Lankford Flags National Security Concerns; Wants Details on How Biden Parole Programs Actually Work

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK – Senators James Lankford (R-OK), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Katie Britt (R-AL) today sent a letter to Comptroller General Gene Dodaro of the Government Accountably Office to flag serious concerns for the parole and sponsorship verification procedures used by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reunification parole programs. 

The Members wrote, “We write today to express our concerns regarding the parole and sponsorship verification procedures instituted by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) under the Uniting4Ukraine (U4U), Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV), and Colombian, Cuban, Salvadoran, Guatemalan, Haitian, and Honduran family reunification parole programs. Recent reporting has suggested that some sponsors within these programs may not have abided by the sponsorship agreements they executed with USCIS, and recent disclosures to the Federal Judiciary also raise questions regarding the vetting and adjudication of Form I-134A (Online Request to be a Supporter and Declaration of Financial Support). 

“While we believe that the programmatic use of parole under these programs is unlawful and contravenes the will of Congress, we have additional concerns around the need for oversight of these programs and the enforcement of sponsorship obligations under them. In light of these concerns, we request that you comprehensively examine the US Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) administration of parole and sponsorship programs based upon the criteria outlined below,” they concluded. 

Lankford continues to draw attention to the national security crisis at our southern border with Iranians on the terror watch list who are entering the US illegally. Lankford sounded the alarm about “military-age, single adult men” coming across the border illegally from non-Spanish speaking countries during a floor speech in June following his visit to Nogales, Arizona. 

View the letter here or below.

Dear Mr. Dodaro:

We write today to express our concerns regarding the parole and sponsorship verification procedures instituted by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) under the Uniting4Ukraine (U4U), Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV), and Colombian, Cuban, Salvadoran, Guatemalan, Haitian, and Honduran family reunification parole programs. Recent reporting has suggested that some sponsors within these programs may not have abided by the sponsorship agreements they executed with USCIS, and recent disclosures to the Federal Judiciary also raise questions regarding the vetting and adjudication of Form I-134A (Online Request to be a Supporter and Declaration of Financial Support). While we believe that the programmatic use of parole under these programs is unlawful and contravenes the will of Congress, we have additional concerns around the need for oversight of these programs and the enforcement of sponsorship obligations under them. In light of these concerns, we request that you comprehensively examine the US Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) administration of parole and sponsorship programs based upon the criteria outlined below. 

DHS guidance regarding the U4U and CHNV programs indicates that participants “must have a supporter in the United States who agrees to provide them with financial support for the duration of their parole in the United States.” In recent litigation, DHS informed the Courts that a proposed financial supporter agrees to the following items: “Receiving, maintaining, and supporting the prospective beneficiary for the duration of stay in the United States […]; Ensuring that the prospective beneficiary has safe and appropriate housing for the duration of parole in the United States […]; Assisting the prospective beneficiary with access to available services and benefits such as learning English, and securing employment opportunities once authorized to work […].” 

In order to complete Form I-134A, the proposed supporter must provide information regarding income and assets and certify to the Federal government under penalty of perjury that “all of the information contained in, and submitted with” the application is complete, true, and correct. The proposed supporter further establishes under penalty of perjury that the parolee  whom the proposed supporter is seeking to sponsor “will be financially supported while in the United States” and that the proposed supporter is “willing and able to receive, maintain, and support” the parolee. It is our understanding that no individual who seeks parole through the U4U, CHNV, or family reunification programs can have their parole application approved unless they first obtain sponsorship through an approved Form I-134A. 

In May, The New York Times reported on the “ad hoc nature” of the U4U sponsorship program, highlighting “widespread” situations in which sponsors abandoned or abused the Ukrainian nationals that they had sponsored. The report specifically notes: “[…] many refugees have arrived at [refugee agency] doors after sponsors bailed, despite volunteers signing a form declaring a two-year commitment to the person they’re resettling. […] New York City officials say some Ukrainians have ended up in homeless shelters.” The New York Times also noted that some Ukrainian nationals were sexually abused by their sponsors.  

The enforcement of sponsorship obligations under the CHNV and family reunification parole programs may raise similar issues. New York City Mayor Eric Adams recently noted: “Since last year, nearly 100,000 asylum seekers have arrived in our city asking for shelter, and we are past our breaking point. New York City has been left to pick up the pieces of a broken immigration system — one that is projected to cost our city $12 billion over the course of three fiscal years without policy changes and further support from the state and federal governments.” Likewise, Chicago and Boston have also faced significant strains on their social services and homelessness programs due to the significant number of migrants who have recently crossed the border and settled in their jurisdictions.

While specific numbers do not currently exist regarding where aliens who have received parole through the U4U, CHNV, and family reunification parole programs are located within the United States, reporting in The Washington Post and Syracuse’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse all indicate that significant numbers of Venezuelan nationals are now located in New York City after being released from US Border Patrol custody. Reporting in The New York Timesindicates that Haitian nationals constitute a meaningful segment of the population and are now located in Boston after being released from Border Patrol custody. 

Over 200,000 migrants have been paroled under the CHNV programs since they were first instituted. The number of approved sponsors for these 200,000 does not appear to be publicly reported. The Administration has messaged to the public that “the plan is working” and the CHNV programs are a success. However, the Administration does not appear to have included significant data points that would help Congress better assess the operation of these programs, including whether sponsors are upholding their sponsorship obligations. 

Congress is being asked by the Administration to provide $600 million in supplemental funding to FEMA “to support sheltering and related activities” for migrants who have crossed the border. FEMA recently provided New York City with over $104.6 million to cover the costs of migrants who had received benefits from New York City’s homelessness and other social services. The New York Times U4U report specifically noted that U4U parolees – who had sponsors who had signed an agreement to provide housing and financial support to the parolee under penalty of perjury – had accessed New York City’s homelessness program. It is conceivable that CHNV parolees in New York City may also have accessed these programs. 

The DHS Inspector General (DHS IG) previously reported that FEMA’s administration of funds related to the border crisis did not have adequate oversight and that funds were potentially misused, including to provide services to potentially ineligible migrants. In light of the reporting around the costs of social services incurred by New York City, Boston, Chicago, and other cities that are receiving significant numbers of migrants from the current border crisis, we are concerned that a failure to conduct adequate oversight of sponsors and enforcement of sponsorship agreements in the U4U, CHNV, and family reunification parole programs may result in additional taxpayer resources going to potentially ineligible migrants. 

In light of the concerns discussed above, we ask that you comprehensively examine the U4U, CHNV, and family reunification parole programs and the sponsorship processes within these programs. More specifically, we ask that you examine the following items: 

1. How many migrants have had their parole applications approved under the U4U, CHNV, and family reunification parole programs since such programs were instituted? How many migrants have had their parole applications denied? 

2. How many migrants have had their parole applications approved under the U4U, CHNV, and family reunification parole programs despite not having a “supporter” with an approved Form I-134A? How many migrants have had their parole applications denied under the U4U, CHNV, and family reunification parole programs for not having a “supporter” with an approved Form I-134A?

3. How many “supporters” have had Form I-134A approved for a parolee under the U4U, CHNV, and family reunification parole programs since such programs were instituted? How many supporters have had Form I-134A denied? 

4. What is the immigration status (if applicable) of each supporter who has an approved Form I-134A? 

5. What are the main reasons that a supporter’s Form I-134A has been denied? 

6. How often has a supporter whose Form I-134A was denied re-applied and received approval? 

7. The Immigration Records and Immigrant Services (IRIS) Directorate at USCIS has reportedly been tasked with adjudicating Form I-134A. This Directorate has historically not held adjudicatory responsibilities. What, if any, impact has this decision had on the IRIS workforce and its ability to accomplish other mission duties? 

8. To what extent does DHS maintain data about the final destinations in the United States for migrants who have been paroled under U4U, CHNV, and family reunification parole programs? What do DHS or other data indicate are the final destinations in the United States for migrants who have been paroled under these programs?   

9. What mechanisms, if any, does DHS have in place to enforce the sponsorship obligations of a supporter who has an approved Form I-134A? What actions, if any, has DHS taken to enforce these obligations? 
   1. Has DHS identified any sponsors who have not fulfilled their obligations?
   2. Has DHS imposed penalties on any sponsors who have not fulfilled their obligations? 
   3. How many broken sponsorship obligations has DHS declined to enforce?

10. How many U4U, CHNV, and family reunification parolees currently do not have a sponsor? 

11. Since sponsors commit to two years of support and adjudication of any asylum applications from parolees in these programs will take years due to the historic backlogs in both the defensive and affirmative asylum programs, what is DHS’s long-term plan for ensuring that parolees in these programs have sponsors and do not burden taxpayer resources? What are DHS’s plans for those who have been abandoned by their sponsors? 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact our offices. We look forward to your prompt response.  

###