Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program” sounds innocuous enough, but it really means, “Delay, Deny, and Deport.” George Orwell described this twisted talk as “double-speak.”
Chances are, if an aspiring American has filed for naturalization or adjustment of status and comes from a Muslim-majority country, or perceived Muslim country, she/he has been, are, or will be subjected to the illegal, un-Constitutional, immoral, unethical CARRP policy. Because, you see, CARRP’s “other” name is: “Muslims Need Not Apply.”
USCIS initiated CARRP in 2008 and since that time, many thousands of immigration applications have been indefinitely delayed or denied without valid or meaningful explanation. In a recent case (WAGAFE v Trump, Dist. Court, WD Washington 2017), USCIS reported that between July 1, 2013 and September 20, 2013, shocking 2,644 pending applications (Humans) had been subjected to CARRP. That’s merely 2 ½ months !
Read More…
Assuming that 2008 was actually the beginning year of CARRP, how many applications (innocent Humans) have been subjected to CARRP since it was created or initiated in 2008 and beyond September 2013? If one takes the average of over 1000 per month, the potential total of applicants (that is innocent Humans) is staggering !
The main thrust of WAGAFE Plaintiffs’ case is the legality of CARRP and Plaintiffs alleged the unlawful CARRP practice has been ongoing since the inception of the CARRP program in 2008. Court was not convinced that the alleged unlawful conduct could not reasonably be expected to recur (or continue, or morphed into something similar, if not stopped). Furthermore, acting on applications subjected to CARRP (that were highlighted by a lawsuit challenging it) is very different than VOLUNTARY CESSATION of the CARRP program.
Even court referenced “CARRP’s apparently clandestine nature,” given that it was secret. An otherwise statutorily eligible applicant did not know she or he was subjected to CARRP’s addition of non-statutory and substantive requirements to naturalization (i.e. extreme vetting, etc) (let alone the Public knowing about CARRP). And if known that he or she is subjected to CARRP, no meaningful way to challenge classification as a national security concern – which often leads, after long delays, to denial and deportation.
But why would such a policy as CARRP need to be put in place? When already the Constitution expressly assigns the authority to establish uniform rules of naturalization to Congress – which Congress has done in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The INA already contains indicators of NS (national security) concerns for those seeking lawful permanent resident status, asylum, or a visa. (8 U.S.C. §§1182(a)(3)(A), (B), and (F), 1227 (a)(4)(A) and (B)). CARRP creates a substantive regime for immigration application processing and imposes more extreme vetting; arbitrary eligibility criteria that indefinitely delays adjudications and unlawfully denies EARNED immigration rights to noncitizens who are statutorily eligible and entitled by law. If an applicant were statutorily ineligible under the INA rules, then submitting an application to CARRP would be redundant. So why CARRP policy?
Secrecy
CARRP was unknown to the public until, through litigation and FOIA requests challenging a denial of naturalization in Hamdi v. USCIS, 2012 WL 632397 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2012), this previously secret policy was exposed. After waiting over 11 years, Tarek Hamdi was finally granted naturalization by district court in time to vote (2012). See: CARRP
But why did CARRP need to be secret? As long as CARRP was secret and completely unknown except by those implementing it, an applicant did not know she or he was subjected to CARRP’s addition of non-statutory and substantive requirements to naturalization (i.e. extreme vetting, etc), even if he or she were statutorily eligible. The applicant would be told virtually nothing about the delays, and likely was denied without explanation and deported without knowledge of having been subjected to the secret policy. And if, by some chance, the applicant became aware that he or she was subjected to CARRP, classified as “national security concern,” there was no meaningful way to challenge that “national security” classification.
and then 