How Severe Was Sponsor Vetting for Biden’s Parole Programs?

A sweeping GAO audit of Biden-era parole programs says sponsor vetting broke down so badly that U.S. officials cleared sponsors who were dead, made up, or tied to crime, even as the programs brought in hundreds of thousands of people through legal flights meant to cut dangerous border crossings. The audit’s findings, centered on United for Ukraine (U4U) and the Cuban-Haitian-Nicaraguan-Venezuelan (CHNV) process, describe what it calls a “ready-fire-aim approach” that put speed first and left basic legal checks in limbo, with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) each assuming the other agency had verified key requirements.

Examples of verification failures and fraud

The failures were not small errors at the edges. The audit found approvals for over 1,400 deceased sponsors, and it flagged fake identities, including “Elvis Presley,” who died in 1977.

In other cases, applicants used images of journalist Connie Chung or “NCIS” actor Cote de Pablo as part of identity checks, according to the audit’s examples. Those details, while almost absurd on their face, point to a deeper problem: if a system can accept well-known celebrity photos, it can also miss harder-to-spot fraud aimed at exploiting migrants or slipping past public safety screening.

Public-safety risks and program pauses

The GAO audit also raised alarms about dangerous sponsors. In CHNV, it found that nearly 20% of Venezuelan sponsors posed public safety or national security threats, a finding that helped trigger a government pause in summer 2024.

• DHS then canceled 8,100 travel permits.
• The pause affected 29,000 approved migrants.

For families waiting on the other side, that kind of sudden stop can mean scrambled plans, lost money on travel, and months in limbo — even when the migrant did nothing wrong and believed they were following a lawful path.

Core legal and procedural critique

The report’s core criticism is that DHS raced ahead without ensuring someone was truly checking what the law requires for parole: an urgent humanitarian need or a public benefit.

GAO found that neither USCIS nor CBP verified that requirement, because “each agency assumed the other handled it.” That gap matters because parole is not a visa and not a green card; it is a temporary entry tool that is supposed to be used case by case. When the case-by-case step turns into a paperwork relay with no one holding the baton, the risks multiply fast.

When the case-by-case step turns into a paperwork relay with no one holding the baton, the risks multiply fast.

Abuse, trafficking, and financial promises

For Ukrainians who fled Russia’s invasion and sought safety through United for Ukraine (U4U), the sponsor model was meant to speed rescue and reduce chaos at the border. But the audit describes how the same system could be abused by people looking to profit.

• Human traffickers were reported to have sponsored Ukrainians.
• Sponsorships were allegedly sold for $5,000.
• Previously deported migrants were reportedly readmitted under these channels.
• USCIS reportedly treated the sponsor’s financial promise more like a non-binding “nudge” than a binding duty, leaving newcomers exposed if the sponsor never planned to help.

Disturbing child-safety example

One of the most jarring examples in the audit involved children: the report noted that a sponsor with two child pornography convictions was approved to sponsor a migrant child.

That kind of approval cuts against the basic promise DHS made to the public when it rolled out these parole pathways — that sponsors would face meaningful background screening before a vulnerable person boards a plane to the United States 🇺🇸. It also fuels distrust that can spill over onto migrants themselves, who often arrive traumatized and then face suspicion at work, in housing, and in their communities.

Post-entry tracking and enforcement policy

The breakdowns did not stop at the airport. The source material says parolees were “largely untracked after entry,” and it points to a directive under DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that expired parolees would not be a priority for deportation, partly because of “limited bedspace.”

For local officials and service providers, that kind of policy can create its own pressure:

• Schools, clinics, and employers must plan for people whose status can expire, renew, or lapse.
• Federal enforcement choices remain uneven and hard to predict.

DHS response and follow-up

DHS did move after fraud concerns became public:

• Officials paused CHNV in summer 2024.
• The program was later reopened with tougher checks, including:
  • Mandatory fingerprints
  • Closer financial and criminal review
  • Extra scrutiny of repeat sponsors

A DHS probe later said most concerns had “reasonable explanations” such as filing errors, but it referred some cases to law enforcement. That split outcome—many mistakes but also some serious referrals—underscores why clean data and clear rules matter. When the system is messy, it is harder to separate harmless clerical errors from real threats.

Program mechanics and where to find official guidance

Both U4U and CHNV relied on U.S.-based supporters — U.S. citizens, permanent residents, or other lawful residents — who had to file Form I-134A.

• Programs required sponsors to show income at or above federal poverty guidelines and to pass background checks, but the audit said early implementation did not include strong verification.

Official filing and program information:
– USCIS — Form I-134A, Online Request to be a Supporter and Declaration of Financial Support: Form I-134A, Online Request to be a Supporter and Declaration of Financial Support
– USCIS — Uniting for Ukraine program page: Uniting for Ukraine

Scale and political response

The scale of the programs helps explain why small weaknesses became big problems.

• Admissions of hundreds of thousands since late 2022 for U4U.
• CHNV expansion in January 2023 to 30,000 monthly slots, intended to let people fly directly to the United States 🇺🇸 rather than cross the border.

Critics and analysts:
– The Center for Immigration Studies called the sponsor system a “sponsorship dodge” driven by politics and weak checks.
– Analysis by VisaVerge.com suggests the GAO audit’s details are likely to push policymakers to demand clearer lines of responsibility inside DHS — because when fraud is easy, both migrants and the public pay the price.

Key takeaways

• Rapid program expansion without clear agency ownership of legal checks enabled serious vetting failures.
• Verification weaknesses allowed approvals of deceased, fake, or dangerous sponsors — including cases that endangered children.
• DHS implemented stronger checks after the pause, but the split findings (clerical errors vs. criminal referrals) show why consistent, reliable data and clearly assigned responsibilities are essential.

Table: Selected program metrics and actions

If you’d like, I can:
– Convert the timeline into a visual timeline,
– Produce a short briefing memo for policymakers summarizing next steps, or
– Create a checklist for improved sponsor verification that aligns with GAO recommendations.