{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-goodlatte-probe-u-visa-immigration-parole-practices-following-fraud", "Grassley, Goodlatte Probe U Visa, Immigration Parole Practices Following Fraud & Overreach", "2016-12-20", "2016", "2016-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Senate and House Judiciary Committee Chairmen Chuck Grassley and Bob Goodlatte today are calling on the Obama Administration to explain its management of the U visa program following significant findings of fraud and a new administrative policy that appears to violate the law. The U visa program was designed to allow foreign nationals who fall victim to crime in the United States to remain here to assist in the investigation and prosecution of their perpetrator. \u00a0However, falsified U visa applications and Obama Administration policies that ignore congressional limits have distorted the program beyond its original intent.A law enforcement agency investigating a crime can certify a U Visa application if the foreign national cooperates in the investigation. \u00a0However, recent cases have highlighted how the program is being exploited through falsified police reports and bribes to secure U visas allowing foreign nationals to avoid deportation. \u00a0According to whistleblowers, such illicit activity to secure U visas is common. \u00a0In a letter today to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, the chairmen are seeking information regarding how U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services certifies the validity of U visa applications.\u00a0\u201cAlthough the U visa program can be an important tool in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, fraud and abuse of the program can lead to unjustified approvals leaving legitimate victims in the shadows,\u201d the chairmen said in the letter.The chairmen are also raising concern about new Obama Administration policies that effectively ignore an annual 10,000 visa cap for principle applicants. \u00a0The Obama Administration is seeking to grant \u201cconditional approval\u201d to applicants after the cap is reached, preventing deportation and allowing the applicant to remain in the United States until more visas are available in a subsequent year. \u00a0Applicants living abroad could be admitted into the United States while their application is being reviewed under a proposed blanket immigration parole policy. \u00a0This policy ignores congressionally-mandated caps and a law that limits the administration\u2019s parole authority to a case-by-case discretionary basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.\u201cThe new U visa blanket parole policy is yet another example of the Obama Administration\u2019s complete disregard for Congress\u2019 constitutionally mandated role in developing immigration policy. \u00a0This policy ignores the authority of the legislative branch, and tramples on our system of checks and balances,\u201d the chairmen said in the letter.The chairmen\u2019s letter to Secretary Johnson follows:December 20, 2016The Honorable Jeh Johnson  Secretary  Department of Homeland Security  Washington, D.C. 20528Dear Secretary Johnson:We write today regarding alleged fraudulent activity associated with the U nonimmigrant visa (U visa) program. \u00a0We also want to express opposition to an apparent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) decision to implement a seemingly unlawful parole program for U visa petitioners living abroad. \u00a0The U visa program was originally created by the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act in 2000 to ensure that illegal alien victims of crimes could remain in the United States to assist with the investigation and prosecution of their perpetrator. \u00a0However, this visa is being exploited by those wishing to defraud the system and avoid deportation. \u00a0For example, in May of 2016, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi announced the indictment of 11 individuals who were part of a conspiracy to submit fraudulent documents to USCIS in order to obtain U visas. \u00a0Such fraudulent documents included falsified police reports containing forged law enforcement official signatures. \u00a0 All 11 defendants entered guilty pleas in October of 2016. \u00a0Additionally, the same month, a special agent with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement-Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and an attorney were charged with bribery, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., and obstructing an official investigation by the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG). \u00a0The HSI special agent was charged after he misused his position to obtain numerous deferrals of deportation and other immigration benefits for non-citizen foreign nationals in return for over $5,000 in cash payments, free legal services and other items of value from the attorney involved. \u00a0According to whistleblower reports to the Senate Judiciary Committee, instances of law enforcement officials improperly certifying U visa forms in exchange for cash and other bribes is a common occurrence.\u00a0U visas are capped at 10,000 annually for principal applicants.[2] \u00a0However, under an apparently unlawful USCIS policy, cases that would have otherwise been approved in the absence of the cap may receive \u201cconditional approval\u201d and a work authorization until U visas become available the following year.[3] \u00a0In some cases, despite no statutory authorization, the application itself may serve to halt deportation until it is adjudicated.[4] \u00a0Petitioners in foreign countries who apply for a U visa after the cap is exceeded, until now, remained abroad until their application was fully adjudicated. \u00a0However, in August, USCIS announced its intent to \u00a0implement a new \u00a0\u201cparole policy\u201d under which eligible U visa petitioners who live abroad, along with their derivatives, can apply for parole and be admitted to the U.S. prior to adjudication. \u00a0 \u00a0 Such a policy has the potential to allow thousands of individuals the ability to wait for their adjudication results in the United States, during which time they could be granted work authorization and additional benefits.\u00a0According to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), parole should be granted on a case-by-case discretionary basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, and is not intended for sweeping or blanket use. [5] The new U visa blanket parole policy is yet another example of the Obama Administration\u2019s complete disregard for Congress\u2019 constitutionally mandated role in developing immigration policy. \u00a0This policy ignores the authority of the legislative branch, and tramples on our system of checks and balances.\u00a0Although the U visa program can be an important tool in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, fraud and abuse of the program can lead to unjustified approvals leaving legitimate victims in the shadows. \u00a0In light of the increasing accounts of U visa fraud, and the new parole policy that could allow thousands of petitioners free passage to the United States while their application is pending, please respond to the following questions and provide the requested information no later than January 2, 2016.\u00a01.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Please list all law enforcement agencies that have provided U visa certifications since 2009, and provide the number of certifications done each year by each agency. \u00a0a.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0What steps does USCIS take to verify that the certification is valid? \u00a0b.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0What steps does USCIS take to ensure that the signature on the certification is in fact the signature of the law enforcement official named? \u00a0c.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0What steps do certifying law enforcement agencies take to verify the validity of an alien applicant\u2019s statement and limit fraud? \u00a02.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0With which law enforcement entities has the Department discussed U visa standards in the last seven years? \u00a0Please describe the content of such discussions.3.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Are U visa applications approved on a first come, first served basis, or does the agency issue visas to those most vulnerable or helpful to an investigation or prosecution? Please explain and provide any relevant written guidance provided to adjudicators. \u00a0Has any consideration been given to issuing U visas in an alternative manner? \u00a0If so, please explain.4.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Please provide the number of times for each of the past three fiscal years (FY 2014-2016) that a U visa application has been approved for a principal based on that principal being \u201clikely to be helpful\u201d to the investigation or prosecution as opposed to the principal actually aiding in the investigation or prosecution. \u00a0Please provide the number of derivative U visas applied for based on the above criteria. \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a05.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Please provide the number of pending U visa applications. \u00a0Please also provide the number of derivatives included in such applications. \u00a0a.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Of the number of principal applicants who have pending U visa applications, how many currently live abroad? \u00a0b.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Of the number described in question (a), how many would be eligible for parole under the new USCIS parole policy?\u00a06.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0How many cases of U visa fraud were identified from FY 2014 through October of FY 2016 and by which component in DHS was the fraud identified? \u00a0Please provide the resolution of each case (i.e. referred to U.S. attorneys, referred for prosecution, prosecuted, acquitted, etc.)?\u00a07.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0What percentage of cases in which a U visa applicant is assisting with a criminal investigation have resulted in an arrest? \u00a0What percentage of cases have resulted in a successful prosecution? \u00a0Please provide data for FY 2010-present.8.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0How many derivative U visas were granted to family members of U visa recipients each year from FY 2014 through FY 2016? \u00a0How many derivative U visas were applied for during this period?9.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0What types of immigration benefits are available to U visa applicants while their applications are pending? \u00a0Can they be granted \u2018deferred action\u2019 while they wait for approval of their applications? \u00a010.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Please describe in detail a U visa recipient\u2019s \u201congoing responsibilities\u201d with respect to a potential investigation or prosecution.11.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Has USCIS issued guidance to law enforcement entities ensuring their knowledge that a visa certification is discretionary and not a mandatory exercise? \u00a0If so, please provide this guidance. \u00a0If not, why not?\u00a012.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0How many U visa recipients applied for extensions each year during FY 2010 \u2013 2016? \u00a0How many U visa extensions were granted during each of those fiscal years? \u00a013.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0How many U visa grantees received employment authorization each year during FY 2010\u20132016? \u00a014.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Please provide any and all reports by Department of Homeland Security components outlining fraud in the U visa program from FY 2010- FY 2016. \u00a0\u00a0Thank you in advance for your prompt responses in this important matter. \u00a0Should you have any questions, please contact Katherine Nikas of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff at (202) 224-5225 or Andrea Loving of the House Judiciary Committee staff at (202) 225-3951.  \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0  Sincerely,\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0  Bob GoodlatteChairman \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0House Committee on the Judiciary\u00a0Charles E. Grassley \u00a0Chairman.Senate Committee on the Judiciary  cc: \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy  Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee\u00a0The Honorable John Roth\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0  Inspector General\u00a0  Department of Homeland Security  Washington, D.C. 20528\u00a0-30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-goodlatte-probe-u-visa-immigration-parole-practices-following-fraud"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.5408019535243511, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}