House investigation continues into Fairfax DA Steve Descano's immigration crime policies
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney Steve Descano on Thursday demanding he provide more information to the committee about his policy that they say gives preferential treatment to illegal immigrant criminals.
Last month, Descano and Fairfax County Sheriff Stacey Kincaid testified before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement about Fairfax County’s "refusal to cooperate" with federal immigration officials and Fairfax County's "prioritization of illegal and criminal aliens over American citizens."
To say the hearing was fiery would be an understatement.
"Despite knowing of the Committee's interest in these sanctuary policies for several months, you were unable to answer basic questions during the hearing about how your office carries out your policy's directives," four Committee members wrote in a letter to Descano. "For this reason, we write to request information about your office's preferential treatment of illegal alien criminals that you were unable to answer during your testimony."
Republican Congressmen Jim Jordan, Tom McClintock, Ben Cline, and Brandon Gill were the members of Congress who wrote the follow-up letter to Descano.
The Congressmen are asking Descano to provide all the cases in which his office considered immigration status for the reason why his office gave leniency to criminal illegal immigrants who were accused of crimes in Fairfax County.
"Stephen Descano's own policies give preferential treatment to illegal aliens," Rep. Gill told 7News. "He tried to claim those same policies were not the reason a child rapist received a 90 day suspended jail sentence. If that's true, he'll have no problem handing over the records. Fairfax County's victims deserve the truth he refused to give us in that hearing room.”
The letter reads:
During the hearing, several members cited your office's policy about treating illegal aliens differently than American citizens, and your previous pledge to do that. For years, in fact, you promised Fairfax County voters that your office would, "[w]herever possible . . . take immigration consequences into account when making charging and plea decisions." You argued that "[i]f two people commit the same crime, but only one's punishment includes deportation, that's a perversion of justice and not a reflection of the values of Fairfax County." Weeks before the hearing, and after the Committee began investigating your office's policies, you removed the pro-illegal alien promises from your campaign website. However, this pledge is still reflected in your office's official policy, which states that prosecutors “shall consider immigration consequences where possible and where doing so accords with justice.
At the hearing, Chairman Jordan asked about your office's treatment of criminal cases involving Marvin Morales-Ortez, an alleged MS-13 member from El Salvador who was released from law enforcement custody after your office "decided not to move forward with prosecuting him on charges of malicious assault and pointing/brandishing a gun" last year. One day after the dismissal of charges against him, Morales-Ortez allegedly murdered a man in Reston, Virginia. When Chairman Jordan asked about how your office policy affected the charging decisions with respect to Morales-Ortez, you denied that your office considered immigration consequences for Morales-Ortez.
Chairman Jordan later returned to the topic of Morales-Ortez and asked you about the cases in which your office had considered immigration consequences in making charging, plea bargaining, and sentencing decisions. Instead of denying that such cases existed, you replied, "Sir, I . . . don’t have those cases with me."
You testified:
Q. Now, here's what I want to know. And maybe your office, Mr. Descano, is willing to give us this information because . . . you said immigration status had no determination on the decision relative to Mr. Morales-Ortez.
I want to know in cases where it did, what were the cases where you changed the plea agreement or you changed the charging decision that were based on consideration of their immigration status?
If you say this doesn't matter anymore; "We took it down off the website. I didn’t really believe what I told the voters" – if that is the case, I want to know, did you ever use immigration status as a reason to impact the sentence and the charging decision or plea agreement?
A. Well, sir.
Q. Can you get us that information? That's what I'm asking. Just give us that information. I want to know what – here are the cases where we took into account this individual's immigration status and we changed the charging decision. Can you give us those cases?
A. Sir, I . . . don't have those cases with me.
Q. Well imagine that–
A. I'd love to talk to you about the policy because I think it's been–
Q. You don't have those cases with you? Is it a significant number?
A. Well, sir, if I may dig into the policy, I think it will be illustrious.
Q. No, I asked you about the cases. I want to know the number of times you took into their – because here's what everyone sees. And you are trying to say it is not the case. Everyone sees you have got an American citizen who does a crime. You have got an illegal immigrant who does the exact same crime. Your policy strong – it seems to me says that this person will get a different sentence or a different charge – excuse me – a different plea agreement than the American citizen.
A. It absolutely–
Q. And I want to know if that ever happened.
A. It absolutely says in the policy in black and white that a – that an immigrant will not get a better outcome than a U.S. citizen. That is in the policy. That's later. You read one-half sentence, sir. This is a two-paragraph policy.
Your response to the questions in this exchange and your denial that your office considered immigration consequences for Morales-Ortez suggest that your office tracks or maintains such information and that it is accessible.
Later in the hearing, Members returned to this topic and your testimony suggested that illegal aliens' immigration status may have a factor in some prosecutorial decisions. When Representative Gill asked about how your office "weigh[ed] the defendant's immigration status" in reference to Ander Jose Cortez-Mendez, an illegal alien sex offender. You replied, "I was not the lead prosecutor in that case." When pressed on whether your office considered the defendant's immigration status in the case, you claimed that prosecutorial decisions in the case were "based on the evidence." When Representative Gill asked again about whether prosecutors considered immigration consequences in Cortez-Mendez's case, you replied, "I don't believe so," later stating that prosecutors in your office "should not have taken" immigration consequences into account. You further claimed that the case "should not have fallen under the rubric of this policy," which you said was meant to be a "narrow policy." Subsequently, you testified that your pro-illegal alien prosecution policy was "written with legal permanent residents in mind for minor crimes."
These assertions contradict your own policy. Although you claimed that prosecutors in your office "should not have" considered immigration consequences for Cortez-Mendez, your policy does not include a prohibition against considering immigration consequences in any case, including the most violent or heinous cases. Instead, your policy memorandum describes "[t]he weight accorded to potential adverse immigration consequences" as existing “on a sliding scale." Your written policy, therefore, does not include exceptions for illegal alien sex offenders like Cortez-Mendez or limit its application to specific crimes. Even though you claimed your policy was intended to apply to lawful permanent residents, nothing in your office's policy limits its application to legal immigrants alone.
Given your unclear and evasive testimony, the Committee and Subcommittee remain concerned that your office's pro-crime, pro-illegal immigration policies undermine public safety and hinder the effective enforcement of federal law. To assist the Committee with its continued oversight of federal immigration policy and to inform potential legislative reforms to address sanctuary policies, we ask that you provide the following information:
1. The number of cases for which the Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney's Office entered a nolle prosequi from the period January 1, 2020, to the present, including the nationality of the defendant in each case and the associated charges;
2. The categories of aliens to which your policy, Guidelines for Plea Bargaining, Charging Decisions, and Sentencing, applies, including clarification of whether the policy applies only to aliens with lawful status in the United States or to both aliens with and without lawful status in the United States; and
3. All cases in which the Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney's Office considered immigration consequences, as directed by the office's Guidelines for Plea Bargaining, Charging Decisions, and Sentencing, from the period January 1, 2020, to the present, including, but not limited to, whether the office considered immigration consequences or received immigration-related pleas in any case involving the following individuals and the associated charges, dispositions, and criminal histories for each case:
a. Marvin Morales-Ortez;
b. Abdul Jalloh;
c. Wilmer Osmany Ramos-Giron;
d. Hyrum Baquedano-Rodriguez;
e. Maldin Anibal Guzman;
f. Wis Alonso Sorto-Portillo;
g. Ander Cortez Mendez;
h. Jose Fabricio Veizaga Vargas;
i. Yohandri Mosquera Rosas;
j. Jorge Armando Melendez-Gonzalez;
k. Denis Humberto Navarette Romero;
l. Juan Rodriguez Alfaro;
m. Oscar Roberto Zaldivar;
n. Simon Parina Sandi;
o. Carlos Humberto Sanchez Hernandez;
p. Jesus Arevalo Cruz;
q. Marlon Joel Arita Figueroa;
r. Luis Fernando Guardado Moreno;
s. Victor Manuel Matrigales;
t. Fredy Ronaldy Ochoa Ramirez;
u. Luis Alonso Patriz Hernandez;
v. Gerson Alexis Paz Ramos;
w. Julio Gabriel Rivera Molina;
x. Marvin Alberto Rodriguez Corvera;
y. Jose Martin Mendoza Ramirez;
z. Wilson Giova Menjivar Guerra; and
aa. Cristobal Liobardo Vasquez-Sanchez.
If your office did not consider immigration consequences for these cases, please indicate that clearly.
Please provide the information requested as soon as possible but no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 18, 2026. The Committee is authorized to conduct oversight of federal immigration law pursuant to the Rules of the House of Representatives. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
On Thursday, 7News requested comment and an interview with Mr. Descano.
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee is also investigating Arlington Commonwealth's Attorney Parisa Dehghani-Tafti's immigration policies.
Last month, the Committee put the Arlington Commonwealth's Attorney, the Arlington Sheriff, and the Arlington County Police Chief on notice that members of Congress are looking into their so-called sanctuary policies for illegal immigrants.
In May, House Judiciary Chairman Jordan sent letters to Arlington Commonwealth's Attorney Parisa Dehghani Tafti, Sheriff Jose Quiroz, and Police Chief Charles Penn telling them that under their office's "pro-crime, pro-illegal immigration policies, illegal alien criminals are allowed to freely operate, terrorize local communities, and reoffend without consequences."
"This is a phenomenon that is happening all over the country," Congressman Jordan told 7News Reporter Nick Minock last month. "And we've seen where in sanctuary jurisdictions illegal migrants are apprehended for some crime, and then they're released on the street, they do bad things, they harm Americans, harm American citizens. Almost a third of the population of the country lives in a sanctuary jurisdiction where local politicians tell local law enforcement not to interact and work with federal law enforcement when it comes to enforcing federal law. And that's just crazy."
Rep. Jordan said Arlington County's commonwealth's attorney (just like Fairfax County's) seems to give preferential treatment toward defendants accused of crimes who are in the country illegally. His letter provides evidence.
"This is saying someone who's not even a citizen of the country is going to get preferential treatment under the law," said Jordan. "That's just ridiculous."
A lawyer for Dehghani-Tafti told 7News, "Commonwealth Attorney Dehghani-Tafti will not be bullied or deterred from doing her job to keep her community safe."
Read the full article here.