Leon Rodriguez is in charge of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a massive federal agency responsible for carrying out much of the Obama administration’s controversial executive actions on immigration.
Several of those actions are tied up in federal court amid a lawsuit brought by Georgia and 25 other states. The states say the government illegally bypassed Congress when it acted. The Obama administration says it is acting within its authority to bring people out of the shadows and keep families together.
In November, Obama announced the government would offer three-year deportation deferrals and work permits to people who don’t have legal status in the U.S. but do have children who were born here or are legal permanent residents. To be eligible for Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents — also called DAPA — they must have continually lived in the U.S. since at least Jan. 1, 2010, and have no felony convictions. More than 4 million people could be eligible nationwide.
Obama’s initiative also expands a program granting three-year deportation deferrals and work permits to immigrants who were illegally brought here as children. The move eliminated the age cap in the program — now at 31 — and requires them to have continually resided in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2010, a change in the starting date from June 15, 2007. The White House estimated 270,000 more people could qualify for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA.
Rodriguez, a former federal prosecutor and trial attorney, appeared in Atlanta on Thursday with Mayor Kasim Reed for a news conference about encouraging immigrants to become naturalized U.S. citizens. He spoke briefly to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution before the event. His answers were edited for brevity and clarity.
Q: The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is now weighing whether to lift the injunction against DAPA and the expanded DACA. I know the Obama administration is on record for wanting the appeals court to lift that injunction. Can you tell me what’s at stake — why it’s important to do that?
A: Obviously, we believed that these policies were good policies — that they were legal. We continue to believe that. Beyond that, I would let what we say in court speak for itself. Obviously, it is our hope and desire that we are going to be able to implement those policies at the earliest possible opportunity.
Q: How does this injunction affect your agency because I imagine there are a lot of logistics involved in preparing to expand DACA and set up DAPA — hiring people, setting up offices, designing the application process? A lot of that has got to be on hold, I imagine.
A: To be clear, it absolutely is on hold. That is what the court directed. They directed that we not implement those programs, which means that every aspect of those programs — of those policies — is on hold.
Q: Isn’t it a large undertaking?
A: Yes. … We are a very large organization that processes as many as 7 million transactions a year. So we are very sophisticated in our ability to manage large volumes of business, to absorb large increases in business volume. Needless to say, if we were to add whatever the case may be of additional transactions, there would be a very sophisticated, very intentional process of financial and operational planning to do that.
Q: Can you quantify it to some extent? How many people are you talking about?
A: Given that we are on hold, there is really nothing I would even dare quantify right now.
Q: How about what you would advise people — who would be eligible for DAPA or the expanded DACA — to do in this sort of limbo situation right now? They believe they would qualify, they believe they are eligible, but they are in a waiting period right now. What should they be doing?
A: We are not in a position even to give them advice as to what they would do.
Q: Because of the pending litigation or the injunction?
A: Yes, even that, I think, could be seen as an element of implementation of the programs. That said, I think people would do well to consult with legal counsel — with community organizations that are competent in this area — and they may well receive useful guidance from them. I would also underscore that the original DACA program is still in effect. And every year 90,000 young people age into the DACA program. And these are really for me among the most compelling cases in this population because they are kids who are just about to reach college age and just about to begin their work and careers. So what they can gain and what we as a society can gain by them taking advantage of DACA is something really worth focusing on.
Q: Are you underscoring the point that this is on hold — that DAPA is on hold and expanded DACA is on hold — so that people don’t try to apply with say … some unsavory person?
A: That's an important question because it is important to emphasize that people need in any kind of immigration transaction to take great care that who they are dealing with is either a licensed attorney — preferably an immigration lawyer — or an organization that is accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals. There are in fact a lot of swindlers and cheats out there who are seeking to defraud immigrants and have victimized people. I know there have been scenarios here in Atlanta along those lines. Yes, I think it is important to emphasize that people take care to avoid being defrauded.
Q: During the court case there have been revelations that USCIS did extend DACA for about 100,000 immigrants with the three-year expansion of their deportation deferrals and their work permits. The plaintiffs in the case have expressed alarm about that. Can you respond to that concern?
A: I think we are responding to that concern and that issue in court. And that is where I will leave the matter at this point.
Q: Can you quantify, though, how many of those people are in Georgia who have received expanded DACA?
A: There is a meaningful number of those people who are in Georgia.
Q: A range?
A: I wouldn't venture a range right now.
Q: I notice you have been measured in your responses to my questions. Is that because of the lawsuit?
A: Yes, look, I'm an attorney myself. And I know when a case is in litigation you litigate the case in court, not in the court of public opinion.
About the Author
