H. Res.

863

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

February 13, 2024.
Resolved, That Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, Secretary
of Homeland Security of the United States of America, is im-
peached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the fol-
lowing articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United
States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Rep-
resentatives of the United States of America in the name of
itself and of the people of the United States of America,
against Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Secu-
rity of the United States of America, in maintenance and
support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and
misdemeanors.
ARTICLE I: WILLFUL AND SYSTEMIC REFUSAL TO COMPLY

WITH THE LAW

The Constitution provides that the House of Representa-

tives ‘‘shall have the sole Power of Impeachment’’ and that
civil Officers of the United States, including the Secretary of
Homeland Security, ‘‘shall be removed from Office on Im-
 2
peachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors’’. In his conduct while Sec-
retary of Homeland Security, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, in vio-
lation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of
the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,
to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and to well and
faithfully discharge the duties of his office, has willfully and
systemically refused to comply with Federal immigration
laws, in that:
Throughout his tenure as Secretary of Homeland Secu-
rity, Alejandro N. Mayorkas has repeatedly violated laws en-
acted by Congress regarding immigration and border secu-
rity. In large part because of his unlawful conduct, millions
of aliens have illegally entered the United States on an an-
nual basis with many unlawfully remaining in the United
States. His refusal to obey the law is not only an offense
against the separation of powers in the Constitution of the
United States, it also threatens our national security and has
had a dire impact on communities across the country. Despite
clear evidence that his willful and systemic refusal to comply
with the law has significantly contributed to unprecedented
levels of illegal entrants, the increased control of the South-
west border by drug cartels, and the imposition of enormous
costs on States and localities affected by the influx of aliens,
Alejandro N. Mayorkas has continued in his refusal to com-

•HRES 863 EH
 3
ply with the law, and thereby acted to the grave detriment
of the interests of the United States.
Alejandro N. Mayorkas engaged in this scheme or course
of conduct through the following means:
(1) Alejandro N. Mayorkas willfully refused to com-
ply with the detention mandate set forth in section
235(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
requiring that all applicants for admission who are ‘‘not
clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted...shall
be detained for a [removal] proceeding...’’. Instead of
complying with this requirement, Alejandro N. Mayorkas
implemented a catch and release scheme, whereby such
aliens are unlawfully released, even without effective
mechanisms to ensure appearances before the immigra-
tion courts for removal proceedings or to ensure removal
in the case of aliens ordered removed.
(2) Alejandro N. Mayorkas willfully refused to com-
ply with the detention mandate set forth in section
235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of such Act, requiring that an alien who
is placed into expedited removal proceedings and deter-
mined to have a credible fear of persecution ‘‘shall be de-
tained for further consideration of the application for
asylum’’. Instead of complying with this requirement,
Alejandro N. Mayorkas implemented a catch and release
scheme, whereby such aliens are unlawfully released,

•HRES 863 EH
 4
even without effective mechanisms to ensure appearances
before the immigration courts for removal proceedings or
to ensure removal in the case of aliens ordered removed.
(3) Alejandro N. Mayorkas willfully refused to com-
ply with the detention set forth in section
235(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV) of such Act, requiring that an alien
who is placed into expedited removal proceedings and de-
termined not to have a credible fear of persecution ‘‘shall
be detained...until removed’’. Instead of complying with
this requirement, Alejandro N. Mayorkas has imple-
mented a catch and release scheme, whereby such aliens
are unlawfully released, even without effective mecha-
nisms to ensure appearances before the immigration
courts for removal proceedings or to ensure removal in
the case of aliens ordered removed.
(4) Alejandro N. Mayorkas willfully refused to com-
ply with the detention mandate set forth in section
236(c) of such Act, requiring that a criminal alien who
is inadmissible or deportable on certain criminal and ter-
rorism-related grounds ‘‘shall [be] take[n] into custody’’
when the alien is released from law enforcement custody.
Instead of complying with this requirement, Alejandro
N. Mayorkas issued ‘‘Guidelines for the Enforcement of
Civil Immigration Laws’’, which instructs Department of
Homeland Security (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘DHS’’)

•HRES 863 EH
 5
officials that the ‘‘fact an individual is a removable non-
citizen...should not alone be the basis of an enforcement
action against them’’ and that DHS ‘‘personnel should
not rely on the fact of conviction...alone’’, even with re-
spect to aliens subject to mandatory arrest and detention
pursuant to section 236(c) of such Act, to take them
into custody. In Texas v. United States, 40 F.4th 205
(2022), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit concluded that these guidelines had ‘‘every indi-
cation of being ‘a general policy that is so extreme as
to amount to an abdication of...statutory responsibil-
ities’ ’’ and that its ‘‘replacement of Congress’s statutory
mandates with concerns of equity and race is extra-
legal...[and] plainly outside the bounds of the power con-
ferred by the INA’’.
(5) Alejandro N. Mayorkas willfully refused to com-
ply with the detention mandate set forth in section
241(a)(2) of such Act, requiring that an alien ordered
removed ‘‘shall [be] detain[ed]’’ during ‘‘the removal pe-
riod’’. Instead of complying with this mandate, Alejandro
N. Mayorkas issued ‘‘Guidelines for the Enforcement of
Civil Immigration Laws’’, which instructs DHS officials
that the ‘‘fact an individual is a removable noncit-
izen...should not alone be the basis of an enforcement ac-
tion against them’’ and that DHS ‘‘personnel should not

•HRES 863 EH
 6
rely on the fact of conviction...alone’’, even with respect
to aliens subject to mandatory detention and removal
pursuant to section 241(a) of such Act.
(6) Alejandro N. Mayorkas willfully exceeded his
parole authority set forth in section 212(d)(5)(A) of
such Act that permits parole to be granted ‘‘only on a
case-by-case basis’’, temporarily, and ‘‘for urgent hu-
manitarian reasons or significant public benefit’’, in
that:
(A) Alejandro N. Mayorkas paroled aliens en
masse in order to release them from mandatory de-
tention, despite the fact that, as the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded in
Texas v. Biden, 20 F.4th 928 (2021), ‘‘parol[ing]
every alien [DHS] cannot detain is the opposite of
the ‘case-by-case basis’ determinations required by
law’’ and ‘‘DHS’s pretended power to parole aliens
while ignoring the limitations Congress imposed on
the parole power [is] not nonenforcement; it’s
misenforcement, suspension of the INA, or both’’.
(B) Alejandro N. Mayorkas created, re-opened,
or expanded a series of categorical parole programs
never authorized by Congress for foreign nationals
outside of the United States, including for certain
Central American minors, Ukrainians, Venezuelans,

•HRES 863 EH
 7
Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, Colombians, Salva-
dorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans, which en-
abled hundreds of thousands of inadmissible aliens
to enter the United States in violation of the laws
enacted by Congress.
(7) Alejandro N. Mayorkas willfully exceeded his re-
lease authority set forth in section 236(a) of such Act
that permits, in certain circumstances, the release of
aliens arrested on an administrative warrant, in that
Alejandro N. Mayorkas released aliens arrested without
a warrant despite their being subject to a separate appli-
cable mandatory detention requirement set forth in sec-
tion 235(b)(2) of such Act. Alejandro N. Mayorkas re-
leased such aliens by retroactively issuing administrative
warrants in an attempt to circumvent section 235(b)(2)
of such Act. In Florida v. United States, No. 3:21-cv-
1066-TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2023), the United
States District Court of the Northern District of Florida
noted that ‘‘[t]his sleight of hand – using an ‘arrest’
warrant as a de facto ‘release’ warrant – is administra-
tive sophistry at its worst’’. In addition, the court con-
cluded that ‘‘what makes DHS’s application of [236(a)]
in this manner unlawful...is that [235(b)(2)], not
[236(a)], governs the detention of applicants for admis-

•HRES 863 EH
 8
sion whom DHS places in...removal proceedings after in-
spection’’.
Alejandro N. Mayorkas’s willful and systemic refusal to
comply with the law has had calamitous consequences for the
Nation and the people of the United States, including:
(1) During fiscal years 2017 through 2020, an av-
erage of about 590,000 aliens each fiscal year were en-
countered as inadmissible aliens at ports of entry on the
Southwest border or apprehended between ports of
entry. Thereafter, during Alejandro N. Mayorkas’s ten-
ure in office, that number skyrocketed to over 1,400,000
in fiscal year 2021, over 2,300,000 in fiscal year 2022,
and over 2,400,000 in fiscal year 2023. Similarly, during
fiscal years 2017 through 2020, an average of 130,000
persons who were not turned back or apprehended after
making an illegal entry were observed along the border
each fiscal year. During Alejandro N. Mayorkas’s tenure
in office, that number more than trebled to 400,000 in
fiscal year 2021, 600,000 in fiscal year 2022, and
750,000 in fiscal year 2023.
(2) American communities both along the South-
west border and across the United States have been dev-
astated by the dramatic growth in illegal entries, the
number of aliens unlawfully present, and substantial rise
in the number of aliens unlawfully granted parole, cre-

•HRES 863 EH
 9
ating a fiscal and humanitarian crisis and dramatically
degrading the quality of life of the residents of those
communities. For instance, since 2022, more than
150,000 migrants have gone through New York City’s
shelter intake system. Indeed, the Mayor of New York
City has said that ‘‘we are past our breaking point’’ and
that ‘‘[t]his issue will destroy New York City’’. In fiscal
year 2023, New York City spent $1,450,000,000 ad-
dressing Alejandro N. Mayorkas’s migrant crisis, and
city officials fear it will spend another $12,000,000,000
over the following three fiscal years, causing painful
budget cuts to important city services.
(3) Alejandro N. Mayorkas’s unlawful mass release
of apprehended aliens and unlawful mass grant of cat-
egorical parole to aliens have enticed an increasing num-
ber of aliens to make the dangerous journey to our
Southwest border. Consequently, according to the United
Nations’s International Organization for Migration, the
number of migrants intending to illegally cross our bor-
der who have perished along the way, either en route to
the United States or at the border, almost doubled dur-
ing the tenure of Alejandro N. Mayorkas as Secretary of
Homeland Security, from an average of about 700 a
year during the fiscal years 2017 through 2020, to an

•HRES 863 EH
 10
average of about 1,300 a year during the fiscal years
2021 through 2023.
(4) Alien smuggling organizations have gained tre-
mendous wealth during Alejandro N. Mayorkas’s tenure
as Secretary of Homeland Security, with their estimated
revenues rising from about $500,000,000 in 2018 to ap-
proximately $13,000,000,000 in 2022.
(5) During Alejandro N. Mayorkas’s tenure as Sec-
retary of Homeland Security, the immigration court
backlog has more than doubled from about 1,300,000
cases to over 3,000,000 cases. The exploding backlog is
destroying the courts’ ability to administer justice and
provide appropriate relief in a timeframe that does not
run into years or even decades. As Alejandro N.
Mayorkas acknowledged, ‘‘those who have a valid claim
to asylum...often wait years for a...decision; likewise,
noncitizens who will ultimately be found ineligible for
asylum or other protection—which occurs in the major-
ity of cases—often have spent many years in the United
States prior to being ordered removed’’. He noted that
of aliens placed in expedited removal proceedings and
found to have a credible fear of persecution, and thus re-
ferred to immigration judges for removal proceedings,
‘‘significantly fewer than 20 percent...were ultimately
granted asylum’’ and only ‘‘28 percent of cases decided

•HRES 863 EH
 11
on their merits are grants of relief’’. Alejandro N.
Mayorkas also admitted that ‘‘the fact that migrants can
wait in the United States for years before being issued
a final order denying relief, and that many such individ-
uals are never actually removed, likely incentivizes mi-
grants to make the journey north’’.
(6) During Alejandro N. Mayorkas’s tenure as Sec-
retary of Homeland Security, approximately 450,000 un-
accompanied alien children have been encountered at the
Southwest border, and the vast majority have been re-
leased into the United States. As a result, there has
been a dramatic upsurge in migrant children being em-
ployed in dangerous and exploitative jobs in the United
States.
(7) Alejandro N. Mayorkas’s failure to enforce the
law, drawing millions of illegal aliens to the Southwest
border, has led to the reassignment of U.S. Border Pa-
trol agents from protecting the border from illicit drug
trafficking to processing illegal aliens for release. As a
result, during Alejandro N. Mayorkas’s tenure as Sec-
retary of Homeland Security, the flow of fentanyl across
the border and other dangerous drugs, both at and be-
tween ports of entry, has increased dramatically. U.S.
Customs and Border Protection seized approximately
4,800 pounds of fentanyl in fiscal year 2020, approxi-

•HRES 863 EH
 12
mately 11,200 pounds in fiscal year 2021, approximately
14,700 pounds in fiscal year 2022, and approximately
27,000 pounds in fiscal year 2023. Over 70,000 Ameri-
cans died from fentanyl poisoning in 2022, and fentanyl
is now the number one killer of Americans between the
ages of 18 and 45.
(8) Alejandro N. Mayorkas has degraded public
safety by leaving wide swaths of the border effectively
unpatrolled as U.S. Border Patrol agents are diverted
from guarding the border to processing for unlawful re-
lease the heightening waves of apprehended aliens (many
who now seek out agents for the purpose of surrendering
with the now reasonable expectation of being released
and granted work authorization), and Federal Air Mar-
shals are diverted from protecting the flying public to as-
sist in such processing.
(9) During Alejandro N. Mayorkas’s tenure as Sec-
retary of Homeland Security, the U.S. Border Patrol has
encountered an increasing number of aliens on the ter-
rorist watch list. In fiscal years 2017 through 2020 com-
bined, 11 noncitizens on the terrorist watchlist were
caught attempting to cross the Southwest border be-
tween ports of entry. That number increased to 15 in
fiscal year 2021, 98 in fiscal year 2022, 169 in fiscal
year 2023, and 49 so far in fiscal year 2024.

•HRES 863 EH
 13
Additionally, in United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670
(2023), the United States Supreme Court heard a case in-
volving Alejandro N. Mayorkas’s refusal to comply with cer-
tain Federal immigration laws that are at issue in this im-
peachment. The Supreme Court held that States have no
standing to seek judicial relief to compel Alejandro N.
Mayorkas to comply with certain legal requirements con-
tained in the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the
Supreme Court held that ‘‘even though the federal courts
lack Article III jurisdiction over this suit, other forums re-
main open for examining the Executive Branch’s enforcement
policies. For example, Congress possesses an array of tools to
analyze and influence those policies [and] those are political
checks for the political process’’. One such critical tool for
Congress to influence the Executive Branch to comply with
the immigration laws of the United States is impeachment.
The dissenting Justice noted, ‘‘The Court holds Texas lacks
standing to challenge a federal policy that inflicts substantial
harm on the State and its residents by releasing illegal aliens
with criminal convictions for serious crimes. In order to reach
this conclusion, the Court...holds that the only limit on the
power of a President to disobey a law like the important pro-
vision at issue is Congress’ power to employ the weapons of
inter-branch warfare...’’. As the dissenting Justice explained,
‘‘Congress may wield what the Solicitor General described as

•HRES 863 EH
 14
‘political...tools’—which presumably means such things
as...impeachment and removal’’. Indeed, during oral argu-
ment, the Justice who authored the majority opinion stated
to the Solicitor General, ‘‘I think your position is, instead of
judicial review, Congress has to resort to shutting down the
government or impeachment or dramatic steps...’’. Here, in
light of the inability of injured parties to seek judicial relief
to remedy the refusal of Alejandro N. Mayorkas to comply
with Federal immigration laws, impeachment is Congress’s
only viable option.
In all of this, Alejandro N. Mayorkas willfully and sys-
temically refused to comply with the immigration laws, failed
to control the border to the detriment of national security,
compromised public safety, and violated the rule of law and
separation of powers in the Constitution, to the manifest in-
jury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Alejandro N. Mayorkas, by such conduct, has
demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national and
border security, the safety of the United States people, and
the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted
in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule
of law. Alejandro N. Mayorkas thus warrants impeachment
and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold
and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the
United States.

•HRES 863 EH
 15
ARTICLE II: BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST

The Constitution provides that the House of Representa-

tives ‘‘shall have the sole Power of Impeachment’’ and that
civil Officers of the United States, including the Secretary of
Homeland Security, ‘‘shall be removed from Office on Im-
peachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors’’. In his conduct while Sec-
retary of Homeland Security, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, in vio-
lation of his oath to well and faithfully discharge the duties
of his office, has breached the public trust, in that:
Alejandro N. Mayorkas has knowingly made false state-
ments, and knowingly obstructed lawful oversight of the De-
partment of Homeland Security (hereinafter referred to as
‘‘DHS’’), principally to obfuscate the results of his willful and
systemic refusal to comply with the law. Alejandro N.
Mayorkas engaged in this scheme or course of conduct
through the following means:
(1) Alejandro N. Mayorkas knowingly made false
statements to Congress that the border is ‘‘secure’’, that
the border is ‘‘no less secure than it was previously’’,
that the border is ‘‘closed’’, and that DHS has ‘‘oper-
ational control’’ of the border (as that term is defined
in the Secure Fence Act of 2006).
(2) Alejandro N. Mayorkas knowingly made false
statements to Congress regarding the scope and ade-

•HRES 863 EH
 16
quacy of the vetting of the thousands of Afghans who
were airlifted to the United States and then granted pa-
role following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan after
President Biden’s precipitous withdrawal of United
States forces.
(3) Alejandro N. Mayorkas knowingly made false
statements that apprehended aliens with no legal basis
to remain in the United States were being quickly re-
moved.
(4) Alejandro N. Mayorkas knowingly made false
statements supporting the false narrative that U.S. Bor-
der Patrol agents maliciously whipped illegal aliens.
(5) Alejandro N. Mayorkas failed to comply with
multiple subpoenas issued by congressional committees.
(6) Alejandro N. Mayorkas delayed or denied access
of DHS Office of Inspector General (hereinafter referred
to as ‘‘OIG’’) to DHS records and information, ham-
pering OIG’s ability to effectively perform its vital inves-
tigations, audits, inspections, and other reviews of agen-
cy programs and operations to satisfy the OIG’s obliga-
tions under section 402(b) of title 5, United States
Code, in part, to Congress.
Additionally, in his conduct while Secretary of Homeland
Security, Alejandro N. Mayorkas has breached the public
trust by his willful refusal to fulfill his statutory ‘‘duty to

•HRES 863 EH
 17
control and guard the boundaries and borders of the United
States against the illegal entry of aliens’’ as set forth in sec-
tion 103(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Alejandro N. Mayorkas inherited what his first Chief of the
U.S. Border Patrol called, ‘‘arguably the most effective bor-
der security in our nation’s history’’. Alejandro N. Mayorkas,
however, proceeded to abandon effective border security ini-
tiatives without engaging in adequate alternative efforts that
would enable DHS to maintain control of the border and
guard against illegal entry, and despite clear evidence of the
devastating consequences of his actions, he failed to take ac-
tion to fulfill his statutory duty to control the border. Accord-
ing to his first Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, Alejandro N.
Mayorkas ‘‘summarily rejected’’ the ‘‘multiple options to re-
duce the illegal entries...through proven programs and con-
sequences’’ provided by civil service staff at DHS. Despite
clear evidence of the devastating consequences of his actions,
he failed to take action to fulfill his statutory duty to control
the border, in that, among other things:
(1) Alejandro N. Mayorkas terminated the Migrant
Protection Protocols (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘MPP’’).
In Texas v. Biden, 20 F.4th 928 (2021), the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit explained
that ‘‘[t]he district court...pointed to evidence that ‘the
termination of MPP has contributed to the current bor-

•HRES 863 EH
 18
der surge’...(citing DHS’s own previous determinations
that MPP had curbed the rate of illegal entries)’’. The
district court had also ‘‘pointed out that the number of
‘enforcement encounters’—that is, instances where im-
migration officials encounter immigrants attempting to
cross the southern border without documentation—had
‘skyrocketed’ since MPP’s termination’’.
(2) Alejandro N. Mayorkas terminated contracts for
border wall construction.
(3) Alejandro N. Mayorkas terminated asylum coop-
erative agreements that would have equitably shared the
burden of complying with international asylum accords.
In all of this, Alejandro N. Mayorkas breached the pub-
lic trust by knowingly making false statements to Congress
and the American people and avoiding lawful oversight in
order to obscure the devastating consequences of his willful
and systemic refusal to comply with the law and carry out
his statutory duties. He has also breached the public trust by
willfully refusing to carry out his statutory duty to control
the border and guard against illegal entry, notwithstanding
the calamitous consequences of his abdication of that duty.
Wherefore Alejandro N. Mayorkas, by such conduct, has
demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national and
border security, the safety of the American people, and to the
Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in

•HRES 863 EH
 19
a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule
of law. Alejandro N. Mayorkas thus warrants impeachment
and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold
and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the
United States.
Attest:

Clerk.

•HRES 863 EH