Introduction

On January 20, 2021, his first day in office, President Joe Biden issued a memorandum to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Attorney General on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative. The presidential memorandum directed the DHS Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, to "take all actions he deems appropriate, consistent with applicable law, to preserve and fortify DACA."¹ On March 26, 2021, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas announced that DHS would issue a notice of proposed rulemaking "to preserve and fortify DACA."²

Established by executive action in 2012, DACA enables its beneficiaries—unauthorized immigrants who first entered the United States before age 16 and meet a set of requirements—to live and work in the United States on a temporary, renewable basis. DACA recipients receive protection from removal and may receive work authorization; they are not granted or put on a pathway to be granted a legal immigration status. That would require congressional action.

DACA beneficiaries are a subset of unauthorized childhood arrivals (or Dreamers), foreign nationals who came to live in the United States as children and do not currently have a lawful immigration status. Dreamers, in turn, are a subset of the U.S. unauthorized population. In remarks explaining his Administration's decision to put forth the DACA policy, then-President Obama cited unsuccessful legislative efforts to pass Dream Act legislation.³

A range of bills were introduced and considered in 115^th and 116^th Congresses to address the immigration status of DACA recipients. Some of these measures would have put DACA-type protection in statute.⁴ Others would have provided limited avenues for persons who satisfied DACA-like requirements to obtain a legal immigration status.⁵ Still others, often referred to as legalization proposals, would have created new statutory mechanisms for DACA beneficiaries to obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status.⁶

Provisions to grant LPR status to DACA recipients are included in measures before the 117^th Congress. For example, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2021(H.R. 6), as passed by the House, would direct DHS to "establish a streamlined procedure" for DACA recipients to apply for LPR status. The Dream Act of 2021 (S. 264), as introduced in the Senate, would likewise single out DACA recipients for special treatment under the LPR mechanism it would establish. Both proposals also would provide opportunities for other unauthorized childhood arrivals who meet specified requirements to become LPRs.

To help inform possible legislative activity related to DACA and Dreamers, this report considers available data on the DACA population from DHS and other sources. An initial background section provides a brief history of DACA and its current status. Three categories of data are then presented and discussed: (1) data on the DACA-eligible population, (2) data on DACA applications, and (3) data on DACA recipients. Finally, the report addresses the issue of unauthorized immigrants and LPR status, focusing in particular on DACA recipients and related data.

Background

On June 15, 2012, DHS issued a memorandum announcing the DACA initiative.⁷ The memorandum stated that certain unauthorized childhood arrivals would be considered for deferred action for two years, subject to renewal. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the DHS agency that administers DACA, defines deferred action as "a type of prosecutorial discretion that allows an individual to remain in the United States for a set period of time, unless the deferred action is terminated for some reason."⁸

The eligibility criteria for an initial DACA grant⁹ were (1) under age 31 on June 15, 2012; (2) under age 16 at time of entry into the United States; (3) continuously resident in the United States since June 15, 2007; (4) physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of requesting DACA; (5) not in lawful status on June 15, 2012; (6) in school, graduated from high school or obtained general education development certificate, or honorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces;¹⁰ and (7) not convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and not otherwise a threat to national security or public safety.¹¹

To be eligible for a two-year renewal, a DACA recipient had to satisfy the following criteria: (1) did not depart from the United States on or after August 15, 2012, without first obtaining permission to travel from DHS, (2) had continuously resided in the United States since submitting his or her latest approved DACA request, and (3) had not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and was not a threat to national security or public safety.¹²

Individuals granted DACA could receive employment authorization. According to USCIS, "under existing regulations, an individual whose case has been deferred is eligible to receive employment authorization for the period of deferred action, provided he or she can demonstrate 'an economic necessity for employment'."¹³

Developments Under the Trump Administration

The Trump Administration tried unsuccessfully to terminate DACA. On September 5, 2017, DHS issued a memorandum to rescind the 2012 DACA memorandum.¹⁴ At the time, there were an estimated 689,800 persons with DACA (see the "USCIS Data on Active DACA Recipients" section) and an estimated 800,000 persons who had ever had DACA (see the "USCIS Data on Persons Ever Granted DACA" section). As part of the rescission, the agency had planned to "execute a wind-down," under which no new DACA initial requests would have been accepted after September 5, 2017 (although initial requests accepted by that date would have been processed), and no new renewal requests would have been accepted after October 5, 2017. This wind-down did not proceed as planned, however, because DACA recipients and others filed federal lawsuits challenging the legality of the rescission.

Under the terms of subsequent federal court rulings, individuals who had never been granted DACA could not submit initial requests.¹⁵ Individuals who had been granted DACA in the past, however, continued to be able to submit DACA requests, even if their prior DACA grants had expired or been terminated.¹⁶ The USCIS late renewal policy, which was in effect until January 2018 (and was reinstated on August 1, 2019), required an individual whose previous DACA grant had expired more than one year prior or whose previous DACA grant had been terminated to submit an initial DACA request rather than a renewal request.¹⁷

On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the DACA rescission. It ruled that DHS had not provided adequate reasons or followed proper procedures in rescinding the policy.¹⁸ Following this ruling, then-DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf issued a memorandum in which he expressed "serious concerns" about DACA and announced immediate changes to the policy while he considered its future. Among these changes, he directed that "no new initial requests for DACA should be accepted" and "renewals of deferred action and the accompanying work authorization should be granted for one-year, rather than two-year, periods."¹⁹

In a pair of rulings in November and December 2020, a federal district court vacated the Wolf memorandum and ordered DHS to reinstate the original DACA policy.²⁰ Effective December 7, 2020, USCIS resumed accepting DACA applications from first-time applicants. It also returned to issuing DACA grants and associated employment authorization in two-year increments.²¹

Data on the DACA-Eligible Population

The DACA-eligible population, as the term is used here, refers to individuals who meet the requirements for an initial grant of DACA regardless of whether they ever applied for or received this form of relief. The DACA-eligible population is finite for the following reasons. Inclusion is based on satisfaction of the eligibility requirements for a DACA initial grant. Some of these requirements are tied directly to the date of the memorandum that established DACA, June 15, 2012. On that date, an individual must have been under age 31, physically present in the United States, and not in a lawful immigration status. The individual also must have entered the United States no later than five years before the issuance date (i.e., no later than June 15, 2007) and been continuously resident since then. In addition, the individual must have been under age 16 at the time of initial entry.

Other requirements for a DACA initial grant depend on actions or events subsequent to U.S. entry. An individual, at the time of application for DACA, must have been honorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces, have completed high school (or the equivalent), or be in school. For purposes of DACA, the term school includes "an education, literacy, or career training program (including vocational training)" as well as "an education program assisting students either in obtaining a regular high school diploma or its recognized equivalent under state law … or in passing a GED [general educational development] exam or other state-authorized exam."²² Among the other eligibility requirements, an individual must not have been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and must not otherwise be a threat to national security or public safety. In addition, an individual typically must be at least age 15 to apply for DACA.²³

Given complete information, the maximum size of the DACA-eligible population could be determined by calculating the number of people who, on June 15, 2012, were physically present in the United States in an unlawful status and satisfied the age-related, entry, and residence requirements for a DACA initial grant. From this total, individuals not eligible based on criminal, security, or other public safety grounds could be subtracted. The resulting population would include both (1) individuals who could apply for DACA immediately because they were at least age 15 (or qualified for an exception to this minimum age requirement) and met the educational/ honorable discharge requirement and (2) individuals who were not currently eligible because they were under age 15 (and did not qualify for an exception) and/or did not meet the educational/ honorable discharge requirement but could become eligible at a later date.

This maximum number, as determined by the eligibility criteria at the time of DACA's establishment, could not increase in future years. It could decrease, however. For example, an individual who was among the eligible population on June 15, 2012, but subsequently obtained a lawful immigration status, left the United States and established residence in another country, or was convicted of a felony would no longer be eligible for DACA.

Estimates of the DACA-Eligible Population

Available data do not permit calculating the precise number of individuals who met the DACA eligibility requirements in 2012 or who may be eligible for DACA today. Instead, different entities have produced estimates of the DACA-eligible population using data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) and other sources. The Migration Policy Institute, a self-described nonpartisan organization that "seeks to improve immigration and integration policies,"²⁴ has produced widely cited estimates of the DACA-eligible population since 2012.

MPI's estimates for 2013 and subsequent years are based on data from the ACS and the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), although MPI has refined its methodology over the years.²⁵ Due to the lack of data, the MPI estimates do not take into account all the requirements for a DACA initial grant. Regarding the educational/honorable discharge requirement, the estimates do not include individuals who may be eligible for DACA based on an honorable discharge (but do not meet the alternative educational criteria).²⁶ They likewise do not include individuals who may satisfy the educational requirement based on enrollment in an adult education, literacy, or career training program. These educational/honorable discharge-related exclusions could result in an underestimation of the size of the DACA-eligible population. MPI is also not able to model the requirement for continuous residence since 2007 or the criminal conviction/security threat ineligibility ground. These exclusions could lead to an overestimation of the size of the DACA-eligible population.²⁷

In its estimates of the DACA-eligible population, MPI distinguishes three subgroups based on the eligibility requirements it can model: (1) persons who meet all the requirements for a DACA initial grant and are, thus, immediately eligible; (2) persons who meet all the requirements except the educational requirement; and (3) persons who are in school and meet the other requirements but cannot yet apply for DACA because they are under age 15. MPI estimated that in 2012 there were 1,236,000 persons who were immediately eligible for DACA; 426,000 persons who met all the requirements except the educational requirement; and 473,000 children who met all the requirements and could become eligible once they turned 15.²⁸ Its estimates for 2016 indicated that about 1,307,000 persons were immediately eligible; about 398,000 persons met all but the educational requirements; and about 228,000 children could become eligible once they turned 15.²⁹ According to the MPI estimates for December 2020, these DACA-eligible population subgroups stood at an estimated 1,331,000 (immediately eligible); 384,000 (eligible except for education); and 14,000 (children under 15).³⁰

The annual sum of the three eligibility subgroups decreased from 2,136,000 in 2012 to 1,932,000 in 2016 and to 1,729,000 in 2020.³¹ These decreases may be due to both actual changes in the number of people eligible for DACA and data analysis-related changes.

Actual changes can also lead to changes in the subgroup numbers due to movement of individuals between the three subgroups. For example, by enrolling in a qualifying education program, a person in the eligible-except-for-education subgroup can move into the immediately eligible subgroup. Similarly, by turning 15, while continuing to meet the eligibility requirements, a person in the under-15 subgroup can move into the immediately eligible subgroup. The data suggest that both types of shifts may have occurred from 2012 to 2020, with the immediately eligible subgroup increasing in size and the other two subgroups decreasing.

The under-age-15 subgroup experienced a relatively large drop from 473,000 in 2012 to 14,000 in 2020. This reflects the fact that to be eligible for DACA, a person must have been resident in the United States by June 15, 2007. Because this date does not change, over time there will be fewer individuals in the under-age-15 subgroup as more individuals meet the minimum age criteria to apply for DACA. Someone who entered the United States on that date as a newborn would turn 15 in 2022; thus, after June 15, 2022, there can be no one in the under-age 15 subgroup.

Data on DACA Application Processing³²

DACA applications submitted to USCIS are another source of DACA-related data. To request an initial grant or renewal of DACA, an applicant must submit Form I-821D, "Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals," along with an application for employment authorization (Form I-765), a related worksheet (Form I-765WS), and associated fees.³³ USCIS began accepting DACA applications on August 15, 2012.³⁴

USCIS publishes data on DACA applications on a quarterly basis. Its January 2021 report includes annual data on DACA initial and renewal requests for FY2012 through FY2020.³⁵ Table 1 presents selected data from this USCIS report. It shows that during the FY2012-FY2020 period, USCIS accepted³⁶ a cumulative total of 914,640 initial requests and approved 827,119 of them. Regarding renewal requests, the agency accepted a cumulative total of 2,046,922 such requests and approved 1,976,108 of them.

As noted, not all initial requests are submitted by first-time applicants. Under the USCIS late renewal policy, a former DACA recipient whose previous DACA grant expired more than one year ago or whose previous DACA grant was terminated has to file an initial request rather than a renewal request. This policy explains why Table 1 includes figures for initial requests in FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020, years when USCIS was not accepting DACA requests from first-time applicants. Another consequence of this late renewal policy is that the cumulative "initial requests approved" number of 827,119 in Table 1 does not represent the number of unique individuals who were ever granted DACA as of September 30, 2020 (for related data, see the "USCIS Data on Persons Ever Granted DACA" section).

Approval Rates

Figure 1 presents approval rates for DACA requests adjudicated from FY2012 to FY2020. These rates are based on the Table 1 data on initial and renewal requests approved and initial and renewal requests denied. As shown in Figure 1, the initial request approval rate ranged from a low of 53% in FY2019 to a high of 100% in FY2012. More generally, these approval rates were highest in the first two years (FY2012-FY2013) and lowest in the last three years (FY2018-FY2020), when initial applications could be filed only by former DACA recipients. The renewal request approval rate was consistently high, topping 98% each year.

Figure 1. DACA Application Approval Rates FY2012-FY2020

Source: CRS presentation of data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, "Number of Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Status, by Fiscal Year, Quarter, and Case Status: Aug. 15, 2012-Sep. 30, 2020." Notes: There were no renewal requests in FY2012 or FY2013 because DACA initial grants are for two years. A renewal request approval rate could not be calculated for FY2014 due to data disclosure thresholds.

Data on the DACA-Recipient Population

Information about DACA recipients is available from various sources. Since DHS's announcement of the DACA rescission in 2017, USCIS has periodically published data on the DACA-recipient population. In addition, researchers have conducted surveys of DACA recipients.

USCIS Data on Active DACA Recipients

USCIS has published data tables on what it terms active DACA recipients periodically since September 4, 2017. On that date, according to USCIS, there were approximately 689,800 active (current) DACA recipients. DACA-recipient population totals are available for various dates from September 4, 2017, to April 30, 2019, and at three-month intervals for all dates from June 30, 2019, to December 31, 2020.³⁷ Active DACA recipients are a subset of the total number of persons ever granted DACA.

From September 2017 to December 2020, there was a general decrease in the approximate number of active DACA recipients. The totals were as follows: 689,800 (September 2017); 699,350 (August 2018); 652,880 (September 2019); and 636,390 (December 2020). The overall decrease from 2017 to 2020 may reflect a combination of factors, including 2017 DACA holders' failure to successfully renew their DACA grants, their loss of DACA protection through termination,³⁸ or their adjustment to lawful permanent resident status (for further information on the latter, see the "DACA and Adjustment of Status" section).

In addition to reporting DACA-recipient population totals, USCIS data on active DACA recipients have also included tables on countries of birth, U.S. states of residence, gender, age, and marital status. Data on these measures for September 2017³⁹ and December 2020⁴⁰ are variously discussed in the following sections of this report.⁴¹

Countries of Birth

Persons who had DACA on December 31, 2020, were nationals of more than 195 different countries.⁴² The overwhelming majority (81%), however, were from a single country: Mexico. Table 2 presents data on the top 10 countries of birth for DACA recipients in 2020. These countries accounted for 94% of all DACA recipients. These same countries, in the same order, were also the top DACA countries of birth in 2017.⁴³ The consistency between the 2017 and the 2020 country of birth data is not surprising because these two populations included many of the same individuals.

U.S. States of Residence

As of December 31, 2020, DACA recipients were living in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. territories.⁴⁴ Two states—California and Texas—were home to almost half (45%) the DACA-recipient population. Table 3 shows the top 10 states of residence for DACA recipients in 2020. About three-quarters of the DACA-recipient population lived in these states. These same states, in the same order, were also the top states of residence in 2017.⁴⁵ (Table A-1 provides December 2020 data for all states and the District of Columbia.)

Demographic Characteristics

The USCIS data on the gender, marital status, age, and educational attainment of DACA beneficiaries discussed here come from several sources. These include, as mentioned above, data on the DACA population as of September 4, 2017, and as of December 31, 2020. These data describe characteristics of persons who had DACA on those dates.

In addition, other USCIS data are available on some of these demographic measures for persons whose DACA initial applications were approved between the implementation of DACA in 2012 and May 2, 2018. There were approximately 817,798 such persons. These data, which provide information about such DACA recipients at the time of their initial application for DACA, were made available by USCIS in a May 2018 response to a congressional inquiry.⁴⁶

Gender and Marital Status

As of December 31, 2020, 53% of DACA recipients were female and 47% were male. These percentages were the same for the September 2017 DACA-recipient population.⁴⁷

Regarding marital status, 73% of DACA recipients were single and 24% were married as of December 2020. The percentage of DACA recipients who are single has steadily decreased since September 2017 (when it stood at 83%). The percentage of DACA recipients who are married has steadily increased; in September 2017, 15% of DACA recipients were married.⁴⁸

Age

Figure 2 presents data on the age of DACA recipients as of December 31, 2020. The median age of recipients in 2020 was 26; their average age was 27. Three years earlier, in 2017, the median age was 23; the average age was 23.8.⁴⁹

Figure 2. Ages of DACA Recipients As of December 31, 2020

Source: CRS presentation of data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Notes: Figure 2 is limited to persons who had a valid DACA grant on December 31, 2020. It does not include age information for a small number (less than 10) of the approximately 636,390 DACA recipients as of that date. The data are rounded.

Figure 3. DACA Recipients' Age at Initial Entry For Beneficiaries of Initial Applications Approved August 2012-May 2018

Source: CRS presentation of data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Notes: Figure 3 does not include age information for 11,079 of 817,798 persons whose DACA initial applications were approved between August 15, 2012, and May 2, 2018. The data in Figure 3 sum to 806,719.

Figure 3 presents data on the age at initial U.S. entry of persons whose DACA initial applications were approved between August 2012 and May 2018.⁵⁰ As shown in Figure 3, ages 1 to 7 were the most common entry ages, accounting for more than half (54%) of all entries with available arrival age data.

Educational Attainment

Limited data on educational attainment were also included in the USCIS May 2018 congressional response referenced in the preceding paragraph. They came from DACA initial applications that were approved between August 2012 and May 2018. These educational data are available for about 30% (253,695) of the approximately 817,798 persons who received DACA initial approvals.

Among the criteria for an initial grant of DACA is a requirement to be in school, to have graduated from high school or obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or to have been honorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces. According to the USCIS data, 71% of the persons for whom educational attainment data were available met this requirement by being in school. Another 15% had earned a high school diploma or GED, 13% had less than one year of college credit, and less than 1% had one or more years of college or a postsecondary educational degree at the time of their initial DACA application.⁵¹

Survey Data

Social scientists have studied DACA's socioeconomic impacts since its implementation. Some of this research has included surveys of DACA recipients. These surveys are relevant for the purposes of this report to the extent that they provide quantitative data on the characteristics of DACA recipients at a particular time.⁵²

Surveys of DACA recipients offer data unavailable from USCIS. For example, the surveys discussed in the following sections of this report provide information about employment and earnings as well as the immigration status of family members. At the same time, DACA-related surveys, including those considered here, have certain limitations. Survey researchers commonly work with immigrant-advocacy organizations to help identify survey participants. It may be that individuals known to these organizations and/or willing to participate in surveys have higher levels of education and economic status than DACA recipients generally. Surveys conducted online may exacerbate this selectivity.⁵³ Table 4 compares the survey results described in the following sections with USCIS data on DACA recipients.

Survey of DACA Recipients in California

Sociologist Caitlin Patler led a study of DACA recipients and non-recipients in 2014-2015. The findings have been published in different articles.⁵⁴ The study examined, among other topics, "the educational and socioeconomic trajectories" of DACA recipients and "similarly situated undocumented youth" who did not have DACA. It was undertaken in collaboration with Dream Team Los Angeles, which is described in one of the publications as an organization that "aims to create a safe space in which undocumented immigrants and allies empower themselves through activism and telling of shared histories."⁵⁵

In the study, a total of 502 young adults in Southern California were surveyed by telephone between October 2014 and February 2015. California has consistently accounted for more than 25% of the DACA population. The survey participants included a sample of attendees at "DACA workshops run by community organizations who agreed to be contacted" and "people who were referred by those who had attended the workshops."⁵⁶ Of the 502 survey participants, 452 were DACA recipients and 50 were non-DACA recipients.⁵⁷ At the time of the survey, the former had held DACA for about 1.5 years on average.

The published survey results do not include confidence intervals, which makes it difficult to evaluate how representative of the DACA-recipient population the survey group is.⁵⁸ Table 4 allows consideration of observed differences between the California survey group⁵⁹ and the DACA-recipient population, as reported in USCIS data.

Regarding education, survey respondents had higher levels of attainment than DACA recipients (for whom such data were available) at the time of initially receiving DACA (see Table 4). The differences between the survey results and USCIS data suggest possible real differences between the survey sample and the DACA-recipient population. It is not known, however, to what extent these differences may also reflect actual changes in educational attainment before and after receiving DACA (such as, a person who receives DACA while in high school and subsequently graduates). Some research has found that DACA has had significant, positive effects on high school completion.⁶⁰

The California survey collected data on employment and earnings. It found that most respondents were employed: "More than four of five survey respondents (82%) reported having a job at the time of the survey. This number was higher for those with DACA than those without it (84% vs. 68%)."⁶¹ Additional findings related specifically to the 84% of DACA recipients (or 378 persons) who were engaged in paid employment. Many of this group (42%) worked part-time. The DACA recipients had an average hourly wage of $11.47 and a median hourly wage of $10.00. According to the survey results, 44% of employed DACA recipients were low-skilled workers and 12% were professionals. The survey also found that "three quarters of [the DACA workers] in lower-paid, less skilled occupations were enrolled in school."⁶²

The immigration status of respondents' family members was another topic addressed in the California survey. Among the related findings were:

Respondents are overwhelmingly from mixed-status families in which members of the same immediate family have different immigration statuses: 70% of respondents have U.S. citizen family members, 44% have Lawful Permanent Resident family members, 53% have [family members with DACA], 23% have family member(s) with some other type of visa, and 77% have undocumented family members."⁶³

National DACA Survey

Each year from 2016 to 2020, political scientist Tom Wong partnered with United We Dream, the National Immigration Law Center, and the Center for American Progress⁶⁴ to conduct a national survey of DACA recipients.⁶⁵ Researchers used an online questionnaire, which was administered to more than 1,000 DACA recipients. The participants were recruited by the partner organizations and through Facebook ads. The organizations also helped design the surveys. This discussion focuses on the results of the 2016 and 2019 surveys.⁶⁶ The 2016 survey was conducted in September 2016 and had 1,308 participants.⁶⁷ The 2019 survey was conducted in August and September 2019 and had 1,105 participants.⁶⁸ Limited information about methodology accompanied the results of these surveys. As with the California survey, no confidence intervals were reported.

Table 4 permits comparison of the national survey results with USCIS data on DACA recipients on several characteristics. As shown, the survey group had higher levels of educational attainment than the DACA-recipient population at the time of filing the DACA initial application. These results, in combination with the selectivity issues discussed above, suggest that these national surveys are providing a profile of a high-achieving segment of the DACA-recipient population.

With respect to employment, the 2019 survey found that 89% of survey respondents were working, similar to the 84% reported by the 2014-2015 California survey (for DACA recipients). The 2019 survey did not include questions about occupation; it did ask about wages. The employed respondents had an average hourly wage of $19.45 and a median hourly wage of $17.00.

The immigration status of family members was the subject of several questions in the 2019 survey. Among these was, "Do you have an immediate family member, meaning a parent, sibling, spouse, or child who is a U.S. citizen?" Seventy percent of respondents said yes, the same percentage that reported having U.S. citizen family members in the California survey. Of the 232 respondents to the 2019 survey who were currently married, 60% reported having a U.S. citizen spouse. Of the 211 who were parents, 99% had U.S. citizen children.

USCIS Data on Persons Ever Granted DACA

Figure 4. DACA-Recipient Populations

Source: CRS presentation of data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Notes: The data are estimates.

For the most part, the USCIS data and the survey data on DACA recipients discussed in the preceding sections of this report are from individuals who held DACA as of a particular date. USCIS has separately estimated the number of persons who were ever granted DACA as of a particular date.⁶⁹ These ever-granted-DACA estimates include both current and former DACA recipients. They exclude "initial DACA requestors that were approved at first, but later had their initial request denied or terminated." ⁷⁰ Figure 4 presents USCIS estimates of the current DACA-recipient population and the ever-granted-DACA population as of September 4, 2017, and as of July 31, 2019. The data for July 31, 2019, which are unpublished, were provided to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) by USCIS.⁷¹

As of September 4, 2017, an estimated 800,000 persons had ever been granted DACA, and an estimated 690,000 persons were current DACA recipients (Figure 4). These two data points raise questions about what accounts for the difference between them. According to USCIS, the approximately 110,000 persons that had been granted DACA but were not covered by DACA as of September 4, 2017, fell into two groups. The first group consisted of approximately 70,000 DACA recipients who "either failed to renew at the end of their 2-year validity period or were denied on renewal." The second group consisted of approximately 40,000 DACA recipients who became LPRs (see the "DACA and Adjustment of Status" section).⁷²

By July 31, 2019, the number of persons who had ever been granted DACA had grown to an estimated 822,000 (see Figure 4). Like the September 2017 ever-granted-DACA data, these July data exclude "initial DACA requestors that were approved at first, but later had their initial request terminated."⁷³ Figure 5 depicts subgroups of the July 2019 ever-granted-DACA population.⁷⁴ It shows that between August 2012 and July 2019, approximately 89,000 DACA recipients either failed to request renewal of their DACA grants or were denied renewals, and approximately 76,000 DACA recipients became LPRs.⁷⁵ Reducing the ever-granted DACA population by these amounts left a July 2019 current DACA population of approximately 657,000.

Figure 5. What Happened to the Estimated 822,000 Persons Granted DACA Between August 2012 and July 2019? Status as of July 31, 2019

Source: CRS presentation of data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Notes: The data exclude DACA initial applicants who were approved at first, but later had their initial requests denied or terminated. The "DACA expired and was not renewed" category includes both 79,000 persons who did not apply to renew their DACA grants and 10,000 persons whose applications were denied. The data are estimates.

The 2017-2020 increase in the ever-granted-DACA population reflected individuals who had pending DACA initial applications when the DACA rescission was announced (on September 5, 2017) that were subsequently approved. According to USCIS, there were approximately 36,000 pending DACA initial requests on September 5, 2017.⁷⁶ With USCIS now accepting first-time requests again, the number of persons ever issued DACA can be expected to increase further.

DACA and Adjustment of Status

DACA grants are limited to persons who do not have a lawful immigration status. According to USCIS, "you can only request consideration of DACA … if you currently have no immigration status and were not in any lawful status on June 15, 2012" (when the initial DACA memorandum was issued).⁷⁷ A person who had lawful status or parole⁷⁸ in the past can only request DACA if "any lawful immigration status or parole … obtained prior to June 15, 2012, had expired as of June 15, 2012."⁷⁹ As noted in the introduction to this report, a DACA grant does not put a recipient on a pathway to LPR status. At the same time, having DACA does not preclude a beneficiary from adjustment of status (the process of obtaining LPR status while in the United States), if the individual meets the applicable criteria.

As shown in Figure 5, approximately 76,000 DACA recipients had become LPRs as of July 31, 2019.⁸⁰ These USCIS data, as provided to CRS, included information on the pathways by which some 75,000 of these DACA recipients had adjusted status. They indicated that approximately 66,000 DACA recipients had adjusted status as the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, the vast majority as the spouses of U.S. citizens. The data also indicated that approximately 5,000 had adjusted status based on other family relationships with U.S. citizens or LPRs. Another approximately 2,000 DACA recipients had adjusted status as crime and trafficking victims, special immigrant juveniles, or asylees.⁸¹ These pathways to LPR status are discussed in the following sections of this report.

Adjustment of Status

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)⁸² provides various avenues, each subject to a particular set of requirements, through which foreign nationals in the United States can adjust their status to LPR status. For individuals who are not in a lawful immigration status, the options to adjust status are limited. For those who are not in a lawful status and entered the United States illegally (without inspection), the options are even more limited. Available data do not disaggregate the DACA-recipient population by lawful or unlawful U.S. entry.

The main adjustment of status mechanism in the INA (§245(a))⁸³ provides a pathway for individuals who are eligible for immigrant visas, in most cases based on family or employment ties, to obtain LPR status. However, this mechanism is not available to persons who entered the United States without inspection. With the exception of certain victims of battery or extreme cruelty,⁸⁴adjustment of status under INA Section 245(a) is limited to persons who were "inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States." It is further restricted to persons who have maintained lawful status since entry, have not engaged in unauthorized employment, and do not fall within another disqualified category.⁸⁵ The main exception to these disqualifications applies to persons who are adjusting to LPR status based on an approved immigrant visa petition for classification as an "immediate relative" of a U.S. citizen. Immediate relatives are the spouses, minor unmarried children, and parents of U.S. citizens.⁸⁶ Immediate relatives can adjust status under INA Section 245(a) despite their failure to maintain lawful status since entry, provided they entered the United States lawfully and meet the other statutory requirements.

Adjustment Mechanisms for Unlawful Entrants

Persons who entered the United States unlawfully have few avenues to adjust status under the INA. The avenues that do exist have humanitarian elements. For example, unlawful entry does not preclude a person from applying for and being granted asylum provided he or she is otherwise eligible.⁸⁷ After one year as an asylee, a person can apply to adjust to LPR status.⁸⁸

Certain children may be able to obtain LPR status through a special pathway if they "have been subject to state juvenile court proceedings related to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under state law." These individuals may be eligible for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) classification.⁸⁹ Under a provision in INA Section 245, a person classified as an SIJ "shall be deemed, for purposes of subsection (a), to have been paroled into the United States."⁹⁰ In other words, as explained on a USCIS web page directed at SIJ applicants for adjustment of status, "USCIS will consider you paroled when adjudicating your [adjustment of status form] regardless of how you arrived in the United States."⁹¹ In this way, SIJ adjustment of status applicants can satisfy the INA Section 245(a) "inspected and admitted or paroled" requirement.

Unlawful entrants who are the victims of certain types of criminal activity also may be able to adjust status. The INA provides for the granting of nonimmigrant (temporary) status to (1) victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons or (2) victims of certain crimes (including rape, torture, and trafficking) who have suffered resulting physical or mental abuse if the victims have provided, or may in the future provide, assistance to law enforcement and meet other specified requirements. Trafficking victims may be eligible for "T" nonimmigrant status and victims of certain crimes may be eligible for "U" nonimmigrant status.⁹² A "T" or "U" nonimmigrant may be granted LPR status after three years in temporary status subject to statutory requirements.⁹³

In addition, there is an older, date-restricted adjustment of status provision (INA §245(i)) that explicitly applies to certain persons who are ineligible to adjust status under Section 245(a). It applies to persons who are eligible for immigrant visas based on family or employment ties but either (1) entered the United States without inspection or (2) entered lawfully but have not maintained lawful status since entry or are otherwise disqualified. First enacted in 1994, INA Section 245(i) has been extended several times; it was last extended in 2000. It currently applies to certain applicants for adjustment of status who are the beneficiaries of either family- or employment-based immigrant visa petitions or labor certification applications (which are required under certain employment-based categories) filed by April 30, 2001. While the provision continues to be available to qualifying beneficiaries, its April 2001 cutoff date limits its applicability.⁹⁴

Advance Parole

There has been discussion in recent years about a possible adjustment of status avenue for otherwise eligible DACA recipients who initially entered the United States unlawfully (and, thus, are barred from adjustment of status under INA Section 245(a), as discussed above). This avenue hinges on the language in INA Section 245(a) that makes adjustment of status available to otherwise eligible persons who have been paroled into the country.

DACA, as originally established in 2012, allowed for DACA recipients to apply for a form of parole known as advance parole so they could travel abroad and apply to re-enter the United States afterward.⁹⁵ The departure from the United States of a DACA recipient who had not been granted advance parole would automatically terminate his or her DACA grant. Under the Obama Administration, USCIS enumerated the following bases for granting advance parole to DACA recipients: "humanitarian purposes, including travel to obtain medical treatment, attending funeral services for a family member, or visiting an ailing relative; educational purposes, such as semester-abroad programs and academic research[; or] employment purposes."⁹⁶

The advance parole-adjustment of status logic went as follows: When DACA recipients who were granted advance parole returned to the United States after travelling abroad, they could be paroled in. As parolees, they would satisfy the "inspected and admitted or paroled" requirement for adjustment of status. Provided they had the requisite family or employment ties and met the other requirements, they could adjust to LPR status.

According to preliminary data provided by DHS in response to a congressional request, 45,447 DACA recipients were approved for advance parole as of August 21, 2017.⁹⁷ It is not known how many of these individuals may have subsequently applied for or been granted LPR status. In response to an earlier congressional inquiry, USCIS indicated that, as of December 31, 2015, 22,340 DACA recipients had been approved for advance parole. As of that same date, 5,068 of those recipients had applied for adjustment of status and 2,994 had been approved. In its letter transmitting this information, USCIS noted, "some among the group of 2,994 DACA recipients who were approved for advance parole and were subsequently granted adjustment of status may have been otherwise eligible for adjustment of status regardless of the grant of advance parole."⁹⁸

When the Trump Administration acted in 2017 to rescind DACA, it announced that it would no longer grant advance parole under the DACA program.⁹⁹ In July 2020, following the Supreme Court decision vacating the DACA rescission, then-acting DHS Secretary Wolf indicated that advance parole "should be granted to current DACA beneficiaries only in exceptional circumstances."¹⁰⁰ In December 2020, as part of a district court-ordered reinstatement of the original DACA policy, USCIS resumed accepting advance parole applications from DACA recipients under the terms in effect prior to the September 2017 changes.¹⁰¹

Conclusion

This report is focused on the DACA population. This subpopulation of unauthorized immigrants (whether understood to include only current recipients, current and past recipients, or a version of the DACA-eligible population) has commanded interest and attention since 2012.¹⁰² Even in the context of broader discussions and proposals to grant lawful status to unauthorized immigrants by creating new LPR status mechanisms, the DACA population has remained a relevant, discrete subpopulation.

Dreamers who do not satisfy the 2012 DACA criteria are also the subject of legalization proposals. Because there is no single, common understanding of this population, individual measures must enumerate the eligibility criteria for their LPR mechanisms. Eligible populations may be defined using DACA-like requirements concerning age at U.S. entry, length of U.S. residence, and educational attainment.

As part of a 2021 report on legalization, MPI used the original DACA criteria as a taking-off point and estimated eligible populations under broader eligibility criteria. For example, it found that changing the required U.S. entry year from 2007 to 2016 (and leaving all the other DACA requirements in place) would increase the immediately eligible population from an estimated 1.3 million to an estimated 1.5 million. Changing the entry year to 2016 while simultaneously raising the allowable age at entry from under 16 to under 18 and eliminating the maximum age restriction would increase the immediately eligible population to an estimated 1.8 million.¹⁰³ On the other hand, requiring higher levels of educational attainment than are required for a DACA initial grant, as many Dreamer legalization proposals have, would reduce the immediately eligible population.

In designing legalization programs for unauthorized childhood arrivals, policymakers may opt to go beyond DACA-like criteria and, as has been done in many proposals, require such things as knowledge of the English language and U.S. civics. Legalization programs may also impose penalty fees in addition to application fees. The criteria chosen and the mechanisms created, taken together, reflect a set of policy choices that determine the size of the potential beneficiary population.

Appendix. States of Residence for DACA Recipients