxes 2.19 through 2.21 in Section II of Form I-870, which concerns aliens who have medical conditions. The SAPSO, local INS personnel, and PHS personnel should make every effort to see if the alien can testify on his or her behalf. If, however, the alien is not capable of proceeding with an interview, the SAPSOtakes the following action: • Completes only those portions of the Form I-870 that provide a record of information the APSO is able to retrieve from databases or documents included in the alien's A-file . The APSO should not complete any portion of Section IV, Credible Fear Findings, Form 1-870, because the APSO is unable to adjudicate the claim of an alien incapable of proceeding with an interview. • Forwards the I-870, I-867 A&B, I-860, interview notes, and documentation pertaining to the alien's mental wellbeing to the HQASM credible fear program manager by facsimile for review, and awaits concurrence. Form I-870 Updates Required: Boxes 2.19 through 2.21 AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000073 PVERSIGHT Page 16 of 34 10/25/2016 73 Appendix L: Langlois, Joseph E., INS Asylum Division. Mentally Incompetent Aliens in the Credible Fear Process, Memorandum to Asylum Office Directors, Deputy Directors, Supervisory Asylum Officers, QA/Trainers and Asylum Officers (Washington, DC 20 September 2001), 2 p. • Prepares a Form I-862, Notice to Appear (NTA), upon concurrence by HQASM. In addition to the charge of inadmissibility that appears on the I-860, asylum staff also alleges that the alien is a "Public Charge," and charges the alien with violating section 212(a)( 4) of the INA. • Serves the NTA on the alien according to Serving the Determination on the Alien procedures set forth in section III.J of this Manual and files it with the Immigration Court according to procedures in section III. K, concerning Post-Service Processing. Charging the alien with violating section 212(a)(4) enables him or her to receive a full removal hearing before an immigration judge, pursuant to section 240 of the INA. 11. Aliens Unwillingto Testify on their own Behalf An alien may be unwilling to testify on his or her own behalf due to a mental disorder or due to an intentional resistance to INS requirements in the expedited removal process. If the alien appears to understand the APSO's questions, has communicated coherently with the APSO in prior instances, but refuses to answer questions that would permit the APSO to make a positive finding of credible fear, the APSO should find negative credible fear for the alien. Each question the APSO asks must be explicitly recorded in the notes. Because the alien is unresponsive, the APSO should write, "Alien refused to answer" following each question. Owing to the alien's failure to provide any evidence supporting a positive finding, the case is completed as a negative credible fear determination. 12. Re-interviewingAliens prior to Departure ("Runway Cases") An immigration judge may uphold an APSO's determination that an alien does NOT have a credible fear of persecution or torture. There is no review of an immigration judge's decision; however, circumstances may arise when the Director of International Affairs, or his or her designee, exercises discretion to offer a second interview to an alien. Circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following: • Alien claims that compelling new information exists and should be considered . o Changed country conditions materially affect the alien's eligibility to meet the credible fear standard. • Changes in the applicant's circumstances materially affect the alien's eligibility to meet the credible fear standard (e.g., alien's embassy made threatening statements to the alien during the process of obtaining a travel document for the alien's return home). Any decision to re-interview an alien after an immigration judge's decision to uphold a negative credible fear determination must be communicated from the Director of International Affairs, or his or her designee, to Headquarters Field Operations . The SAPSOthen must provide notice of the reconsideration to the immigration judge, pursuant to 8 CFR § 1208.30(g)(2)(iv)(A), before the APSO commences the re-interview. 13. Tape Recordingan Interview AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000074 PVERSIGHT Page 17 of 34 10/25/2016 74 Tape recording a credible fear interview by an alien or consultant is prohibited. If a consultant or an alien requests to tape-record an interview, the APSO informs the individual that HQASM policy prohibits such practice. An APSO also cannot tape record an interview without the express permission of the credible fear program manager at HQASM. III.F. APSO CONCLUDES A CREDIBLE FEARINTERVIEW Reviewed, No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: , I Will be Updated, Changes Pending Review i Sections: Finalized Updates Sections: I At the conclusion of the interview, the APSO reads to the alien the paragraph at box 3.2 on Form I -870. If the alien does not have any questions, the APSO notes this in the lines provided after the paragraph. The APSO then must review a summary of material facts from the alien's testimony with the alien and provide him or her an opportunity to correct any mistakes. See 8 CFR §208.30 (d)(6). Form I-870 Updates Required: Box 3.2 1. Q&ANotes (if any) At the conclusion of the interview, the APSO reads back any Q&A notes to the alien and makes any corrections requested by the alien. See this Manual's section III.H.1, Completing the Form I-870, for information about typing notes in Q&A format if they were handwritten during the interview. 2. Informing the Alien About the Next Step in the Process The APSO does not inform the alien of the decision during the course of the interview, or give any hint, suggestion, or any other indication of what the determination will be at the interview's conclusion. The APSO must, however, tell the alien how and when (if possible) he or she will be informed of the determination. An asylum office Director maintains the discretion to have a credible fear determination served either in-person with the APSO or via telephone. The asylum office Director should consider the same factors outlined in section III. E.I about mode of interview. If a credible fear interview was conducted telephonically, then in most cases, the service of the determination will also be performed the same way, under the same set of conditions. 3. Dismissingthe Alien An APSO must follow local INS policy for alerting an INS officer when the interview is finished. Unless permitted by local INS policy, an APSO should not leave an alien unattended in an interview room. 4. UpdatingAPSS Once an interview is complete, an APSO completes the PRECscreen. In addition, the APSO creates an interview record using the Interview Record (INTC) command. Asylum office staff must finish updating the PRECscreen and update the INTC screen within seven (7) business days of the interview. APSS Updates Required: "PREC" and "INTC" III.G. RESEARCHING A CASE Reviewed, No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: Will be Updated, Changes Pending Review I Finalized Updates Sections: Sections: AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000075 PVERSIGHT Page 18 of 34 10/25/2016 75 Country conditions research may be necessary to reach a credible fear determination. See the AOBTC Basic Training Materials, Country Conditions Research and the RIC, Credible Fear, Section VII, Parts A and B, and the Affirmative Asylum Procedures Manual for guidance on country conditions research. III.H. PREPARING A DETERMINATION Reviewed, No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: Will be Updated, Changes Pending Review I Finalized Updates :sections: .Sections: Once the APSO completes a credible fear interview, he or she prepares a determination . There are two (2) possible determinations: positive credible fear and negative credible fear. Although asylum office staff prepares different sets of documents for the two types of determinations, a completed Form I-870 constitutes the basis of each determination. 1. Completing the Form 1-870 Section III: Credible Fear Interview and Section IV: Credible Fear Findings on Form I-870 are the sections where an APSO places information about the credible fear claim provided by the alien during the interview. In addition to completing all numbered items in Sections I and II and signing the completed form, the APSO must fully complete Sections III and IV and ensure the information provided in one section is consistent with information in the other section. An APSO must complete Sections III and IV in the following manner, depending upon the type of determination that is made: a. Positive Credible Fear Determination i. Section III: Credible Fear Interview Because a positive credible fear determination is not reviewed by an immigration judge, an APSO can choose whether to handwrite or type answers to question 3.1, parts a, b, and c. An APSO is encouraged to type the answers, but if handwritten, they must be legible . The APSO provides a brief summary of the alien's testimony below each lettered question in item 3.1. If sufficient space is not available, the APSO may attach another sheet of paper with the respective section and question number noted. The information written in the spaces should be a brief synopsis of information contained in the notes . The notes should be sufficiently legible so that the SAPSOcan consult them for clarification or more detailed information if he or she has any questions about the information provided on the form . See the Manual's section III.E.8, Note-Taking by the APSO During a Credible Fear Interview, for details on note taking. ii. Section IV: Credible Fear Findings For a positive credible fear finding, an APSO must update boxes: 4.1 for a positive credibility determination. 4 .6 through 4 .12, depending upon the groundd . If the claim is based solely on the applicant's opposition to coercive family planning (CFP) measures, only update box 4.11. 4.13 OR 4.14 If the alien has a credible fear of persecution (box 4.13) do not update box 4.14, even if the alien may also have a credible fear of torture. 4.16 OR 4.24 If 4.16 is updated, also update 4.17 through 4.23, depending upon the bar(s) that may apply Explain which bar(s) may apply on the continuation sheet of Form I-870. 4.25 OR 4 .29 If 4.25 is updated, also update 4 .26 through 4 .28, depending upon which one(s) may apply . If 4 .29 is checked, explain on the continuation sheet of Form I-870 why identity was not determined with a reasonable degree of certainty. If a credible fear of persecution is found, an APSO does not need to probe into a credible fear of torture. See AOBTC Basic Training Materials, Credible Fear, for more information. b. Negative Credible Fear Determination i. Section III: Credible Fear Interview AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000076 PVERSIGHT Page 19 of 34 10/25/2016 76 Because an immigration judge may review a negative credible fear determination, the APSO must complete Section III of the form in the following manner: Instead of responding to each lettered question in box 3.1, the APSO must prepare an assessment, which is a summary and analysis of the alien's testimony, and attach it to the form. In the spaces for each lettered question at 3.1, the APSO writes, "See attached assessment." CP The APSO must attach typed Q&A notes in support of the negative credible fear determination. Therefore, if the interview notes were not typed during the interview, the APSO must type them at this time and attach the handwritten Q&A notes to the typed version of the same notes. ii. Section IV: Credible Fear Findings For a negative credible fear finding, an APSO must update boxes: 0 0 0 0 ® 0 0 ® 0 0 4.1 OR 4.2 If 4.2 is checked, also check 4.3 through 4.5, depending upon the reason for the negative credibility finding. 4.12, only if the reason for a negative credible fear is lack of nexus to a protected ground. If the negative credible fear of persecution is based upon a lack of credibility, do not update the nexus section. 4.15 for the negative credible fear determination 4.16 OR 4.24 If 4.16 is updated, also update 4.17 through 4.23, depending upon the bar(s) that may apply. Explain which bar(s) may apply on the continuation sheet of Form I-870. 4 .25 OR 4.29 If 4.25 is updated, also update 4.26 through 4.28, depending upon which one(s) may apply. If 4.29 is checked, explain on the continuation sheet of Form I-870 why identity was not determined with a reasonable degree of certainty. 2. Generating Documents and Updating APSS Below is an outline of the documents and computer updates associated with each type of determination for an alien in expedited removal. Refer to the Manual's section IV.K, Expanded Topics: Stowaways, for guidance about document preparation for stowaways . Asylum office staff must update the ADEC screen within seven (7) business days of the determination date. a. Positive Credible Fear Determination • Form I-870, Record of Determination/Credible Fear Worksheet • Form I-862, Notice to Appear (NTA) • ADEC screen updated with "Y" for "PERSECUTIONESTABLISHED" and "REAS/CRED FEAR EST." • If the positive credible fear determination is based upon torture only (negative credible fear of persecution, but positive credible fear of torture), update the ADEC screen with a "Y" for "TORTURE CONVENTION." Update the "REAS/CRED FEAR EST" field with a "Y" as well. Appendix M: Form I-862, Notice to Appear (NTA). Check with the local immigration court for instructions on how to complete the section for the hearing date and time on the NTA. b. Negative Credible Fear Determination • Form I-870, Record of Determination/Credible Fear Worksheet. • Form I-869, Record of Negative Credible Fear Finding and Request for Review by Immigration Judge (A-number and section 1 only). The boxes in section 1 must match the reasons for the negative determination on Form I870. • Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal. The APSO prints his or her name and title and signs where indicated. • Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge. The APSO completes the top portion of the form and puts a " " in box 1 in the event the alien requests immigration judge review. The APSO also puts a " " in the boxes under the "Notice to Applicant" section, and in the boxes pertaining to the documents that will be presented to the immigration judge . • ADEC screen updated with "N" for "PERSECUTIONESTABLISHED," REAS/CREDFEAREST," AND "TORTURE CONVENTION." Appendix N: Form I-869, Record of Negative Credible Fear Finding and Request for Review by Immigration Judge. AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000077 PVERSIGHT Page 20 of34 10/25/2016 77 Appendix 0: Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge. "Manner of Arrival" on Form I-863 is how the alien arrived to the U.S. (e.g., air, boat, car, or on foot). Check with the local immigration court for instructions on how to complete the section for the hearing date and time on the Form I-863. III.I. SAPSO REVIEWSDETERMINATION Reviewed, No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: . I Will be Updated, Changes Pending Review [sections: Finalized Updates Sections: 1. Case Review Checklist The SAPSO reviews each case for procedural and substantive correctness and completeness, which includes the following: • The APSO updated all numbered boxes and lines pertaining to the alien's case on Form I-870. • For a positive determination, box 3.1 of Section III: Credible Fear Interview on Form I-870 contains sufficient information to support the decision. • For a negative determination, an assessment is attached along with typed Q&A notes and any handwritten Q&A notes, and the assessment supports the decision. • The APSO signed Form I-870. • Interview notes are legible and sufficient to support the determination. • Identifying information (e.g., name, A-number) is consistent in all determination documents. • NTA allegations/charges and the location of the Immigration Court are correct (if applicable) . • The APSO put a" "in the appropriate boxes on Form I-863, and the location of the Immigration Court is correct (if applicable). • The APSO correctly updated the boxes in section 1 on Form I-869 to match the reason for the negative finding on the Form I-870 (if applicable). • The APSO completed the bottom portion of Form I-860 (if applicable). • APSS is properly updated. Normally, an Immigration Court will only accept an NTA or Form I-863 with a SAPSO's original signature . Therefore, depending upon arrangements that have been made with a court administrator and local asylum office policy, a SAPSO either signs one (1) NTA that is photocopied, or signs multiple NTAs. 2. Signature on Documents A SAPSO's signature on a document means that he or she reviewed the case in accordance with the instructions in the previous section and concurs in the determination made by the APSO. After reviewing the determination, the SAPSO takes the following action: • Signs the Form I-870 • Signs or initials the assessment, if any • Signs and dates the NTA, if any 0 Signs the Form I-863, if any. 3. Standard of Review It is not the role of the SAPSO to ensure that the APSO decided the case as she or he would have decided it. APSOs must be given substantial deference, once it has been established that the analysis is legally sufficient. In the event that the SAPSO disagrees with the APSO's decision, he or she discusses the case with the APSO. If the SAPSO and APSO are not able to resolve their differences, the SAPSO elevates the issue to the Director ( or Deputy Director). The Director may decide, in his or her discretion, to refer the case to Headquarters Quality Assurance Branch (HQASM/QA) for further review, keeping in mind that negative credible fear determinations are always mandatory HQASM/QA reviews. AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000078 PVERSIGHT Page21 of 34 10/25/2016 78 See section IV.I on Quality Assurance Review for a list of cases subject to mandatory HQASM/QA review. III.J. Serving the Determinationon the Alien Reviewed. No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: Will be Updated, Changes Pending Review Finalized Updates Sections: [.sections: 1. Preparing the Documents for Service Once the SAPSO and HQASM/QA, if applicable, have reviewed the case, asylum office staff prepares the documents for service on the alien. This includes making the necessary photocopies and packaging together the documents that the APSO will serve on the alien. The asylum office must maintain copies of all documents served on the alien, as outlined in the Manual's section IV.E, File Management. 2. Serving the Determination on the Alien An APSO usually serves a determination in-person, unless it is determined that service can be accomplished telephonically with the assistance of an INS Officer. Normally, an APSO will serve a determination telephonically if the interview also was conducted telephonically. If the alien has a consultant, the asylum office prepares one (1) additional copy of the documents for the consultant. The alien receives the consultant's copy of the documents at the time of decision and is responsible for forwarding the documents to the consultant. The asylum office does not provide copies of the documents to the consultant directly, in order to protect the confidentiality of the alien as required by 8 CFR 208.6. Depending upon the determination, the alien receives one (1) of the following sets of documents, and a copy of such documents if a consultant was present at the credible fear interview. a. Positive Credible Fear Determination 0 0 0 0 0 0 Form 1-870, Record of Determination - copy. Form 1-862, Notice to Appear - - copy of original that was signed by SAPSO or one (1) of several NTAs the SAPSO signed. List of Free Legal Services Providers. EOIR -33 Change of Address Form. In the event the District Director paroles the alien from detention, the alien must be aware of his or her obligation to notify the court of any changes in address. Form 1-867, Parts A&B, Sworn Statement and Jurat - copy (only if the alien was not previously given a copy of the form). Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal - copy (only if an alien was not previously given a copy of the form). When serving the decision, the APSO: Explains to the alien that INS found him or her to have a credible fear of persecution or torture, and he or she will be placed into proceedings before the Immigration Court to apply for asylum or withholding of removal. o Asks the alien to sign the NTA on the certificate of service section. o Fully and correctly completes the certificate of service section on the NTA, indicating that the document was personally served. o Explains to the alien that, if INS releases him or her from detention, the alien must notify the INS and the Immigration Court of any change in address by completing and mailing the EOIR-33 Change of Address Form to EOIR and notify the INS in writing or on a Form AR-11. G b. Negative Credible Fear Determination AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000079 PVERSIGHT Page 22 of34 10/25/2016 79 e Form I-870, Record of Determination -copy. e Form I-869, Record of Negative Credible Fear Finding and Request for Review by Immigration Judge - original. If the alien requests immigration judge review, or refuses to either request or decline such review, also serve: Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge- - copy of original that was signed by SAPSOor one (1) of several forms that the SAPSOsigned. e List of Free Legal Services Providers. e Form I-867, Parts A&B, Sworn Statement and Jurat - copy (only if the alien was not previously given a copy of the form) . e Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal - copy (only if the alien was not previously given a copy of the form). e When serving the decision, the APSO: 0 0 Explains to the alien that INS did not find him or her to have a credible fear of persecution or torture. Explains to the alien that he or she may request review of the decision by an immigration judge. If the alien requests review of the decision, or refuses to request or decline such review, the APSO: 0 0 0 0 Puts a" "in the "yes" box at question 2 on Form I -869 and completes the bottom portion of the form. Asks the alien to sign the Form I-869. Puts a" "in box 1 on Form I-863 (if this update was not already made). Fully and correctly completes the certificate of service section on Form I-869. If the alien affirmatively declines immigration judge review, the APSO: 0 0 Puts a" "in "no" box at question 2 of Form I-869 and completes the bottom portion of the form. Completes the bottom portion of Form I-860. III.K. POST-SERVICEPROCESSING Reviewed, No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: , I Will be Updated, Changes Pending Review [sections: Finalized Updates Sections: 1. Positive Credible Fear Determination The asylum office must place the alien into removal proceedings by filing the NTA with the Immigration Court having jurisdiction over the alien's place of detention. The NTA is the only document filed with the Immigration Court; however, if a particular Immigration Court requires other documents along with the NTA, the SAPSOshould provide these documents. Local arrangements made with a court administrator will determine how the asylum office files the NTA, and any other requested documents, with the court. No NTAs, however, are to be forwarded to the Districts to accomplish filing with the court, except in rare circumstances necessitating District service, to be determined on a case-by-case basis. In those rare cases, the asylum office must track the A-number in ANSIR to ensure the case was filed with the Immigration Court. See the Manual's section IV.K, Stowaways, for requirements in these cases. Appendix Q: Langlois, Joseph E., INS Asylum Division. Filing Notices to Appear (NTAs) with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) after Credible Fear Interviews, Memorandum to Asylum Office Directors, Deputy Directors, and Supervisory Asylum Officers (Washington, DC: 26 March 2002), 3 p. AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000080 PVERSIGHT Page 23 of34 10/25/2016 80 2. Negative Credible Fear Determination a. Alien Requests Review of the Determination, or Refuses to Request or Decline Such Review The asylum office files the following documents on the Immigration Court: Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge - original Form I-870, Record of Determination - copy o Form I-869, Record of Negative Credible Fear Finding and Request for Review by Immigration Judge - original o Form 1-867, Parts A&B, Sworn Statement and Jurat - copy o Form 1-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal - original o Typed Q&A notes - copy See the Manual's section IV. K , Stowaways, for requirements in these cases. o o Section 235(b)(l)(B)(iii)(III) of the INA requires an immigration judge to review a negative determination no later than 7 days after the date of determination. Because of the expedited nature of review, a court administrator of an Immigration Court may accept documents for service by facsimile, rather than in-person or via mail. Each asylum office must coordinate with the court administrator to determine the local court's requirements . If the immigration judge vacates the APSO's negative determination, the Service must place the alien into removal proceedings under section 240 of the INA. Either a Trial Attorney or Detention Officer is responsible for preparing and serving a NTA on the alien and filing the NTA with the Immigration Court after an immigration judge vacates a negative credible fear finding. Appendix R: Creppy, Michael J. Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. Interim Operating Policy and Procedure Memorandum 97-3: Procedures for Credible Fear and Claimed Status Reviews, Memorandum to Assistant Chief Immigration Judges, Immigration Judges, Court Administrators and Support Staff (Washington, DC: 25 March 1997), 9 p. b. Alien Affirmatively Declines Review of the Determination If the alien declines immigration judge review of his or her determination, the APSO refers the alien to a Detention Officer along with the completed Form I-860. The INS district office having jurisdiction over the alien's place of detention is responsible for removing the alien from the United States. IV.A. ALIENS WHO DO NOT RECEIVEA CREDIBLEFEAR DETERMINATION Reviewed. No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: Will be Updated. Changes Pending Review I sections: Finalized Updates :Sections: 1. Crewmembers Crewmembers who arrive on board a vessel and express a fear of persecution or harm are not entitled to a credible fear determination. A crewmember who wishes to seek asylum must complete a Form 1-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal and submit it to the District Director having jurisdiction over the port where the alien arrived, The District Director files a Form I-863 and the Form 1-589 with the Immigration Court. An immigration judge will determine the alien's asylum claim. 8 CFR 208.5(b) 2. Cubans (Certain) A Cuban native or citizen who arrives at a port-of-entry by aircraft is not subject to expedited removal, even if he or she seeks admission to the United States by misrepresentation, without documentation, or with documentation proving citizenship in another country. The INS places the Cuban national into INA section 240 removal proceedings. 8 CFR 235.3(b)(l)(i) AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000081 PVERSIGHT Page 24 of34 10/25/2016 81 3. Minors An alien under the age of 18 is considered a minor. If the minor is accompanied by a relative or guardian, INS places the minor into the same type of proceeding as the adult (e.g., expedited removal or INA section 240 proceedings), or permits the minor to withdraw his or her application for admission. See this Manual's section IV.K, Stowaways, for information about processing stowaways who are also minors. As a matter of policy, INS does not place unaccompanied minors into expedited removal proceedings except under the following conditions: e the minor has engaged in criminal activity, in the presence of an INS officer, that qualifies as an aggravated felony if committed by an adult; o the minor has been convicted or adjudicated delinquent of an aggravated felony in the U.S. or in another country and the inspecting officer has confirmation of that order; or o the minor has previously been formally removed, excluded, or deported from the U.S. Appendix S: INS charges an unaccompanied minor, who does not fall into a category listed above, with violating sections 212(a)(7) and 212(a)(4) of the INA. As a general rule, unaccompanied minors are not charged with violating section 212(a)(6)(C) of the INA unless the minor clearly understands that he or she is committing fraud. By placing section 212(a)(4) [likely to become a public charge] on the charging document, INS may place the minor into section 240 removal proceedings. Inspectors also may allow a minor to withdraw an application for admission. If an Inspector refers a confirmed unaccompanied minor for a credible fear interview, and the minor does not fall within one of the exceptions listed above, the asylum office should refer the minor back to Inspections for modification of the charges. Inspections must add"§ 212(a)( 4)" to the list of charges to place the minor in section 240 proceedings. Virtue, Paul. INS Office of Programs. Unaccompanied Minors Subject to Expedited Removal, Memorandum to Management Team, Regional Directors, District Directors, Officers-in-Charge, Chief Patrol Agents, Asylum Office Directors, Port Directors, Director, PDI, ODTF Glynco, and ODTF Artesia (Washington, DC: 21 August 1997), 4 p. During an orientation or interview, an APSO may reasonably believe that an alien claiming to be an adult is a minor. In such cases, the APSO immediately contacts a SAPSO and suspends processing the case. The SAPSO refers the name of the alien to the INS district office staff member responsible for the alien's care. INS should confirm the alien's age by dental and/or wrist bone examination, which is a process usually coordinated by PHS. If PHS determines the alien is not a minor, the asylum office continues to process the credible fear claim . IV.B. CONFIDENTIALITYISSUES Reviewed, No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: . I Will be Updated, Changes Pending Review [ Sections: Finalized Updates 'Sections: The confidentiality provisions outlined in 8 CFR 208.6 protect information pertaining to a credible fear interview and determination, as well as an asylum interview and determination. For more information on confidentiality protections, see the Confidentiality Issues section of the Affirmative Asylum Procedures Manual. IV.C. DETENTIONAND PAROLEOF ALIENS Reviewed. No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: . I Will be Updated, Changes Pending Review Finalized Updates ,sections: [sections: AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000082 PVERSIGHT Page 25 of34 10/25/2016 82 APSOs do not make parole determinations, nor do they make recommendations on parole. An APSO may, however, gather information during a credible fear interview that a District Director may consider in making a parole determination (e.g., medical condition). The information in this section provides general information about detention requirements and parole considerations to gain a fuller understanding of the process. Section 235(b)(l)(B)(iii)(IV) of the INA mandates the detention of an alien during the credible fear determination process and, if no credible fear is found, until INS removes the alien . An alien who is subject to detention can be detained in an INS contract facility (e.g., Elizabeth Detention Center), an INS Service Processing Center (SPC) (e.g., Krome), a local jail, or a hotel/motel. Although the regulations at § 235.3(b )( 4 )(ii) specify that the Attorney General makes parole determinations as a matter of discretion for a medical emergency or to meet a legitimate law enforcement objective, this authority has been delegated to the Commissioner and his designees, including INS District Directors. Pursuant to 8 CFR 212.S(a), a District Director may exercise discretion to parole an alien from detention for urgent humanitarian reasons or for significant public benefit, assuming that the alien presents neither a security risk nor a risk of absconding. A District Director may parole an alien from detention at any time after an alien's arrival at a detention site. The factors a District Director considers include, but are not limited to, the following: the alien's identity, and whether it has been established with a reasonable degree of certainty; the possibility for community support, such as whether the alien has a relative, sponsor, or other community ties; o whether the alien may leave the United States or fail to appear before the Immigration Court for section 240 proceedings; o the alien's medical condition, both mental and physical, and o whether an APSO found that the alien may be subject to a mandatory bar to asylum status. o o IV.D. DISSOLUTION OF A CREDIBLEFEARCLAIM Reviewed. No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: . , I I Will be Updated. Changes Pending Review Sections: Finalized Updates Sections: During the course of the credible fear process, an alien may express a desire to be removed from the U.S. and no longer pursue a credible fear claim. If an alien expresses such a desire to an APSO, the APSO must speak to the alien to ensure that he or she is aware of the consequences of dissolving an asylum claim, and to ascertain why the alien no longer wishes to remain in the credible fear process. The APSO must read and explain to the alien the Request for Dissolution of Asylum Claim. If, after the APSO explained the contents of the form, the alien changes his or her mind and wants to remain in the credible fear process, the APSO continues processing the alien through the credible fear process. If, however, the alien signs the Request for Dissolution of Asylum Claim, the APSO does not process the case any further. He or she refers the case to the INS district office staff member who is responsible for the alien's detention. Generally, the INS district officer will determine whether to offer the alien a withdrawal of his or her application for admission or to issue a Form I-296, Notice to Alien Ordered Removed/Departure Verification, to the alien; however, a District Director may permit an APSO to make this determination. Regardless of whether the deciding officer is an INS district officer or an APSO, the option of offering the alien a withdrawal of his or her application for admission must be considered before a formal order of removal (Form I-296) is signed and served by an INS officer (APSO or district officer). Form Required: Request for Dissolution of Asylum Claim, attached to Langlois, Joseph E. INS Asylum Division. Dissolution of Credible Fear Claims, Memorandum to Asylum Office Directors, Deputy Directors, and Supervisory Asylum Pre-Screening Officers (Washington, DC: 26 July 2000), 2 p. [Appendix T] 1. Alien is NOT Offered the Opportunityto Withdraw the Applicationfor Admission Once a decision has been made to not allow an alien to withdraw his or her application for admission, it is generally the AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000083 PVERSIGHT Page26 of34 10/25/2016 83 responsibility of the INS district, not an APSO, to complete the bottom portion of the Form 1-860, which is the Notice and Order of Expedited Removal. The asylum office closes the case in APSS by updating the Close Case (CLOS) screen within seven (7) business days from the date the asylum office is notified of the INS district office's decision. The reason for the closure is "T2 -DISSOLVE"dissolution of the interview request. APSS Updates Required: "CLOS" - T2 2. Alien is Offered the Opportunity to Withdraw the Application for Admission Once a decision has been made to allow an alien the opportunity to withdraw his or her application for admission, the SAPSO should consult with the INS district to determine whether an INS district officer or an APSO will prepare a Form 1275, Withdrawal of Application for Admission/Consular Notification (Appendix Y), which permits the alien to withdraw his or her application for admission. If the APSO is preparing the Form I-275, asylum office staff should close the case in APSS by updating the CLOS screen, selecting "T6- WITHDRAWAL" in the REASONfield. See this Manual, Section IV.M, Withdrawal of an Application for Admission, for more information. APSS Updates Required: "CLOS"- T6 IV.E. FILE MANAGEMENT Reviewed, No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: Will be Updated, Changes Pending Review [sections: Finalized Updates 'Sections: ------------~ Detention staff of the INS district office having jurisdiction over the detention site keeps the A-files of detained aliens. Therefore, unless local arrangements have been made for the asylum office to control an A-file, an asylum office usually will not keep an alien's A-file during the credible fear process. An asylum office must therefore create its own credible fear folders, which contain all documents related to the credible fear determination. At a minimum, the folders must contain copies of all documents that were served on the alien and Immigration Court. The original versions of these documents, which include but are not limited to those listed below, should remain in the A-file .: 1. Positive Credible Fear Determination o o o o o o o o Form 1-870, Record of Determination/Credible Fear Worksheet Interview Notes Form 1-862, Notice to Appear Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal Form 1-867, Parts A&B, Sworn Statement and Jurat Comments and accompanying documents from HQASM/QA, if any Notes or memos to the file documenting contact with a consultant, if any Memo of Adverse Information, if any . 2. Negative Credible Fear Determination Form 1-870, Record of Determination/Credible Fear Worksheet Interview Notes - non-Q&A and Q&Aformat, both handwritten and typed o Assessment of Negative Credible Fear Claim o Form 1-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal o Form 1-867, Parts A&B, Sworn Statement and Jurat o o AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000084 PVERSIGHT Page 27 of34 10/25/2016 84 o o o o o Form I-869, Record of Negative Credible Fear Finding and Request for Review by Immigration Judge Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, if applicable Comments from HQASM/QA regarding negative credible fear determination Notes or memos to the file documenting contact with a consultant, if any Memo of Adverse Information, if any. 3. Maintenance and Retention of Credible Fear Records The Asylum Division (HQASM) requires an office to keep records of the credible fear cases that APSOs have completed. Therefore, each asylum office Director must decide how the office will maintain its records. For example, an office may keep the credible fear folders, scan the documents from the folder onto disks, or create a database that contains relevant information about a credible fear claim. Whatever system the Director chooses, it must enable an asylum office to provide information about a case in the event of an inquiry. In the event the SAPSO and asylum office Director conclude that they lack space to continue storing their office's credible fear folders, they may dispose of the folders by shredding their contents. Before shredding, however, the SAPSO must ensure that o o o More than six months have passed since the Clock-in Date, The case has not been subjected to an unusual amount of scrutiny, and All necessary APSS updates to complete the case have been performed. IV.F. INTERPRETERS- DOCUMENTINGCOSTS Reviewed. No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: Will be Updated. Changes Pending Review I Finalized Updates sections: :sections: The INS currently has a contract with Language Services Associates (LSA), which centralizes the payment of funds directly to LSA from INS in Washington, DC. To ensure that LSA is charging INS only for those interpreter calls APSOs actually make, each SAPSO is responsible for keeping a log of interpreter service usage and verifying this log against the LSA bills. For general accountability, a SAPSO should maintain a log for all interpreter services used, not just for LSA. The attached APSO Supervisor's Log of Interpreter Service Usage is an example of the type of log a SAPSO must keep. Each asylum office may use this form or a local equivalent, as long as it contains the same information as the example at Appendix U. Every two weeks, a member of HQASM's staff forwards to every SAPSO via cc:mail an invoice of those calls that LSA claims were made by an APSO. The SAPSO must respond to the cc:mail by stating either that the bill is correct, or that the bill contains incorrect charges. If the bill contains incorrect charges, the SAPSO must identify which calls were incorrectly billed and why the information on the bill is incorrect. Since the government is responsible for paying invoices in a timely manner, the SAPSO response should be completed within one week of invoice receipt. Appendix U: APSO Supervisor's Log of Interpreter Service Usage IV.G. MANDATORYBARS- FOUO Reviewed, No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: I Will be Updated, Changes Pending Review ·sections: Finalized Updates ·1 Sections: 6/18/2015 Mandatory bars to being granted asylum do not affect the determination of whether an alien has a credible fear of AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000085 PVERSIGHT Page 28 of34 10/25/2016 85 persecution or torture. However, whenever a mandatory bar appears to apply to an alien, an asylum office must flag the possible bar on the I-870 and in APSS. Asylum offices must also complete a Memo of Adverse Information whenever an APSO, in conjunction with the SAPSO, has reasonable grounds to believe that a mandatory bar may apply to an alien, except for the mandatory bar of firm resettlement. The memo should include a detailed explanation for the basis for believing that the alien may be subject to a bar as well as an explanation of how the possible bar was discovered (for example, through testimony or security check). When a Memo of Adverse Information is completed, the asylum office must send the memo to ICE to notify them of the possible mandatory bar to asylum. The APSO must include the original memo on the non-record side of the A-file and place a copy in the alien's W-file. Whenever the possible mandatory bar relates to a terrorism -related inadmissibility ground, the asylum office must also email an electronic copy of the Memo of Adverse Information to the ASYLUM QA - CREDIBLE FEAR mailbox at Asylum Headquarters with the subject line, "ZXX CF Adverse Info Memo TRIG A000000O00." The memos should be saved using that same naming convention. Appendix W: Memo of Adverse Information IV.H. NACARA-ELIGIBLE ALIENS Reviewed. No Substantive Changes since 2002 Will be Updated. Changes Pending Review _S_e_ct_io_n_s_:____________ l_s_e_c_t_io_n_s_: ________ Finalized Updates _ S _e_c_ti_o_n_ s :____ __ 1· I An alien who appears eligible to apply for benefits under NACARA 202 or NACARA 203 is subject to expedited removal, just as any other arriving alien who seeks admission through misrepresentation or without documentation. However, an APSO must be aware of special considerations for ABC class members. An ABC class member who is apprehended at the time of entry after December 19, 1990, loses eligibility for ABC benefits and may be placed into expedited removal. If the ABC class member expresses a fear of persecution or harm upon return to his or her home country, the inspecting officer refers the alien for a credible fear interview according to established procedures. The SAPSO coordinates with the NACARA/ABC Coordinator within the asylum office to issue the appropriate ABC ineligibility letter and, if the applicant has an asylum application pending with the asylum office, to make the necessary updates to RAPS. The ABC settlement agreement prohibits removal of any class member for 30 days from the date the class member is notified of his or her loss of ABC benefits. This 30 days allows the class member to challenge the adverse finding in federal court. Therefore, unless the class member waives the right to challenge the finding of ABC ineligibility, INS may not remove a class member who is found not to have a credible fear until 30 days have passed since service of the ABC ineligibility letter. See the ABC/NACARA Procedures Manual, Class Members Apprehended at the Border at the Time of Entry IV.I. QUALITY ASSURANCEREVIEW Reviewed. No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: . , I Will be Updated, Changes Pending Review Finalized Updates Sections: I AMEHICAN Sections: IV.I (6/12/14) DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000086 PVERSIGHT Page 29 of34 10/25/2016 86 The Headquarters Asylum Division Quality Assurance Branch (HQASM/QA) monitors the quality of credible fear determinations by conducting pre-decisional review of credible fear determinations . Pre-decisional review by HQASM/QA of the following types of cases is mandatory. An APSO may not serve a determination on an alien whose case falls into one of the categories described below, until HQASM/QA concurs in the determination: 4P 4P 4P 4P Random sampling of positive and negative credible fear of persecution and torture determinations, at established numbers of sample. High-profile claims. Claims involving novel legal issues. Any case in which the Asylum Office Director seeks review by HQASM/QA. Before sending the case to HQASM/QA for review, the SAPSO must have concurred in the decision. Once all necessary parties have concurred in the decision, the Asylum Office must send the following documents to HQASM/QA by sending an email to the Asylum QA - Credible Fear mailbox: Required in all cases QA Referral Sheet Form I-860 Form I-213 Form I-867A & I-867B M-444 Interview Notes CF Determination Checklist Form I-870 Required, if negative I-863 I-869 Required, if positive NTA Required, if present in A-file G-28 Any supporting documents submitted by the alien Any documents relied upon in making the determination (other than routine country conditions reports) Any relevant users memoranda in file A member of HQASM/QA must respond to the SAPSO in writing (by e-mail), indicating whether HQASM/QA concurs in the decision or suggests modification. None of the comments from HQASM/QA remain part of the A-file. IV.J. STATUSCLAIMS Reviewed. No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: Will be Updated. Changes Pending Review [ Sections: Finalized Updates ' Sections: An Inspector must verify the status of an alien who claims to be a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident (LPR), asylee, or refugee . If the Inspector cannot verify the alien's status claim, he or she places the alien into expedited removal but cannot order the alien removed until an immigration judge has made a determination on the alien's claimed status. When the individual making the unverified status claim also claims a fear of persecution or harm upon return to his or her country, the Inspector should refer the alien for a credible fear interview . In some jurisdictions, however, an Inspector may place an alien before an immigration judge for a status determination before the credible fear process . 8 CFR 235.3(b)(S) 1. Inspector Places the Alien before an Immigration Judge for a Status Determination before the Credible Fear Process AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000087 PVERSIGHT Page 30 of34 10/25/2016 87 If the immigration judge determines that the alien does have the status he or she claims, the immigration judge terminates proceedings and vacates the expedited removal order. If the immigration judge determines that the alien does NOT have the status he or she claims, the alien receives a credible fear determination according to the procedures in paragraph 2 of this section. 2. Credible Fear Process for Status Determination Cases a. Positive Credible Fear Determination The APSO prepares the documents for a positive credible fear determination outlined in the Preparing a Determination section in III.H of the Manual, which are served upon the alien and filed with the Immigration Court according to procedures in the Manual's sections III.J, Serving the Determination on the Alien and III.K, Post-Service Processing, respectively. If the alien has not already seen an immigration judge for a review of the status claim, the immigration judge will make a determination on the alien's status claim during the section 240 proceedings. b. Negative Credible Fear Determination i. Alien has NOT seen an immigration judge for a review of the status claim • If the alien requests immigration judge review or refuses to request or decline such review, the APSO places a" "in box 4 on Form I-863 and indicates which status claim applies to the individual's case. In addition, the APSO places a " " in box 1. • If the alien affirmatively declines review, the APSO places a" "only in box 4 on Form I-863 and indicates which status claim applies to the individual's case • Asylum office personnel serve the documents upon the alien and file them with the Immigration Court. See Manual sections III.J, Serving the Determination on the Alien, and III.K, Post-Service Processing, for specific procedures. ii. Alien has already seen an immigration judge for a review of the status claim If the alien requests immigration judge review or refuses to request or decline such review, the APSO places a" "only in box 1 on Form I-863.Asylum office personnel serve the documents upon the alien and file them with the Immigration Court. See Manual sections III.J, Serving the Determination on the Alien, and III.K, Post-Service Processing, for specific procedures. • If the alien affirmatively declines review of the determination, the APSO refers the alien to the INS district for removal of the alien. IV.K. STOWAWAYS Reviewed. No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: Will be Updated. Changes Pending Review Finalized Updates Sections: [sections: An alien stowaway is exempt from the provisions of expedited removal; however, if the stowaway expresses a fear of harm or persecution, INS must detain the stowaway and refer him or her to an asylum office for a credible fear interview pursuant to 8 CFR 208.30. This includes unaccompanied minors. 8 CFR 235.1(d)(4) A credible fear interview and determination for a stowaway follow the same rules and procedures as an interview and determination for an alien placed into expedited removal. The only difference relates to the types of documents an APSO prepares and serves upon the stowaway and files with the Immigration Court. For an overview of the process for an alien in expedited removal compared with the credible fear process for an alien stowaway, see Appendix X. APSS Updates Required: Place an "X" next to "Stowaway" on the PRECscreen. Appendix X: Chart- Overview of Process, Aliens in Expedited Removal vs. Stowaways, 1 p. AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000088 PVERSIGHT Page 31 of 34 10/25/2016 88 1. Positive Credible Fear Determination a. Preparing the Documents All of the documents and APSS updates listed in section III.H, Preparing a Determination, also are completed for a stowaway, except that the APSO prepares a Form I-863 instead of a Form I-862 . On Form 1-863, the APSO puts a" box 3 and puts a" "in the box that states, "Stowaway: credible fear determination attached." "in b. Serving the Determination on the Stowaway The procedures for serving the determination outlined in section III.J, Serving the Determination on the Alien, are the same for a stowaway. The APSO serves the following documents : • Form I-870, Record of Determination - copy • Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge - - copy of original that was signed by SAPSOor one (1) of several I-863s that the SAPSOsigned e Form 1-867, Parts A&B, Sworn Statement and Jurat - copy (only if the alien was not previously given a copy of the form) • List of Free Legal Services • EOIR -33 Change of Address Form. In the event the District Director paroles the alien from detention, the alien must be aware of his or her obligation to notify the court of any changes in address. c. Filing the Determination with the Immigration Court The asylum office files the following documents with the Immigration Court: o o o Form 1-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge - original Form 1-870, Record of Determination - copy Form 1-867, Parts A&B, Sworn Statement and Jurat - copy An Immigration Court's court administrator may accept documents for filing by facsimile, rather than in-person or via mail. Each asylum office must coordinate with the court administrator to determine the local court's requirements. 2. Negative Credible Fear Determination a. Preparing the Documents All of the documents and APSS updates listed in section III.H, Preparing a Determination, are the same for a stowaway, except for the following: • The APSO does not complete a Form 1-860. • On Form I-863, the APSO puts a" "in box 2 in the event the stowaway requests immigration judge review, or the stowaway refuses to either request or decline such review. b. Serving the Determination on the Stowaway and Filing it with the Immigration Court The procedures and documents outlined in section III.J, Serving the Determination on the Alien, are the same for a stowaway, except that an APSO does not serve a Form I-860 on the stowaway. If the stowaway declines immigration judge review of his or her determination, the APSO refers the stowaway to a Detention Officer for removal from the U.S. If a stowaway requests review of the determination, or refuses to request or decline such a review, the asylum office files the following documents with the Immigration Court: AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000089 PVERSIGHT Page 32 of34 10/25/2016 89 o o o o o Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge - original Form I-870, Record of Determination - copy Form I-869, Record of Negative Credible Fear Finding and Request for Review by Immigration Judge - original Form I-867, Parts A&B, Sworn Statement and Jurat - copy Typed Q&A notes - copy An Immigration Court's court administrator may accept documents for filing by facsimile, rather than in-person or via mail. Each asylum office must coordinate with the court administrator to determine the local court's requirements. IV.L. VISA WAIVER PERMANENTPROGRAM(VWPP) Reviewed. No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: Will be Updated. Changes Pending Review [sections: Finalized Updates ' Sections: The VWPP waives the nonimmigrant visa requirement for nationals of those countries listed in 8 CFR 217.2(a). The Visa Waiver Pilot Program ended on April 30, 2000. The Visa Waiver Permanent Program went into effect October 30, 2000. Both are referred to as "VWPP." Individuals who seek admission under the VWPP and are determined to be ineligible for admission, including those who fraudulently claim to be nationals of a VWPP country, are not subject to expedited removal and do not receive a credible fear interview . If such persons request asylum, they are referred directly to an immigration judge for proceedings in accordance with 8 CFR 208.2(c)(l). An individual is not considered to be seeking admission under the VWPP unless he or she has completed and signed a green Form I-94W, which should be attached to the alien's A-file . An APSO may interview any alien who used a passport from one of the countries listed in 8 CFR 217 .2(a) if that alien did not complete and present a signed Form I-94W to an Inspector. During the period between the expiration of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program on April 30 and enactment of the Visa Waiver Permanent Program on October 30, 2000, the INS paroled aliens into the U.S. for a period of ninety (90) days if the alien would have been eligible for admission to the U.S. under the VWPP. If such an alien's parole expired or was revoked by the District Director, the alien is subject to expedited removal. Aliens who, upon their arrival, were determined ineligible for the parole described above, were subject to expedited removal. IV.M. WITHDRAWALOF AN APPLICATIONFORADMISSION Reviewed, No Substantive Changes since 2002 Sections: . , I I Will be Updated, Changes Pending Review sections: Finalized Updates ]Sections: Once an INS district officer has determined that an alien will be given the opportunity to withdraw his or her application for admission after the dissolution of the credible fear claim, either an INS district officer or an APSO prepares a Form I275, Withdrawal of Application for Admission/Consular Notification. The SAPSO coordinates with the INS district office having jurisdiction over the alien to determine which party will prepare a Form I-275 and the other forms that accompany a withdrawal. Appendix Y: Form I-275, Withdrawal of Application for Admission/Consular Notification 1. Asylum Office is NOT Responsiblefor PreparingForm I-275 If an Immigration Officer will process the paperwork for a withdrawal, including the Form I-275, the asylum office closes the case in APSS by updating the Close Case (CLOS) screen, within seven (7) business days of the date the Asylum Officer prepares the Request for Dissolution of Asylum Claim form (Appendix T). The reason for the closure is "T6" - I275 withdrawal issued. APSS Update Required: "CLOS" - T6 AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000090 PVERSIGHT Page 33 of 34 10/25/2016 90 2. Asylum Office Prepares a Form 1-275 If an APSO prepares the Form I-275, he or she completes a Form I-275, Withdrawal of Application for Admission/Consular Notification, with the alien according to the following instructions: Complete the top portion on page 1. Place a" "in the box that states, "Application for Admission Withdrawn ." Confer with the INS district office regarding the type of information to place in the section called Reasons e Print the name and title of the APSO at the bottom of page 1, and sign where indicated. e Ask the alien to date and sign the boxed section on page 2. Place a" "in the box that states "by an immigration officer ." Appendix Z : e e Virtue, Paul. INS Office of Programs. Withdrawal of Application for Admission (IN 98-05), Memorandum to Management Team, Regional Directors, District Directors, Officers-in-Charge, Chief Patrol Agents, Asylum Office Directors, Port Directors, ODTF Glynco and ODTF Artesia (Washington, DC: 22 December 1997), 3 p. After completing the Form I-275, the APSO attaches the Form I-867, Parts A&B that was completed at the time the alien dissolved his or her credible fear claim, and provides the documents to the contact person at the INS district office. The INS district office is responsible for completing the paperwork necessary for the alien to withdraw the application for admission, and for removing the alien. The asylum office closes the case in APSS by updating the Close Case (CLOS) screen within seven (7) business days of the date the alien signs the Form I-275. The reason for the closure is "T6" - I-275 withdrawal issued. APSS Update Required: "CLOS" - T6 AMEHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000091 PVERSIGHT Page 34 of34 10/25/2016 91 ?3 I DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000092 92 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Symons,CraigM Friday,February16, 2018 12:27 PM NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Stoddard,KaitlinV; Cissna,Francis RE:Carl'sCredibleFearFixes RE:Feedbackon CF/RFTraining;RAIOCredibleFearLessonPlan Here are a coupleof other e-mailshe sent on CFthat may be helpful. From: NuebelKovarik,Kathy Sent: Friday,February16, 2018 1:11 PM To: Stoddard,KaitlinV; Symons,Craig M; Cissna,Francis Subject: Carl'sCredibleFearFixes From: Risch,CarlC Sent: Monday,March06, 2017 3:53 PM To: Symons,CraigM; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Subject: RE:Feedbackon CF/RFTraining AMERICAN PVERSIGHT (bJX(5j DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000093 93 coma DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000094 94 From: Kim,Ted H Sent: Sunday,March05, 2017 10:57AM To: Risch,CarlC; Ruppel,Joanna;Lafferty,John L; Symons,CraigM; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Subject: RE:Feedbackon CF/RFTraining I forgot to note that certain provisionsin the SOP have been supersededby memos and other guidancethat have not yet been incorporatedinto the SOP. In the supervisoryreview section, for example,we have not yet updated the languageabout all negative determinationscomingto HQ. That requirementwas supersededby guidanceseveralyears ago that a random samplingof both positive and negative determinationscome to HQ for QA review in equal proportions. I will send that guidanceto you separatelytomorrow,along with our plans for incorporatingthe separatepieces of guidanceinto the SOP. We can also brief you in person when we meet to provide more details into what goes into the supervisoryreview from a QA perspective--things that are not necessarilycontainedin a proceduraldocumentlike our CFPM. For now, we just wanted to forward our CFPM to you as promised, so you could see how we organizeour proceduresapart from our lesson plans. From: Kim,Ted H Sent: Sunday,March05, 2017 9:16:14 AM To: Risch,CarlC; Ruppel,Joanna;Lafferty,John L; Symons,CraigM; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Subject: RE:Feedbackon CF/RFTraining Here is the CFSOP.Supervisoryreview is addressedon p.21. Ted From: Risch,CarlC Sent: Saturday,March04, 2017 9:13 AM To: Ruppel,Joanna;Lafferty,John L; Symons,CraigM; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Cc: Kim,Ted H Subject: RE:Feedbackon CF/RFTraining Thanks,Joanna. If there's a CFSOPwhich addressessupervisoryreview, we would like to review it. It can certainly wait until Monday. Carl From: Ruppel,Joanna Sent: Saturday,March04, 2017 8:08 AM To: Lafferty,John L; Risch,Carl C; Symons,CraigM; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Cc: Kim,Ted H Subject: RE:Feedbackon CF/RFTraining I will be traveling backto D.C.Tuesdaymorningand not into the office until around 3:00. But it is fine if you want to meet to discusswithout me. Amal Bradlyhasmy calendarif you prefer that I be there and this can wait until I get back. Also, just want to be sure that the team reviewingthe lessonplansalso hasthe SOPs.Asylumgenerally providessubstantivecontent via lessonplan and proceduralguidancevia SOP. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000095 95 Joanna Joanna Ruppel Acting AssociateDirector USCISRefugee,Asylumand International Operations I I ~b):~ From: Lafferty,John L Sent: Friday,March03, 2017 9:24 PM To: Risch,CarlC; Symons,CraigM; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Cc: Ruppel,Joanna;Kim,Ted H Subject: RE:Feedbackon CF/RFTraining Carl, Thanksfor the response. I don't have accessto Joanna'scalendarto confirm that she is availableat that time, but Ted and I will be availableon Tuesday. Havea good weekend. John From: Risch,CarlC Sent: Friday,March03, 2017 8:26 PM To: Lafferty,John L; Symons,CraigM; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Cc: Ruppel,Joanna;Kim,Ted H Subject: RE:Feedbackon CF/RFTraining Couldwe meet immediatelyafter the ExpandedLeadershipMeeting on Tuesday? AMERICAN PVERSIGHT (b):(51 DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000096 96 (bJX~ Carl From: Walters,JessicaS Sent: Friday,February10, 20176:34 PM To: Shah,Dimple;Symons,CraigM; Risch,CarlC; Hamilton,Gene;KovarikNuebel,Kathy;Maher, Joseph;Nielsen,Kirstjen;Cissna,Tiffany; Higgins,Jennifer Cc: Scialabba,Lori L; Renaud,TracyL; Young,Todd P; Walters,JessicaS Subject: RE:CF/RFBriefingMemoand ExecutiveSummariesof Changesto the LessonPlans Hi Dimple, Craigand Carl: (bJX~ Pleaselet us know if you would like additional information. Thanks, AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000097 97 Jessica JessicaS. Walters Senior Advisor I Office of the Director and Deputy Director U.S.Citizenshipand Immigration Services I U.S.Department of Homeland SecurityI Ofc:I Cell:_______________ _. II (bJX~ Rem,~~~arreJlf - .. ijpt:rietlfJJe:lamturity From:Symons,Craig M Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 8:21 AM To: Walters, Jessicas.,._ _______ ________ ------------_______________ __....______ -----------. Cc:Scialabba,Lori L Young,Todd P Shah, Dimple Nuebel, Kathy Jose h ...,........(bJX~ ; Renautl,Tracy L _.._ ; Walters, JessicaS Hamilton, Gene ; Risch,Car C Cissna,Ti · Hamilton, Gene __. _.. ; Kovarik ; Maher, ; Nielsen, Kirstjen 1ggins,Jennifer ,......~ F RFBrie mg Memo and ExecutiveSummariesof Changesto the LessonPlans Hi Jessica, Attached pleasefind the consolidated thoughts and concernsthat Dimple, Carl, and I have. Dimple and Carl - please let us know if I missed anything. Thank you, Craig Rem,~~~arreJlf - .. AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT ijpt:rietlfJJe:lamturity DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000098 98 RebJ,~dx::Da~BJlf - .. l:4)tfletmd~urity From:Walters,JessicaS Sent: Thursday,February09, 2017 2:02:41 PM To: Hamilton,Gene;Nielsen,Kirstjen;Higgins,Jennifer Cc: Scialabba,Lori L; Renaud,TracyL; Young,Todd P; Walters,JessicaS Subject: CF/RFBriefingMemoand ExecutiveSummariesof Changesto the LessonPlans Good afternoon: Pleasefind attached USCIS'briefing memo regarding updates to the Credible Fearand ReasonableFear lesson plans, signed by Acting Director Lori Scialabba. Also attached are executive summariesof the changesto the lessonplans. Pleaselet us know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jessica JessicaS. Walters Senior Advisor I Office of the Director and Deputy Director U.S.Citizenshipand Immigration ServicesI U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityI Ofc:I Cell: I ---------------- (bJX ~ From: Lafferty,John L Sent: Friday,March03, 2017 1:37 PM To: Risch,CarlC; Symons,CraigM; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Cc: Ruppel,Joanna;Kim,Ted H Subject: FW: Feedbackon CF/RFTraining Kathy, Carl and Craig, I thought that it might be useful for us to meet to have a follow-up discussionon the issueshighlighted below and in the attached document. Pleaselet me know if you would like to meet and discussin greater detail. I'm in all next week and we will do everything that we can to work around your busy schedules. AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000099 99 John From: Farnam,Julie E Sent: Wednesday,March01, 20174:06 PM To: Lafferty,JohnL; Kim,Ted H Cc: Ruppel,Joanna Subject: Feedbackon CF/RFTraining John/Ted- If you'd like to set up a meeting with Carl, Kathy, and Craig,to discussfurther pleaselet me know. Thank you, Julie Farnam Senior Advisor Field Operations Directorate U.S.Citizenshipand Immigration Services (d)I AMERICAN PVERSIGHT I (b)X~ DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000100 100 (ci1 .. ---- (bJX~ This communication, along with any attachments, may contain confidential information and is covered by federal laws governing electronic communications. Electronic communications may also be monitored by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please delete this message and all attachments and immediately notify the sender . AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000101 101 From: Sent: To: Subject: Risch,Carl C Wednesday,January25, 2017 8:26 AM Symons,Craig M RAIOCredible Fear LessonPlan You might not have accessto the ECNto see the lesson plan. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000102 102 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Risch,CarlC Friday,March 03, 2017 7:26 PM Lafferty,John L; Symons,CraigM; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Ruppel,Joanna;Kim,Ted H RE:Feedbackon CF/RFTraining OHSFeedbackon CredibleFearand ReasonableFearLessonPlans.docx Couldwe meet immediatelyafter the ExpandedLeadershipMeeting on Tuesday? (b):(t5 Carl From: Walters,JessicaS Sent: Friday,February10, 2017 6:34 PM To: Shah,Dimple;Symons,CraigM; Risch,CarlC; Hamilton,Gene;KovarikNuebel,Kathy; Maher, Joseph;Nielsen,Kirstjen;Cissna,Tiffany; Higgins,Jennifer Cc: Scialabba,Lori L; Renaud,Tracy L; Young,Todd P; Walters,JessicaS Subject: RE:CF/RFBriefingMemoand ExecutiveSummariesof Changesto the LessonPlans Hi Dimple,Craigand Carl: AMERICAN PVERSIGHT (b):(t5 DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000103 103 (bJX~ Pleaselet us know if you would like additional information. Thanks, Jessica JessicaS. Walters Senior Advisor I Office of the Director and Deputy Director U.S.Citizenshipand Immigration Services I U.S.Department of Homeland SecurityI Ofc: Cell:_____________ _ I II (bJX~ Reffenetttdx::OO~arrel'.lf l:4)tflemrsl~urity - .. From:Symons,Craig M Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 8:21 AM To: Walters, JessicaSt.__________ AMEHICAN PVERSIGHT _ (bJX~ DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000104 104 (bJX~ Cc:Scialabba,L~or~i .;;.L,._ 1 _______ Young,Todd PI Shah,DimpleI 1_________ ......_1; Renaud,Trac... y_L.. ; Walters, JessicaSI I; Hamilton, Gene ..,...I; ~~========-;J; ~Ko_v_a~ri:-k- -.;....--------.~~...;-------..-~ Nuebel, Kathyl JosephI t; Risch,CarlC I Cissna,Tiffany Hamilton, GeneI ; Maher, ; Nielsen,Kirstjen ; Higgins,Jennifer (bJX~ Subject:RE:CF/RFBriefing Memo and·ExecutiveSummariesof Changesto the LessonPlans Hi Jessica, Attached pleasefind the consolidatedthoughts and concernsthat Dimple, Carl,and I have. Dimple and Carl- pleaselet us know if I missedanything. Thankyou, Craig RejenJ:etltitcCID~meJlf l,bhtetwe:tamtu rity - .. From: Walters,JessicaS Sent: Thursday,February09, 2017 2:02:41 PM To: Hamilton,Gene; Nielsen,Kirstjen; Higgins,Jennifer Cc: Scialabba,Lori L; Renaud,Tracy L; Young,Todd P; Walters,JessicaS Subject: CF/RFBriefing Memoand ExecutiveSummariesof Changesto the LessonPlans Good afternoon: Pleasefind attached USCIS'briefing memo regardingupdatesto the CredibleFearand ReasonableFear lessonplans,signedby Acting Director Lori Scialabba.Also attached are executivesummariesof the changesto the lessonplans. Pleaselet us know if you have any questions. Thanks, AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000105 105 Jessica JessicaS. Walters Senior Advisor I Office of the Director and Deputy Director U.S.Citizenshipand Immigration ServicesI U.S.Department of Homeland SecurityI Cell_______________ _ Ofc:I I (b~~ From: Lafferty,John L Sent: Friday,March03, 2017 1:37 PM To: Risch,CarlC; Symons,CraigM; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Cc: Ruppel,Joanna;Kim,Ted H Subject: FW: Feedbackon CF/RFTraining Kathy, Carl and Craig, I thought that it might be useful for us to meet to have a follow-up discussionon the issueshighlighted below and in the attached document. Pleaselet me know if you would like to meet and discussin greater detail. I'm in all next week and we will do everything that we can to work around your busy schedules. John From: Farnam,Julie E Sent: Wednesday,March01, 20174:06 PM To: Lafferty,John L; Kim,Ted H Cc: Ruppel,Joanna Subject: Feedbackon CF/RFTraining John/Ted- AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000106 106 If you'd liketo set up a meetingwith Carl,Kathy,and Craig,to discussfurther pleaselet me know. Thankyou, JulieFarnam SeniorAdvisor FieldOperationsDirectorate U.S.Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices (d (cl___ (bJX~ This communication, along with any attachments, may contain confidential information and is covered by federal laws governing electronic communications. Electronic communications may also be monitored by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited . If you have received this in error, please delete this message and all attachments and immediately notify the sender. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000107 107 Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Lesson Plans A major goal of the EO was to clarify the credible fear standard such that the claims do not continue to be improperly approved at ever increasing rates. The objective was to screen frivolous cases out of the process, rather than allowing individuals making those claims to screen into the country . These documents do not appear to fully support this objective. Rather, they appear to be a compilation of tweaks and changes that were already contemplated to update the 2014 credible fear and reasonable fear lesson plans. Given that we have already planned to train refugee officers on Monday and that these updated documents must be issued as soon as possible, we recommend the following: 1. In 2013, USCIStold Congress that 100% of credible fear determinations undergo supervisory review (https://www .dhs.gov/news/2013/12/12/written-testimony-uscis-ice-and-cbp-house-committeejudiciary-hearing-titled-%E2%80%9Casylum). However, we could not find any procedural guidance in USCIS/RAIO'straining materials confirming this. If all positive credible fear determinations are indeed reviewed by supervisors, the lesson plan should describe this process to confirm that the reviews of approvals are meaningful. Our concern is that the current review process only applies to denials; 2. A full and complete review of the credible fear lesson plan that can commence at an agreed upon date; and 3. This more complete review should require RAIO to further research country conditions and determine whether internal relocation within the given countries can reasonably occur. If so, consistent with the regulations, these CF claims should be denied. Additional notes on country conditions: While the lesson plans address internal relocation, they mainly focus on the language at 8 C.F.R.§ 208.13 / 208.16. They do not provide sufficient guidance on how officers should use country condition materials to make determinations on the reasonableness of internal relocations . For purposes of addressing this border crisis, it would be helpful if the lesson plans are further developed to address the nationalities most encountered, the claims frequently made, and the credibility of such standard claims within the context of current country conditions . Further, in assessing the reasonableness of internal relocations , the lesson plans should provide additional guidance on how the factors at 8 C.F.R.§ 208.13(b)(3) / 208.16(b)(3) should be considered and what weight they should be given in the context of current country conditions . For example, while the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(3) only states "geographic limitations" as one of the factors, the CF lesson plan goes beyond this and explains it as follows: "Geographical limitations that could present barriers to accessing a safe part of a country or where an individual would have difficulty surviving due to the geography[.]" We think that that factor should be put in context of not just that country's geographic limitations for internal relocation but also how those compare to the geographic limitations and other dangers in reaching the United States. In addition, we're concerned that the following sentence on p. 33 of the CF lesson plan will be misconstrued: "There is no requirement that an applicant first attempt to relocate in his or her country before flight." AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000108 108 Although this may be a true statement, without further explanation it seems to be at odds with the applicant's burden to establish that "it would not be reasonable for him or her to relocate, unless the persecution is by a government or is government-sponsored." 8 C.F.R.§ 208.13(b)(3)(i). We should add some additional clarification here to ensure that officers properly assess the reasonableness of internal relocations. Lastly, while many of these changes cannot be made in time for Monday's training, we request that these additional updates to the lesson plans be provided to all CF/ RFtrained officers in the form of supplemental guidance once finalized. Thank you. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000109 109 From: Sent: To: Subject: Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM Symons,CraigM; Cissna,Francis;Stoddard, Kaitlin V; Law, Robert T RE:[EXTERNAL] Central Americans th OP&S is going to lead our 4 asylum summit next week to focus only on credible fear. Invite to go out soon. From:Symons,CraigM Sent: Friday,March30, 2018 4:19 PM To: Cissna,Francis;Stoddard,KaitlinV; NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Law,RobertT Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] CentralAmericans Craig M. Symons Chief Counsel I Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices U.S. Departmentof HomelandSecurity Ce111 ____ _ Tell II Thiscommunication,along with any attachments, may containconfidentialand legally privileged information.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,use or copyingof this message is strictlyprohibited. Ifyou have receivedthis in error,please reply immediatelyto the sender and delete this message. Thankyou. From:Cissna,Francis Sent: Friday,March30, 2018 3:52 PM To: Stoddard,KaitlinV; NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Symons,CraigM; Law,RobertT Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] CentralAmericans AMERICAN PVERSIGHT (b)'.(!5 DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000110 110 From:Stoddard,KaitlinV Sent: Friday,March30, 2018 3:36 PM To: Cissna,Francis;NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Symons,CraigM; Law, RobertT Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] CentralAmericans (b)'.~ From:Cissna,Francis Sent: Friday,March30, 2018 3:33 PM To: NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Symons,CraigM; Law, RobertT; Stoddard,KaitlinV Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] CentralAmericans AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000111 111 RemovingJZ and adding Kaitlin. Sl is indeed aware. ICEand CBPtoo. Any reaction to this must, I think, come from DHSHQ, or at least be led by CBP. Unfortunately, as Jennifer Higgins hassaid, 1._ _____ From: Cissna,Francis 1> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:24 PM (b):~ To: Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO .,..._______ 1111111"'__ ; Symons,Craig M -------- ; Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy _ >; Law, Robert ..________ > Subject:RE:[EXTERNAL] Central Americans Yes,there is a 1,500+ person "refugee caravan" from Honduras,Guatemala, and ElSalvadorthat is expected to reach the U.S.border at various California Ports of Entry in early April. (See article pasted below.) Here is video of the group crossinga Mexican border checkpoint on March 26: >https://www.facebook.com/PuebloSF/videos/2106857236007633/<. *** A 'RefugeeCaravan'Is Headedto the U.S. and GettingBigger Every Day AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000112 112 Jorge Rivas Image: Pueblo Sin Fronteras An estimated 1,500 migrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador started a month-longjourneyon Sunday to the United States, where they intend to seek political asylum. Organizers say the "refugee caravan" includes many women, unaccompanied minors, and entire families who are migrating through Mexico any way they can. The migrants started their journey in Tapachula, Chia pas, near the Guatemala -Mexico border around 7 AM on Sunday. They walked, took public transportation, and hitchhiked their way to their first destination in the town of Huixtla, where many of the migrants camped outdoors. Their entire journey is more than 2,000 miles long. "The turnout surprised all of us," Rodrigo Abeja, a Mexico-based organizer with Pueblo Sin Fronteras, the immigrant rights group behind the caravan, told Splinter. Abeja said the group's most recent caravans last year only had about 450 migrants. About 80% of AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000113 113 the migrants in this latest caravan are from Honduras; Abeja speculated that the swelling numbers could be due to recent political instability in that country. The caravan comes just months after the Trump administration has called for a stricter vetting process for asylum seekers. Abeja said the caravan has grown as migrants learn about the group as it journeys through Mexico. So far, the critical mass of migrants marching through towns seems to be working. On Facebook, the group claimed the caravan is so large that Mexican immigration officials on Sunday abandoned a check point. Abeja said there are month-old infants being carried by young mothers alongside elders in their seventies who are making the journey. There's also a small contingent of people who identify as LGBTQ. He said most migrants are escaping political persecution and gang violence. Those participating in the caravan will attend workshops to prepare them to request asylum when they reach the U.S. The migrants are expected to reach U.S. points of entries in California sometime next month. Abeja said the number of people on this journey illustrates the desperation people have to stay alive. "The journey is extreme. People say that if they stay where they are they'll die. So they're here because they're trying to stay alive," Abeja said. The next stop for the group is in the town of Mapastepec, where, according to Pueblo Sin Fronteras, a local school has agreed to shelter the refugee caravan. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000114 114 >https://sp Iinternews.com/a-refugee-ca rava n-is-headed-to-th e-u-s-a nd-getting-b ig1824087413< See also: >https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Central-American-Migrants-in-StruggleCarava n-Heads-to-Mexico-US-for-Dign ity-Asylu m-20180326-0006.html< From: Marguerite Telford -t._ ___ _. Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 2:15 PM (bJX~ P"'To_:_w_o_ld.;., _T_he_o_J_. E_o_P.;../W_Ho.....J1.,.....--------1>; i i Zadrozny,John A. E0P/WH0 Subject:[EXTERNAL] Central Americans I have heard that the 1000-1500CentralAmericansheaded this way are being trained on what to say (crediblefear)to be allowedentry.Who is fundingthis? CBP and USCIS asylum officers will be the first contact.I am sure Cissna is on top of this ... we are screeningevery singleperson? Obamawould have waved them in! Mexico is just wavingthem through ... has Mexicobeen given a heads-up to have a plan to take care of all of these folks since we won't be letting them in. Media is giving it so little coverage... guess they want to increase odds they will make it to the border. We will try to get somethingout the door. MargueriteTelford Director of Communications Center for ImmigrationStudies AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000115 115 1629K StreetNW, Suite 600 Washington,DC 20006 (202) 466-8185 fax: (202)466-8076 rnrt@cis.org >>www.cis.org<< AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000116 116 ?3 I and 18-0694-A-000117 117 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Cissna,Francis Friday, March 30, 2018 3:50 PM Symons,CraigM; Stoddard, Kaitlin V; Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy; Law, RobertT RE:[EXTERNAL] Central Americans SpecialPopulations Presentation USCIS.PDF From:Symons,CraigM Sent: Friday,March30, 2018 4:19 PM To: Cissna,Francis;Stoddard,KaitlinV; NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Law,RobertT Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] CentralAmericans (b~~ Craig M. Symons Chief CounselI Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices U.S. Departmentof HomelandSecurity AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000118 118 Tel. .. , -----II (bJX~ I____ _ Cell.. This communication, along with any attachments, may contain confidential and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete th is message. Thank you. From:Cissna,Francis Sent: Friday,March30, 20183:52 PM To: Stoddard,KaitlinV; NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Symons,CraigM; Law,RobertT Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] CentralAmericans From:Stoddard,KaitlinV Sent: Friday,March30, 20183:36 PM To: Cissna,Francis;NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Symons,CraigM; Law,RobertT Subject: RE:[EXTERNAL] CentralAmericans AMERICAN PVERSIGHT (bJX{5J (bJX{5J DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000119 119 From:Cissna,Francis Sent: Friday,March30, 20183:33 PM To: NuebelKovarik,Kathy;Symons,CraigM; Law,RobertT; Stoddard,KaitlinV Subject:RE:[EXTERNAL] CentralAmericans RemovingJZ and adding Kaitlin AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000120 120 From: Cissna,Francis._I _____ Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:24 PM To: Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO _ 1!!!!1.----------;--------b) ; Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy Symons,Craig M i._________ . t;Law, Robert (b)X~ entra Amencans , Yes,there is a 1,500+ person "refugee caravan" from Honduras,Guatemala, and ElSalvadorthat is expectedto reach the U.S.border at various California Ports of Entry in early April. (See article pasted below.) Here is video of the group crossinga Mexican border checkpoint on March 26: >https://www.facebook.com/PuebloSF/videos/2106857236007633/<. *** A 'RefugeeCaravan'Is Headedto the U.S. and GettingBigger Every Day Jorge Rivas [3/26/18] AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000121 121 Image: Pueblo Sin Fronteras An estimated 1,500 migrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador started a month-longjourneyon Sunday to the United States, where they intend to seek political asylum. Organizers say the "refugee caravan" includes many women, unaccompanied minors, and entire families who are migrating through Mexico any way they can. The migrants started their journey in Tapachula, Chia pas, near the Guatemala -Mexico border around 7 AM on Sunday. They walked, took public transportation, and hitchhiked their way to their first destination in the town of Huixtla, where many of the migrants camped outdoors. Their entire journey is more than 2,000 miles long. "The turnout surprised all of us," Rodrigo Abeja, a Mexico-based organizer with Pueblo Sin Fronteras, the immigrant rights group behind the caravan, told Splinter. Abeja said the group's most recent caravans last year only had about 450 migrants. About 80% of the migrants in this latest caravan are from Honduras; Abeja speculated that the swelling numbers could be due to recent political instability in that country. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000122 122 The caravan comes just months after the Trump administration has called for a stricter vetting process for asylum seekers. Abeja said the caravan has grown as migrants learn about the group as it journeys through Mexico. So far, the critical mass of migrants marching through towns seems to be working. On Facebook, the group claimed the caravan is so large that Mexican immigration officials on Sunday abandoned a check point. Abeja said there are month-old infants being carried by young mothers alongside elders in their seventies who are making the journey. There's also a small contingent of people who identify as LGBTQ. He said most migrants are escaping political persecution and gang violence. Those participating in the caravan will attend workshops to prepare them to request asylum when they reach the U.S. The migrants are expected to reach U.S. points of entries in California sometime next month. Abeja said the number of people on this journey illustrates the desperation people have to stay alive. "The journey is extreme. People say that if they stay where they are they'll die. So they're here because they're trying to stay alive," Abeja said. The next stop for the group is in the town of Mapastepec, where, according to Pueblo Sin Fronteras, a local school has agreed to shelter the refugee caravan. >https://sp Iinternews.com/a-refugee-caravan-is-headed-to-the-u-s-and-getting-big1824087413< AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000123 123 See also: >https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Central-American-Migrants-in-StruggleCarava n-Heads-to-Mexico-US-for-Dign ity-Asylu m-20180326-0006.html< I __.....,_______ ...... _______ _ ---------From: Marguerite Telford Sent: Friday, March 30, 2011!1"18-2:.,.15-PM..,.. .. To: Wold, Theo J. EOP/WHO ..._..,.. ; Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO Su Ject: EXTERNALCentra Americans I have heard that the 1000-1500CentralAmericansheaded this way are being trained on what to say (crediblefear) to be allowedentry. Who is funding this? CBP and USCIS asylum officerswill be the first contact.I am sure Cissna is on top of this . . . we are screeningevery singleperson? Obamawould have waved them in! Mexico is just waving them through ... has Mexicobeen given a heads-upto have a plan to take care of all of these folks since we won't be letting them in. Media is giving it so little coverage... guess they want to increase odds they will make it to the border. We will try to get somethingout the door. MargueriteTelford Director of Communications Center for ImmigrationStudies 1629K StreetNW, Suite 600 Washington,DC 20006 (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076 mrt@cis.org >>www.cis.org<< AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000124 124 ?3 I DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000125 125 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000126 126 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000127 127 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000128 128 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000129 129 fe;:1.r. !FY2009 6.3% FY 2010 !FY2011 FY 2012 !FY2013 !FY2014- 42.1%1 38.1%, 44.2~,-'o 35.0%, 52.8°/,;, 41.2~/,;, 35.5%, 34.7%, 16.7% F\f 2015 !FY2016 FY 2017 !FY2018 ·Ql AMERICAN PVERSIGHT App:rciral lta,ihttps://www.facebook.com/PuebloSF/videos/2106857236007633/<. *** AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000134 134 A 'RefugeeCaravan'Is Headedto the U.S. and GettingBigger Every Day Jorge Rivas Image: Pueblo Sin Fronteras An estimated 1,500 migrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador started a month-longjourneyon Sunday to the United States, where they intend to seek political asylum. Organizers say the "refugee caravan" includes many women, unaccompanied minors, and entire families who are migrating through Mexico any way they can. The migrants started their journey in Tapachula, Chia pas, near the Guatemala -Mexico border around 7 AM on Sunday. They walked, took public transportation, and AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000135 135 hitchhiked their way to their first destination in the town of Huixtla, where many of the migrants camped outdoors. Their entire journey is more than 2,000 miles long. "The turnout surprised all of us," Rodrigo Abeja, a Mexico-based organizer with Pueblo Sin Fronteras, the immigrant rights group behind the caravan, told Splinter. Abeja said the group's most recent caravans last year only had about 450 migrants. About 80% of the migrants in this latest caravan are from Honduras; Abeja speculated that the swelling numbers could be due to recent political instability in that country. The caravan comes just months after the Trump administration has called for a stricter vetting process for asylum seekers. Abeja said the caravan has grown as migrants learn about the group as it journeys through Mexico. So far; the critical mass of migrants marching through towns seems to be working. On Facebook, the group claimed the caravan is so large that Mexican immigration officials on Sunday abandoned a check point. Abeja said there are month-old infants being carried by young mothers alongside elders in their seventies who are making the journey. There's also a small contingent of people who identify as LGBTQ. He said most migrants are escaping political persecution and gang violence. Those participating in the caravan will attend workshops to prepare them to request asylum when they reach the U.S. The migrants are expected to reach U.S. points of entries in California sometime next month. Abeja said the number of people on this journey illustrates the desperation people have to stay alive. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000136 136 "Thejourney is extreme. People say that if they stay where they are they'll die. So they're here because they're trying to stay alive,"Abeja said. The next stop for the group is in the town of Mapastepec,where, accordingto Pueblo Sin Fronteras, a local schoolhas agreed to shelter the refugee caravan. >https://sp Iinternews.com/a-refugee-ca rava n-is-headed-to-th e-u-s-a nd-getting-b ig1824087413< See also: >https://www.telesurtv .net/english/news/Central-American-Migrants-in-StruggleCarava n-Heads-to-Mexico-US-for-Dign ity-Asylu m-20180326-0006.html< From:Marguerite Telfora t r (bJX~ 1.......... ________ Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 2:15 PM T..o_:_w_o_ld_, T_h_e_o_J._E_o_P/_w_H_o .... ◄Subject:[EXTERNAL]Central Americans i J;Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO I have heard that the 1000-1500CentralAmericansheaded this way are being trained on what to say (crediblefear) to be allowed entry. Who is funding this? CBP and USCIS asylum officers will be the first contact.I am sure Cissna is on top of this ... we are screeningevery singleperson? Obamawould have waved them in! Mexico is just waving them through ... has Mexico been given a heads-up to have a plan to take care of all of these folks since we won't be letting them in. AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000137 137 Media is giving it so little coverage... guess they want to increase odds they will make it to the border. We will try to get somethingout the door. MargueriteTelford Director of Communications Center for ImmigrationStudies 1629K StreetNW, Suite 600 Washington,DC 20006 (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076 mrt@cis.org >>www.cis.org<< AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000138 138 fe;:1.r. !FY2009 6.3% FY 2010 !FY2011 FY 2012 !FY2013 !FY2014- 42.1%1 38.1%, 44.2~,-'o 35.0%, 52.8°/,;, 41.2~/,;, 35.5%, 34.7%, 16.7% F\f 2015 !FY2016 FY 2017 !FY2018 ·Ql AMERICAN PVERSIGHT App:rciral lta,i b'1. Sent: Friday, March 30,----2018 3:29 PM To: Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO · Symons,Craig M < ----------...., _________ ..... ---------- ; Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy ; Law, Robert Subject:RE:[EXTERNAL] Central Americans Secretary Nielsen is aware. ) MLHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000141 141 ~-------1> From: Cissna,Francis Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:24 PM To: Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO◄---- (b~~ ...... ----►; I ________ ..,1 .... T .. -------.---• J Symons,Craig M l Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy !; Law, Robert Subject:RE:[EXTERNAL] Central Americans Yes,there is a 1,500+ person "refugee caravan" from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador that is expected to reach the U.S. border at various California Ports of Entry in early April. (See article pasted below .) Here is video of the group crossing a Mexican border checkpoint on March 26: >>>https://www.facebook .com/PuebloSF/videos/2106857236007633/«<:: . *** A 'RefugeeCaravan'Is Headedto the U.S. and GettingBigger Every Day Jorge Rivas [3/26/18] AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000142 142 Image: Pueblo Sin Fronteras An estimated 1,500 migrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador started a month-longjourneyon Sunday to the United States, where they intend to seek political asylum. Organizers say the "refugee caravan" includes many women, unaccompanied minors, and entire families who are migrating through Mexico any way they can. The migrants started their journey in Tapachula, Chia pas, near the Guatemala -Mexico border around 7 AM on Sunday. They walked, took public transportation, and hitchhiked their way to their first destination in the town of Huixtla, where many of the migrants camped outdoors. Their entire journey is more than 2,000 miles long. "The turnout surprised all of us," Rodrigo Abeja, a Mexico-based organizer with Pueblo Sin Fronteras, the immigrant rights group behind the caravan, told Splinter. Abeja said the group's most recent caravans last year only had about 450 migrants. About 80% of the migrants in this latest caravan are from Honduras; Abeja speculated that the swelling numbers could be due to recent political instability in that country. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000143 143 The caravan comes just months after the Trump administration has called for a stricter vetting process for asylum seekers. Abeja said the caravan has grown as migrants learn about the group as it journeys through Mexico. So far, the critical mass of migrants marching through towns seems to be working. On Facebook, the group claimed the caravan is so large that Mexican immigration officials on Sunday abandoned a check point. Abeja said there are month-old infants being carried by young mothers alongside elders in their seventies who are making the journey. There's also a small contingent of people who identify as LGBTQ. He said most migrants are escaping political persecution and gang violence. Those participating in the caravan will attend workshops to prepare them to request asylum when they reach the U.S. The migrants are expected to reach U.S. points of entries in California sometime next month. Abeja said the number of people on this journey illustrates the desperation people have to stay alive. "The journey is extreme. People say that if they stay where they are they'll die. So they're here because they're trying to stay alive," Abeja said. The next stop for the group is in the town of Mapastepec, where, according to Pueblo Sin Fronteras, a local school has agreed to shelter the refugee caravan. >>>https ://sp Iinte mews.com/a-refugee-caravan-is-headed-to-the-u-s-and-getting-big1824087413« <;; AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000144 144 See also: »>https://www.telesurtv.net/ engl ish/news/Centra I-America n-M igra nts-in-Struggle- Carava n-Heads-to-Mexico-US-for-Dign ity-Asylu m-20180326-0006.html«<:: From: Marguerite Telford •----► Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 2:15 PM (b~~ To: Wold, Theo J. EOP/WHO<1----------►; Zadrozny,John A. EOP/WHO t 1 Subject:[EXTERNAL] Central Americans I have heard that the 1000-1500CentralAmericansheaded this way are being trained on what to say (crediblefear) to be allowedentry. Who is fundingthis? CBP and USCIS asylum officerswill be the first contact.I am sure Cissna is on top of this . . . we are screeningevery singleperson? Obamawould have waved them in! Mexico is just waving them through ... has Mexicobeen given a heads-upto have a plan to take care of all of these folks since we won't be letting them in. Media is giving it so little coverage... guess they want to increase odds they will make it to the border. We will try to get somethingout the door. MargueriteTelford Director of Communications Center for ImmigrationStudies 1629K StreetNW, Suite 600 Washington,DC 20006 (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076 rnrt@cis.org >>>>www.cis.org<<<< AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000145 145 ?3 I DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000146 146 From: Sent: To: Subject: Ries, Lora L Thursday, August 09, 2018 4:24 PM Cissna, Francis FW: CISevent F., Below are the steps CIS plans to take next Wed to secure the event as much as possible ... Lora Ries Acting Associate Director, External Affairs U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Department of Homeland Security (c) i i From:JessicaVaughan[.!llfillt.QJ..,,. ________ Sent: Thursday,August09, 2ofBi:5) PM To: Ries,Lora L; Bars,MichaelJ Cc: mrt@cis.org Subject: CISevent m (b),X~ Hi Lora, I've spoken with my colleague, Marguerite Telford, who is the lead on organizing our Newsmaker events, about the security issues we talked about yesterday. Here are some of the answers to your questions: 1. The Press Club does have a "back entrance" that will be available to Francis, and Marguerite will send information on where to go. th 2. The Press Club controls access to the 13 floor, where the event will be held, through the turnstiles, as we discussed. In order to better control who will be admitted as an attendee to our event, we are issuing a new invitation that requires attendees to RSVP,and upon doing so, if we approve, we will issue them a special code (different from the one provided earlier in our first invitation). This new invitation will be issued to a more limited group on our mailing list, more focused on credentialed journalists and organizations and individuals known to us. 3. To gain admission to the room where the event will be held, attendees will have to sign in and identify themselves to one of our staff. Attendees will be directed to seating areas that we decide on, with news media in the seats that are front and center in relation to the podium where Francis and I will be sitting. 4. In the event of a disturbance, our security guard and staff members will be ready to remove the individual. The seats are configured to facilitate this, with aisle spacing every 3-4 seats in a row, so that the security guard can get to them easily without climbing over a long row of other attendees. If someone raises their voice during the conversation, Francis and I will ignore them and keep talking. I am told that the microphones will not pick up the disrupter's voice very loudly, so it will not be very noticeable to anyone viewing the video stream. AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000147 147 5. Marguerite is checking on the availability of the Press Club dining room for us to meet beforehand. suggest 8:30 am, if Francis' schedule permits. This is another way to avoid any protesters or other disturbances that might take place as people are walking in closer to the time of the event. Does that cover everything? Please feel free to call or write if so. Regards, Jessica Jessica M. Vaughan Director of Policy Studies Center for Immigration Studies □ cellphone AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000148 148 From: Sent: To: Subject: Bars, Michael J Thursday, September 20, 2018 1:50 PM Cissna,Francis;Ries,Lora L; Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy; Stoddard, Kaitlin V FW: Cissnaprofile From:Jessica Vaughan _________ _ Sent:Thursday, September 20, 2018 2:39 PM To: Bars, Michael J Subject:FW: Cissna profile fyi t From:Jessica Vaughan -1.. _________ Sent:Thursday, September 20, 2018 2:37 PM To: 'Ted Hesson' 1.._______ .. Subject:RE:Cissna profile (b~~ Let me count the ways you mischaracterized for a negative impression: 1. "So why is he making them so much harder for immigrants?" But none of the policy changes you described actually makes it "harder for immigrants." 2. "the establishment of a "denaturalization task force" that pledges to investigate immigration fraud and strip away citizenship in such cases-something that's historically been reserved for serious criminals or terrorists." You didn't mention that a) this started under the Obama administration and b) it applies only to a group of cases identified in an OIG audit involving people who obtained naturalization using an alias, and who had prior criminal convictions that may have disqualified them . 3. "a new memo that allows visa officers to deny applications without first requesting more evidence or notifying an applicant." This description implies that officers can arbitrarily deny applications without grounds. In fact, it applies only to a limited set of applications, in which the applicant has not provided the evidence required to support it. Among other scenarios that waste the government's time and prevent the timely adjudication of qualified applications, this will end the practice of filing skeletal applications that are filed just to buy time in the US, even when they know the application will not be approved. This rule benefits the legitimate applicants. 4. "a controversial proposed regulation that could prevent immigrants from obtaining green cards if they or their family members have used a public benefit, which is expected to include everything from food stamps to health insurance programs." The rule will prevent *applicants*, not immigrants (who have already been legally admitted), from obtaining green cards if they have been largely * dependent* on public welfare programs, or who might be. This has been the law since 1882. The language you use could scare non-citizens needlessly from applying for benefits they qualify for. It would be better for these non-citizens if reporters like you explained the proposal more truthfully. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000149 149 5. "From his perch atop USCIS,he's issued a steady stream of policy changes and regulations that have transformed his agency into more of an enforcement body and less of a service provider." This is nonsense. It is completely false that now the majority of USCISactivity is "enforcement" rather than granting benefits. 6. "tightening and reworking regulations and guidance that make it harder to come to the U.S. as an immigrant or temporary worker." Again, baloney. Name one change that makes it "harder" to come as an immigrant? In factthe agency has made it easier through improvements like more e-filing. If you are a qualified, bonafide applicant you don't have a problem. They have made it harder for people trying to get benefits through fraudulent or marginally qualified applications . These are not affecting qualified prospective immigrants. As for the temporary workers, the reforms actually are focused mainly on employers who are abusing the system. These are the same employers who abuse temporary workers and bypass US workers. 7. "But the policy revisions could reshape legal immigration flows in the coming years, as visa applications that might have passed muster a few years ago are rejected." How can reforms aimed at reducing fraud "reshape legal immigration flows"? There is a lot of fraud, but it's not so much that we would run out of applicants if we caught all of it. Do you think that fraud should be allowed, just to mainta in the current "shape" of legal immigration, whatever that means? Besides, the number of admissions in the family preference, employment, refugee and lottery categories are all set by Congress, and USCISefforts to weed out fraudulent or unqualified applications does not affect the annual number admitted; there are such long waiting lists that there always will be another qualified applicant to take the slot, and most applicants are qualified. It's not fair for them to have to wait longer because ineligible applications are not screened out. 8. "And the changes made at USCIS,which have pushed visa officers toward the law enforcement space..." Actually it's Congress that gave USCISadjudicators the authority to issue NTAs, not Cissna. 9. "but whose interpretations consistently trend in the direction of making life harder for people who want to come and stay in the United States." Again, what are you talking about? How have any of these changes made anyone's life harder, except for the unqualified and fraudulent applicants? And why would we want it to be easier for fraudsters to come here? 10. "and utterly fearsome to those suddenly caught in its net." Seriously? Can you give an example of someone caught in some kind of USCIS"net"? 11. "Cissna rewrote its mission statement, a symbolic move that alarmed some employees." Did you try to find out whether these alarmed employees were representative of most USCISemployees? Or if perhaps many USCISemployees welcomed this and other changes? 12. "a stream of policy changes at USCISthroughout the spring and summer that have made it more difficult for immigrants to enter the U.S. legally and stay once they've arrived." Again, none of the policy changes you mention make it more difficult for qualified, eligible immigrants to enter or stay. 13. "The updated guidance-the implementation of which has been postponed-orders officials to issue a "notice to appear" when a visa applicant is denied and lacks legal status." Why shouldn't we issue an NTA to failed benefits applicants who lack other legal status? Should we just ignore the fact that they are here illegally, and not initiate deportation proceedings? They will have a chance to make AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000150 150 their case to an immigration judge and might even win status, or they might be ordered removed, but they will get their due process. If the NTA were not issued, they probably would just stay here illegally. How is that better? And this is not a new policy - it was the policy for many years before it was changed well into the Obama administration. The hypothetical examples you give are purely speculative and unrealistic. 14. "removing second chances for some applicants ." You forgot to mention which applicants . The ones who didn't provide the material required to prove their eligibility. Under US law, the burden is on the applicant to prove their eligibility, not on the government. If you show up at a DMV to apply for a license and forgot your identification and residency proof, do you think they would issue you a temporary license so you could have a second chance to show you qualify? 15. "A core provision of the regulation could block an immigrant from obtaining a green card if the person or a family member receives a wide range of public benefits, according to leaked drafts of the measure." Again, the proposed rule is about dependency, not one-time use, and this is clear in the proposal, but you chose to leave the reader with a wrong impression, followed up with an unsubstantiated allegation of immigrants not buying formula for babies because of it. I believe that if that is happening, it is because of irresponsible reporting about the proposal, like yours, so I guess those starving babies are on you, not Cissna. 16. "Cissna's appearance at an event thrown by CIS,a group has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, triggered a political uproar," Somehow I missed this uproar, and I was there. What did it consist of? 17. "Bobbing awkwardly and fidgeting with his hands," C'mon, really? And you forgot to tell us whether you liked his tie . jv 1 I From: Ted Hesson Sent:Thursday, September 20,201812:10 PM'b>~~ To: Jessica Vaughan ~ Subject:Re: Cissna pr..o""'h ..le_______ .. i What sounds evil to you? 1 From:JessicaVaughan Date: Thursday,September20, 2018 at 11:46 AM To: Ted Hesson (b~~ Subject:RE:Cissnaprofile 1 t I That's quite the litany of mischaracterizations of policies. You don't even need the scary music for people know how much you want them to think Francis is evil. jv AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000151 151 1 From:Ted Hesson I> Sent:Thursday, September 20, 2018 9:13 AM To:JessicaVaughan 1.. _________ (bJX~ P Subject:Cissnaprofile Hi Jessica, Here's a link to the profile. Thanks for taking the time to chat with me. https://www .politico .com/magazine/story/2018/09/20/ uscis-di recto r-lee-fra ncis-cissna-profile-220141 Ted Hesson Employmentand Immigration Reporter POLITICOPro I i (w)II l(c) (bJX~ AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000152 152 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Rellis,Jennifer L Wednesday, November 21, 2018 3:29 PM Higgins,Jennifer B; Kim, Ted H; Lafferty, John L; Mura, ElizabethE Prelogar, Brandon B; Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy; Anderson, Kathryn E FW: For Review by Spm- FW:Agreement w/ Mexico What is Need from Mexico to Implement Remain in Mexico ver 2.docx Importance: High FYI- and I'm including OPSas well. (bJX~ If you'd like me to add this comment and/or anything else, let me know before 5. Thanks, Jennifer RefftB, l:etltddJ.£SC Cia!lsitmmsiaifibbrlf!errtaercleotection (b)(6 (b)(6 (b)(6 R•rmtttdx:OO~arrel'.lfl:4)tflemre:J~urity - .. AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000156 156 Re~naaidx::Da~eneof l:4)Mel1fJm:l~u rity - .. AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000157 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000158 158 R••~ttd.J..SSCl'.Dusitomsiarfitd>rtaenleotection R•• - ~(fl(j)a~arreJlf .. AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT ijphtelcfJJe:lamturity DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000159 159 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000160 160 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Rellis,Jennifer L Wednesday, November 21, 2018 4:54 PM Hussey,Jedidah M; Daum, Robert L; Gadson,Irvin C; Hemming, Bryan D; Douglas,Audrey M Lafferty, John L; Higgins,Jennifer B; Kim, Ted H; Mura, Elizabeth E FW: Updated RIM draft -v9 RIM DRAFTv9.doc Latest RIM draft. Reffe,~(b(jJJ3SCCiaJlsltmmslarfitlbrlf!er (bJX~ Sent:Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:01 AM To: Waldman, Katie Subject:RE: RIM Myth Fact Good morning, Attached, please find my edits/comments. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you and happy Thanksgiving! Liz Elizabeth Jacobs Senior AdvisorI Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices U.S. Departmentof HomelandSecurity This communication, along with any attachments, may contain confidential and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message. Thank you. AMEHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000231 231 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000232 232 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT (bJX~ DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000233 233 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000234 234 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (b~~ U. ls this action m resoonse to the caravan'! AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000235 235 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (bJX~ AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000236 236 Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy Thursday, November 22, 2018 8:36 PM Higgins,Jennifer B; Mura, ElizabethE; Lafferty, John L; Rellis,Jennifer L; Symons,CraigM; Kim, Ted H Ries,Lora L; Stoddard, Kaitlin V RE:Updated RIM-VlO RIM DRAFTvlO JBH-JR .doc From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Reviewedthis, and it's a bit concerning that CBPsent it around again leaving in the part about asking questions (vs presumption/manifestation) as was discussed.I struck it all to make the point more boldly. © Not sure my edits are worth sending up, but I added something on accessto counsel issues. Do you think this will start on Friday? From: Higgins,Jennifer B Sent:Thursday, Novem.,.b_e_r _22 ....... 2_0_18 __10_:_so ___ AM.., ___ To: Mura, Elizabeth E ; Lafferty, John L >; Rellis,Jennifer L <1.,_ Symons,CraigM Kim, Ted H Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy _______ _. 111111111111111 .-------L..--------------Cc: Ries,Lora L Su ject: FW: Up ate RIM- V10 Stoddard, Kaitlin V (bJX~ Happy Thanksgiving!! I've made some edits to this latest draft which is NOT due today!!Hurray. Jennifer R,this includesyour edits from version 9 as well. If anyone hasadditional edits/ comments, send them my way by 10:00am on Friday and I will consolidate. R•• J:etlt(td.JJ3SC(Dusitomsiarfillbrtaenleotection DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000253 253 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000254 254 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000255 255 Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy Friday, November 23, 2018 6:53 AM Higgins,Jennifer B Mura, Elizabeth E; Lafferty, John L; Rellis,Jennifer L; Symons,Craig M; Kim, Ted H; Ries,Lora L; Stoddard, Kaitlin V Re: Updated RIM-V10 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ah, I see. Ignore those edits then. Sorry about that. (bJX~ I __________ On Nov 23, 2018, at 6:35 AM, Higgins,Jennifer B <.. I wrote: (bJX~ Sent from my iPhone On Nov 22, 2018, at 9:35 PM, Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy ~bJX~ I I wrote: (bJX~ From: Higgins,Jennifer B Sent:Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:50 AM (bJX~ To: Mura, Elizabeth Et t; Lafferty, John L1 ; Rellis,Jennifer L Symons,Craig M Kim, Ted H ________ ;..._ __ t; NuebeltKovarik, Kathy Cc:Ries,Lora L 1 1----....1-----•,r-Subject:FW: Updated RIM-V10 1;Stoddard, Kaitlin V .. (bJX~ HappyThanksgiving!! I've made some edits to this latest draft which is NOl d]ue today!!Hurray. Jennifer R,this includes your edits from version 9 as well. If anyone hasadditional edits/ comments, send them my way by 10:00am on Friday and I will consolidate. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000256 256 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000257 257 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000258 258 Symons,CraigM Friday, November 23, 2018 7:19 AM Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy; Higgins,Jennifer B Mura, Elizabeth E; Lafferty, John L; Rellis,Jennifer L; Kim, Ted H; Ries,Lora L; Stoddard, Kaitlin V RE:Updated RIM-V10 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: I'm reviewing now, but I'll send my edits directly to OGCHQ per instructions from the GC. So, please do not hold this for me. Thanks! Craig M. Symons Chief Counsel I Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices U.S. Departmentof HomelandSecurity Tel.I Cell .. I I____ _. Thiscommunication,along with any attachments, may containconfidentialand legally privilegedinformation.Ifthe reader of this message is not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,use or copyingof this message is strictlyprohibited. If you have received this in error,please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message. Thankyou. From: Nuebel Kovarik,Kathy Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 7:53 AM To: Higgins,Jennifer B Cc: Mura, Elizabeth E ~ellis,Jennifer L :J Kim, Ted Stoddard, Kaitlin VI Subject:Re: Updated RIM-V10 l Lafferty, John L Hi Ah, I see. Ignore those edits then. Sorry about that. On Nov 23, 2018, at 6:35 AM, Higgins,Jennifer B wrote: ..___________ On Nov 23, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Symons,Craig M <1 I'm reviewing now, but I'll send my edits directly to OGCHQ per instructions from the GC. So, please do not hold this for me. Thanks! Craig M. Symons Chief Counsel I Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices U.S. Departmentof HomelandSecurity Tel. 11Cell.,1 ____ _ I (b~~ Thiscommunication,along with any attachments,may containconfidentialand legallyprivileged information.Ifthe readerof this message is not the intendedrecipient,you are herebynotifiedthat any dissemination,distribution,use or copyingof this message is strictlyprohibited.If you have received this in error,please reply immediatelyto the sender and delete this message. Thankyou. From: Nuebel Kovarik,Kathy Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 7:53 AM (b~~ To: Higgins,Jennifer B Cc:Mura, Elizabeth E Lafferty, John L ; Rellis,Jennifer L Symons,CraigM Kim, Ted H Ries,Lora L Stoddard, Kaitlin V ___________ __ -----------!; .,.. -. ____ 1 ......,_____ ~ (b~~------ subject:Re: Updated RIM- V10 Ah, I see. Ignore those edits then. Sorry about that. ..____________ On Nov 231 2018, at 6:35 AM, Higgins,Jennifer B st ~ wrote: Sent from my iPhone AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000263 263 On Nov 22, 2018, at 9:35 PM, Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy ~b~~ i t wrote: From:Higgins, Jennifer B Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:50 AM To· Mura Elizabeth E >; Laffer ty, John L Rellis, Jennifer L Symons, Craig M ; Kim, Ted H I; Nuebel Kavarik, Kathy I Cc:Ries, Kaitlin V r,r::::aI I I I Stoddard, Iv> Subject:FW: Updated RIM- VlO Happy Thanksgiving!! I've made some edits to this latest draft which is Nordue today!!Hurray. Jennifer R, this includes your edits from version 9 as well. If anyone has additional edits/ comments, send them my way by 10:00am on Friday and I will consolidate. DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000264 264 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000265 265 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000266 266 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Higgins,Jennifer B Friday, November 23, 2018 8:44 AM Kim, Ted H; Mura, ElizabethE; Lafferty, John L; Rellis,Jennifer L; Symons, Craig M; Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy Ries,Lora L; Stoddard, Kaitlin V RE:Updated RIM-V10 RIM DRAFTv10 USCIS930am.doc Latest version including Ted's comment and Kathy's input (but just flagging the manifestation issue rather than redlining.) From: Kim, Ted H Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 8:39 AM To: Higgins,Jennifer B; Mura, Elizabeth E; Lafferty, John L; Rellis,Jennifer L; Symons,Craig M; Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy Cc: Ries, Lora L; Stoddard, Kaitlin V Subject: RE: Updated RIM- V10 (b)X~ .. From: Higgins,Jennifer B ◄---------- 1 (bJX~ Sent:Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:50 AM To: Mura, ElizabethE1 t Lafferty, John L Rellis,Jennifer LI ; Kim, Ted Hi ,._ _________ ...,.I> ------------ ...... Cc: Ries,Lora q________ Subject:FW: Updated RIM-V10 I Symons,Craig M I Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy t; Stoddard, Kaitlin V wrote: Latest version including Ted's comment and Kathy's input (but just flagging the manifestation issue rather than redlining.) From:Kim,Ted H Sent: Friday,November23, 20188:39 AM To: Higgins,JenniferB; Mura,ElizabethE; Lafferty,JohnL; Rellis,JenniferL; Symons, CraigM; NuebelKovarik,Kathy Cc: Ries,LoraL; Stoddard,KaitlinV Subject: RE:UpdatedRIM-VlO AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000284 284 (b)X~ From:Higgins,Jennifer B 1..__________ Sent:Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:50 AM To: Mura, Elizabeth E (b):~ Lafferty, John L _________ _ ------------,__ (b):~ t Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy Cc:Ries,Lora L ; Stoddard, Kaitlin V Subject:FW: Updated RIM- V10 Happy Thanksgiving!! I've made some edits to this latest draft which is NOT due today,,Hurray. Jennifer R,this includesyour edits from version 9 as well. If anyone hasadditional edits/ comments, send them my way by 10:00am on Friday and I will consolidate. Re,e,J:etlt; Lafferty, John L ; Rellis,Jennifer LI ~Kim,Ted H ; Symons,Craig M .=================~>"'-; ._--------•11""1>-; ~N~u~eb.,.el Kovarik, Kathy iCc:Ries,Lora L 1 i Subject:FW: Up..da-t-ed_R_I_M_V_l_O___ t Stoddard, Kaitlin V <1 (bJX~ ---------- Happy Thanksgiving!! I've made some edits to this latest draft which is r> NOT due today!!Hurray. Jennifer R,this includes your edits from version 9 as well. If anyone has additional edits/ comments, send them my way by 10:00am on Friday and I will consolidate. AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000289 289 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000290 290 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Higgins,Jennifer B Friday, November 23, 2018 9:58 AM PETERLIN, MEGHANNK RE:Updated RIM- V10 RIM DRAFTv10 USCISHam.doc Our edits attached. We may have more. R•• Jffl:tt(kj.JJ3SCCiallsitomsiarfild>rtaenleotection (b)(6 (b)(6 AIVILHIGAI\J PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000291 291 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000292 292 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT INA Section 235(b)(2)(C) "Remain in Mexico" California Pilot Notional Process For Discussion Purposes ONLYAt This Time (bJX~ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000293 293 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT FuK UFFIUAL USE UNLY / / LAW ENFum,EMENl SENSI 11 (bJX(51 v J:<, DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 2 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000294 294 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 3 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000295 295 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 4 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000296 296 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (b~~ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 5 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000297 297 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (bW~ 'If\\..,_, FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 6 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000298 298 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (bJX~ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 7 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000299 299 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (bJX~ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 8 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000300 300 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 9 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000301 301 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (b)'.(t5 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 10 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000302 302 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (bJX~ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 11 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000303 303 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (bJX~ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 12 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000304 304 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 13 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000305 305 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (bJX~ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 14 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000306 306 Reffe,aajtctx::U..SSCCiailsitmmsiarfihbrlf'ercfeotection From: Higgins,Jenni er B Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 10:58 AM To: PETERLIN, MEGHANNK ,..----------.► Subject:RE:Updated RIM- VlO (b)X~ Our edits attached. We may have more. Reffe,aajtctx::LlS SCCiailsitmmsi a rfihb rlf'ercfeot ection (b)(6 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000307 7 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000308 308 Re.fftB, at:ttltdJ..SSCCiailsltmmslarfiobrlf!erc&eotection Re.fftB, at:ttdx:Da~erreof 1:4:>Me-~u .. - rity (b)(6 (b)(6 (b)(6 (b)(6 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT (b)(6 DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000309 309 blbl?l?lelar?lmurity DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000310 310 and 18-0694-A-000311 311 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000312 312 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000313 313 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000314 314 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000315 315 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000316 316 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000317 317 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000318 318 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000319 319 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000320 320 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000321 321 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000322 322 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000323 323 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000324 324 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000325 325 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000326 326 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Higgins,Jennifer B Friday, November 23, 2018 5:14 PM Lafferty, John L Fwd: Updated RIM-V10 RIM DRAFTv10 USCISHam.doc; ATT00001.htm This is the last version I have..... Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From:"Higgins,Jennifer B" <.,J---------~ Date: November 23, 2018 at 10:57:40 AM EST To: "PETERLIN, MEGHANNK" .... ----------1> (b):~ Subject:RE:Updated RIM- VlO Our edits attached. We may have more. RefferJ:ettt4dJ.£SC Ciailsltmmslarfillt>rlf!ercleotection AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000327 327 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000328 328 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORKPRODUCT INA Section 235(b)(2)(C) "Remain in Mexico" California Pilot Notional Process For Discussion Purposes ONLYAt This Time FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000329 329 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT rvnVI_1_'ll.,lh..LU..:,ic,V1-.LI// ~W~.,~~ (b~~ ~.1..:,ic,n..:,i.l.lVt DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 2 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000330 330 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 3 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000331 331 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (bJX~ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 4 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000332 332 FOR OFFICIALUSE ONLY//LAW ENFORCEMENTSENSITIVE & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL WORK PRODUCT o Waiting area for applicants: This also necessitates contract officers to both manage the desk to coordinate applicants for interview as well as to routinely patrol security/safetypatrols of the workspace. 5. ICE a. VTC or in-person as appropriate,provide attorneys and other personnel as temporary immigrationcourt facilities. b. Coordinatewith the relevant DHS and interagencypartners to secure DHS service contracts for the transportation,escort, and security of aliens between the POE and the court facility and while awaiting hearings, where applicable. C. Complete the requisite immigrationpaperwork subsequentto court orders. d. Provide transportationand logistics support between the designated POEs and courts upon the alien's return for their court hearing. This includes transportation at least 1 hour in advance of the scheduledhearing in order to facilitate access to counsel. 6. USCIS a. Deploy additional staff to the POEs or other designated area to conduct screening, and facilitate up to 120 RIM screeningsper day at San Ysidro POE. 7. EOIR a. Assign an LNO at each affected POE or Station to coordinate actions with CBP and ERO, and support court date schedulingfor those being issued an NTA. b. Provide appropriateDHS personnel with access to system(s)necessary to support court scheduling,which will be performed in coordinationwith DHS personnel. C. Assign enough ii:nhligrationjUdges (IJs) to a dedicated docket, and necessary court staff, sufficient to complete proceedingsbefore the IJ within I month of the initial hearing. d. Provide IJ review of USCIS negative findings via VTC prior to alien's departure from the POE Uponinitial screening. e. Coordinatewith DHS to schedule hearings in a manner which limits the need to comingle adult males, adult females, and family units in the transportationand hearing process (e.g., all hearings on one day will be adult males, another will be adult females,and another will be family units). OperationalProcessFlow Alien Encounter-First encounterthroughwait in Mexico I When an alien is encounteredby CBP (OFO/USBP),questions similar to those below will be asked of the alien by the processing officer/agentand properly recorded. • Do you have .a fear of being returned or removedto another country? • If so, to which countries do you fear return or removal?] CBP Office of Field Operations (OFO): • When an inadmissiblealien presents him or herself at a POE, OFO will ask the aliens the ~woquestions above at the commencementof processing. ] ... ... ___ __ __ ___......... ________ _ Comment [JBH4]: Atthe moming_callbn Wednesday,we believed a decisionwas made to use a presumptionand only if the alien manifesteda fear to MEXICOwould they bnefep·ed for scree.ning. Has that decisionbeen revisited? __ Comment [JBHS]: See commehtjust above. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 5 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000333 333 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 6 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000334 334 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (b)X~ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 7 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000335 335 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 8 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000336 336 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (bJX~ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 9 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000337 337 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT FuK UFFIUAL USE UNLY / / LAW ENFum,EMENl SENSI 11 (bW~ 'If\\..,_, v J:<, DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 10 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000338 338 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (b),X~ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 11 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000339 339 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (b)X~ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 12 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000340 340 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (bJX~ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 13 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000341 341 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT//PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE//ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY// LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DRAFT/ /PREDECISIONAL & DELIBERATIVE// ATTORNEY-CLIENT// ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 14 AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000342 342 Bob Dane Monday, October 23, 2017 2:44 PM Law, Robert T Bob Dane Question From: Sent: To: Subject: Rob Did you do a written exit interview? Bob Dane Executive Director Federation for American Immigration Reform 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 330 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 328-7004 I FAIRus.org ··~ FAJRcLARIT'i , INSIGHT & EXPERTISE CONFIDEN TIALITY NOTICE : This message is iJ1tended only tor the use of the in-dividLZel or e11tityto which it is addressed, and may contain information that is. privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law, AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000343 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: RJHauman Tuesday,October 24, 2017 10:00 AM Law, Robert T DACAReplacementChart Factsheet_DACADream RACSucceedComparison.pdf We are in the processof adding the BridgeAct. Working through format issues.Will shoot that over when it is done. RJ Hauman Government RelationsDirector . ·-:- ·- -S•.'.< t FAIR r IIO('R.~.JI O P-1f O;i:?.~ lo.-113 r,:m_,\1\1 IMMlm u rno .~ ~ E;FQR:t.t 25 MassachusettsAve. N.W., Suite 330 Washington, DC20001 Tel: (202) 328-7004 Fax:(202) 387-3447 www.FAIRus.org To receive FAIR'sweekly LegislativeUpdate, pleasesign up here AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000344 2 FAIR Fact Shee Federation !orAmerican Immigrat ionReform Legislative Options toReplace DACA DACA DREAM Act{5.1615} 3,338,000* Population 723,000* approved; 33,000 (1,813,000 immediately eligible for Potentially (690,000 pending, nonew applications conditional status; 1,526,000 may Eligible for become eligible forconditional Amnesty accepted) status inthefuture) SUCCEED Act{S.1852} 2,504,000* 2,553,000* (1,061,000 immediately eligible for conditional status; 1,444,000 may become eligible forconditional status inthefuture) (1,816,000 immediately eligible for conditional status; 737,000 may become eligible forconditional status inthefuture) *Source :Department ofHomeland Security data Migration Policy Institute estimate *Source: *Source: Migration Policy Institute estimate *Source: Niskanen Center estimate Age atArrival 16 18 31onJune 15,2012) None Upper Age Limit36(under 16 16 None 36(under 31onJune 15,2012) have lived continuously in Must have been continuously Must have been continuously Must have been continuously present ContinuousMust since June 15,2007. present intheU.S. for4years atthe present intheU.S .since January 1, intheU.S. since June 15,2012. Presence theU.S. Must have been physically date 2012. ofenactment. Requirements present intheU.S. onJune 15, May nothave lefttheU.S. forany 2012. May nothave lefttheU.S. forany May nothave lefttheU.S. forany period exceeding 90days orforany exceeding 90days orforany periods period exceeding 90days orforany period exceeding 180 days total May have traveled outside the periods exceeding 180 days total. periods exceeding 180 days total. during a5-year period. However, However, these limits can be U.S. between June 15,2007, However, these limits can be these limits can beextended ifthe and August 15,2012, solong as extended ifthefailure toreturn is extended ifthefailure toreturn is failure toreturn isdue to"exceptional thetime outside theU.S. is due to"extenuating due to"extenuating circumstances." circumstances." Travel authorized byOHS (advanceTime considered brief, casual, and circumstances." spent outside oftheU.S. due to innocent. parole) isnotcounted asadeparture active service intheU.S. Armed Travel authorized byOHS (advancefrom theU.S. Forces does notterminate continuous parole) isnotcounted asa presence. departure from theU.S . Being Being served aNotice toAppear served aNotice toAppear does not does notterminate continuous Being served aNotice toAppear does terminate continuous presence. presence. notterminate continuous presence. AMH~ICAN pVERSIGHT 1 DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000345 3 DACA DREAM Act {5.1615) SUCCEED Act {S.1852) Anyone without lawful immigration Must nothave afinal order of Must nothave afinal order of nothave had lawful ImmigrationMust deportation, orremoval.exclusion, deportation, orremoval. immigration status onJune 15, status can qualify, including illegal exclusion, Status areillegal aliens who (1) Exceptions areillegal aliens who (1) 2012. aliens withfinal orders ofremoval.Exceptions Requirements after theorder remained intheU.S. Illegal aliens withfinal orders of Also, illegal aliens withDACA and remained intheU.S. after theorder issued, or(2)received the was issued, or(2)received theorder removal arestilleligible to temporary protected status (TPS) was order before turning 18. before turning 18. apply. may apply. Illegal alien children ofE-2 treaty investors eligible foramnesty program. • Must meet themoral character • Must meet themoral character notbeen convicted ofa notbeen convicted ofa • Have Criminal • Have definition under theINA. definition under theINA. felony offense (excluding state offense. Backgroundfelony offenses). • Have notbeen convicted ofa • Have notbeen convicted ofa • Have notbeen convicted ofa immigration-related Requirements felony offense. significant misdemeanor• Have felony offense. notbeen convicted of3or misdemeanors occurring on • Have (domestic violence, sexual more notbeen convicted of • Have notbeen convicted of dates from separate acts multiple abuse/exploitation, burglary, separate misdemeanors forwhich multiple misdemeanors forwhich State immigration- asentence unlawful possession oruse of (excluding ofmore than one year asentence ofmore than one year related offenses) and afirearm, drug was imposed. was imposed. imprisonment of an aggregate 90 distribution/trafficking, DUI, • Inadmissible forcriminality*, • Have notbeen convicted ofa days ormore. orasentence of90days in national security risk, smuggling*,significant misdemeanor as custody); or • Inadmissible forcriminality*, student visa abuse*, permanent defined inthebill. national security risk, smuggling*, • Three ormore misdemeanors ineligibility forcitizenship (draft • Inadmissible forcriminality*, occurring onseparate dates student visa abuse*, permanent evaders), polygamy, internationalnational security risk, smuggling*, ineligibility forcitizenship (draft child from separate acts. abduction, orunlawful student visa abuse*, permanent evaders), polygamy, internationalvoting*; or ineligibility forcitizenship (draft child abduction, orunlawful • Ordered, evaders), polygamy, international incited, assisted, or voting*; or participated inpersecution. child abduction, orunlawful • Ordered, incited, assisted, or voting*; or participated inpersecution. *Waivable forhumanitarian • Ordered, incited, assisted, or • Expunged convictions willbe purposes, family unity, orpublic evaluated onacase-by case basis interest *Waivable forhumanitarian participated inpersecution. *Waivable forhumanitarian purposes orpublic interest purposes, family unity, orpublic interest AMH~ICAN pVERSIGHT 2 DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000346 4 DACA inhigh school; Education/• Currently • Graduated high school; Work/Military • Obtained aGED; or Service • Honorable discharge from the Requirements DREAM Act {5.1615) SUCCEED Act {S.1852) • If18years ofage orolder: • Admitted toaninstitution ofhigher • Graduated high school; • Graduated high school; education intheU.S.; • Obtained aGED; or • Obtained aGED; or • Graduated high school; Coast Guard orArmed Forces• Enrolled insecondary school oran • Enrolled insecondary school oran • Obtained aGED; or oftheU.S. education program assisting education program assisting • Enrolled insecondary school oran students instudents ineducation program assisting oObtaining ahigh school oObtaining ahigh school students indiploma; or diploma; or oObtaining ahigh school diploma; o Passing aGED exam, high school o Passing aGED exam, high school or exam, orother similar oPassing diploma exam, orother similar diploma aGED exam, high school state-authorized exam; or state-authorized exam. diploma exam, orother similar exam; or • Has avalid work authorization. state-authorized NOTE: Illegal alien minors who are • Has served, isserving, orhas atleast 5years oldand enrolled in enlisted intheU.S. Armed Forces. school areexempt from Ifyounger than 18years ofage: immigration enforcement sothey • Attending orhas enrolled ina can age intotheamnesty program. primary orsecondary school; or • Attending orhas enrolled inapostsecondary school. • Admitted toaninstitution of higher education intheU.S.; • Admitted toaninstitution of higher education intheU.S.; No. However, 39,514 illegal Yes, eligible forcitizenship inat Yes, eligible forcitizenship inat Yes, eligible forcitizenship inatleast Path to 15years. have received legal least 13years. least 10years. Citizenshipaliens permanent residence (green card) through theadvance Step 1: Step 1: Step 1: forconditional permanentApply forconditional permanentApply parole loophole, and 1,056 Apply forconditional permanent adjusted toU.S. citizenship.residency, valid for8years residency, valid for5years residency, valid for5years (requirements inrows above). (requirements inrows above). (requirements inrows above). Step 2: Step 2: Step 2: theinitial 5year period, After After 8years ofconditional After theinitial 5year period, permanent residency, individualsindividuals can reapply toextend individuals can reapply toextend can apply forlegal permanent conditional permanent residencyconditional permanent residency for 5years ifthey have another one of foranother 5years ifthey have fulfilled residency ifthey have done thefollowing*: fulfilled one ofthefollowing: one ofthefollowing: • Acquired adegree from an • Enrolled inanaccredited U.S. • Graduated from anaccredited U.S. institution ofhigher education; or institution ofhigher education institution ofhigher education; or within one year after obtaining • Attended • Completed atleast 2years ina apostsecondary school conditional permanent residency,fornotless bachelor's degree program; or than 8semesters; or and remain enrolled; or • Served foratleast 2years inthe • Served foratleast 3years inthe AMH~ICAN pVERSIGHT 3 DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000347 5 DACA DREAM Act {5.1615) SUCCEED Act {S.1852) Armed Forces orhave been U.S. armed forces orhave been • Employed foratotal period of48 U.S. discharged; or honorably discharged; or months during the5year period honorably since obtaining conditional • Attended apostsecondary school, • Employed forperiods totaling at residency; or served intheU.S. Armed Forces, or least 3years, atleast 75percent permanent ofwhich time was working with • Enlisted employment foratotal intheU.S.armed forces maintained of48months during the5 valid employment authorization (if within 9months ofobtaining period period since obtaining theperson was notworking, they conditional permanent residency.year conditional permanent residency. must show thatthey were enrolled inschool oraneducation Step 3: program). 3: After receiving theadditional 5-yearStep *Waivable forhardship After maintaining conditional extension, anindividual is permanent resident status for10 immediately eligible toapply for Step 3: anindividual may apply for legal permanent residency. years, May apply forU.S. citizenship after legal permanent residency. 5years asalegal permanent Step 4: resident. 4: May apply forU.S .citizenship after Step apply forU.S. citizenship after 5 5years asalegal permanent May years asalegal permanent resident. resident. infulllegal permanent Individuals inlegal permanent Once infulllegal permanent Once status, immediately eligibleresident advantage oftheadvance resident status, immediately eligibleresident status arebarred from tosponsor family members for sponsoring family members forgreen parole loophole, DACA aliens tosponsor family members for cards, INCLUDING illegal alien cards. However, they can dosoonce arenotcurrently eligible for green cards, INCLUDING illegal alien green who brought these aliens to they green cards, and therefore parents who brought these aliens to parents become citizens. when they were minors. cannot sponsor family theU.S. when they were minors. theU.S. members . Aside from those who took Chain Migration Chain Migration 2,494,000 11,516,000 Impact* (This number reflects a *Up to3.45 potential legislative amnesty relatives per fortheDACA population) amnestied alien (Center for Immigration Studies) AMH~ICAN pVERSIGHT 8,639,000 8,808,000 4 DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000348 6 DACA DREAM Act {5.1615) Anextensive listisincluded, Anextensive listisincluded, but Documentation isnorequirement thatthe other document [the there Required but"any SUCCEED Act {S.1852) Submission ofbiometric and biographic data required. documents documentation beverifiable despiteNolistofeligible alien believes] isrelevant" is included meaning illegal alien theprevalence ofillegal also considered. can submit whatever immigration-related document applicants they want to"prove" eligibility. fraud and identity theft. Submission ofbiometric and biographic data required. Nolistofeligible documents included meaning illegal alien applicants can submit whatever they want to "prove" eligibility. forunlawful Nofineorpenalty forunlawful forunlawful Nofineorpenalty forunlawfulNofineorpenalty Fees/fines Nofineorpenalty presence. presence. presence. Required presence. fees tobedeterminedApplication fees tobedeterminedApplication fees tobedetermined by ~495 fee, which consists ofa Application OHS byOHS* ~410 feefortheEmployment byOHS* Authorization Document (EAD) Satisfy allassessed taxliabilities. Satisfy application and an~85 feefor *Waivable forqualifying individuals allassessed taxliabilities. Not Notrequired topay back taxes for required fingerprints. topay back taxes for undeclared income. undeclared income. *Waivable forqualifying individuals AMH~ICAN pVERSIGHT 5 DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000349 7 From: Sent: To: Subject: Law, Robert T Tuesday,October 24, 2017 1:33 PM RJHauman RE:DACAReplacementChart Thanks. I see you didn't waste time updating your signature line. From: RJHauman [mailto:rjhauman@fairus.org1 Sent: Tuesday,October 24, 2017 11:00 AM To: Law, RobertT Subject: DACAReplacementChart We are in the processof adding the Bridge Act. Working through format issues.Will shoot that over when it is done. RJ Hauman Government RelationsDirector rcorn,u10Nro•~M;rn,c,1; 1 IMMI GHIITI D~-~ REFORM 25 MassachusettsAve. N.W., Suite 330 Washington, DC20001 Tel: (202) 328-7004 Fax:{202) 387-3447 www.FAIRus.org To receive FAIR'sweekly LegislativeUpdate, pleasesign up here AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000350 8 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Law, Robert T Thursday,November02, 2017 3:01 PM hr@fairus.org One last student loan form Robert Law PSLF(FAIR}.pdf Hi Hemant, I hope you're doing well. Canyou pleasefill out Section3, line 2 (EIN)and Section4 to certify my eligibility for student loan forgiveness.I need this one last time from you to show my date of separation from FAIR.Passwordto follow. Thanksand I hope to see you and everyone soon! Robert Law Senior Advisor Office of Policy & Strategy U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices Departmentof HomelandSecurity 202-272-8409(work) l(cell) (b~~ I Thisemail,along with any attachments, is intendedsolelyfor the use of the addressee(s)and may contain informationthat is sensitiveor protected by applicablelaw. Unauthorizeduse or disseminationof this email and any attachments is strictlyprohibited.if you are not the intendedrecipient,please notify the sender and delete or destroy all copies. Thankyou. AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000351 9 0MB No. 1845-0110 FormApproved Exp, Date5/31/2020 WilliamID.FordFederalDirectLoan(DiD"ect Loan)Program PSECF-XBCR WARNING : Any personwho knowingly makesafalse statement or misrepresentationon this form or on any accompanyingdocument is subjectto penaltiesthat may include fines,imprisonment,or both, under the U.S.CriminalCodeand 20 U.S.C.1097. PUIBUCSERVICELOAN FORG~VIENESS (PSILIF): IEMPLOYMENfCIERT~FICAT!ON fORM PSLFECF SECTION1: BORROWER INIFORMATION (b)X~ Name AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT RobertThomasLaw \ r ciy ,;; I UI U DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000352 10 BorrowerName AML HICA\J PVERSIGHT I RobertThomasLaw f'cl!:Jt' L VI U DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000353 11 Law, Robert T Thursday,November02, 2017 3:01 PM hr@fairus.org RE:One last student loan form From: Sent: To: Subject: PSLF From: Law, RobertT Sent: Thursday, November02, 2017 4:01 PM To: 'hr@fairus.org' Subject: One last student loan form Hi Hemant, I hope you're doing well. Canyou pleasefill out Section3, line 2 (EIN)and Section4 to certify my eligibility for student loan forgiveness.I need this one last time from you to show my date of separation from FAIR.Passwordto follow. Thanksand I hope to see you and everyone soon! Robert Law Senior Advisor Office of Policy & Strategy U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices Departmentof HomelandSecurity 202-272-8409(work) (b~~ I l(cell) Thisemail,along with any attachments, is intendedsolelyfor the use of the addressee(s)and may contain informationthat is sensitiveor protected by applicablelaw. Unauthorizeduse or disseminationof this email and any attachments is strictlyprohibited.If you are not the intendedrecipient,please notify the sender and delete or destroy all copies, Thankyou. AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000354 12 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Human Resources Thursday,November02, 2017 3:25 PM Law, Robert T RE:One last student loan form ROB.PDF Hi Rob, I am doing good. Thanks.Hope you doing wonderful too ! Attached is the signedand completed form as you requested. Havea great one ! ! 1/emanf Sharma Staff1-lccounfcmt FAIR F f,c:;il;,l'!/1!, 'flC)r,,a l~OJZ· ;',Ml:1i::J1'(:i1,1N a~i,,t.i I ~J r-u, Tl PN ,~ I.:1· r,n:~:~; 25 MassachusettsAve. N.W. Suite 330 I Washington,DC 20001 Office 202.328.7004 I Fax 202.328.3447 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. From: Law, RobertT Sent: Thursday, November02, 2017 4:01 PM To: 'hr@fairus.org' Subject: One last student loan form Hi Hemant, I hope you're doing well. Canyou pleasefill out Section3, line 2 (EIN)and Section4 to certify my eligibility for student loan forgiveness.I need this one last time from you to show my date of separation from FAIR.Passwordto follow. Thanksand I hope to see you and everyone soon! Robert Law Senior Advisor Office of Policy & Strategy AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000355 13 (b~~ U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices Departmentof HomelandSecurity 202-272-8409(work) l(cell) I Thisemail,along with any attachments, is intendedsolelyfor the use of the addressee(s)and may contain informationthat is sensitiveor protected by applicablelaw. Unauthorizeduse or disseminationof this email and any attachments is strictlyprohibited.If you are not the intendedrecipient,please notify the sender and delete or destroy all copies. Thankyou. AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000356 14 (bJX~ Borrower Name RobertThomasLaw '-~ AMf f llCA~ pVERSIGHT ----- I !'agel. 01 o DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000357 15 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Shari Rendall Tuesday,November 28, 2017 12:59 PM Law, Robert T State E-VerifyLaws States with laws or executive orders requiring use of E-Verify (update) (2).docx Rob, There are a few additions to the document above: AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000358 16 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000359 17 / __,, FAIR FactSheet Federatieriltir AmericM lmmi91ation Reform ~/ Stateswith Lawsor ExecutiveOrdersRequiring or Encouraging the Useof E-Verify STATE BILL# YEAROF DESCRIPTION ENACTMENT Alabama 2011 Summary:All public and private employers, including contractors and subcontractors, must use E-Verify beginning Apr. 1, 2012. Contractors and subcontractors with state and local governments must comply by Jan. 1, 2012. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:After a first violation, employer will be subject to debarment from state contracts and subject to cancellations of state grants or incentives. The employer may also be subject to suspension or revocation of their business license for up to 60 days. After a second or subsequent offense , employer may be subject to a permanent business license revocation. HB658 2012 Summary:Amends HB 56 process by which a publ ic contractor is found to be in violation of the law and changes penalties that may be imposed upon the public contractor for violations. Expands definition of subcontractor to include an employer who is awarded a portion of an existing contract, regardless of its tier. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:Creates new penalty scheme for contractors in violation of E-Verify requirement. Upon the first violation, employer is subject to a three -year probationary period . During the probationary period, employer must file quarterly reports ensuring compliance and file affidavit affirming that the employment of any unauthorized alien employees have been terminated. Employer will also be subject to a suspension of all business licenses and permits for up to 60 days. Employer must file an affidavit affirming E-Verify use in order to have business licenses and permits reinstated . After a second violation, employer shall be deemed in breach of contract with the public entity. The employer must terminate employment of all unauthorized aliens and the employer is subject to a five-year probationary period . During the probationary period, the employer must submit quarterly reports demonstrating compliance with E-Verify requirements . Employer must also AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000360 18 submit affidavit stating the employer has terminated employment of all unauthorized workers. Additionally , all business licenses and permits will be suspended for 60-120 days in the location where the unauthorized employment occurred. Employer must submit sworn affidavit stating compliance before the employer's licenses or permits may be reinstated. After a third violation, employer will be found in breach of contract and will be subject to permanent revocation of business licenses and permits . A safe harbor from liability is provided to employers that enroll in E-Verify and properly use the program . Arizona HB2779 2007 Summary:Prohibits employers from intentionally/knowingly hiring unauthorized workers and requires all employers to use EVerify after December 31, 2007. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:Employers are not subject to penalties for failure to use E-Verify. Businesses that knowingly hire unauthorized aliens may face possible license suspension for a first violation and permanent revocation for a second violation. HB2745 2008 Summary:State and local governments shall not contract with contractors or subcontractors who do not use E-Verify. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:Employers are not subject to penalties for failure to use E-Verify. Businesses that knowingly hire unauthorized aliens may face possible license suspension for a first violation and permanent revocation for a second violation. Colorado HB 1343 2006 Summary:Prospective state and local contractors must certify they do not knowingly employ or contract with an unauthorized alien and that they use or have attempted to use E-Verify (effective August 9, 2006). Penaltiesfor noncompliance:A public contractor that fails to use E-Verify may be deemed in breach of contract with the public entity and liable for costs related to the termination of the contract. If a contractor found to be in violation of the requirements, the Secretary of State must include the employer on a list of noncomplying employers, which must be published on the internet. 2008 Summary:Contractors with state contracts must use E-Verify. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:A public contractor that fails to use E-Verify may be deemed in breach of the contract with the public entity and liable for costs related to termination of contract. If a AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000361 19 contractor is found to be in violation, the Secretary of State must include the employer on a list of noncomplying employers, which must be published on the internet. Public contractors are subject to random audits by the Department of Labor and Employment. 2008 Summary:The Department of Labor and Employment must notify employers of the prohibition against hiring unauthorized aliens and the availability and participation requirements of E-Verify. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:None . Florida Executive 2011 Summary:Agencies under the direction of the governor, including Order contractors and subcontractors, must use E-Verify 11-116 (supersedes Executive Order 11-02). Penaltiesfor noncompliance:None . Georgia SB529 2006 Summary:All public employers, contractors and subcontractors with 500 or more employees must use E-Verify by July 1, 2007 . All contractors and subcontractors with 100 or more employees must use E-Verify by July 1, 2008. All employers must use E-Verify by July 1, 2009. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:None. 2010 Summary:All public employers must maintain state contractor affidavits affirming participation in E-Verify for five years . All contractors are required to notify public employers of any new subcontractors . Penaltiesfor noncompliance:Commissioner must conduct a minimum of 100 random audits of public employers and contractors . Results of audits must be published on state website . Knowing or willful false statements in affidavit result in violation of false statements and writings crime and will also result in a prohibition from entering into a public contract for 12 months following conviction . 2011 Summary:Requires all private employers with more than 10 employees to use E-Verify by July 1, 2013. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:Private employers are required to sign an affidavit affirming use of E-Verify to receive business license. Localities that violate E-Verify requirements may be disqualified from eligibility for state grants or loans and other state programs. Contractors found to be in violation shall be included on a list of noncomplying employers on a state website . AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000362 20 Idaho Executive 2009 Summary:State agencies receiving state funds or federal stimulus Order money shall verify individuals are eligible to work in the United 2009-10 States. Contractors and subcontractors must declare to contracting state agency that all employees associated with contract are work authorized. Indiana SB590 2011 Summary:Requires state and local employers, contractors, and subcontractors to use E-Verify by July 2011. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:Contractors in violation may be deemed in breach of contract and have contract terminated. Private employers are not required to use E-Verify but will not be able to deduct employee wages from their state income taxes if they do not enroll in the program. Kansas Secretary_ 2011 of State Summary:Requires the Kansas Department of State to use EVerify to verify the work authorization of newly hired employees. Order Penaltiesfor noncompliance:None. Louisiana HB342 2011 Summary:Contractors and subcontractors with state and local governments must use E-Verify. Penaltiesfor noncompliance : Any employer found to be in violation may have its contract terminated and may be deemed ineligible for any public contract for up to three years. The employer will also be liable for any additional costs incurred by the public entity because of the cancellation of the contract. Safe harbor provided to employers who use E-Verify from liability for hiring an unauthorized alien . HB646 2011 Summary:Private employers must either use E-Verify, or use and retain copies of certain identity and work authorization documents . Penaltiesfor noncompliance:None . HB996 2012 Summary:E-Verify is required for public works contracts that erect, construct, change, improve, or repair any public facility or immovable property owned, used, or leased by a public entity . Penaltiesfor noncompliance:None. Michigan HB5294 2016 Summary:Requires Department of Transportation and Department of Human Services contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify . Penaltiesfor noncompliance:Noncompliance may result in funding consequences . Requires Department of Transportation to AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000363 21 submit to the House and SenateAppropriations Committees and the House and Senate fiscal agenciesan annual report describing the processesit has developed and implemented in compliance with the E-Verify requirements. Mississippi SB2988 2008 Summary:Requiresall public and private employers to use EVerify. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:Creates a safe harbor for employers that comply with E-Verify requirements, unless an employer is directly involved in the creation of false documents, and provided the employer did not knowingly or willfully accept false documents. Contractors in violation will be subject to the cancellation of any public contract and will be ineligible for public contracts for up to three years. Contractors will also lose any license or permit to do businessin Mississippi for up to one year. Contractors may also be liable for any additional costs incurred becauseof the cancellation of a contract as a result of their failure to comply with E-Verify requirements. Missouri HB 1549 2008 Summary:Public employers and businessentities receiving a state contract, grant in excessof $5,000, or a state-administered tax credit, tax abatement, or loan, must use E-Verify. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:No penalty for failure to use EVerify. Businesslicense penalties associatedwith the knowing employment of unauthorized workers. Contractors guilty of knowingly employing unauthorized workers may have contract terminated and may be debarred from contracting with public entities for three years. Safe harbor provided to employers who use E-Verify from penalties associatedwith employment of unauthorized workers. Nebraska LB403 2009 Summary:Public employers and contractors must use E-Verify (effective October 2009). Penaltiesfor noncompliance:The Tax Commissioner is prohibited from approving any tax incentive for an employer unless the employer uses E-Verify. New Hampshire HB 158 2012 Summary:E-Verify use is not required in New Hampshire. However employers who use E-Verify are shielded with an affirmative defense to identity fraud actions. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:No penalties for failure to use EVerify. Safe Harbor created for identity fraud actions for employers who choose to utilize the program. North Carolina AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT SB1523 2006 Summary:Requireseach State agency, department, institution, university, community college, and local education agency to use E-Verify. DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000364 22 Penaltiesfor noncompliance:None . 2011 Summary:Private employers with 25 or more employees must use E-Verify by July 1, 2013. Seasonal employees working 90-days or less annually are exempt from verification. Counties and municipalities are also required to use E-Verify . Penaltiesfor noncompliance:After a first violation, an employer must sign a sworn affidavit affirming usage with E-Verify or become subject to a civil penalty of $10,000. After a second violation , the employer shall pay a penalty of $1,000. After a third or subsequent violation, the employer must pay a $2,000 penalty for each required employee verification the employer failed to make. HB318 2015 Summary:Requires public contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify. E-Verify requirements do not apply to contracts solely for the purchase of goods, apparatus, supplies, materials, or equipment. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:None. Oklahoma HB 1804 2007 Summary:Public employers, including contractors and subcontractors, must use E-Verify, the Social Security Number Verification Service, or other similar reliable, including third-party , employment eligibility verification program . Penaltiesfor noncompliance:No penalties for failure to use EVerify . Creates a safe harbor for employers who use E-Verify from penalties associated with unlawfully discharging an U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien while retaining an unauthorized alien employee . Pennsylvania SB637 2012 Summary:All public works contractors and subcontractors with contracts worth at least $25,000 must use E-Verify . Penaltiesfor noncompliance:First violation results in a warning and posting on a state website. A second violation requires a 30day debarment from public works contracts, and a third violation requires between 180 and 365 days debarment from public works contracts. Willful violators may be debarred for up to 3 years and subject to a fine between $250 and $1000 . Provides a safe harbor from liability to employers who use E-Verify in good faith . SouthCarolina HB4400 2008 Summary:Requires all public and private employers to either use E-Verify or check the validity of driver's license and other identification. AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000365 23 Penaltiesfor noncompliance:Civil penalties; subsequently repealed and amended to revoke business licenses by SB 20. 2011 Summary:All employers must use E-Verify by January 1, 2012. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:SB 20 imputes a state business license to all employers in the state . Employers who violate the state's E-Verify requirements will be placed on probation for one year during which the employer must submit quarterly reports demonstrating compliance with E-Verify requirements . All subsequent violations will result in the suspension of the employer's state employment license for 10-30 days and the state must verify the work authorization status of the employer's employees. If an employer has not been found in violation of EVerify requirements in the past three years, a violation will be treated as a first occurrence . Employers may also be subject to licensing penalties associated with the employment of unauthorized workers. Tennessee HB 1378 2011 Summary:All public employers and all private employers with six or more employees are required to use E-Verify (to be phased in by 2013). Penaltiesfor noncompliance:First violation results in a $500 fine. Second violation results in a $1000 fine. All subsequent violations will result in a $2500 fine. Additionally, employers must pay a $500 fee for each employee whose work authorization was not verified properly on the first offense, an additional $1000 per employee on the second offense, and an additional $2500 per employee for each subsequent offense. If an employer fails to certify compliance within 60 days, the employer's business license will be suspended until the employer submits evidence of compliance. HB 1830 2016 Summary:Amends the Tennessee Lawful Employment Act and requires private employers with 50 or more employees to use EVerify, beginning Jan. 1, 2017. Removes a loophole that allowed employers to avoid using E-Verify as long as they retained copies of certain employee documentation. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:Adds a $500 per day of noncompliance penalty to previous penalty scheme. Texas Executive 2014 Summary:Requires state agencies and their contractors and Order subcontractors to use E-Verify . Encourages agencies not under RP-80 the direction of the governor to use E-Verify and to require contractors to use E-Verify to verify employment eligibility of employees and subcontractors . Penaltiesfor noncompliance:None. AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000366 24 2015 Summary:Requires all state agencies and state institutions of higher education to use E-Verify beginning in September 1, 2015 . Penaltiesfor noncompliance:None. Utah SB81 2008 Summary:Public employers, including contractors and subcontractors, must use E-Verify, the Social Security Number Verification Service, or other similar reliable, including third-party, employment eligibility verification program. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:No specified penalties for noncompliance. Creates a safe harbor by exempting employers using E-verify on or after July 2009 from liability, investigation, or lawsuit arising from this section. 2010 Summary:Private employers who employ 15 or more employees must use E-Verify, the Social Security Number Verification Service, or other similar reliable, including third-party, employment eligibility verification program. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:No specified penalties for noncompliance. Creates safe harbor for private employers from civil liability under state law in cases of unlawful hiring of an unauthorized alien or refusal to hire an individual pursuant to their E-Verify status indication. Virginia HB737 2010 Summary:State agencies must use E-Verify beginning Dec. 1, 2012 . Penaltiesfor noncompliance:None. Summary:State contractors with more than an average of 50 HB 2011 1859/5B 1049 employees for the previous 12 months entering into a contract in excess of $50,000 with any state agency must use E-Verify beginning Dec. 1, 2013. Penaltiesfor noncompliance:Any employer that fails to comply with these requirements shall be debarred from contracting with an agency of the Commonwealth for up to one year. Debarment period ceases upon an employer's enrollment and use of E-Verify. West Virginia 2012 Summary:All employers that have employees working on the grounds or in buildings of the Capitol Complex area, or have access to sensitive or critical information, must use E-Verify . Penaltiesfor noncompliance:None. updated: October AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000367 25 Bob Dane Wednesday,November 29, 2017 2:43 PM Law, Robert T RE:CISOmbudsmanSeventhAnnual Conference From: Sent: To: Subject: Thanks Rob. I'll be attending. Bob Dane Executive Director Federation for American Immigration Reform 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 330 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 328-7004 I FAIRus.org ~ FAIRGLARITY, INSIGHT& EXPERTISE CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This messag a is intended only tor the use- of the in-dividual or e11tityto which it is addressed, and may contair1 iflformatior1 that is p-iivileged, confidential and exemptfromdisclosureunderapplicablelaw. From:Law, Robert T [mailto:robert.t.law@uscis.dhs.gov] Sent:Tuesday,November 28, 2017 12:07 PM To: Bob Dane;DaleWilcox Subject:CISOmbudsmanSeventhAnnual Conference Hey Bob/Dale, Flaggingfor your attention next week's CISOmbudsman'sconference. It would be great to have a FAIR/IRLIpresencesince AILA has been heavily promoting. Registrationwill likely be cut off on Dec.6, the day before the Dec.7 conference. The agenda is hits two major issuesof interest: E-Verifyand H-lB. Happyto discussfurther. -Rob 202-272-8409 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000368 26 Homeland Secur1ty 11 Cilizensli.:ip, a,nd.ImmigrafiorrSer:vkesOmbudsman Nov;emher28, 2017 SeventhAnnual Conference Washington,D.C. December7, 2017 9:00 am - 4:30 pm Dear Stakeholder: Pleasejoin the Office of the Citizenshipand ImmigrationServicesOmbudsmanfor our SeventhAnnual Conferenceon December7, 2017 at the National Archives in Washington,D.C. The conferencewill feature keynote speakersin the morning session,includingActing Secretaryof HomelandSecurityElaine Duke and U.S. Citizenshipand Immigration ServicesDirector L. Francis Cissna, and panel discussionswith federal officials and public stakeholdersin the afternoon. This year's topics include the H-lB visa program,naturalization,backgroundchecks, E-Verify,and Transformation. The conferenceagenda is availablehere. The Ombudsman's Office, createdby Congressin the Homeland SecurityAct of 2002, assists individualsand employersencounteringdifficultieswith U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices. In additionto our work on individualcases, we also make AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000369 27 recommendationsto addresssystemicissues in the deliveryof citizenshipand immigrationservices. To learn more about our office,please visit our website. Pleaseregister for this conferenceusing the link below. Registrationis free! Sincerely, Officeof the Citizenshipand ImmigrationServicesOmbudsman U.S. Departmentof HomelandSecurity www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman The Ombudsmanhosts a monthlypublic teleconferenceseries to share informationabout relevant topics and provide an opportunityto hear feedbackfrom the communityabout issues relatedto the deliveryof immigrationbenefits and services. D Stay Connected: Follow CJS Ombudsmanon Facebook IC SHARE Updateyour subscriptions,modifyyour passwordor e-mail address,or stop subscriptionsat any time on your SubscriberPreferencesPage. Youwill need to use your e-mailaddressto log in. If you have questionsor problemswith the subscriptionservice,please contact subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com. This serviceis providedto you at no chargeby the U.S. Departmentof HomelandSecurity. PrivacyPolicy I GovDeliveryis providingthis informationon behalf of U.S. Departmentof HomelandSecurity,and may not use the informationfor any other purposes. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000370 28 DHS-1 8-0361 and 18-0694-A-000371 29 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: ElizabethHohenstein Thursday, December28, 2017 9:02 AM Law, Robert T OPTComment IRLIPublic Comment_lCEB-2015-0002_wExsA&B_ll-18-2015.pdf ElizabethHohenstein Staff Attorney ~ ~ ·:.l·( ·.'N.'.REFORM lKLl ;:;;~,r INS'JlTIJTE ...:. .~.M.•Ml ·<.",,lli\'l ... 25 MassachusettsAve. NW, Suite 335 Washington, DC20001 Tel: (202} 232-5590 Fax:(202) 464-3590 www.irli.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmissionis covered by the ElectronicsCommunicationsPrivacyAct, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521,and is legally privileged.This transmission,and any documentsattached,may contain confidentialinformationbelongingto the sender which is protectedby the Attorney-ClientPrivilege,Work Product Doctrineand/or other privileges.The informationis intendedonly for the use of the individualsand/or entities named above. If you are not the intendedrecipientof this message,you may not read, disclose,forward, print, copy or disseminatethis information. If you have receivedthis communicationin error, please reply and notify the sender (only), or call (202) 232-5590,and destroy and/or delete this message.Unauthorizedinterceptionof this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000372 30 ~ --IRL'i: IMMIGRATIONREFORM LAWINSTITUTE 25 MassachusettsAvenue, NW Suite335 Washington, DC 20001 202 232 5590 202 464 3590 (fax) Boardof Directors Hon. ElizabethA Hacker Hon. MahlonF. Hanson JeffreyR. Parkin DanielA. Stein ExecutiveDirector and GeneralCounsel Dale L. Wilcox SeniorCounsel MichaelM. Hethmon Of Counsel Kris W. Kobach John M. Miano November 18, 2015 KatherineWesterlund Policy Chief (Acting) Studentand ExchangeVisitor Program U.S. Immigrationand Customs Enforcement 500 W. 12th StreetN.W. Washington,DC 20536 REF: OHS DocketNo. ICEB-2015-0002,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:Improvingand ExpandingTrainingOpportunitiesfor F-1 NonimmigrantStudentswith STEMDegreesand Cap-GapRelief for All EligibleF-1 Students Public Commentof ImmigrationReformLaw Institute,Inc. Dear Chief Westerlund: The Immigration Reform Law Institute, Inc. ("IRLI") submits the following comments to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") in opposition to the subject Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM"), as published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2015. See 80 F.R. 6637663404. IRLI is a nonprofitpublic interestlawfirm working to end unlawfulimmigrationand to set levels of legal immigrationthat are consistentwith the national interest. IRLI is a non-profit public interest law organizationthat exists to defend the rights of individual Americans and their local communities from the harms and challengesposed by mass migration to the United States, both lawful and unlawful,to monitor and hold accountablefederal, state, or local government officials who undermine, fail to respect, or comply with our national immigration and citizenship laws, and to provide expert immigration-related legal advice, training, and resources to public officials, the legal community, and the general public. IRLI is the only entity of its kind in the U.S. which focuses exclusively on the interests of U.S. citizens and their communitiesin the developmentof sound immigrationpolicy and law. Upon review, IRLI has concludedthat the proposedrule is unlawful,because IRLI is a supporting organizationof the Federation for AmericanImmigration Reform. AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT (1) Congress delegated authority to define periods of employment for F-1 nonimmigrantsto the TreasuryDepartment,not DHS; DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000373 31 Board of Immigration Appeals DHS Docket No. ICEB-2015-0002 November 18, 2015 Page 2 (2) Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") § 214(a)(l) does not delegate unlimited agency authority over conditions of admission for nonimmigrants to DHS; (3) DHS cannot claim discretionary authority over post-completion student employment from INA§ 10l(a)(l5)(F) or§ 274A(h)(3), alone or in combination; (4) the NPRM is procedurally and substantively arbitrary and capricious; and (5) the Optional Practical Training ("OPT") program described in the NPRM would impermissibly facilitate prohibited employment-related discrimination on the basis of alienage and national origin. Our comments focus on the lack of a basis in law for the agency's claims of "broad authority" to implement the proposed rule, see 80 FR 63379-63381. NPRM ICEEB-2015-0002 is infected throughout with unlawful proposals. IRLI also endorses and adopts the policy-focused objections to the NPRM in public comments submitted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and John Miano, Esquire. (1) Congress delegated authority to define periods of employment for F-1 nonimmigrants to the Treasury Department, not DHS. DHS claims in the NPRM summary that since 1947, Congress has "acquiesced" to its evolving interpretation of whether an alien student was authorized under the terms of an F-1 visa to be employed full-time by a third party after graduation from a full-time course of study. 80 F.R. 63379-80. DHS is wrong. Congress "has directly addressed the precise question at issue." Mayo Fdn. for Medical Educ. & Research v. US., 562 U.S. 44, 53 (2011). The NPRM never mentions or references the detailed applicable laws governing the Federal Insurance Contributions Act ("FICA"), Federal Unemployment Tax Act ("FUTA"), or Social Security withholding. These statutory requirements in Title 26 (and Title 42) constitute a comprehensive congressional scheme to which DHS must defer when implementing practical training regulations for F-1 nonimmigrants. The proposed agency policy authorizing graduates on F-1 visas to work full-time while exempt for FICA withholding directly conflicts with the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"), the Social Security Act ("SSA"), and Supreme Court precedent. By unilaterally expanding the definition of a "student" to include both recent and former nonimmigrant college graduates employed full-time by any entity other than the sponsoring academic institution, the DHS NPRM would unlawfully exempt both the AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000374 32 Board of ImmigrationAppeals DHS Docket No. ICEB-2015-0002 November 18, 2015 Page 3 alien and the employer out from payment of payroll taxes-thus directly penalizing the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. First, FICA requires covered employees and employers to pay taxes on all "wages" employees receive, 26 U.S.C. §§ 310l(a), 3lll(a), and defines "wages" to include "all remuneration for employment,"§ 312l(a). FICA then defines "employment"as "any service ... performed ... by an employee for the person employing him," 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b). FICA then excludes from taxation any "service performed in the employ of ... a school, college, or university ... if such service is performed by a student who is enrolled and regularly attending classes at [the school]." 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b)(10). Since 1951, the Treasury Department has construed the student exception to exempt from taxation students who work for their schools "as an incident to and for the purpose of pursuing a course of study." 16 Fed. Reg. 12474. Second, the Social Security Act, which governs workers' eligibility for benefits, contains a correspondingstudent exception materially identical to § 312l(b )(10). See 42 U.S.C. § 410(a)(10). Third, in 2004 the Treasury Department "determined that it was necessary to provide additional clarification of the term "student" as used in § 3121(b)(10), particularly with respect to individuals who perform "services that are in the nature of on the job training." 69 Fed. Reg. 8605 (2004). Pursuant to its statutory authority over the definition of employment and the classification of employees, the Treasury Department issued regulations providing that "[t]he services of a full-time employee"-which includes an employee normally scheduled to work 40 hours or more per week"are not incident to and for the purpose of pursuing a course of study." 26 CFR § 3 l .3121(b)(10)2(d)(3)(iii). The Department explained that this analysis "is not affected by the fact that the services ... may have an educational, instructional, or training aspect." Id. The rule offers as an example a medical resident whose normal schedule requires him to perform services 40 or more hours per week, and concludes that the resident is not a student. This interpretation was reviewed and upheld by the Supreme Court. See Mayo Foundationv. US., 566 U.S. 44, 49 (2011). Fourth, not only does the IRC govern and regulate the classification of employment by students in general, it also expressly governs and regulates service performed by an F-1 status nonimmigrant. 26 U.S.C. § 3121 (19).1 Subparagraph (19) excludes "service" by a foreign student-i.e., a nonimmigrant alien in F-1 status-from the definition of "employment," but only if the service "is 1 "service which is performed by a nonresident alien individual for the period he is temporarily present in the United States as a nonimmigrantunder subparagraph (F), (J), (M), or (Q) of section 101(a)(l 5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, and which is performed to carry out the purpose specified in subparagraph(F), (J), (M), or (Q), as the case may be;" AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000375 33 Board of Immigration Appeals DHS Docket No. ICEB-2015-0002 November 18, 2015 Page4 performed to carry out the purpose specified in subparagraph (F) .... " Section 3306(c)(l9) of Title 26 (the IRC), relating to exemption for FUTA, contains a similar exemption provision for aliens in a bonafide F-1 status. Fifth, the legislative history of these exemption provisions is integrally linked to the legislative history of the F, J and M visas as codified under 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15) of the INA. The immigration, employment and tax status of such aliens were systematically amended by Congress under the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Pub. L. No. 87-256, 75 Stat. 527 (1961). The Senate Joint Committee report on the Act unequivocally states that service subsequent to completion of a course of study is to be deemed employment, for which FICA, Social Security and FUTA withholding on such compensation paid to F-1 visa-holders would henceforth be required: Section 110 (e) [of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961] amends section 3121 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code-relating to the definition of employment for purposes of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA)-and section 210 (a) of the Social Security Act. Nonresident aliens are now subject to the 3-percent FICA, or social security tax. Since they are temporarily in the United States, they scarcely have any expectation of realizing benefits from such a tax payment. Section 110 (e) exempts foreign students and exchange visitors from payment of FICA tax on amounts earned in performing services to carry out the purposes for which they were admitted, such as studying, teaching, or conducting research. If they are employed for other purposes. consequent payments would not be exempt. (This latter provision represents a modification of the similar sec. 110 (b) in the un-amended version of S. 1154.) Finally, the Social Security Act is amended specifically to deny social security benefits to those individuals, except insofar as they have contributed consequent to employment for purposes other than those governing their admission to the United States. "Section 110 (t) amends section 3306 (c) of the code, relating to the definition of employment for purposes of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act. This amendment would relieve employers of the obligation to pay Federal unemployment taxes on the same services that are exempted from FICA tax by the preceding section 110 (e)." S. Rep. No. 372, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 22 (1961), see also 1961-2 C.B. 395, 410 (I.R.S. 1961) (emphasis added). AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000376 34 Board of ImmigrationAppeals DHS Docket No. ICEB-2015-0002 November 18, 2015 Page 5 Read together, 26 U.S.C. § 312l(b)(l0), 26 U.S.C. § 312l(b)(l9), 26 U.S.C. § 3306(c)(l9), 26 U.S.C. § 3306(q),and 42 U.S.C. § 410(a)(10)long ago displacedthe extra-statutory"authority"now capriciouslyclaimedby DHS in the NPRM to authorize graduatesto engage in "employment"on Fl visas ''following completionof studies." While 8 U.S.C. § 1372 delegates operationof the SEVIS information-collectionprogram to DHS, see 80 F.R. 63380-81,no provision of SEVIS conflictswith or supersedes the controlling authority of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") to define the conditionsunder which tax-exempt"service" related to practical training performedby an alien in Fl status becomestaxable "employment."2 To the extent that the proposed rule authorizes full-time post-completion employment for an employer other than the sponsoring academic institution, while pertnitting the employer to exempt the alien from withholding obligations otherwise mandated by Congress, the proposed rule would constituteunlawful governmentaction under the AdministrativeProcedureAct ("APA"). 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). (2) INA§ 214(a)(1)does not delegate unlimitedagency authorityover conditionsof admission for nonimmigrantsto DHS. The NPRM summaryclaims that the "INA provides the Secretarywith broad authorityto determinethe time and conditionsunder which nonimmigrants,including F-1 students,may be admitted to the United States. 8 U.S.C. l 184(a)(l), INA section 214(a)(l)." 80 FR 63379. DHS's evocation of § 214(a), as authority for the claim that DHS can administrativelybestow employmentauthorizationon F-1 student visa holders despite the statutory requirement that such aliens may only be admitted for so long as they are engaged in a full-time course of study, cannot be supportedby referenceto the "broad authority [delegatedby Congress]to administerand enforcethe nation's immigrationlaws." See id. 2 To the extent it purports to authorize "in status" classification to all aliens in F-1 status who are "engagingin authorizedpractical training followingcompletionof studies," 8 C.F.R. § 214.2 (f)(5)(i)conflictswith the statutorylanguage of 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b)(10),26 U.S.C. § 3121(b)(19),26 U.S.C. § 3306(c)(l9), 26 U.S.C. § 3306(q),and 42 U.S.C. § 410(a)(10)and is thus unlawfullyin excess ofDHS agency authority,as are the proposed amendmentsto 8 C.F.R. § 214.2 in the currentNPRM. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000377 35 Board of Immigration Appeals DHS Docket No. ICEB-2015-0002 November 18, 2015 Page 6 A constitutional delegation of powers requires that Congress state a policy or objective for the President to execute and also that it establish a standard or "intelligible principle" that makes clear when action is proper. Star-Kist Foods, Inc., v. UnitedStates, 275 F.2d 472, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1959); Mast Indus. v. Regan, 8 C.I.T. 214, 222 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1984). In this case, while INA section 214(a) "authorizes" the Attorney General (now DHS Secretary) to condition admission to the United States of an alien "for such time and under such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe," it also mandates that all such regulations must "insure that at the expiration of such time or upon failure to maintain the status under which he was admitted ... such alien will depart from the United States." 8 U.S.C. § 1184(a)(l) (emphasis added). DHS regulatory authority over non-immigrant admissions under section 1184(a) is thus by no means purely discretionary, as incorrectly claimed in the NPRM, see 80 F.R. 63379. By its express terms the Secretary's regulatory authority may be exercised only to augment statutory conditions of admission, in order to "insure" that the alien will leave the United States once the terms of temporary admission have been completed. INA§ 214(a) thus constitutes a congressional restrictionof its delegation to DHS under 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(3) of generic discretionary authority to issue immigration regulations. INA§ 214(a) cannot be interpreted to delegate to the Secretary the power to waive, bypass or weaken this statutory standard in order to further a non-statutory policy objective, such as the goal of facilitating the marketing of U.S. university degree programs to foreign students announced in the subject NPRM. Similarly, the DHS claim of "broad authority to administer and enforce the nation's immigration laws" under 6 U.S.C. § 202, see 80 F.R. 63379, has twice been rejected by the Fifth Circuit, the only federal circuit court to assess § 202, and as a general principle by the Supreme Court. Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733, 760-761 (5th Cir. 2015) ("we do not construe the broad grants of 3 authority in 6 U.S.C. § 202(5), 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(3), or§ 1103(g)(2) as assigning unreviewable "decisions of vast 'economic and political significance' to an agency."); id., fn 90 (citing Util. Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2444 (2014) ("When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate 'a significant portion of the American economy,"' Brown & Williamson,529 U.S. at 159, 120 S. Ct. 1291, 146 L. Ed. 2d 121, "we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism. We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast 'economic and political significance."' Id. at 160.) The Fifth Circuit's recent decision affirming a preliminary injunction against implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents ("DAP A") program 3 "The Secretary ... shall be responsible for ... [e]stablishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities." AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000378 36 Board of Immigration Appeals DHS Docket No. ICEB-2015-0002 November 18, 2015 Page 7 collects extensive authority on the limits of the general authority of DHS, beyond which DHS affirmative action is arbitrary. See, e.g., Texas v. US., No. 15-40238 (5th Cir. Nov. 9, 2015), at 3839 ("The mere fact that a statute grants broad discretion to an agency does not render the agency's decisions completely unreviewable under the 'committed to agency review by law' exception unless the statutory scheme, taken together with other relevant materials, provides absolutely no guidance th as to how that discretion is to be exercised." Perales v. Castillo, 903 F.2d 1043, 1047 (5 Cir. 1990)); at 61-62 (reaffirming the applicability of Utility Air Regulatory Group, 134 S.Ct. at 2444 and Brown & WilliamsonTobacco Corp., 529, U.S. at 123)). (3) DHS cannot claim discretionaryauthority over post-completionstudent employmentfrom INA § 101(a){15)(F)or § 274A(h)(3),either alone or in combination. The NPRM summary asserts, "Federal agencies dealing with immigration have long interpreted section 10l(a)(l5)(F)(i) of the INA and related authorities to encompass on-the-job-training that supplements classroom training." 80 F.R. 63379 (citing 12 F.R. 5355, 5357 (Aug. 7, 1947) and 38 F.R. 35425, 35426 (Dec. 28, 1973)). This assertion is capriciously overbroad. Nowhere does the statutory definition of a student in the INA authorize or even suggest that it includes full-time employment for three years after completion of a course of study. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(f)(i). DHS is authorized to admit aliens as students subject to the following conditions: (1) The aliens must have a residence in a foreign country that they have no intention of abandoning; (2) they must be bonafide students; (3) they must be entering the United States temporarily; (4) they must be entering solely to pursue a course of study; and (5) that course of study must take place at an approved academic institution that will report when the alien terminates attendance. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(F)(i). These provisions unambiguously define a student as one who attends a specific, approved school. Id. In 1981, amendments to INA§ 101(a)(15)(F) restricted the locations in which aliens admitted in F-1 status could pursue "a full course of study." Section 2(a)(l) of the INA Amendments of 1981 amended former section 101(a)(15)(F) of the Immigration Act by striking out the existing phrase "a course of study at an established institution of learning or other recognized place of study in the United States," and substituting the phrase, "such a course of study at a college, university, seminary, conservatory, academic high school, elementary school, or other academic institution or in a language training program." Pub. L. No. 97-116, 95 Stat. 1611 (1981). Congress thus statutorily restricted agency authority to approve F-1-based service at an "other recognized place of study" that was not an "academic institution," at least a decade before the extra-statutory agency expansions of the OPT programs that followed the Immigration Act of 1990. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000379 37 Board of ImmigrationAppeals DHS Docket No. ICEB-2015-0002 November 18, 2015 Page 8 The restriction of eligibility for F-1 classificationto alien students who are enrolled in a full course of study at a recognized academic institution is consistent with statutes in other U.S. Code titles. Compare, 5 U.S.C. § 8101(17), 20 U.S.C. § 1070a-l(c), 26 U.S.C. § 3306(q), 30 U.S.C. § 902(g)(2)(C), 33 U.S.C. § 902(18), 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(7), 42 U.S.C. § 12511(46)(all defining a student as one who attends a school/ with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(5)(i) (DHS regulatory definition of F-1 student status adding the alternative "or engaging in authorized practical training following completionof studies" to the statutorydefinitionof student).5 By authorizingnon-student aliens to remain in the United States on student visas to work under a post-completionOPT program, the subject NPRM would exceed the agency's statutory authority to admit foreign students. § l 10l(a)(15)(F)(i). The NPRM summary further claims, "The Secretary also has broad authority to determine which individualsare "authorized"for employmentin the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)." 80 FR 63379. But DHS not only lacks the authority to allow aliens in F-1 status to remain in the United States absent a change or adjustmentin status, it also has not been delegatedthe authority to authorize graduatesto engage in "employment"on F-1 visas "followingcompletionof studies." In general, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a does not confer on DHS any authority to allow aliens to work. It merely prohibits employersfrom hiring unauthorizedaliens. See Guevarav. Holder, 649 F.3d 1086, 1095 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that there was "nothing in the statute [8 U.S.C. § 1324a] or administrativeregulation to provide for more" than "merely allow[ing] an employer to legally hire an alien (whetheradmittedor not) while his [adjustmentof status] applicationis pending."). The exclusion of those "authorized to be employedby ... the Attorney General" from the statutory definition of "unauthorized alien" simply makes the section work rationally with the rest of the 4 The only statutorydefinitionof student that IRLI has found which could be interpretedto extend to the post-completionperiod is 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(6)(Family educationaland privacy rights). This definitionappliesprovisions governingprivacy of student records to graduatesas well as current students. However, 8 U.S.C. § 1372(c)(2)expresslyexempts SEVISrecords of aliens in F, J and M status from FERPA privacy protections. 5 In its summaryof the pending "Washtech" litigation,DHS incorrectlyinsinuatesthat the U.S. district court did not rule on "whether the agency'sregulationis substantivelydeficientunder 5 U.S.C. § 706." 80 FR 63381;see also Wash.Alliance of Tech. Workersv. UnitedStates Dep't of HomelandSec., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105602*47-48 (D.D.C.Aug. 12, 2015). In fact, the only judicial ruling to date is that the DHS interpretationwas "not unreasonable."Id. The District Court "withholdsjudgment on the issue of whether the agency has marshaledsufficientevidence to support its [2008]rule." Id. at *46. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000380 38 Board of Immigration Appeals DHS Docket No. ICEB-2015-0002 November 18, 2015 Page 9 Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"). 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(3)(B). Other sections of IRCA contain seven specific mandatory directives for the Attorney General to authorize aliens without visas, but who are in the legalization process, to engage in employment. See IRCA § 201 ("Legalization") 100 Stat. 3397, 3399 (two), § 301 ("Lawful Residence for Certain Special Agriculture Workers") 100 Stat. 3418, 3421 (two), 3428. In the absence of the clause "or by the Attorney General" in§ 1324a(h)(3)(B), such aliens would have been authorized to work but it would be illegal for employers to hire them. See, S. Rep. 99-132, p. 43 ("An alien employed as a transitional worker and in possession of a properly endorsed such work permit or other documentation shall, for purpose of INA section 247A, be considered to be authorized by the Attorney General to be so employed during the period of time indicated on such documentation."). Nothing in the legislative history of IRCA or subsequent federal legislation regarding the employment of aliens supports DHS' proposed novel interpretation of§ 1324a. In the Washtechv. DHS, Civil No. 14-cv-00529 (D.D.C.) litigation, DHS has cited a Ninth Circuit opinion, Arizona Dream Act Coalitionv. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) in support of its interpretation. However, the Ninth Circuit Arizona Dream Act is directly contradicted on that point by another opinion, Guevara v. Holder, cited above. In Guevara,the Ninth Circuit held that there was "nothing in the statute [8 U.S.C. § 1324a] or administrative regulation to provide for more" than "merely allow[ing] an employer to legally hire an alien (whether admitted or not) while his [adjustment of status] application is pending." Id. at 1095. Finally, the Fifth Circuit has just rejected-in emphatic terms-the use of the "miscellaneous definitional provision expressly limited to § 1324a" by the Secretary to construe § 1324a(h)(3), as we also see in the NPRM, as a legal mechanism to allow him to grant lawful presence and work authorization to any illegal alien in the United States-an untenable position in the light of the INS's "intricate system of immigration classifications and employment eligibility." Texas v. US., No. 1540238, at 62. Similarly, the attempt in the NPRM to justify the extension of "duration of status" for F-1 students at 8 U.S.C. §l 10l(a)(15)(F)(i) to include three years of post-completion full-time employment, by resort to this now-discredited agency interpretation of § l 324a(h)(3), would be unlawful agency action in excess of statutory jurisdiction under the APA. 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(C). (4) The NPRM is procedurallyand substantivelyarbitraryand capricious. DHS has entirely failed to provide a reasoned explanation of why its published policy rationale for the proposed rule has so fundamentally changed from that provided for the 2008 NPRM that it now replaces. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000381 39 Board of Immigration Appeals DHS Docket No. ICEB-2015-0002 November 18, 2015 Page 10 An agency must show on the record that it has satisfied its obligation to supply a reasoned analysis when it departs from past policy. Comitede Apoyo a las TrabajadoresAgricolas v. Perez, 774 F.3d 173, 187 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D)). Without such analysis in the record, a reviewing court may conclude that an agency has taken action without complying with procedures required by law. Id. When making a shift in policy, an agency "must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a 'rational connection between the facts found and the choice made."' Motor VehicleMfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. US., 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). Federal courts will set aside an agency's action as "arbitrary and capricious" if the agency does not provide a "reasoned explanation" for its change in course. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 534-35 (2007); Nat'! Cable & Telecomms.Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005) (holding that "unexplained inconsistency" in agency practice is a reason for holding a policy reversal "arbitrary and capricious" under the APA, unless ''the agency adequately explains the reasons for a reversal of policy''); see State Farm, 463 U.S. at 42-43.; see also CBS Corp. v. FCC., 663 F.3d 122, 145 (3d Cir. 2011). DHS justified the 2008 OPT Rule by asserting the need to provide labor to United States employers to remedy an alleged "critical shortage" oflabor. 73 F.R. 18944, 18947 (Apr. 8, 2008). DHS then used this illegitimate rationale to issue the 2008 OPT Rule in violation of the APA, as an "interim final rule," on the now discredited ground that "the ability of U.S. high-tech employers to retain skilled technical workers, rather than losing such workers to foreign business, is an important economic interest for the United States" that "would be seriously damaged" if "not implemented early this spring [of2008]." Id., at 18950. That rationale remains arbitrary because the NPRM fails to identify even a scintilla of evidence that the U.S. has since lost skilled technical workers to foreign business to the extent that any "important economic interest" has been "seriously damaged." The current NPRM provides a completely different but equally arbitrary justification for the proposed rule: "[T]he revisions proposed by this rule are intended to continue and further enhance the academic benefit of the STEM OPT extension, while protecting STEM OPT students and U.S. workers." 80 F.R. 63381. "DHS recognizes the substantial ... benefits provided by the F-1 nonimmigrant program generally, and the STEM OPT extension in particular... through the payment of tuition and other expenditures in the U.S. economy, as well as by significantly enhancing academic discourse and cultural exchange on campuses .... In addition to these general benefits, STEM students further contribute through research innovation, and the provision of knowledge and skills that help maintain andgrow ... important sectors of the U.S. economy." Id. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000382 40 Board of Immigration Appeals DHS Docket No. ICEB-2015-0002 November 18, 2015 Page 11 The NPRM summary provides no evidence of a measurable "academic benefit" other than increased income for U.S. institutions of higher education. However this benefit is irrelevant to the OPT program, where F-1 students do NOT pay tuition, at premium or standard rates, to the academic institution from which they received a STEM degree. Similarly, STEM OPT employment by definition does not and cannot, as proposed, provide "enhance[ ed] academic discourse and cultural exchange on campuses." In the NPRM DHS also fails to cite to any scientifically valid research documenting any research innovation that was actually achieved by any F-1 alien while in OPT STEM status. And finally but strikingly, the brazen bad faith of the agency regulators is on display in its claim that the OPT STEM program provides "knowledge and skills" to the U.S. economy, when the stated purpose of the current NPRM is purportedly to allow F-1 aliens the opportunity to acquire knowledge, skills, and experience, notably through occupational training pathways that are not open to similarly situated U.S. citizen STEM graduates. See 80 F.R. 63393 (the proposed regulation "will enhance ... the objectives of their courses of study ... through on-the-job-training that is often not available in their home countries."). The objectives of the NPRM conflict not only with the claimed objectives in the 2008 rule-now vacated by the district court in Washtech, see 80 F.R. 63381-but with the carefully balanced employment authorization scheme in the INA. The most important statutory goal with which the NPRMconflicts is to "protect against the displacement of workers in the United States," INS v. Nat'! Ctr. For Immigrants' Rights, 502 U.S.183, 194 (1991). A second is the INA's "primary purpose in restricting immigration is to preserve jobs for American workers." Id. INA § 212(a)(5)(A), designates as inadmissible "any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor" unless the Secretary of Labor-not DHS-has "determined and certified" that such employment will not adversely affect the employment, wages or working conditions of "workers in the United States similarly employed." 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A). The statute unambiguously links performance of labor by aliens with employment of U.S. workers. Nonimmigrant aliens who have already been admitted in F-1 status were exempted from labor certification only because, under the IRC and SSA provisions discussed above in Part (1), they were not admitted to perform such labor. F-1 status aliens who engage in post-completion OPT employment have thus "failed to maintain the nonimmigrant status in which the alien was admitted," making these aliens deportable. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(l)(C)(i). The NPRM is also substantively arbitrary because the agency has failed to consider essential and relevant factors in the explanation provided in the NPRM summary, in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (an agency action may be set aside if it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.''). An agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously if it "has relied AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000383 41 Board of ImmigrationAppeals DHS Docket No. ICEB-2015-0002 November 18, 2015 Page 12 on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanationfor its decisionthat runs counterto the evidencebefore the agency, or is so implausiblethat it could not be ascribedto a differencein view or the product of agency expertise." State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43; see also FEC v. Rose, 806 F.2d 1081, 1088 (D. C. Cir. 1986);Nazareth Hosp. v. Sec'y of HHS, 747 F.3d 172, 179 (3d Cir. 2014) ("Agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency offers insufficient reasons for treating similar situations differently."). The summaryof the ExecutiveOrder 12866/13563cost-benefitanalysis asserts that OPT workers to be coveredby the NPRM "will enhance... the objectivesof their courses of study ... through on-thejob-training that is often not available in their home countries." 80 F.R. 63393. However,nowhere in the NPRM has DHS provided any evidence or reference to expert authority indicating that such training is not availableoverseas,nor does it identify any mechanismin existing 8 C.F.R. § 214 or in the proposed amendments to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(±)or (g), to establish that the availability of home country practical training has even the slightest relevance to approval of a STEM OPT approval applicationby a Designated School Official ("DSO") or oversight and review of such employment by DHS. There is a similar complete lack of evidence or reference to expert authority in the NPRM for the claim that the duration of the proposed OPT extension period for STEM degree holders should be 24 months rather than a shorter period "due to the complexity and typical durations of research, development,testing and other projects commonlyundertaken in STEM fields." See 80 F.R. 63385. These two sweepingunsupportedgeneralizations,applied uncriticallyacross all nations world-widein the first instance and all degree levels and the very diverse set of STEM occupational fields and entities employing STEM-qualifiedpersonnel in the second, are a paradigm of capricious justification in federal rulemaking.6 The clearly arbitrary character of the agency's justification for the current STEM OPT extension regulations is due in significantpart to the failure of the agency to diligently consider the full range 6 The NPRM insinuatesthat the "general duration of projects to be pursued by studentson STEM OPT extensions"justifies the proposed rule, and points to work "often involvinga grant or fellowshipapplication,managementof grant money, focusedresearch-and publicationof a report." 80 F.R. 63385. However,these projects utilizingresearch associatesare more appropriatelyclassifiedas "curricularpractical training" ("CPT") because they are in almost all cases a direct extensionof the STEM curriculumin which the F-1 alien obtained his qualifying degree. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(l00(i) (definingCPT as '"'alternativework/study,internship, cooperativeeducation,or any other type of required internshipor practicumthat is offeredby sponsoringemployersthrough cooperativeagreementswith the school."). IRLI does not object to CPT or its currentregulatoryscheme. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000384 42 Board of ImmigrationAppeals DHS Docket No. ICEB-2015-0002 November 18, 2015 Page 13 of contemporaryresearch on the employmentof F-1 status aliens and its relation to the employment of H-lB alien specialty workers. This omission is particularly notable given the failure of DHS to adequately document a looming emergent loss of alien STEM workers in its NPRM issued in connection with the now-vacated 2008 OPT Rule. Had DHS consulted in advance with the American citizens adversely affected by the OPT program, as well as its alien beneficiaries,the agency could have avoided the problem of relying solely on sources funded by employersof cheap alien workersto justify the Rule. IRLI respectfully directs the agency's attention to two easily available annotated research bibliographiesthat are easily accessible on the internet: (1) AFL-CIO, Department for Professional Employees,Annotated H-JB and L-1 Visa Bibliography(October 2013), and (2) Norman Matloff, Universityof CaliforniaDavis Departmentof Computer Science,AnnotatedResearchBibliography: H-JB/Green Card/STEM Labor Shortage Issues (October 15, 2014). The bibliographies are attached as Exhibits A and B for the convenienceof the agency, which has repeatedly stated that it lacks the resources to fully perform its statutory mandates. However, such claims of institutional penury cannot exempt the agency from its rulemakingobligationsunder the APA. (5) The OPT program described in the NPRM would impermissibly facilitate prohibited employment-related discrimination on the basis of alienage and national origin by academic institutions and employers. DHS has requestedcommentson the feasibilityand effectivenessof proposals summarizedin Part G of the NPRM summary: Safeguarding US. Workers Through Measures Consistent With Labor Market Protections. 80 F.R. 63388-90. By allowing F-1 visa holders in post-completionacademic status-but not similarly situated United States citizens-to work for up to three years while exempt from withholdingof FICA, FUTA and Social Securitytaxes, and also providing such aliens-but not United States citizens-eligibility for federally-mandated"mentoring" agreements as a required pathway to employment, any academic institution authorized by DHS to administer the proposed post-completion OPT programs would intentionally violate civil rights law prohibiting discrimination in the making of contracts, employment,and on-the-job training. 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a);42 U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(a),(d); 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(l)(A) and (B). Even ifDHS had absolute discretionaryauthority over the classificationof employeeswho are in F-1 status, and had undertaken a balanced and complete review of relevant factors, the proposed rule would still be unlawful under the APA because it would constitute an abuse of discretion,not in accordancewith law, in excess of statutoryjurisdiction and short of statutoryright. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A),(C). AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000385 43 Board of ImmigrationAppeals DHS Docket No. ICEB-2015-0002 November 18, 2015 Page 14 First, as explained in Part (1), a United States citizen who has completed a STEM degree recognized by the proposed rule is barred by law from eligibility for the exemptions from payroll taxation available by law to a an alien whose duration of F-1 status is defined and extended pursuant to the proposed 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(5)(vi). Second, that United States citizen is also ineligible per the NPRM to apply to STEM employers for practical training employment under a Mentoring or Training Plan. Proposed 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C)expressly requires that an agreementin the form of a contract be executed on Form I-910 (Mentoring and Training Plan) by (1) an F-1 alien applying for OPT STEM employment, (2) the proposed employer, and (3) the DSO, on behalf of the academic institution. See§ 214.2(f)(I0)(ii)(C)(4)-(7). Per its plain text, the § 1981 prohibition on discrimination in making contracts applies to "all persons," which necessarily includes both citizens and non-citizens. 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a); see also Grahamv. Richardson,403 U.S. 365, 375, (1971). Supreme Court and circuit court precedent hold that § 1981 (1) protects "all persons" against discrimination, (2) applies to U.S. citizens, and (3) protects against so-called "reverse discrimination." McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 274, 285 (1976); Takahashiv. Fish and Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410,419 (1948); Sagana v. Tenorio,384 F.3d 731, 738 (9th Cir. 2004). Section 1981 does not include the term "alien." But courts recogmzmg prohibited discriminationhave used the terms "alienage" and "citizenship"interchangeably. See, e.g., Jimenez v. ServiciosAgricolasMex, Inc., 742 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1985-86(D. Ariz. 2010); Martinezv. Partch, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4162, 2008 WL 113907, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 9, 2008) (using "citizenship discrimination" and "alienage discrimination" interchangeably); Chacko v. Tex. A&M Univ., 960 F. Supp. 1180, 1191 (S.D. Tex. 1997) ("section 1981 must be construed to prohibit private discriminationon the basis of citizenship."); Cheungv. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 248, 251 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ("The Supreme Court has held that section 1981 also prohibits states from enacting laws which discriminateon the basis of citizenship."). Where the OPT employer would be a state agency or entity, such as a public research or higher education institution, employment of a STEM graduate in F-1 status would be barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides United States citizen students and employers who must pay payroll taxes on STEM graduates who are not in F-1 status with a remedy for a violation of § 1981 liability. Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 735 (1989). Other features of the proposed rule that are indicative of discriminatory intent are the Cap-Gap rule changes, which repeat the proposal under the 2008 NPRM to allow "benching" of F-1 OPT AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000386 44 Board of Immigration Appeals DHS Docket No. ICEB-2015-0002 November 18, 2015 Page 15 beneficiaries who are awaiting approval for a change of status to H-1B, see 80 F.R. 63391, and the proposal to expand OPT eligibility to former graduates who have not left the United States, see 80 F.R. 63388. The hiring scheme for F-1 aliens with STEM degrees proposed in the NPRM would also constitute immigration-related employment discrimination under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(l)(A) and (B). Per proposed 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C)(4)-(7), the Form I-910 applicant and the entire proposed hiring process and conditions for employment for F-1 status STEM graduates would exclude United States citizens and aliens admitted for lawful permanent residence. The proposed OPT STEM hiring and extension process would also constitute national origin discrimination, as the program is clearly intended to benefit aliens whose nationality is among one of the nations for which employmentbased immigrant visas are continuously oversubscribed, in particular nationals of India and China. In conclusion, this public comment warns the agency that the proposed OPT extension rule, in its present form, cannot possibly be found to comply with controlling federal law. Respectfully Submitted, Immigration Reform Law Institute, Inc. Michael M. Hethmon IRLISenior Counsel Dale L.Wilcox IRLIExecutive Director and General Counsel AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000387 45 IRLIEXHIBITA Annotated ResearchBibliography: H-lB/Green Card/STEM Labor Shortage Issues Norman Matloff * Department of Computer Science University of California, Davis ihttp: //heather. cs. ucdavis. edu/matlof f. htmll October 15, 2014 This document summarizes what I regard as the major research papers on the issues of the H-lB work visa, employersponsored green cards and claims of a STEM labor shortage. Here I use the word major to mean either that the paper is widely cited or has important findings, not necessarily that I find the analysis to be valid. Some points to keep in mind: • Funding of a research project matters. organizations with industry financial tiesfi Some of the research projects listed below are sponsored by • Peer review matters. Generally speaking, research that has been vetted by peer review in a professional journal has much more validity than do unpublished working papers. However, journal papers can be flawed too, and working papers often have valuable, if yet unconfirmed, insights. The bibliography follows. 1. Bound (2006): J. Bound, S. Turner and P. Walsh, Internationalization of U.S. Doctorate Education, in Science and Engineering Careersin the United States: An Analysis of Markets and Employment, R. Freeman and D. Goroff (eds.), University of Chigao Press, 2006. Found that the foreign students doing STEM graduate work at U.S. universities tend to attend weaker, less prestigious institutions: In physics, biochemistry, and chemistry much of the expansion [from the mid-1980s to mid90s] in doctorate receipt to foreign students occurs at unranked programs or those ranked outside the top 50; the growth in foreign students in engineering is distributed more evenly among programs. Among students from China, Taiwan, and South Korea growth has been particularly concentrated outside the most highly ranked institutions. 2. Brown (1998, 2009). Clair Brown et al, 1998, The PerceivedShorage of High-Tech Workers, unpublished working paper, 1998, and Clair Brown and Greg Linden, Chips and Change,MIT Press, 2009. This paper explained the link between the foreign student influx in engineering and the stagnant engineering wages. The 2009 book noted, as did the 1989 NSF document (see Weinstein (1998) below), that this is especially true at the graduate level, and that employers welcome the chance to pay lower wages at that level. *Interested readers should read my short synopsis of H-lB issues, at §p: //heather. cs. ucdavis. edu/h1b10min.html\ and my collection of quotes of industry people and others on this topic, at iiittp:7/heather. cs. ucdavis. edu/fiibquotes .litmil. 1 I have not sought, nor have I received, funding for any of my H-lB research papers. AMLHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000388 PVERSIGHT 1 46 3. Costa (2012): Daniel Costa., STEM Labor Shortages? Microsoft Report Distorts Reality on Computer Occupations, EPI, 2012fi Excellent exposure of Microsoft PR claims on H-lB. 4. Freeman (2005):. Richard Freeman, Does Globalizationof the Scientific/Engineering Wotkfotce Threaten U.S. Leadership?,unpublished NBER Working Paper No. 11457, June, 2005. Finds that STEM professionals lost ground in the 1990s relative to those in the law and medicine, due to the foreign STEM influx. 5. Hanson (2014): Gordon Hanson and Matthew Slaughter. Facts and FallaciesaboutHigh-SkilledImmigration and the American Economy, CompeteAmerica report, 2014. This research is funded by an industry consortium, CompeteAmerica. It has the usual flaws, such as not accounting for skill sets (see Lofstrom (2012) below). The authors concede the point made by Salzman et al (see Salzman (2013) below) that STEM wages have been flat, thus contradicting the claim of a labor shortage. But they contend that the reason wages are flat is that some work is done by foreign workers, abroad or in the U.S. If that were truly the case (I disagree), then why do the authors say we need more H-lBs? Flat wages would say we have enough already, if not too many. The authors also state that although STEM wages have remained flat, non-STEM wages have fallen. This is obfuscating the issue; lack of rising wages means lack of a shortage, period. 6. Hart (2009): David M. Hart, Zoltan J. Acs, and Spencer L. Tracy, Jr., High-techImmigrant Entrepreneurship in the United States, SBA report, 2009. Finds a lower rate of immigrant tech entrepreneurship than do other researchers. Most interesting is the breakdown by national origin. Even though 64% of the tech H-lBs are from India, only 16% of the important immigrant tech entrepreneurs have come from India. I am not advocating that the H-lB program favor workers from certain countries, but Hart's findings do suggest that current H-lB policy is not generally selecting the most promising workers. This meshes with my own findings (see Matloff ( 2013b) below). 7. Hira (2007): Ronil Hira, OutsourcingAmerica's Technologyand Knowledge Jobs: High-Skills Guest Worker Visas Are Currently Hurting Rather Than Helping Keep Jobs at Home, EPI, 2007. Showed that, contrary to the industry threat, "If we can't hire enough H-lBs, we'll be forced to ship the work abroad," the H-lB and L-1 programs are often used to facilitate sending work abroad. (I would add, though, that whether a job is sent overseas or a worker is brought here from abroad, that is one fewer job available to Americans. H-lB is not "better" than offshoring in terms of tech jobs for Americans.) 8. Hunt (2009, 2011) Jennifer Hunt, Which Immigrants Are Most Innovative and Entrepreneurial?,Working Paper 14920, 2009. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009, and same title, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 417457, 2011. The working paper is the more informative version, as the author was asked to remove H-lBs from the analysis in the final published version. The author found that, relative to comparable Americans, the H-lBs are paid less, and they file fewer patent applications per capita-E]In the case of patents, the result also is true when restricted to the former foreign students, the industry's prized group. 2 Several papers listed here are published by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a labor-oriented organization. EPI does not generally fund research other than its own internal projects. As far as I know, none of the works here had EPI funding. EPI is an interesting special case in another sense. Though EPI does not have a journal, its published papers are peer-reviewed. My own EPI paper, Matloff (2013b), underwent the most rigorous scrutiny I've ever experienced in all my years in academia. 3 The author published an earlier paper on patenting that was more favorable to H-lBs, but this was not on a per-capita basis. AMLHICAI\J DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000389 PVERSIGHT 2 47 9. ITAA (1997): Stuart AndersonE] Help Wanted: The IT Workforce Gap At the Dawn of a New Century, Information Technology Association of American, 1997. This report by an industry lobbying organization played a key role in Congress' near-doubling of the H-lB cap in 1998. As such, one passage is especially revealing: Training employees in IT would seem to be a win-win for both worker and employer. And often that is the case. However, extensive training creates other issues. "You take a $45,000 asset, spend some time and money training him, and suddenly he's turned into an $80,000 asset," says Mary Kay Cosmetics CIO Trey Bradley. That can lead to another problem. New graduates trained in cutting edge technologies become highly marketable individuals and, therefore, are attractive to other employers. It is clear that Bradley is not willing to pay the salaries paid by other firms. The ITAA was claiming at the time that qualified IT workers were in short supply, and training in new skills took too long, so that the industry had to resort to hiring H-lBs. Yet Bradley's remark shows that the main issue is money, not available workers and not time to learn a new tech skill. Note that Matloff (2003) discusses the issue of skill-learning time in depth, showing it is not an important issue with quality workers. 10. Kerr (2010: William Kerr and William Lincoln, 2010, The Supply Side of Innovation: H-lB and Ethnic Innovation, Journal of Labor Economics,Vol. 28, No. 3. Finds that the more Chinese and Indian H-lBs come to the U.S., the larger the number of patent applications filed by ethnic Chinese and Indians. This says little, almost a tautology. The authors also find some evidence of a possible small crowding-in effect on Americans. 11. Kerr (2014): Sari Pekkala Kerr, William R. Kerr, and William F. Lincoln, Skilled Immigration and the Employment Structures of U.S. Firms. Journal of Labor Economics (forthcoming, 2014). Takes a firm-level point of view, exploring relations between the numbers of immigrant skilled workers at a firm and various other job numbers at the firm. From the paper's Conclusion section: "We find consistent evidence linking the hiring of young skilled immigrants to greater employment of skilled workers by the firm, a greater share of the firm's workforce being skilled, a higher share of skilled workers being immigrants, and a lower share of skilled workers being over the age of 40...there is limited evidence connecting actual departures of workers to the hiring of young skilled immigrants ... [the analysis here] suggests that departure rates for older STEM occupations may be higher." Note that this stops short of the "H-lBs create new jobs" claims made by the industry. And while it does mildly support my own findings that one of the primary uses of the H-lB program is to avoid hiring older Americans, I am very hesitant to embrace this paper. First, much of the analysis relies on a controversial statistical technique known as instrumental variables,which even proponents of the method concede can be difficult to do properly. Second, the analysis concerns only workers who are already at a firm, rather than who is hired from the applicant pool in the first place, and thus is unable to address the question of whether H-lBs are hired instead of Americans. Third, while it examines the impact of hiring skilled immigrant workers, it does not look at the impact of hiring skilled American workers; my EPI paper on the quality of H-lBs would suggest that the American impact would be greater than the immigrant impact. 12. Lofstrom (2012): Magnus Lofstrom and Joseph Hayes, 2012, H-1Bs: How Do They Stack Up to U.S. Workers?, IZA Discussion Paper 6259, December. Research funded by an industry-related think tank PPICE] presented in a pro-immigration forum (IZA). Many factual errors, e.g. a statement that employers must give hiring priority to Americans over H-lBs. Finds that the H-lBs are paid at least as much as the Americans, and possibly slightly more. 4 Ar 5 The report is shown without naming an author, but Anderson's authorship was later reported in the press. PP~C is fo ded by the Packard Foundation, which in turn is funded by Hewlett=Packard stock DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000390 PVERSIGHT 3 48 Major flaws: (a) Does not systematically take geography into account, which matters as wages vary widely by region. (b) Does not take tech skill sets into account; this matters, as the industry claims to hire H-lBs for their rare skill sets, which typically command around a 20% wage premium. In other words, this paper's wage figures are off by about 20%. (c) They look only at wages at the time of hire, thus failing to sample the H-lBs at times during which they are most underpaid, since H-lBs receive smaller raises than comparable Americans. 13. Matloff (2003): Norman Matloff, On the Need for Reform of the H-lB Non-immigrant Work Visa in Computer-Related Occupations (invited paper), University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Fall 2003, Vol. 36, Issue 4, 815-914. The most extensive peer-reviewed, published general research paper on H-lB and related issues to date (99 pages, 300+ footnotes). Extensive material on job vacancy rates, tech skill sets, age discrimination in tech, underpayment of H-lBs, etc. 14. Matloff (2006): Norman Matloff, On the Adverse Impact of Work Visa Programs on Older U.S. Engineers and Programmers (invited paper), California Labor and Employment Law Review (a publication of the California State Bar Association), August 2006. Demonstrates how the influx of H-lBs , who are overwhelmingly young, fuel the rampant age discrimination in the tech fields, starting at the "old" age of 35. An important facet is specialized skill sets, say Android programming. The industry acknowledges that there are many older programmers available for work, but that they have not updated their skill sets. This paper of mine (and the University of Michigan one cited above, Matloff (2003)) shows this to be a red herring. Most programmers love learning new technologies, and do so constantly. Of course there are countless different technologies, so no one knows them all, but rnost older programmers have had the experience of applying for a job for which they have an exact skills match, but then be quickly rejected, wtihout even a phone call. As former CEO (and current promoter of foreign-worker programs) Vivek Wadhwa has stated, "...even if the [older] $120,000 programmer gets the right skills, companies would rather hire the younger workers. That's really what's behind this." Again, the training issue is a red herring. Competent programmers can learn a new technology quickly, on the job, without formal training. The industry has always claimed that it can't afford this, as it needs to hire people who can "hit the ground running." Yet this was belied by the BusinessWeek report ( "Vancouver, the New Tech Hub," May 22, 2014) that Microsoft, Facebook and so on are training foreign programmers who they hire but temporarily "park" in Vancouver, BC while waiting for U.S. visas; see also ITAA (1997) above on this point. 15. Matloff (2013a): Norman Matloff, 2013, Immigration and the Tech Industry: As a Labour Shortage Remedy, for Innovation, or for Cost Savings?, Migration Letters. Using a multi-pronged approach, demonstrates that tech industry H-lBs are on average underpaid relatively to their actual market value. Note that this underpayment is in almost all cases done in full compliance with the law, exploiting gaping loopholes. See my University of Michigan paper above, Matloff (2003), for details, but I would note here that even Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a strident advocate of expanding the H-lB program, recognizes the problem, as noted in Computerworld,March 31, 2011: "Lofgren said that the average wage for computer systems analysts in her district is $92,000, but the U.S. government prevailing wage rate for H-lB workers in the same job currently stands at $52,000, or $40,000 less. 'Small wonder there's a problem here,' said Lofgren. 'We can't have people coming in and undercutting the American educated workforce'." Unfortunately, none of Lofgren's bills regarding H-lB would even come close to fixing the problem. Shows the flaws in widely-cited studies that claim the H-lBs are not underpaid. Shows that, to many employers, the immobile nature of H-lBs is even more attractive than saving on salary. See also Mukhopadhyay (2013) below. AMLHIC.,, I DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000391 PVERSIGHT 4 49 Explains how the U.S. tech workers, and the economy in general, are harmed by the H-lB and related programs. This is particularly true for American workers over age 35. For this reason, proposals in Congress that would grant automatic green cards to new foreign graduates of U.S. universities would be harmful, as the vast majority of the foreign grads would be young, exacerbating the age discrimination problem. Note carefully that the analysis here excluded the IT outsourcing firms. Thus it showed that the U.S. mainstream firms, i.e. the Intels and the Microsofts, do abuse the H-lB program too, albeit on a higher class of worker. This is important, since the industry claims that the main abuse of H-lB occurs with the outsourcing firms; on the contrary, the abuse occurs throughout the industry. See my Bloomberg View op-ed, "Stop Blaming Indian Companies for Visa Abuse," !http: l/www.hioombergv:i.ew.com/I larticles/2013-08-26/stop-blamin ,l?;-indian-companies-for-visa-abusel for more on this crucial point. 16. Matloff (2013b): Norman Matloff, Are Foreign Students the Best and Brightest? Data and Implications for Immigration Policy (invited paper), EPI, 2013. Analysis of the tech industry's most prized category of H-lBs - foreign students who graduated from U.S. universities and who then joined the U.S. workforce, in the fields of computer science and electrical engineering. Contrary to the industry's claim (that they never offer statistical evidence to support) that these HlBs are "the best and the brightest," this paper demonstrates that in the computer science field, the H-lBs are significantly weaker than the Americans, in terms of patenting, research and development work, quality of graduate institution and so on. In the case of electrical engineering, the foreign students are not superior to the Americans in any category, and are weaker in some categories. Cites other research with similar findings, notably Bound (2000) above and D. Goroff, eds., The Science and Engineering Workforce in the United States. Chicago, Ill.: National Bureau of Economic Research/University of Chicago Press, and the work of J. Hunt cited earlier in this document. As with my Migration Letters paper above, Matloff (2013a) the analysis here excluded the IT outsourcing firms. 17. Mithas (2010): S, Mithas, and H. Lucas, Are Foreign IT Workers Cheaper? United States Visa Policies and Compensation of Information Technology Professionals, Management Science, May, 2010. Severely handicapped by the natur e of its data set, mainly managers , marketers and the like, not mainstream engineers. The paper finds that H-lBs are paid 2.6% more than Americans, which the authors ascribe to the H-lBs having rare skill sets. But those skills command a premium of about 20% on the open market, so that the Mithas and Lucas findings actually show that the H-lBs are underpaid. The authors note, correctly, that due to lack of mobility, H-lB~ are underpaid relative to their true market value (consistent with the above), getting much larger salaries after attaining green cards. Attempts to quantify the difference. 18. Mukhopadhyay (2013): S. Mukhopadhyay and D. Oxborrow, Th e Value of an Employment-B ased Greert Card, Demography,February. 2013. Attempts to measure the underpayment to H-lBs due to their immobility while waiting for a green card. Some possible methodological issues. 19. NRC (2001): National Research Council, Building a Workforcefor the Information Economy, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2001. This study was commissioned by Congress. In a direct survey of a broad variety of employers, found that they admitted to paying H-lBs less than comparable Americans. The paper found no evidence of an IT labor shortage, and it found that older workers in IT face major obstacles in the labor market. 6 The ones being sponsored for green cards, i.e. those hired by the mainstream U.S. firms such as Intel and Microsoft. Ar DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000392 PVERSIGHT 5 50 20. Peri (2008): Giovanni Peri and Chad Sparber, Highly-Educated Immigrants and Native Occupational Choice, working paper, 2008, and Giovanni Peri, Immigration, Labor Markets and Productivity (essay), Giovanni Peri, Cato Journal (libertarian), Winter 2012. Unlike later papers by Peri and coauthors that were favorable to the H-lB program and others like it, these two are rather negative. The first paper finds that STEM immigrants displace Americans from the field, in that the STEM immigration results in fewer U.S. natives in STEM: ...we assess whether native~born workers with graduate degrees respond to an increased presence of highly-educated foreign-born workers by choosing new occupations with different skill content . ...we add to evidence from past studies by showing that [U.S.] native occupational adjustment in response to immigration occurs among highly-educated workers and occurs for those already employed. As the foreign-born share of highly-educated employment rises, native-born employees respond by moving to jobs with less quantitative and more interactive content. The wage consequences of immigration were not estimated in this paper. ..If the evidence from the labor market for less-educated workers is an indication, the occupational skill response among highly-educated natives is likely to mitigate their potential wage loss from highly-educated immigration . In that last paragraph, the authors seem to believe that the natives suffer at least some wage loss due to the displacement. This is consistent with the second paper listed above, in which Peri states that the immigrants make less than natives in the same jobs, and pitches this as a boon to employers. He devotes an entir e section of the paper to this point, titled "Lower Wages of Immigrants: an Opportunity for Cost Cutting and Job Cre.at ion": One common empirical finding in the literature is that immigrants are paid less than natives with similar characteristics and skills. This is in part due to the fact that many immigrants, because of less attractive outside options (such as having to go back to their home country), have lower bargaining power with the firm. In this case firms pay immigrants less than their marginal productivity, increasing the firms' profits. 21. Peri (2014): Giovanni Peri et al, 2014a, STEM Workers, HlB Visas and Productivityin U.S. Cities, working paper, and 2014, Closing Economic Windows: How H-1B Visa Denials Cost U.S.-Born Tech Workers Jobs and Wages During the Great Recession,Partnership for a New American Economy. AMLHI( Peri's online CV says that he has received $50,000 in research support from Microsoft, and the second paper is published by an industry political group, presumably accompanied by funding for Peri's research. These considerations may explain why there are issues here of lack of balance. Among other things, these papers violate fundamental academic principles by not citing any research critical of H-lB. Of the 42 references listed in the first paper's bibliography, there are none whatsoever that are negative about the visa program. One can certainly disagree with contrary findings, but they do have to be cited and explained. The 2014a paper is too technical to discuss in detail here, but I will summarize by saying that the paper uses controversial methodology (instrumental variables, as with the Kerr papers) and does not present convincing evidence that that methodology accounts for changing economic conditions. It also makes a number of questionable assumptions. The 2014b paper features a clever approach, but is overly simple. It is not detailed enough to account for the dynamics of the IT labor market. For example, suppose H-lBs are brought in to replace American IT workers in a certain firm. Typically the American managers remain, and since managers generally have higher salaries, the average salary of the Americans at the firm increaseseven though none of them individually gets a raise. The departure of the lower-wage Americans results in a higher mean for those who remain, thus incorrectly making it seem like the influx of H-lBs causes the Americans' to rise. At any rate, the findings of both of the Peri papers are starkly at odds with the broad consensus among economists that the H-lB program suppresses wages, by sheer supply-and-demand considerations. That was the conclusion of the Brown, Freeman, NRG and NSF studies cited above. Former Fed chief Alan Greenspan has stated repeatedly that H-lB suppresses IT wages. DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000393 PVERSIGHT 6 51 22. Rothwell (2013): Jonathan Rothwell and Neil G. Ruiz, H-1B Visas and the STEM Shortage, Brookings, 2013. Brookings has close financial ties to Microsoft and other firms in the industry. According to Brookings' Annual Report 2013, they had over $1,000,000 in donations from Microsoft, over $1,000,000 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, over $1,000,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (i.e. HP), over $500,000 from Qualcomm, over $250,000 from Google, etc . Brookings has often included a panelist from Microsoft in almost all of their presentations on H-lB, and their research on H-lB is the most cited work in the statements of the industry lobbyists and their allies. The authors make fundamental errors in statistical methodology.I] But this is rather minor compared to the fundamental flaws, the same as in Lofstrom (2012) above, since they use the same data set: (a) they do not take into account skill sets; (b) they do not account for geography; and (c) they look only at wages at the time of hire, thus failing to sample the H-lBs at times during which they are most underpaid, since H-lBs receive smaller raises than comparable Americans. 23. Salzman (2013): Hal Salzman, Daniel Kuehn and B. Lindsay Lowell, 2013, Guestworkersin the High-Skill U.S. Labor Market: an Analysis of Supply, Employment, and Wage Trends, EPI. In-depth analysis. Finds no general STEM labor shortage. Lack of a shortage is shown via flat wages. 24. Teitelbaum (2014): Michael Teitelbaum, 2014, Falling Behind?: Boom, Bust1 and the GlobalRace for Scientific Talent, Princeton University Press. Shows a long history of false claims of STEM labor shortages in the U.S., and analyzes the motivations for such claims. 25. Wadhwa (2007): V. Wadhwa et al, 2007, Intellectual Property, the Immigration Backlog, and a Reverse BrainDrain: America's New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part III, Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Survey of employers, in which HR departments were asked directly whether they were having difficulty in finding qualified engineers. The answer was that they were not having problems in this regard, and were not having to resort to offering hiring bonuses and so on. Wadhwa is an outspoken advocate of foreign worker programs, but even he has publicly stated that the H-lB is widely abused, saying for instance, "I know from my experience as a tech CEO that HlBs are cheaper than domestic hires. Technically, these workers are supposed to be paid a 'prevailing wage,' but this mechanism is riddled with loopholes." 26. Weinstein (1998): Eric Weinstein, How and Why Government, Universities, and Industry Create Domestic Labor Shortages of Scientists and High-Tech Workers, Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1998. This paper is of major import ance, analyzing an internal 1989 document in the National Science Foundation, the main science funding agency in the federal government. Th e NSF actively promoted the establishment of the H-lB program in 1990. The NSF document correctly forecast that the large influx of STEM foreign students would suppress wages at the PhD level. It also projected, again correctly, that the stagnant wages would drive American students away from STEM doctoral programs. In the latter light, note the more recent statement by Cisco Systems Vice Pr esident for Research Douglas Comer, "...a Ph.D. in computer science is probably a financial loser in both the short and long terms" (Science Careers,April 11, 2008). Note too the October 5, 2011 testimony to the House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement by Darla Whitaker of Texas Instruments. Ms. Whitaker stated that TI has plenty of engineering applicants with Bachelor's degrees, and thus does not hire foreign workers at that level. She stated TI does hire H-lBs, and sponsors them for green cards, at the Master's and PhD levels, where she says there is a shortage. When asked why the Americans don't go on to graduate school, Whitaker didn't have much to say, but the answer is clear from the above material. 7 For I those who know regression analysis, an example is that they treated their Education variable, coded 5/6/7 for Bachelot 's/Master's/PhD, rather than setting up two dummy variables . DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000394 PVERSIGHT 7 52 The NSF document also advocated giving automatic green cards to new foreign grads at U.S. schools, just as in current proposals in Congress. Since NSF also concedes that this would give American students disincentives to study STEM, the autogreen proposal is clearly ill-advised. 27. M. Zavodny (2011): M. Zavodny. Immigration and American Jobs, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and the Partnership for a New American Economy, 2011. Research funded by, and published by, industry organizations. Does a state-by-state comparison, "In states with more immigrants, are US natives more or less likely to have a job?", especially with respect ot H-lB. This is a highly unreliable approach, as states vary from one another by more than just the numbers of H-lBs, AMLHICAN DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000395 PVERSIGHT 8 53 IRLIEXHIBITB AnnotatedH-lB and L-1 Visa Bibliography AFL-CIO Introduction This annotatedbibliographycompilesrecent researchand articlesthat cover H-IB and L-1 guest worker visas. The bibliographytouchesupon the central areas of controversy, includingwages and workingconditions,the supplyof high-skilledworkers, and employer misuse of guest worker visas. General Departmentfor ProfessionaJEmpJoyees,AFL-CIO.Gamingthe System: Guest Worker Programsand Professionaland TechnicalWorkersin the US. Washington,DC: Departmentfor ProfessionalEmployees,AFL-CIO,2012. Comprehensivereview of guest worker programsin the United States, includingthe RIB, L-1, B, and OPT guest workerprograms. Marshall,Ray. Immigrationfor SharedProsperity:A Frameworkfor ComprehensiveReform Washington,DC: EconomicPolicy Institute,2009. Outlinesa frameworkfor comprehensiveimmigrationreform, includingthe creationof a professionalcommissionthat would assess and managefuture foreignlabor flows. Ray Marshallis professor emeritusand holder of the Audre and BernardRapoport CentennialChair in Economicsand Public Affairs at the LBJ Schoolof Public Affairs, Universityof Texas at Austin and served as secretaryof labor in the Carter administration. Marshall,Ray. Value-AddedImmigration:Lessonsfor the UnitedStatesfrom Canada, Australia, and the UnitedKingdom.Washington,DC: EconomicPolicy Institute, 2011. Thoroughanalysisof the immigrationsystemsin Canada,Australia,and the United Kingdom,which serves as a platformto suggestreformsto the U.S. immigrationsystem. Marshallnotes that "in highly competitiveglobalizedeconomies,marketsuntemperedby moderatingpolicies and institutionswill produce decliningreal incomesfor many-if not most-workers and unsustainableinequalitiesin incomeand wealth." Marshallmakes severalrecommendationsfor improvingthe H-IB visa program, includingadoptingand enforcinga clear standard,raising the wage standard,and increasingthe availabilityof data. Thibodeau,Patrick."H-IB at 20: How the 'Tech Worker Visa' is RemakingIT in America," Computerworld,November 17,2010. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9196738/H IB at 20 How the tech worker visa is remaking IT in America AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000396 54 Outlinessome of the effects H-lB visas have had on U.S. tech workers. Articletouches upon issues of offshoring,companieswhose workforce is largely made up ofH-1B visa beneficiaries,and the increaseduse of the OptionalPractical Trainingprogram to get around H-lB visa rules and fees. U.S. Departmentof HomelandSecurity.U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices. Chatacteristicsof HJB Specialty OccupationWorkers.Fiscal Year 2009 - 2012Annual Report to Congress.http://tinyurl.com/yzje8vg Report to congress,updated annually.Details a variety ofH-lB visa data, includingages, occupation,industry,country of origin, and educationlevel of H-1B beneficiaries. Wages and WorkingConditions Hira, Ron. Bridge to Immigrationor Cheap TemporaryLabor? The H-JB and L-1 Visa Programsare a Source of Both. Washington,DC: Briefing Paper #257, EconomicPolicy Institute,February 17, 2010. http://www.epi.org/publication/bp257/ Examinesthe question of why so few employerssponsor H-lB and L-1 workers for permanentresidencein the U.S. Identifiesnumerousexamplesof U.S. companies claimingthat temporaryvisa recipients are among the best and brightest workers who must be allowedto work in the U.S., but then failing to take steps to make them permanentresidents and thereby giving them more rights in the workplace. Hira, Ron. TheH-JB and L-1 VisaProgramsOut of Control.Washington,DC: BriefingPaper #280, EconomicPolicy Institute, October 14, 2010. http://www.epi.org/publication/bp280/ Outlinesthe major flaws in the H-lB and L-1 visa programs, includingabsenceof a labor market test, inadequatewage standards,and insufficientoversight.Employersrealize a significantwage savingsby utilizing H-1B visas-a practice that substantiallyharms U.S. workers. Matloff,Norman."How WidespreadIs the Use of the H-lB Visa for ReducingLabor Costs?" GeorgetownUniversityConferenceon Dynamicsof the S&E Labor Market. July 11, 2011. http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/SloanDCPaper.pdf Paper providesdetailed analysisof how H-lB beneficiariesare legallyunderpaid, includingnot using skill set or educationwhen determiningthe applicablewage. Employersalso save money hiring young H-lB beneficiariesin lieu of U.S. workers over the age of35 whose experiencemakes them more expensive.In effect, H-lB visas give employersaccess to a revolvingdoor of young, cheap workers. Dr. Matloff is a professor of computerscienceat the Universityof California,Davis. He blogs extensivelyon the issue of guest worker visas. See: http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/hl b.html AnnotatedH-lB and L-1 Visa Bibliography Page 2 of 5 DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000397 55 Skills Gap/LaborShortage Costa,Daniel.STEMLabor Shortage?MicrosoftReport DistortsReality about Computing Occupations.Washington,DC: Policy Memorandum#195, EconomicPolicy Institute, November 19, 2012. http://www.epi.org/publication/pm195-stem-labor-shortagesmicrosoft-report-distorts/ Impeachesa report by Microsoft Corporationthat claims an impendingtech worker shortage.Costa notes the flaws in the Microsoftreport, pointingout the supplyof tech workers comes from more than just bachelor's degree programs,the tech-worker unemploymentrate was higher than its historicalaverage, and wages in computer occupationsfor the last 10 years have been largely stagnant. Finegold,David. "The ModernIndentured Servants."RutgersUniversity,Schoolof Managementand Labor RelationsBlog, June 22, 2011, http://smlr.rutgers.edu/modernindentured-servants. Highlightsthe exploitivenature ofH-lB and L-1 visas, includinglow wages, lack of portability,and high unemploymentof U.S. workers.Finegoldsuggestsa strict test to determinethe existenceof a labor shortagebefore a visa is issued,raising the wage standards,and continuingassistanceto U.S. workerswho have been displacedby foreign trade or offshoring. David Finegoldis the former dean of the Rutgers Schoolof Managementand Labor Relations. Matloff,Norman.Are Foreign Students the 'Best and Brightest'?: Data and implicationsfor immigrationpolicy. Washington,DC: BriefingPaper #356, EconomicPolicy Institute, February28, 2013. http://www.epi.org/pub1ication/bp356-foreign-students-best-brightestimmigration-policy/ Debunksthe myth that foreigngraduatesof U.S. universitiesare exceptionallytalented. Found, throughrigorous analysis,that "former foreignstudentshave talent lesser than, or equal to their Americanpeers." Salzman,Hal, DanielKuehn, and B. LindsayLowell. Guestworkersin the High-Skill U.S. Labor Market:An analysisof supply, employment,and wage trends.Washington,DC: BriefingPaper #459, EconomicPolicy Institute,April 24, 2013. http://www.epi.org/publication/bp359-guestworkers-high-skilllabor-market-analysis/ Evaluatesthe strengthof the U.S. science,technology,engineering,and mathematics (STEM)workforce.Found that the U.S. has a sufficientsupplyof STEM workers.A large influx of guest workers will continueto keep IT wages low which reducesthe incentivefor U.S. workersto go into the field. Toppo, Greggand Dan Vergano."ScientistShortage?Maybe Not," USA Today,July 9, 2009. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-science-engineer-jo bs N.htm Questionsthe argumentthat the U.S. has a shortageof science,technology,engineering, and mathematics(STEM)professionals.Details unemploymentrates, graduationrates, and availablefundingfor researchin STEM fields. AnnotatedH-lB and L-1 Visa Bibliography Page 3 of 5 DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000398 56 Weissmann,Jordan. "The Myth of America's Tech-TalentShortage." TheAtlantic, April 2013. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-myth-of-americas-tech-talentshortage/275319/ Examinesthe supply and demand for tech labor and finds there is no evidenceof worker shortagesjustifying widespreadH-lB visa use. Weissmannnotes that in the past he supportedincreasingthe H-lB visa cap. However,upon further research he has reversed his position. GovernmentReview of Skilled Worker Visa Programs Sherrill, Andrew. "H-IB Visa Program:MultifacetedChallengesWarrant Re-examinationof Key Provisions."Testimonybefore the Subcommitteeon ImmigrationPolicy and Enforcement,Committeeon the Judiciary,House of Representatives.March 31, 2011. http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-11-505T GovernmentAccountabilityOffice testimonynotes several factors that limit the government's ability to fully enforce H-lB laws and regulations,includinglimited governmentpower to: screen employers,investigatewage and hour violations,and hold staffing companiesthat displaceU.S. workers accountable. U.S. Departmentof Homeland Security, Office oflnspector General.Implementationof L-1 VisaRegulations.Washington,DC: OIG-13-107,August 2013. http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2013/0IG13-107 Augl3.pdf Office oflnspector General (OIG) review of the L-1 visa program that examinesthe potential for fraud or abuse in the L-1 visa program.OIG identifieda number of problems that increasethe opportunityfor fraud and abuse in the L-1 visa program and made recommendationsfor improvement. United States GovernmentAccountabilityOffice. H-JB VisaProgram:ReformsAre Needed to minimizethe Risks and Costs of CurrentProgram. Washington,DC: GAO-11-26, January2011. http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-1 l-26 GovernmentAccountabilityOffice (GAO)review of the impact of the H-lB "cap on the ability of domesticcompaniesto innovate,while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged.''GAO found that demandfor new H-lB workers was driven by a small number of employers-mostly India-basedcompaniesthat specializein offshoring.GAO also found that "restrictedagencyoversight and statutorychangesweaken protectionsfor U.S. workers." EmployerMisuse of Guest Worker Visas Costa, Daniel.Abuses in the L-Visa Program: Underminingthe US. Labor Market. Washington,DC: Briefing Paper #275, EconomicPolicy Institute, August 13, 2010. http://www.epi.org/publication/abusesin the 1visa program undermining the us labor market/ AnnotatedH-lB and L-1 Visa Bibliography Page 4 of 5 DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000399 57 A comprehensivesurvey of the use and abuse of the L-1 visa. The report detailshow L-1 visas are used by employersto replaceU.S. workerswith temporaryvisa holders,but first requiringU.S. workersto train their foreignreplacements.Finally,the report makes recommendationsfor improvementof the L-1 visa. Herbst, Moira and Steve Hamm. "America's High-TechSweatshops,"Bloomberg BusinessweekMagazine, October 1, 2009. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09 41/b4150034732629.htm ProvidesdetailedaccountsofH-lB visa fraud, includingchargingillegal fees to recruited workers, employersnot paying promisedwages, and not paying visa beneficiarieswhen they are betweenprojects. The article also outlines egregiousabuse of guest workersby body shops-firms that specializein the supply oflabor. For more informationon professionaland technicalworkers, check DPE's website: www.dpeaflcio.org. The Department/or ProfessionalEmployees,AFL-CIO (DPE) comprises20 AFL-CIO unions representingoverfour millionpeople workingin professionaland technical occupations.DPE-affiliatedunions represent:teachers,collegeprofessors, and school administrators;library workers;nurses,doctors,and other health careprofessionals; engineers,scientists,and IT workers;journalists and writers,broadcasttechniciansand communicationsspecialists;peif orming and visual artists;professional athletes; professionalfirefighters;psychologists,social workers,and many others.DPE was charteredby the AFL-CIO in 1977 in recognitionof the rapidlygrowingprofessionaland technicaloccupations. Source: DPE ResearchDepartment 815 16th Street,N.W., ih Floor Washington,DC 20006 Contact: JenniferDorning (202) 638-0320extension114 jdorning@dpeaflcio.org October2013 AnnotatedH-lB and L-1 Visa Bibliography Page 5 of 5 DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000400 58 From: Sent: To: Subject: Bob Dane Thursday, February 22, 201810:17 AM Law, Robert T RE: I was wrong Extreme example below, but many other lesser ambiguities without it. Have to break with Charles Krauthammer's disdain for it. He often calls it a "pestilence" on grammar. Without Oxford comma: Oprah Winfrey finds joy in cooking her family and her dog. BobDane Executive Director Federation for American Immigration Reform 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 330 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 328-7004 I FAIRus.org ~ FAJRcLARIT'I , INSIGHT & EXPERTISE CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is. ii'ltended only for the use of the individual or e:itity to which it is addressed , and may contain information that is privileged, confidential a nd exempt from disc losure under applicable law, From: Law, Robert T fmailto:robert.t.law@uscis.dhs.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 10:16 AM To: Bob Dane Subject:RE: I was wrong Bob, I never thought this day would come! What inspired the change in position? From: BobDane[mailto:bdane@fairus.org1 Sent: Thursday,February15, 2018 6:02 PM To: Law,RobertT Subject: I was wrong Rob, Just so you know, after much deliberation of the issue and months of weighing your passionate arguments, I concede to the full utilization of the Oxford comma. Bob Dane Executive Director Federation for American Immigration Reform 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 330 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 328-7004 I FAIRus .org AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000401 59 -~ FAJRcv~lTY, 1NSIGH:r ll 5XF1iR'lflSE C~H!>.EITTIAL.ITY NOTIC~: This rnQ.,,ago •• laLonctool 001r lor !llo uoo rn !ho l~lvi,:Jual~ i:':R'llt!,'" ~(I Whlct'I il ·ISO(fd:cs:sed. [!iJld m;n:,, ,cootoi.~ i~lorm~tlorn 1h01i• prlvl(fl\le;d , oonl'r.:onliol ,!)If.id Cl;,i:i':fi'ij'}I frgm1;~e:IO~ufQ \Jlid·r.r~f);ltMb'l0= IIJvt. AMERICA\J PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000402 60 From: David Ray Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 1:36 PM To: Cc: Junge, Paul Subject: Re: Introduction Law, Robert T; Bob Dane Paul, nice meeting you as well and thanks Rob, for the introduction. This afternoon is a little bit crazy here but I'm available tomorrow afternoon at 2:30 or three for a call. Do either of those times work for you? Best, Dave Dave Ray, communications director, FAIR 202.368. 7872 Dray@fairus.org On Jun 18, 2018, at 2:29 PM, Junge, Paul wrote: RobThank you for the introduction. Bob/DaveGood to meet you both. I would look forward to coming by for an in person introduction or a meeting over coffee or lunch sometime soon. If either of you had time for a phone conversation - even this afternoon - that would be great. Paul Junge U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services External Affairs Directorate Department of Homeland Security Office: (202) 272-8046 I (b~~ Mobile:I Email: Paul.Junge@uscis.dhs.gov From:Law, Robert T Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 2:17 PM To: Bob Dane; dray@fairus.org Cc:Junge, Paul Subject: Introduction Bob/Dave, Hope all is well, busy times as always. I wanted to introduce you to Paul Junge, one of the politicals in our external affairs directorate. Paul, Bob and Dave are good people to know. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000403 61 (b~~ Robert Law Senior Advisor Office of Policy & Strategy U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices Departmentof HomelandSecurity 202-272-8409(work) l(cell) I Thisemail,alongwith any attachments,is intendedsolelyfor the use of the addressee(s)and may containinformationthat is sensitiveor protectedby applicablelaw. Unauthorizeduse or disseminationof this emailand any attachmentsis strictlyprohibited.If you are not the intended recipient,pleasenotify the senderand delete or destroyallcopies. Thankyou. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000404 62 Dale Wilcox Tuesday,July 24, 2018 9:00 AM 'Morgen, Hunter M. EOP/WHO';Law, Robert T; Wold, Theo J. EOP/WHO RE:Introduction From: Sent: To: Subject: Thank you Rob. Theo and Hunter: Pleasureto make your acquaintance.Foundedin 1986,IRLI is a public-interestlegal education and advocacylaw firm dedicatedto achievingresponsibleimmigrationpoliciesthat serve national interests.We are the only law firm that representsthe interestsof the Americanpeople on the immigrationissue in the U.S. We have been busy defendingthe president's policies throughoutthe U.S. in the myriad oflawsuits broughtby the open-borderscrowd.However,we do much more. We have three other departments:investigations,legislation/regulation,and communications.In our past work with John Zadrozny,we have used these departmentsto advancethe president's policies.Please let us know what we can do for you. Best regards, Dale L..Wilcox Executive Director& General Counsel ~ iRI . .. J.;,~;~;, '~IG~~~tHFORM ]NS W111 U 11. h 25 MassachusettsAve. NW, Suite 335 Washington,DC 20001 Tel: (202) 232-5590 Fax: (202) 464-3590 www.irli.org To learn more about IRLl's national networkof attorneys,click here. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmissionis covered by the ElectronicsCommunicationsPrivacyAct, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521,and is legally privileged.This transmission,and any documentsattached,may contain confidentialinformationbelongingto the sender which is protectedby the Attorney-ClientPrivilege,Work Product Doctrineand/or other privileges.The informationis intendedonly for the use of the individualsand/or entities named above. If you are not the intendedrecipientof this message,you may not read, disclose,forward, print, copy or disseminatethis information.If you have receivedthis communicationin error, please reply and notify the sender (only), or call (202) 232-5590,and destroy and/or delete this message.Unauthorizedinterceptionof this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000405 63 From: Morgen,Hunter M. EOP/WHO[mailto:Hunter.M.Morgen@who.eop.gov] Sent: Tuesday,July 24, 2018 9:23 AM To: Law, RobertT; Wold, Theo J. EOP/WHO Cc: DaleWilcox Subject: RE: Introduction Thanksfor the intro Rob.Alwaysgood to have a strong outside coalition. From:Law, RobertT Sent:Tuesday,July 24, 2018 9:13 AM To: Wold, TheoJ. EOP/WHO; Morgen, Hunter M. EOP/WHO Cc:dwilcox@irli.org Subject:Introduction Theo/Hunter, I wanted to introduce you to DaleWilcox, copied here, who is the ExecutiveDirector of the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI).IRLIdoes great legal work assistingthe administration's immigration agenda. JZ usedto work with Daleon a number of initiatives and IRLIwill continue to be an assetto the DPC. -Rob (b~~ Robert Law Senior Advisor Office of Policy & Strategy U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices Departmentof HomelandSecurity 202-272-8409(work) l(cell) I Thisemail,along with any attachments, is intendedsolelyfor the use of the addressee(s)and may contain informationthat is sensitiveor protected by applicablelaw. Unauthorizeduse or disseminationof this email and any attachments is strictlyprohibited,If you are not the intendedrecipient,please notify the sender and delete or destroy all copies. Thankyou. AMLHICAN PVERSIGHT DHS-18-0361 and 18-0694-A-000406 64