Camp Counselor Kept Job, Immigration Benefit Despite Being ‘Potentially Egregious’ Risk

WASHINGTON – A California camp counselor now charged with child molestation was considered to be a “potentially egregious public safety” risk months before his arrest, but was still allowed to keep his job and immigration benefits, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The information responds to questions raised by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley regarding federal immigration authorities’ investigation of the counselor who was in the country based on executive actions taken by President Obama prior to his arrest.

USCIS confirmed that Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla was granted work authorization through the President’s deferred deportation program, commonly known as DACA, which allowed him to work as a camp counselor at Walden West Science Camp.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was aware that Covarrubias-Padilla was under investigation for child exploitation as early as November 17, 2014, according to records provided by USCIS. While USCIS acknowledged that ICE officials “typically apprise USCIS when a recipient of DACA or an immigration benefit is an investigative target,” USCIS failed to learn of the ongoing investigation until March 31, 2015.  

According to the response from USCIS, Department of Homeland Security officials notified the Santa Clara Sheriff’s Office of Covarrubias-Padilla’s suspicious activities on April 29, 2015, the same day that ICE officials confirmed he was employed by the Santa Clara Office of Education.  It wasn’t until May 13, 2015, six days after Covarrubias-Padilla was arrested for child molestation and distribution of child pornography, that immigration officials took action to revoke his DACA status and work authorization.

It remains unclear why no action was taken to revoke Covarrubias-Padilla’s work authorization and immigration benefits, given that multiple agencies were aware of the ongoing investigation, that he was employed by the Office of Education and that he was considered a “potentially egregious public safety” risk.  Grassley raised this and other questions in a recent letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

A signed copy of the letter is available here.  Full text of the letter follows:

July 30, 2015

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
The Honorable Jeh Johnson
Secretary    
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC  20528

Dear Secretary Johnson:

On July 23, 2015, I received a response from Director Rodriguez on your behalf.  My initial letter, sent to you May 20, 2015, inquired into the current status of Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla, a man recently arrested and charged with child molestation, and distribution and possession of hundreds of images of child pornography while a recipient of the President’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) benefit. Because Covarrubias-Padilla was granted DACA, he was able to receive an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and work as a camp counselor at the Walden West Science Camp in California.  It was at the camp that he allegedly molested and victimized children.

It is now clear that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had begun investigating Covarrubias-Padilla for child exploitation as early as November of 2014, yet DHS failed to revoke his DACA status for another six months.  The Committee has documentation of a TECS record in Covarrubias-Padilla’s A-file that reads, “Suspect of Ongoing Criminal Investigations Relating to Child Exploitation” placed November 11, 2014.  Covarrubias-Padilla was arrested on May 7, 2015.  

Although the Director’s response letter states that “ICE field offices typically apprise USCIS when a recipient of DACA or an immigration benefit is an investigative target,” in this case, USCIS failed to learn of the investigation until months later on March 31, 2015.  Despite both components’ knowledge of Covarrubias-Padilla’s investigation by March of 2015, and a referral to the Background Check Unit (BCU) as a “potentially egregious public safety case,” the revocation of DACA did not occur until May, 13, 2015, several days after his arrest.

To help the Committee understand the circumstances surrounding the criminal investigation of Covarrubias-Padilla prior to his arrest, and the decision to revoke DACA, please provide responses to the following questions no later than August 13, 2015.  Please number your answers in accordance with these questions:

1.    Which agency or law enforcement entity conducted the criminal investigation relating to child exploitation referenced as a TECS hit in Covarrubias-Padilla’s A-file? Please provide all documents related to this investigation. 

2.    What, specifically, was Covarrubias-Padilla under investigation for related to child exploitation? Please provide all documentation relating to this investigation.

3.    Because DACA is a discretionary program, USCIS could have exercised its discretion and revoked Covarrubias-Padilla’s DACA benefit when it became aware of the criminal investigation for child exploitation.  Revocation of DACA in the months prior to the arrest could have prevented Covarrubias-Padilla from working as a camp counselor and victimizing children.  Why was DACA not revoked at any time before his arrest?  Please provide any policies in place detailing why a revocation was not warranted.

4.    If DACA is not revoked for a recipient who is under a criminal investigation of child exploitation, are there criminal investigations that would warrant an immediate termination of DACA once USCIS determined the identity of the DACA recipient?  Please list the types of investigations that would result in revocation. 

5.    How much and what type of information would have been deemed sufficient to make a determination prior to rendering a final adjudication on revocation of DACA in this case?

6.    What happened to the information once USCIS forwarded it to the BCU? When did the BCU resolve the hit? 

7.    On April 28, 2015, the ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HIS) office in San Jose, California alerted the Santa Clara Sheriff’s Office of the “suspicious activities” involving Covarrubias-Padilla. However, DACA was not revoked until a few days after his arrest in May of 2015. Why was DACA not revoked when the sheriff’s office was notified?

8.    Why was DACA ultimately revoked on May 13, 2015? What factors were assessed in this decision?

9.    Why did it take four months for both components to be apprised of the criminal investigation of Covarrubias-Padilla? What policies are in place to ensure both ICE and USCIS are informed of a criminal investigation of a DACA recipient to ensure swift revocation when appropriate? Please provide the relevant policies.

10.    Why does USCIS not require periodic TECS checks before the two year renewal date?

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.  Should you have any questions, please contact Katherine Nikas of my Committee staff at 202-224-5225. 
                        
Sincerely,
                        
                        
Charles E. Grassley
Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary

-30-