The Advisory Commission voted to send a draft letter to the County Council supporting Bill 2624e, the U‑visa Law Enforcement Certification Policy, and to ask the Montgomery County Police Department to remove local restrictions that exceed federal law and to allow certification for qualifying witnesses.

The move followed a presentation by Francisco (commission member), who summarized meetings with MCPD staff and the bill’s author. Francisco said the commission found no legal objection to the bill’s intent but flagged operational limits in MCPD’s current policy, including a county‑only crime location requirement and a prior time limit on qualifying crimes. “We don’t find any objections except…we want to make sure that the MCPD is in a position to and is allowed to reject most applications that relate to a crime that has taken place…outside of Montgomery County,” Francisco said.

The commission’s letter will also request that MCPD explicitly extend its published policy to allow qualifying witnesses to receive certificates of helpfulness, a change some commissioners argued would encourage cooperation with investigations. Sherry (commission member) asked for clarification on whether the policy covered witnesses as well as victims: “So just to clarify for everybody, this policy affects people who are witnesses or victims?” Francisco and other members noted the federal U‑visa rules allow both victims and certain witnesses to qualify but that MCPD’s policy, as written, appeared narrower.

Commissioners discussed practical effects if MCPD removes the county‑only and time‑limit restrictions. Francisco reported MCPD staff said they currently issue about 200 certifications a year and approve roughly 90% of requests they process. He cautioned that removing administrative restrictions may increase applications and workload and therefore require additional resources. He also noted an existing national backlog: “there’s a backlog of about 300,000 applications,” he said, and Congress has capped annual U‑visa issuances, which constrains processing.

Members raised concerns about potential fraud in visa applications filed with USCIS and said MCPD’s role in certification is limited to confirming helpfulness where records and information exist. Susan (County Executive’s Office staff) said a fiscal impact note was expected to appear with the public‑safety committee materials and that staff would circulate any fiscal detail available before the public hearing.

After discussion, Terry (commission member) moved to accept the draft letter prepared by Francisco and Arthur (commission member), with the amendment to request that MCPD extend its policy to qualifying witnesses; Sean (commission member) seconded. The commission approved the motion by voice vote; a roll‑call tally was not recorded in the transcript. The commission instructed staff to circulate the revised letter for finalization and to submit it for inclusion in the bill file for the council’s public hearing.

The letter will be forwarded to the County Council ahead of the scheduled public hearing on the bill.