Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

April 14, 2021 R46764

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): April 14, 2021
By the Numbers
Andorra Bruno
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative has commanded interest and
Specialist in Immigration
attention since its unveiling in 2012. It has provided protection from deportation and work
Policy
authorization to a subset of unauthorized childhood arrivals. Often called Dreamers,

unauthorized childhood arrivals are foreign nationals in the United States without a lawful
immigration status who first entered the country as children.

DACA was established in the aftermath of unsuccessful legislative efforts to create a mechanism for certain Dreamers to
obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. A DACA grant, however, does not confer LPR status (or any other legal
immigration status) on a beneficiary.
Several bills to establish a mechanism for DACA recipients and other Dreamers to become LPRs have been introduced in the
117th Congress. They include the American Dream and Promise Act of 2021 (H.R. 6), which was passed by the House in
March 2021, the Dream Act of 2021 (S. 264), and the U.S. Citizenship Act (H.R. 1177/S. 348).
Data on the DACA population can help inform these and other DACA- and Dreamer-related legislative efforts. These data,
available from several sources, include estimates of the DACA -eligible population and the DACA-recipient population as
well as information on the socioeconomic characteristics of DACA recipients.
To be granted DACA, a first-time applicant must satisfy requirements related to age, immigration status, U.S. residence,
education, and criminal history. Many of these requirements are tied to June 15, 2012, the date the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) issued the first DACA memorandum. An initial DACA grant is valid for two years, and can be renewed in
two-year increments.
The DACA-eligible population is finite. Inclusion is based on satisfaction of the requirements for a DACA initial grant. The
exact size of the DACA-eligible population is unknown, but various entities have produced estimates.
DHS’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) administers DACA. It adjudicates DACA initial and renewal
applications. Since 2012, it has regularly published data on DACA application processing.
Since September 2017, when the Trump Administration announced its ultimately unsuccessful plans to rescind DACA,
USCIS has published data on current DACA recipients. The USCIS reports provide approximate DACA -recipient population
totals as well as data on recipients’ countries of birth, U.S. states of residence, gender, age, and marital status. The most
recent data indicate that there were approximately 636,390 DACA recipients as of December 31, 2020. These individuals are
primarily from Mexico, and more than 1 in 4 live in California. The USCIS data also indicate DACA recipients are 53%
female and largely unmarried, with a median age of 26.
Surveys of DACA recipients are another source of data about this population. While there are limitations to these surveys,
they provide information on measures not available in USCIS reports. These measures include employment, earnings, and the
immigration status of DACA recipients’ family members.
Efforts to enact legislation to enable DACA recipients, and Dreamers more broadly, to obtain LPR status reflect the fact that
there are limited avenues for unauthorized immigrants to become LPRs. Options are more limited for persons who entered
the United States unlawfully than for those who initially entered lawfully (on a temporary visa, for example). According to
USCIS data, about 76,000 DACA recipients had become LPRs as of July 2019.
Bills to enable Dreamers to obtain LPR status typically propose to make new immigration mechanisms available to persons
who meet a set of criteria. These criteria may include DACA-like requirements concerning age and U.S. residence as well as
other requirements. The criteria chosen and the mechanisms created, taken together, reflect a set of policy choices. They also
determine the size of the potential beneficiary population.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 29 link to page 30 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

Appendixes
Appendix. States of Residence for DACA Recipients.......................................................... 25

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 26

Congressional Research Service

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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 al 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 bil s were introduced and considered in 115th and 116th 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 Stil 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 117th
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.

1 White House, Preserving and Fortifying Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) , presidential memorandum
to the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, January 20, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/
briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/preserving-and-fortifying-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-daca/.
2 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Statement by Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas on DACA,” March
26, 2021.
3 White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Remarks by the President on Immigration, June 15, 2012,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/15/remarks-president -immigration (archived content).
T he term Dream Act is used to describe bills to grant lawful permanent resident (LPR) status to unauthorized childhood
arrivals, regardless of the actual title of the legislation. For an overview of legislative activity on Dream Act me asures
since the 107th Congress, see CRS Report R45995, Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation .
4 See, for example, S. 166, as introduced in the 116th Congress. Also see H.R. 4760, which was considered on the
House floor in the 115th Congress. H.R. 4760 is discussed in CRS Report R45995, Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals,
DACA, and Related Legislation.
5 See, for example, H.R. 3400, as introduced in the 116th Congress, which would allow eligible individuals to become
LPRs through military service.
6 See, for example, House-passed H.R. 6 in the 116th Congress. T his bill is discussed in CRS Report R45995,
Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation .
Congressional Research Service

1

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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. Final y, 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 al ows 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) physical y 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

7 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Memorandum to David V. Aguilar, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, John Morton, Director,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, Exercising
Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Cam e to the United States as Children , June 15, 2012,
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf.
8 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigratio n Services, “Glossary,”
https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary.
9 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Consideration of Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA),” February 4, 2021, https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian-parole/consideration-
of-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-daca (hereinafter cited as “ USCIS, Consideration of DACA”).
10 T his DACA eligibility requirement lists honorable discharge from, but not service in, the U.S. Armed Forces. T he term
Arm ed Forces, as defined in 10 U.S.C. §101(a)(4), means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast
Guard.
11 For information about what offenses constitute felonies, significant misdemeanors, and non -significant
misdemeanors, and what qualifies as a threat to national security or public safety , see U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS DACA FAQs, response to questions 61-68, February 4, 2021,
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-of-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-daca/frequently-asked-
questions (hereinafter cited as “ DHS DACA FAQs”).
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 13 link to page 22 link to page 22 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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 chal enging 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

12 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Renew Your DACA,”
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/renew-your-daca.
13 DHS DACA FAQs, response to question 1.
14 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Memorandum to James W. McCament, Acting Director, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, T homas D. Homan, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kevin K.
McAleenan, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Joseph B. Maher, Acting General Counsel,
Ambassador James D. Nealon, Assistant Secretary, International Engagement, Julie M. Kirchner, Citizenship and Immigration
Services Ombudsman, from Elaine C. Duke, Acting Secretary, Rescission of the June 15, 2012 Memorandum Entitled
“Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children”, September 5,
2017, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/09/05/memorandum-rescission-daca (hereinafter cited as “ DACA rescission memo,
September 2017”).
15 See CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10216, DACA: Litigation Status Update.
16 According to a USCIS “ July 17, 2019, Update” on DACA: “Due to federal court orders on Jan. 9, 2018 and Feb. 13,
2018, USCIS has resumed accepting requests to renew a grant of deferred action under DACA .” T his update is
available at U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Serv ices, “ Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals: Response to January 2018 Preliminary Injunction, ” https://www.uscis.gov/archive/deferred-action-
for-childhood-arrivals-response-to-january-2018-preliminary-injunction (archived content).
17 Ibid. According to USCIS, this late renewal policy has been in effect throughout the life of DACA, except for the
period between January 10, 2018, and July 31, 2019; during that period, “ individuals whose most recent period of
DACA expired on or after September 5, 2016, could still file their request as a renewal request” (USCIS email to CRS,
August 29, 2019). T hus, with the exception of filings during the specified early 2018 to mid-2019 period, DACA
requests from certain previous DACA recipients are recorded as initial requests in USCIS data tables on DACA
applications.
Congressional Research Service

3

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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 fol owing 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, physical y 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 wel 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

18 See CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10497, Supreme Court: DACA Rescission Violated the APA.
19 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Memorandum to Mark Morgan, Senior Official Performing the Duties of
Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Matthew Albence, Senior Official Performing the Duties of Director,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Joseph Edlow, Deputy Director of Policy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, from Chad F. Wolf, Acting Secretary, Reconsideration of the June 15, 2012 Mem orandum Entitled “Exercising
Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Cam e to the United States as Children ”, July 28, 2020,
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/20_0728_s1_daca-reconsideration-memo.pdf (hereinafter cited as
Wolf memo, July 2020).
20 Suzanne Monyak, “DHS Chief’s Invalid Appointment Sinks Effort to Curb DACA,” Law360, November 15, 2020,
https://www.law360.com/articles/1329033/dhs-chief-s-invalid-appointment-sinks-effort -to-curb-daca; Dave Simpson,
“T rump Admin. Must Resume DACA Program, NY Judge Rules,” Law360, December 4, 2020,
https://www.law360.com/articles/1334901/trump-admin-must-resume-daca-program-ny-judge-rules (each article
includes a link to the court decision).
21 USCIS, Consideration of DACA.
22 T o qualify as school for DACA purposes, “an education, literacy, or career training program (including vocational
training) [must have] a purpose of improving literacy, mathematics, or English or [be] designed to lead to placement in
postsecondary education, job training, or employment and where you are working toward such placement.” Both these
types of programs and education programs assisting students in obtaining a regular high school diploma or its
Congressional Research Service

4

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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 typical y 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 physical y 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 al 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

recognized equivalent or in passing a GED or other state-authorized exam “ include … programs funded, in whole or in
part, by federal, state, county or municipal grants or administered by non -profit organizations.” Other programs may
qualify if they have “demonstrated effectiveness.” DHS DACA FAQs, response to question 33.
23 USCIS, Consideration of DACA. There is an exception to this age requirement for individuals who are in removal
proceedings, have a final removal order, or have a voluntary departure order. DHS DACA FAQs, response to question
29. For an explanation of these removal-related terms, see CRS Report R43892, Alien Rem ovals and Returns:
Overview and Trends.
24 See Migration Policy Institute, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/about/about-migration-policy-institute.
25 See, for example, Jeanne Batalova, Sarah Hooker, and Randy Capps, DACA at the Two-Year Mark: A National and
State Profile of Youth Eligible and Applying for Deferred Action, Migration Policy Institute, August 2014, pp. 5-6
(hereinafter cited as “MPI, DACA at the Two-Year Mark”).
26 According to MPI, “we believe this number will be very small given that military service in most cases requires legal
status.” Jeanne Batalova, Sarah Hooker and Randy Capps, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals at the One-Year
Mark: A Profile of Currently Eligible Youth and Applicants, August 2013, p. 15 (endnote 3).
Congressional Research Service

5

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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 al the requirements for a DACA
initial grant and are, thus, immediately eligible; (2) persons who meet al 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 al
the requirements except the educational requirement; and 473,000 children who met al 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 al 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 wil 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.

27 MPI, DACA at the Two-Year Mark, p. 6.
28 Ibid., pp. 7-8.
29 Faye Hipsman, Bárbara Gómez-Aguiñaga, and Randy Capps, DACA at Four: Participation in the Deferred Action
Program and Im pacts on Recipients, Migration Policy Institute, August 2016.
30 Migration Policy Institute, “National and State Estimates of Immigrant P opulations Eligible for the Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program, December 2020,” https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/
datahub/State%20Estimates%20of%20DACA-Eligible%20Population_Dec%202020.xlsx.
31 Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 11 link to page 11 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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.
Table 1. DACA Applications Accepted and Processed
FY2012-FY2020
Type of
Fiscal Year
Application
Accepted
Approved
Denied
Pending
Initial
152,430
1,684
0
150,746
2012
Renewal
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Initial
427,612
470,598
11,019
96,728
2013
Renewal
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

32 T his section is limited to DACA applications considered by USCIS. As such, it does not cover DACA requests by
persons in immigration detention. According to USCIS:
All individuals who believe they meet the guidelines, including those in removal proceedings, with
a final removal order, or with a voluntary departure order (and not in immigration det ention), may
affirmatively request consideration of DACA from USCIS…. Individuals who are currently in
immigration detention and believe they meet the guidelines may not request consideration of
deferred action from USCIS but may identify themselves to their ICE [U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement] case officer or follow directions at ICE’s website at www.ice.gov/daca.
See DHS DACA FAQs, response to question 7.
33 See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “I -821D, Consideration of
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” https://www.uscis.gov/i-821d. As of the date of this report, required fees total
$495.
34 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “ Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals: Who Can Be Considered?”
August 15, 2012, https://www.dhs.gov/blog/2012/08/15/deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-who-can-be-considered
(archived content).
35 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,” https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/
DACA_performancedata_fy2020_qtr4.pdf.
36 Accepted is used here, as it is used by USCIS, to denote a received application that meets applicable regulations and
policies. According to general USCIS filing information, “ we will reject your form if you do not properly complete the
form or include a valid signature, or if you do not submit the correct fee.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, “ Lockbox Filing Information,” https://www.uscis.gov/about -us/organization/
directorates-and-program-offices/management-directorate/office-of-intake-and-document -production/lockbox-filing-
information. For comparison purposes, USCIS received a total of 963,831 initial DACA requests during the FY2012-
FY2020 period. It rejected 49,191 of them and accepted 914,640.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 13 link to page 11 link to page 13 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

Type of
Fiscal Year
Application
Accepted
Approved
Denied
Pending
Initial
122,474
135,921
21,068
62,153
2014
Renewal
116,424
22,234
D
94,185
Initial
85,300
90,827
19,088
37,466
2015
Renewal
363,546
419,502
2,351
35,852
Initial
73,347
52,992
11,527
45,445
2016
Renewal
187,354
145,821
3,026
74,332
Initial
45,593
47,132
9,165
34,688
2017
Renewal
427,257
414,778
4,031
82,745
Initial
2,060
24,382
8,249
4,105
2018
Renewal
258,060
294,961
4,288
41,533
Initial
1,570
1,779
1,605
2,285
2019
Renewal
384,588
385,773
3,343
36,980
Initial
4,254
1,804
719
4,011
2020
Renewal
309,693
293,039
3,293
50,329
Initial
914,640
827,119
82,440

2012-2020
Renewal
2,046,922
1,976,108
20,335

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: “Requests accepted” are requests that meet applicable regulations and policies; this is a different
measure than requests received (which are not displayed in this table). Some requests approved or denied in a
fiscal year may have been accepted in a previous fiscal year. “D” denotes a smal number of cases; the precise
number is not disclosed to protect petitioners’ privacy.
As noted, not al 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 general y, these approval rates were
highest in the first two years (FY2012-FY2013) and lowest in the last three years (FY2018-
Congressional Research Service

8

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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 periodical y 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 periodical y 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 al 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 overal

37 All these data can be accessed at U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
“Immigration and Citizenship Data,” https://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-and-studies/immigration-and-citizenship-
data?ddt_mon=&ddt_yr=&query=&items_per_page=10&options%5Bvalue%5D&page=1.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 23 link to page 14 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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 al 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.
Table 2. Top 10 Countries of Birth for DACA Recipients
As of December 31, 2020
Number of
Ranking
Country
Persons
% of Total
1
Mexico
512,660
81%
2
El Salvador
24,590
4%
3
Guatemala
16,700
3%
4
Honduras
15,310
2%

38 USCIS provided the following data on DACA terminations in a July 2018 letter in response to a congressional
inquiry:
From August 15, 2012 to April 30, 2018, there have been approximately 3,010 DACA requests
terminated. T his figure includes terminated DACA requests that were subsequently reinstated
pursuant to a court order. USCIS notes that this number reflects the number of requests terminated,
and not the number of unique individuals whose DACA was terminated.
T his correspondence and data are available at
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/foia/DACA_adjudication_data_ -_Representative_Guitierrez.pdf.
39 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Approximate Active DACA
Recipients… As of September 4, 2017,” https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/
daca_population_data.pdf (hereinafter cited as “ Active DACA Recipients, September 2017”).
40 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “ Count of Active DACA
Recipients … As of Dec. 31, 2020,” https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/
Active_DACA_Recipients%E2%80%93December31%2C2020.pdf (hereinafter cited as “ Active DACA Recipients,
December 2020”).
41 Note that the USCIS DACA-recipient data tables prior to the December 2020 tables label the reported numbers of
DACA recipients as approximate; the December 2020 data tables indicate that the DACA -recipient numbers are
rounded.
42 Active DACA Recipients, December 2020, pp. 2-4.
43 Active DACA Recipients, September 2017, pp. 1-5.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 15 link to page 29 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

Number of
Ranking
Country
Persons
% of Total
5
Peru
6,090
1%
6
South Korea
6,030
1%
7
Brazil
4,950
1%
8
Ecuador
4,670
1%
9
Colombia
4,120
1%
10
Argentina
3,280
1%

Total, 10 countries
601,590
94%

Total, all countries
636,390
100%
Source: CRS presentation of data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services.
Notes: This table is limited to persons who had a valid DACA grant on December 31, 2020. The data are
rounded. Percentages may not sum due to rounding.
U.S. States of Residence
As of December 31, 2020, DACA recipients were living in al 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 al states and the District of Columbia).
Table 3. Top 10 States of Residence for DACA Recipients
As of December 31, 2020
Number of
% of Grand
Rank
State
Persons
Total
1
California
181,660
29%
2
Texas
104,820
16%
3
Il inois
33,740
5%
4
New York
27,550
4%
5
Florida
24,530
4%
6
Arizona
23,800
4%
7
North Carolina
23,790
4%
8
Georgia
20,380
3%
9
New Jersey
16,110
3%
10
Washington
16,020
3%

44 Active DACA Recipients, December 2020, p. 5. A separate table (on pp. 6 -7) provides data on DACA recipients by
core-based statistical area.
45 Active DACA Recipients, September 2017, pp. 6-7.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 17 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

Number of
% of Grand
Rank
State
Persons
Total

Total, 10 states
472,400
74%

Total, all jurisdictions
636,390
100%
Source: CRS presentation of data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services.
Notes: This table is limited to persons who had a valid DACA grant on December 31, 2020. “Al jurisdictions”
includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and Armed Forces locations. The data are
rounded. Percentages may not sum due to rounding.
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

46 T he correspondence and data are available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/DACA-
Representative_King-Jan-16-2018.pdf (hereinafter cited as “ USCIS response to congressional inquiry, May 2018”).
47 Active DACA Recipients, December 2020, p. 8; Active DACA Recipients, September 2017, pp. 11.
48 Active DACA Recipients, December 2020, p. 9; Active DACA Recipients, September 2017, p. 12. T he cited pages
also report numbers for additional categories (divorced, widowed, and data not available).
49 Active DACA Recipients, December 2020, p. 10; Active DACA Recipients, September 2017, p. 11.
Congressional Research Service

12

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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 smal 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.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 19 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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 al 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 wel 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 wil ing to participate in surveys have higher
levels of education and economic status than DACA recipients general y. 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.

50 USCIS response to congressional inquiry, May 2018.
51 Ibid.
52 Some surveys do not report these types of results. For example, the National UnDACAmented Research Project
(NURP), a longitudinal, national study started in 2013, has focused on the experiences of DACA recipients. As such, it
reports largely anecdotal information. T o the extent it reports quantitative data, these measures tend to describe the
changes in DACA recipients’ lives after receiving DACA. For information about this research project, see Roberto G.
Gonzales, Sayil Camacho, Kristina Brant, and Carlos Aguilar, The Long-Term Im pact of DACA: Forging Futures
Despite DACA’s Uncertainty, National UnDACAmented Research Project, Immigration Initiative at Harvard,
November 2019, https://immigrationinitiative.harvard.edu/files/hii/files/final_daca_report.pdf.
53 According to an article that reviewed past research on unauthorized students and higher education, “respondents of
online surveys are self-selected and likely to be higher-achieving and more motivated than the general population of
undocumented students.” Amy Hsin and Francesc Ortega, “T he Effects of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals on
the Educational Outcomes of Undocumented Students,” Demography, vol. 55, issue 4 (August 2018).
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 19 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

Table 4. Comparison of DACA data from USCIS and Selected Surveys

National Survey
California
Survey

USCIS Data
2014-2015
2016
2019
Gender
2017: 53% female;
57% female; 43%
66% female; 33%
N/A
47% male
male
malea
Average Age
2017: 23.8 years
24 years
25 years
26.5 years
2019: 25.7 years
Educational
2012-2018c
57%: HS degree
26%: HS degree/
1%: HS degree/
Attainmentb
71%: in school (no
7%: vocational or
GED
GED
HS degree)
trade degree
3%: trade/technical/
4%: Trade/technical/
15%: HS degree/GED
19%: associate’s
vocational training
vocational degree
13%: < 1 year of
degree
26%: some col ege
13%: associate’s
col ege
16%: bachelor’s
16%: associate’s
degree
Less than 1%: 1 or
or postgraduate
degree
53%: bachelor’s
more years of
degree
22%: bachelor’s
degree
col ege
degree
29%: postgraduate

5%: postgraduate
degree
degree
Employment (DACA
N/A
84% employed
87% employed
89% employed
recipients only)
Average hourly wage
N/A
$11.47
$13.96
$19.45
(DACA recipients
only)
Family relationships
N/A
70%: U.S. citizen
41%: U.S. citizen
70%: U.S. citizen
to U.S. citizens
family member
family member age
family member
18 or older
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Caitlin Patler, Jorge
A. Cabrera, and Dream Team Los Angeles, From Undocumented to DACAmented: Impacts of the Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, University of California, Los
Angeles, June 15, 2015; Results of Tom K. Wong, United We Dream, National Immigration Law Center, and Center for
American Progress National Survey, 2016; Results from Tom K. Wong et al., 2019 National DACA Study.
Notes: The California survey included both DACA and non-DACA recipients; USCIS data and the national
survey data are limited to DACA recipients. Confidence intervals for the survey data are not available.
a. The remaining 1% is comprised of “do not identity as male, female, or transgender” and non-responses.
b. Educational attainment categories are mutual y exclusive. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to
rounding and/or non-responses.
c. USCIS educational attainment data come from DACA initial applications that were approved between
August 2012 and May 2018.
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

54 T he two cited here are Caitlin Patler, Jorge A. Cabrera, and Dream T eam Los Angeles, From Undocumented to
DACAm ented: Im pacts of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program , Institute for Research on
Labor and Employment, University of California, Los Angeles, June 15, 2015 (hereinafter cited as “ Patler, 2015”); Erin
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 19 link to page 19 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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 al ies empower themselves through
activism and tel ing 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
al ows 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 initial y 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 specifical y 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 -skil ed workers and 12% were
professionals. The survey also found that “three quarters of [the DACA workers] in lower-paid,
less skil ed occupations were enrolled in school.”62

R. Hamilton, Caitlin Patler, and Robin Savinar, “T ransition into Liminal Legality: DACA’s Mixed Impacts on
Education and Employment among Young Adult Immigrants in California,” Social Problem s, May 1, 2020 (hereinafter
cited as “Hamilton, 2020”).
55 Patler, 2015, cover and p. 33.
56 Ibid., p. 32. Additional methodological information is also available on this page.
57 T hese DACA non-recipients “ had either not applied, were still awaiting a response, or had been rejected.” Ibid., p. 3.
58 T he results also do not include the data necessary to calculate confidence intervals.
59 T he survey results do not distinguish between DACA and non-DACA recipients on some measures.
60 See Hamilton, 2020.
61 Patler, 2015, p. 5. Other studies have highlighted the importance of work authorization to DACA recipients. See, for
example, Roberto G. Gonzales, Basia Ellis, Sarah A. Rendón -García, and Kristina Brant, “ (Un)authorized T ransitions:
Illegality, DACA, and the Life Course,” Research in Hum an Developm ent, vol. 15, issue 3-4 (2018).
62 Hamilton, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 19 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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.

63 Patler, 2015, p. 3.
64 United We Dream describes itself as “the largest immigrant youth-led community in the country”
(https://unitedwedream.org/about/); the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) describes itself as being “ dedicated
to defending and advancing the rights of immigrants with low income” (https://www.nilc.org/about-us/what_we_do/);
the Center for American Progress (CAP) describes itself as being “ dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans,
through bold, progressive ideas” (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/mission/).
65 A smaller survey was conducted in 2015 without the participation of United We Dream. See T om K. Wong, Kelly K.
Richter, Ignacia Rodriguez, and Philip E. Wolgin, Results from a Nationwide Survey of DACA Recipients Illustrate the
Program’s Impact, July 9, 2015, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2015/07/09/117054/
results-from-a-nationwide-survey-of-daca-recipients-illustrate-the-programs-impact/.
66 T he 2019 survey is used rather than the 2020 survey in an effort to avoid any COVID-19-related impacts on the
results.
67 Results of Tom K. Wong, United We Dream, National Immigration Law Center, and Center for American Progress
National Survey, survey fielded September 8, 2016, to September 26, 2016, https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/
uploads/2016/10/21111136/2016-daca_survey_draft_updated-FINAL2.pdf?_ga=2.67795990.649144387.1615127798-
1656050809.1513797434.
68 Results from Tom K. Wong et al., 2019 National DACA Study, survey fielded August 14, 2019, to September 6, 2019,
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2019/09/18122133/New-DACA-Survey-2019-Final-1.pdf?_ga=
2.123041420.649144387.1615127798-1656050809.1513797434.
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 23 link to page 22 link to page 23

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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
For the most part, the USCIS data and the
survey data on DACA recipients discussed in
Figure 4. DACA-Recipient Populations
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-
Source: CRS presentation of data from U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
DACA population as of September 4, 2017,
Citizenship and Immigration Services.
and as of July 31, 2019. The data for July 31,
2019, which are unpublished, were provided
Notes: The data are estimates.
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, fel 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

69 For the USCIS estimate of this population as of September 2017, see Active DACA Recipients, September 2017,
Country of Birth table notes, p. 5.
70 Ibid.
71 Data provided by USCIS to CRS by email, August 29, 2019, and November 20, 2019 (hereinafter cited as “USCIS
emails to CRS, 2019”).
72 See Active DACA Recipients, September 2017, Country of Birth table notes, p. 5.
73 USCIS emails to CRS, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

18

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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

74 Ibid.; CRS telephone conversation with USCIS, September 29, 202 0.
75 T hese 76,000 persons included the 40,000 DACA recipients granted LPR status as of September 2017.
76 USCIS emails to CRS, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 23 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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. c itizens, 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
il egal y (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

77 DHS DACA FAQs, response to question 18. T his response also clarifies that persons with T emporary Protected
Status (T PS) are not eligible for DACA. For information on T PS, see CRS Report RS20844, Tem porary Protected
Status and Deferred Enforced Departure.
78 Immigration parole is permission to be physically present in the United States. For additional information, see CRS
Report R46570, Im m igration Parole.
79 DHS DACA FAQs, “What is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals?” (information preceding response to question
1).
80 USCIS emails to CRS, 2019. Of the 76,000 DACA recipients granted LPR status, approximately 4,000 had become
naturalized U.S. citizens as of July 2019, according to the USCIS data.
81 T he remaining approximately 2,000 persons adjusted status through various other pathways.
82 T he INA is Act of June 27, 1952, ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163. It is codified, as amended, at 8 U.S.C. §1101, et seq.
83 8 U.S.C. §1255(a).
84 “VAWA [Violence Against Women Act] provisions in the INA allow certain spouses, children, and parents of U.S.
citizens and certain spouses and children of permanent residents … to file a petition for themselves, without the
abuser’s knowledge.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “ Battered
Spouse, Children and Parents,” https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/battered-spouse-children-and-parents. A person
whose VAWA self-petition is approved and meets other requirements may be eligible for adjustment to LPR status.
Such a person is exempt from certain INA Section 245 requirements.
Congressional Research Service

20

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

maintained lawful status since entry, have not engaged in unauthorized employment, and do not
fal 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 “shal be
deemed, for purposes of subsection (a), to have been paroled into the United States.”90 In other
words, as explained on a USCIS webpage directed at SIJ applicants for adjustment of status,
“USCIS wil 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

85 Disqualifications to adjust status under INA Section 245(a) are enumerated in INA Section 245(c) (8 U.S.C.
§1255(c)).
86 In the case of parents, the petitioning U.S. citizen must be at least age 21. INA §201(b)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C.
§1151(b)(2)(A)(i). For further discussion of family -based immigration, see CRS Report R43145, U.S. Fam ily-Based
Im m igration Policy.
87 INA Section 208(a)(1) (8 U.S.C. §1158(a)) provides that an eligible individual can apply for asylum “irrespective of
such alien’s status.” Among the requirements, an applicant generally must file an asylum application within one year
after his or her arrival in the United States. For additional information about asylum, see CRS Report R45539,
Im m igration: U.S. Asylum Policy.
88 Asylee adjustment of status provisions are in INA Section 209 (8 U.S.C. §1159).
89 See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Special Immigrant
Juveniles,” https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/permanent -workers/employment-based-immigration-
fourth-preference-eb-4/special-immigrant-juveniles.
90 INA §245(h), 8 U.S.C. §1255(h).
91 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Green Card Based on Special
Immigrant Juvenile Classification,” https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility/green-card-based-on-
special-immigrant -juvenile-classification.
Congressional Research Service

21

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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 initial y 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 original y established in 2012, al owed 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 automatical y 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 travel ing 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

92 T he “T ” nonimmigrant category is described in INA Section 101(a)(15)(T) (8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(15)(T)); the “U”
nonimmigrant category is described in INA Section 1 01(a)(15)(U) (8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(15)(U)). For additional
information, see CRS Report R46584, Im m igration Relief for Victim s of Trafficking.
93 T he requirements are set forth for T nonimmigrants in INA Section 245(l) (8 U.S.C. §1255(l)) and for U
nonimmigrants in INA Section 245(m) (8 U.S.C. §1255(m) .
94 For additional information, see archived CRS Report RL31373, Immigration: Adjustment to Permanent Resident
Status Under Section 245(i).
95 For additional information on advance parole, see CRS Report R46570, Immigration Parole.
96 DHS DACA FAQs, response to question 57.
97 T hese data were made publicly available by the Office of Senator Chuck Grassley in a September 2017 news release;
see https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/data-indicate-unauthorized-immigrants-exploited-loophole-
Congressional Research Service

22

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

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 al the other DACA
requirements in place) would increase the immediately eligible population from an estimated 1.3

gain-legal-status.
98 T he USCIS letter is available at https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016-06-
29%20USCIS%20to%20CEG%20-%20DACA%20Advance%20Parole%20Program.pdf .
99 T he DHS DACA rescission memorandum stated that effective immediately, the department “will not approve any
new Form I-131 applications for advance parole under standards associated with the DACA program, a lthough it will
generally honor the stated validity period for previously approved applications for advance parole .” DACA rescission
memo, September 2017.
100 Wolf memo, July 2020; for related USCIS guidance, see U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services, Im plem enting Acting Secretary Chad Wolf’s July 28, 2020 Mem orandum, “Reconsideration
of the June 15, 2012 Memorandum ‘Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the
United States as Children’”, memorandum to Associate Directors and Program Office Chiefs, from Joseph Edlow,
Deputy Director for Policy, August 21, 2020, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-alerts/
dacamemo.pdf.
101 USCIS, Consideration of DACA.
102 T he larger Dreamer population has commanded interest and attention for a longer period. See CRS Report R45995,
Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation .
Congressional Research Service

23

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

mil ion to an estimated 1.5 mil ion. Changing the entry year to 2016 while simultaneously raising
the al owable 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 mil ion.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.

103 Jessica Bolter, Muzaffar Chishti, and Doris Meissner, Back on the Table: U.S. Legalization and the Unauthorized
Im m igrant Groups that Could Factor in the Debate, Migration Policy Institute, February 2021, pp. 9-10.
Congressional Research Service

24

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

Appendix. States of Residence for DACA Recipients
Table A-1. DACA Recipients by State
As of December 31, 2020
Number of
State
Persons
% of Grand Total
Alabama
3,930
1%
Alaska
70
0%
Arizona
23,800
4%
Arkansas
4,400
1%
California
181,660
29%
Colorado
14,380
2%
Connecticut
3,510
1%
Delaware
1,290
0%
District of Columbia
600
0%
Florida
24,530
4%
Georgia
20,380
3%
Hawai
350
0%
Idaho
2,710
0%
Il inois
33,740
5%
Indiana
8,800
1%
Iowa
2,420
0%
Kansas
5,410
1%
Kentucky
2,670
0%
Louisiana
1,690
0%
Maine
50
0%
Maryland
7,810
1%
Massachusetts
5,370
1%
Michigan
5,200
1%
Minnesota
5,110
1%
Mississippi
1,300
0%
Missouri
2,950
0%
Montana
70
0%
Nebraska
2,870
0%
Nevada
12,030
2%
New Hampshire
250
0%
New Jersey
16,110
3%
New Mexico
5,510
1%
Congressional Research Service

25

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

Number of
State
Persons
% of Grand Total
New York
27,550
4%
North Carolina
23,790
4%
North Dakota
120
0%
Ohio
3,810
1%
Oklahoma
6,010
1%
Oregon
9,590
2%
Pennsylvania
4,500
1%
Rhode Island
880
0%
South Carolina
5,660
1%
South Dakota
200
0%
Tennessee
7,570
1%
Texas
104,820
16%
Utah
8,440
1%
Vermont
30
0%
Virginia
9,230
1%
Washington
16,020
3%
West Virginia
100
0%
Wisconsin
6,490
1%
Wyoming
500
0%
Total, all states
636,280
100%
Total, all
jurisdictions
636,390
100%
Source: CRS presentation of data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services.
Notes: This table is limited to persons who had a valid DACA grant on December 31, 2020. “Total, al states”
includes the 50 states and the District of Columbia. “Total, al jurisdictions” includes these entities as wel as U.S.
territories and Armed Forces locations. The data are rounded. Percentages may not sum due to rounding.

Author Information

Andorra Bruno

Specialist in Immigration Policy

Congressional Research Service

26

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): By the Numbers

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46764 · VERSION 1 · NEW
27

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Apr. 14, 2021

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Immigration Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON