severe form of trafficking in persons and eligible for continued presence. Finally, Federal law enforcement involvement in the process allows Federal prosecutors the ability to identify patterns of human trafficking activity that might span multiple local law enforcement jurisdictions. For these same reasons, the new subsection (3)(B) should add “Federal” before “law enforcement” to limit the authority to request parole for relatives to Federal law enforcement officials.
The new subsection (c)(3)(A\{ii) should add “endeavor to” after “shall” so that a legally actionable obligation is not created as to Federal law enforcement’s role in protecting the safety of trafficking victims and family members. While the U.S. Government makes every effort to protect trafficking victims, the statutory language, as written, could be construed to create a legally cognizable right and could lead to litigation.
In the new subsection (c)(3)(A)(iii), DOJ opposes extending continued presence for the duration of a civil suit. It also raises the potential for abuse because of the lengthy and plaintiff/victim-controlled delays in conducting civil litigation. Furthermore, physical presence in the United States is not necessary for the successful maintenance of a civil action. Victims have other options to obtain status in the United States, such as T- and U-visas.
DOJ notes a technical change to subsection (d), which currently has two subsection (2)s. DOJ recommends striking the second “(2)” and replacing it with a “(3).”
I. Section 202
The Department opposes the language in section (a) that legislates the existence of a specific task force, such as the Trafficking in Persons and Worker Exploitation Task Force. DOJ recommends deletion of this reference and the replacement of the cue task force with “the i Attorney General.”
DOJ also opposes the 120 day deadline in subsection (f) as unreasonable due to language barriers and translation needs.
12. Section 203
In subsections (a), (b)(1-2), and (c), DOJ opposes the language removing the Attorney General’s role in determining whether the relevant applicant has complied with reasonable requests for assistance, an important factor in the decisions regarding T-visas, and that the investigation or prosecution is complete. Because the Department is involved in its prosecutorial as well as its investigative roles, DOJ participation is critical in assessing assistance with law enforcement, and it is well-situated to assess whether a victim has complied with reasonable requests for assistance that went through investigative agencies outside DHS, such as cases investigated by FBI or DOL. Therefore, a joint determination is appropriate because of the number of different law enforcement agencies that may be involved in a particular matter. i
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012376