WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today inquired to Alejandro Mayorkas, the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, about additional emails and information that have come to light showing pressure from higher-ups at the department to approve or fast-track EB-5 project applications and visas.
In a letter to the Director, Grassley wrote, “Whistleblowers have also provided me with contemporaneous e-mails between USCIS employees referring to this extraordinary level of involvement by you and your staff. For example, on August 16, 2011, one career employee e-mailed a colleague regarding USCIS management’s involvement in individual cases: ‘I already sent a message...saying we really cannot continue like this with the constant front office drills on these cases...’[1] According to the former Chief of the AAO, the ‘front office’ refers to the offices of the Director, the Deputy Director, and the Chief of Staff of USCIS.”
Another newly released internal email states, “the [AAO] decision was probably not going to play out as Ali [Mayorkas] had hoped given his political pressure to overturn the previous draft... We simply cannot approve based upon politics instead of eligibility under the law.”
Grassley also reiterated his request for answers to his previous letters. A copy of today’s letter can be found here. The previous letters that have gone unanswered can be found here and here.
Here’s a copy of the text of today’s letter to Mayorkas.
August 9, 2013
Mr. Alejandro Mayorkas
Director
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
111 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20529
Dear Director Mayorkas:
I am still awaiting responses to several of the letters I have sent you regarding the EB-5 program and your role with respect to individual cases. I have now written you on July 18, 2013; July 23, 2013; July 24, 2013; and July 31, 2013. Each of those letters posed important questions about the EB-5 program and your involvement. However, you have failed to respond to any of the questions I have sent you.
On July 25, 2013, you sent me a short, broadly-worded letter which stated that you had not used your position to benefit any particular party or individual. Thus, on July 31, 2013, I wrote you again, detailing e-mails whistleblowers provided to my office regarding your contacts with Gulf Coast and GreenTech—contacts which were far more extensive than you indicated in your testimony to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
I requested that you respond by August 7, 2013. However, not only did you not respond, your office has not requested an extension of time, offered an explanation as to why you did not respond by the requested date, or provided any estimate of when a response might be forthcoming.
I continue to receive detailed allegations from whistleblowers within USCIS regarding your involvement in individual cases. For example, whistleblowers have said that in the summer of 2011, while USCIS’s Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) was drafting its opinion regarding Gulf Coast’s amendment application, you went beyond merely monitoring or influencing the process, seeking to personally take control of the opinion. In a meeting of USCIS employees, including AAO staff, you allegedly said: “Give it to me, I’ll write the f ing thing myself.”
Whistleblowers have also provided me with contemporaneous e-mails between USCIS employees referring to this extraordinary level of involvement by you and your staff. For example, on August 16, 2011, one career employee e-mailed a colleague regarding USCIS management’s involvement in individual cases: “I already sent a message . . . saying we really cannot continue like this with the constant front office drills on these cases. I guess in some regard I am preaching to the choir because he is equally frustrated.” According to the former Chief of the AAO, the “front office” refers to the offices of the Director, the Deputy Director, and the Chief of Staff of USCIS.
The recipient of the August 16, 2011, e-mail responded:
AAO delivered an updated draft of the GCFM to [the Deputy Director of USCIS] a week or so ago. . . . AAO had discovered some add’l dirt on GCFM and . . . the decision was probably not going to play out as Ali had hoped given his political pressure to overturn the previous draft. . . . We simply cannot approve based upon politics instead of eligibility under the law.
The author of the first e-mail responded: “[T]his is the darn AAO decision that Ali wanted to rewrite. Got it[.]”
Thus, in addition the other questions I have posed in my prior letters, please explain how this additional evidence is consistent with your claim that your involvement was limited to one meeting with Terry McAuliffe where you merely listened to his complaints. Additionally, please provide an estimated date on which you intend to reply to my previous letters. I would appreciate a comprehensive reply no later than August 20, 2013.
Should you have any questions, please contact my staff at (202) 224-5225. I look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
ATTACHMENT
cc: The Honorable Thomas Carper, Chairman
U.S. Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
The Honorable Tom A. Coburn, Ranking Member
U.S. Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs