Daily Mail Features Codias Law’s Framework to Hold Foreign Nationals Accountable for Harming U.S. Citizens
Kicking off 2026, the Daily Mail highlighted Codias Law’s innovative “Direct Harm to U.S. Citizens” policy framework to hold foreign nationals accountable for harming U.S. citizens in an article entitled “I've seen too many love-struck US citizens burned in marriage scams. Here's how Trump must close our scariest immigration loophole.”
Article Highlights
The piece brings national attention to a longstanding reality: federal immigration agencies are failing to protect U.S. citizens who are directly harmed by foreign nationals outside the criminal justice system.
The article illustrates this failure through the lens of marriage fraud, describing how foreign nationals exploit romantic relationships to obtain immigration benefits and then abandon or turn against their U.S. citizen sponsors. In particular, the reporting highlights:
• Fraud-prone pathway: Marriage to a U.S. citizen offers fast-tracked residency, waivers, and a path to citizenship, while rarely triggering meaningful investigation or enforcement.
• Citizens excluded: U.S. citizen sponsors are often shut out of immigration proceedings, even when they are the alleged victims, and are left with legal bills, emotional trauma, and long-term financial exposure.
• VAWA allegations: Abuse claims under the Violence Against Women Act may support immigration benefits without arrests or criminal convictions, while barring the U.S. citizen from participation or rebuttal.
• No DHS process: Brown states there is “no structure, no policy, no process” within DHS to address harm to Americans, despite DHS asserting that antifraud initiatives and the VOICE Office provide protection.
• Advocacy contradiction: Immigrant advocates warn against immigration consequences based on allegations alone, even as existing programs rely on allegations to confer benefits.
DHC Proposal
That structural failure is precisely what Codias Law’s Direct Harm to U.S. Citizens (DHC) framework is designed to address. DHC would require DHS officers to treat direct harm inflicted on a U.S. citizen by a foreign national as a significant negative factor in discretionary immigration decisions. The framework corrects the existing gap by establishing:
• Clear policy: A Department-wide directive requiring USCIS, ICE, and CBP to affirmatively consider harm to U.S. citizens in all discretionary immigration decisions.
• Credible process: A mechanism allowing U.S. citizens and licensed professionals to submit evidence of harm, coupled with a required credibility determination rather than summary dismissal.
• Dedicated structure: Assignment of responsibility within DHS to track, assess, and transmit harm findings so they meaningfully inform front-line adjudications and enforcement actions.
If adopted, DHC would mark a historic realignment of immigration policy—impacting more than 144 million discretionary decisions annually—without requiring new legislation, funding, or expanded authority.
In response to the failures highlighted in the Daily Mail coverage, Codias Law has launched a formal petition urging the Department of Homeland Security to adopt the DHC framework as agency policy and restore accountability for harm inflicted on U.S. citizens.
Public Comment
Cody M. Brown, Managing Attorney of Codias Law, issued the following statement upon publication:
“It is an institutional absurdity that the U.S. immigration system—whose purpose is to benefit and serve the American people—has no policy requiring decisionmakers to consider harm inflicted on U.S. citizens. DHS exercises discretionary authority millions of times each year, yet does not require its officers to ask the most basic question: whether a foreign national seeking or retaining an immigration benefit has directly harmed an American. That omission is not accidental; it is the product of a system that continues, even under the Trump administration, to prioritize the interests of foreign nationals over the rights and safety of U.S. citizens.
Contrary to DHS’s assertion in the article that the ICE VOICE Office serves victims of marriage fraud, days ago a supervising official within VOICE expressly informed Codias Law that it does not provide services for victims of marriage fraud. In practice, U.S. citizens deceived into marriages are turned away, redirected, or ignored—confirming that no functional institutional mechanism exists to address their harm. Invoking VOICE as a safeguard does not solve the problem; it obscures it.
Equally untenable are objections from immigrant advocates and legal scholars who argue that DHS should not weigh harm to U.S. citizens absent criminal convictions. That position is not merely inconsistent—it is absurd. Entire immigration programs—including VAWA self-petitions, I-751 waivers, U visas, and T visas—operate explicitly on allegations alone, and routinely exclude the accused U.S. citizen from the process entirely. Yet when Americans seek recognition of documented harm, those same voices suddenly insist that allegations are legally meaningless unless proven in criminal court. What is accepted as sufficient when it benefits a foreign national is dismissed as irrelevant when it would protect a U.S. citizen. By advancing this absurd double standard, advocates and scholars have unwittingly undermined the justification for all VAWA-based programs.
The Direct Harm to U.S. Citizens framework exposes this contradiction and corrects it. Immigration discretion already exists. The only question is whether DHS will continue to exercise that discretion in a manner that ignores American victims—or finally acknowledge that a system built for the public interest cannot lawfully or morally exclude harm to the public itself.”
FAQs
What is the Direct Harm to U.S. Citizens (DHC) framework?
The Direct Harm to U.S. Citizens framework is a proposed DHS policy developed by Codias Law that would require immigration officers at USCIS, ICE, and CBP to treat direct harm inflicted on a U.S. citizen by a foreign national as a significant negative factor in discretionary immigration decisions. It establishes three components: a Department-wide directive requiring officers to affirmatively consider harm to citizens, a credible process allowing citizens and licensed professionals to submit evidence of harm with a required credibility determination, and a dedicated structure within DHS to track, assess, and transmit harm findings so they inform adjudications and enforcement actions.
Why is the DHC framework needed for victims of immigration marriage fraud?
Currently, there is no policy, structure, or process within DHS requiring officers to consider harm inflicted on U.S. citizens when making discretionary immigration decisions. U.S. citizen sponsors who are victims of marriage fraud are often shut out of immigration proceedings even when they are the alleged victims, leaving them with legal bills, emotional trauma, and long-term financial exposure. The DHC framework corrects this gap by ensuring that harm to Americans is affirmatively weighed in immigration decisions, which would impact more than 144 million discretionary decisions annually without requiring new legislation, funding, or expanded authority.
Does DHC require new legislation to be implemented?
No. The DHC framework can be adopted entirely under DHS's existing discretionary authority. Immigration officers already exercise discretion in adjudications and enforcement actions millions of times each year. DHC simply directs that discretion to include consideration of documented harm to U.S. citizens — a factor that is currently absent from the decision-making process. No new legislation, funding, or expanded authority is needed.
How does the DHC framework address the contradiction between VAWA-based programs and protections for U.S. citizens?
The framework exposes a fundamental inconsistency in the current system. Entire immigration programs — including VAWA self-petitions, I-751 waivers, U visas, and T visas — operate on allegations alone and routinely exclude the accused U.S. citizen from the process. Yet when Americans seek recognition of documented harm caused by a foreign national, objectors insist that allegations are meaningless without criminal convictions. The DHC framework corrects this double standard by ensuring that evidence of harm to U.S. citizens receives the same institutional weight that allegations of harm by U.S. citizens already receive.