ICE Faces Barriers in
Timely Repatriation
of Detained Aliens
March 11, 2019
OIG-19-28
DHS OIG HIGHLIGHTS
ICE Faces Barriers in Timely Repatriation
of Detained Aliens
March 11, 2019
Why We
Did This
Review
The Department of
Homeland Security U.S.
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE)
repatriates thousands of
aliens every year. In this
review, we sought to
identify barriers to the
repatriation of detained
aliens with final orders of
removal.
What We
Recommend
We made five
recommendations to
improve ICE’s removal
operations staffing, flight
reservation system, and
metrics related to visa
sanctions.
For Further Information:
Contact our Office of Public Affairs at
(202) 981-6000, or email us at
What We Found
Our case review of 3,053 aliens not removed within 90
days of receiving a final order of removal revealed that the
most significant factors delaying or preventing repatriation
are external and beyond ICE’s control. Specifically,
detainees’ legal appeals tend to be lengthy; removals are
dependent on foreign governments cooperating to arrange
travel documents and flight schedules; detainees may fail
to comply with repatriation efforts; and detainees’ physical
or mental health conditions can further delay removals.
Internally, ICE’s challenges with staffing and technology
also diminish the efficiency of the removal process. ICE
struggles with inadequate staffing, heavy caseloads, and
frequent officer rotations, causing the quality of case
management for detainees with final orders of removal to
suffer. In addition, ICE Air Operations manages complex
logistical movements for commercial and charter flights
through a cumbersome and inefficient manual process.
Finally, even though ICE has developed a tool to track and
report statistics for removal operations, the metrics are
incomplete and do not track information needed for fact-
based decisions on visa sanctions.
ICE Response
ICE officials concurred with all five recommendations and
proposed steps to address staffing, training, web-based
case management and tracking, and decision-making
processes.
www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov
0DUFK
MEMORANDUM FOR: Ronald D. Vitiello
Senior Official Performing the Duties of Director
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
FROM: John V. Kelly
Acting Inspector General
SUBJECT: ICE Faces Barriers in Timely Repatriation of Detained
Aliens
Attached for your action is our final report, ICE Faces Barriers in Timely
Repatriation of Detained Aliens. We incorporated the formal comments provided
by your office.
The report contains five recommendations aimed at improving ICE’s removal
operations. Your office concurred with all five recommendations. Based on
information provided in your response to the draft report, we consider all five
recommendations open and resolved. Once your office has fully implemented
the recommendations, please submit a formal closeout letter to us within 30
days so that we may close the recommendations. The memorandum should be
accompanied by evidence of completion of agreed-upon corrective actions.
Please send your response or closure request to
Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we will
provide copies of our report to congressional committees with oversight and
appropriation responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will
post the report on our website for public dissemination.
Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact Jennifer L.
Costello, Deputy Inspector General, at (202) 981-6000, or Tatyana Martell,
Chief Inspector, at (202) 981-6117.
Attachment
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Table of Contents
Background .................................................................................................... 2
Results of Review ............................................................................................ 3
External Barriers Delay or Obstruct the Removal Process ...................... 4
Internal Challenges with ICE Staffing, Technology, and Accuracy of ICE
Metrics Limit Efficiency of Removals .................................................... 14
Recommendations......................................................................................... 20
Appendixes
Appendix A: Objective, Scope, and Methodology ................................. 23
Appendix B: ICE Comments to the Draft Report ................................... 25
Appendix C: Results of Electronic File Case Review .............................. 28
Appendix D: Countries’ Cooperation with Repatriation ......................... 29
Appendix E: Travel Document Requests .............................................. 32
Appendix F: Office of Special Reviews and Evaluations Major
Contributors to This Report ................................................................. 33
Appendix G: Report Distribution .......................................................... 34
Abbreviations
ERO Enforcement and Removal Operations
eTD electronic Travel Document
GAO Government Accountability Office
ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
OIG Office of Inspector General
RCI Tool Removal Cooperation Initiative Tool
U.S.C. United States Code
USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Background
Every year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) repatriates
thousands of aliens with final orders of removal. In fiscal year 2017, ICE
removed 226,119 aliens who came from 189 countries.
1
ICE Enforcement and
Removal Operations (ERO) must generally remove detained aliens (detainees)
within 90 days of receiving a final order of removal from a Department of
Justice Federal immigration judge or, in limited circumstances, an authorized
Department of Homeland Security official, for violating immigration laws.
2
Two
exceptions stop the 90-day “clock”: if a detainee appeals the final order
3
or if a
detainee obstructs (fails to comply with) the removal process.
4
For aliens with
final removal orders who remain in custody longer than 6 months, ICE must
generally release them unless there is a significant likelihood that they will be
removed within a reasonable time in the future.
5
ICE typically repatriates detainees via commercial flights, charter flights,
6
or
Special High Risk Charters,
7
with the exception of Mexican nationals who are
repatriated across the land border. ICE ERO’s 24 field offices are responsible
for detainee case management (i.e., the “detained docket”) and for providing
flight escorts when needed. Within ICE, ICE Air Operations (ICE Air),
coordinates repatriation flights. Detainees on a direct flight to their country of
citizenship may leave unescorted on a commercial flight, while ICE deportation
officers may escort detainees scheduled for removal on commercial flights that
require transit through a third country, or detainees who present a security
risk. ICE uses charter flights when there are numerous detainees scheduled for
removal to the same geographic location, or there are medical or security
requirements that cannot be managed on a commercial flight.
1
In FY 2015, ICE removed 235,413 aliens and in FY 2016, ICE removed 240,255 aliens.
2
8 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1231(a)(1)(A)
3
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii)
4
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C)
5
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001); see also Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 378
(2005) (extending Zadvydas to inadmissible aliens). See DHS Office of Inspector General’s (OIG)
prior report ICE’s Compliance With Detention Limits for Aliens With a Final Order of Removal
From the United States, OIG-07-28, for information on the limited exceptions to this release
requirement for public health and national security cases.
6
ICE contracts with a private company to supply flights and flight crew used solely to
repatriate aliens with final orders of removal. ICE determines which aliens will be placed on the
charter flights, and ICE staff accompanies the detainees to their destination.
7
Special High Risk Charters are charter flights to repatriate detainees who resist removal
efforts or to return a group of detainees when their government issues multiple travel
documents at once. ICE may add cooperative detainees to these flights if seats are available.
www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Repatriation requires cooperation from other stakeholders as foreign
governments must issue passports or other authorized travel documents, agree
to transportation arrangements, and issue visas to ICE staff escorting aliens to
their destination. If foreign governments do not cooperate with ICE, DHS may
impose visa sanctions, which the State Department administers.
8
In 2017,
DHS and the State Department signed a Memorandum of Understanding in
which ICE was designated responsible for monitoring the ability and
willingness of countries to cooperate with repatriation.
9
Within ICE, ERO is
responsible for this oversight.
This report identifies barriers to repatriating detained aliens with final orders of
removal. DHS’ case management data systems have limited capability to track,
report on, and analyze immigration outcomes and decisions.
10
Because DHS
does not have reliable statistics on removal challenges, we took a snapshot of
all aliens with final orders of removal in ICE detention on December 13, 2017,
to better understand the delays and barriers. On that date, there were 13,217
detainees total, 3,053 (23 percent) of whom had not been removed within the
90-day timeframe. We focused our case review on these 3,053 cases and asked
ICE to provide us with a case disposition as of March 24, 2018. We then
assessed whether the delays and barriers we identified prolonged detention or
prevented removal. Unless otherwise identified, the numbers used in this
report are from our analysis and do not represent official ICE statistics.
Appendix A provides more information on our scope and methodology.
Results of Review
Our case review of 3,053 aliens not removed within the prescribed 90-day
timeframe revealed that the most significant factors delaying or preventing
repatriation are external and beyond ICE’s control. Specifically, detainees’ legal
appeals tend to be lengthy; removals are dependent on foreign governments
cooperating to arrange travel documents and flight schedules; detainees may
fail to comply with repatriation efforts; and detainee physical and mental
health conditions can further delay removals.
Internally, ICE’s challenges with staffing and technology also diminish the
efficiency of the removal process. ICE struggles with inadequate staffing, heavy
caseloads, and frequent officer rotations, causing the quality of case
8
8 U.S.C. § 1253(d). Visa sanctions deny visas to enter the United States for the citizens of
uncooperative countries. For example, the United States might stop issuing tourist visas or
visas to the families of diplomats.
9
Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the
U.S. Department of State Concerning the Removal of Aliens, August 16, 2017, Section VI
10
DHS OIG, DHS Needs a More Unified Approach to Immigration Enforcement and
Administration, OIG-18-07, October 30, 2017
www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
management for detainees with final orders of removal to suffer. In addition,
ICE Air manages complex logistical movements for commercial and charter
flights through a cumbersome and inefficient manual process. Finally, even
though ICE has developed a tool to track and report statistics for removal
operations, the metrics are incomplete and do not provide information needed
for fact-based decisions on visa sanctions.
External Barriers Delay or Obstruct the Removal Process
Based on our case review, the two predominant factors delaying repatriation
are legal appeals and obtaining travel documents. Legal appeals are complex
and the backlog in immigration courts directly impacts the timeliness of the
appeals, while issuance of travel documents is hindered by some foreign
governments’ unwillingness or lack of capacity to cooperate with the
repatriation process. Foreign government cooperation is also necessary for
coordinating repatriation flights and escort visas. Additional obstructions
include instances when detainees fail to comply with removal proceedings or
when their medical conditions negatively impact repatriation. Figure 1
illustrates the percentage of removals delayed by each factor.
Figure 1: Delays and External Barriers to Removal
11
55%
31%
6%
3%
3% 1% 1%
Legal Challenges & Appeals (1,670)
Travel Document (948)
Flight Arrangements (201)
Failure To Comply (93)
Other (85)
Escorts (37)
Medical (19)
Source: OIG Analysis of Aliens Detained Longer than 90 Days Post Final Order of Removal,
from ICE ENFORCE Alien Removal Module
11
Most of the 85 cases in our file review marked “Other” were too complex and varied to
categorize. Examples include aliens who:
x alternated between failure to comply, legal appeals, requests to withdraw legal
appeals, and revised citizenship claims;
x were not in ICE’s physical custody because they were being prosecuted for, or were
witnesses in the prosecution of, crimes; or
x were granted a form of relief from removal to their country of citizenship, but were
still in ICE custody while ICE determined whether they could be removed to a third
country.
www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Legal Appeals Delay Removals
An alien with a final order of removal may challenge the decision at any time
before removal is achieved. While legal challenges are pending, ICE generally
cannot repatriate an alien,
12
but may continue detention until the appeal or
other challenge is resolved. Legal appeals ensure aliens receive due process
rights during the removal process. As shown in figure 2, of the 3,053 aliens
with final orders of removal detained more than 90 days, 1,670 (55 percent)
had legal appeals pending.
Our case review and interviews with ICE
Legal Appeals: (1,670 Cases)
Source: OIG
55%
31%
6%
3%
3%
1% 1%
Figure 2: Legal Appeals
officers indicate it can take months for a
court to hear a detainee’s appeal. One reason
for such delays is that, according to the
Government Accountability Office (GAO),
there is a “significant and growing case
backlog” for immigration judge hearings for
detainees.
13
GAO reported that immigration
court staffing gaps, current caseload
prioritization, the growing use of
continuances, and increased appeals to
higher courts contribute to the backlog.
According to GAO, at the start of FY 2015,
immigration courts had a backlog of about
437,000 cases pending and the median pending time for those cases was 404
days. As shown in appendix C, of the 490 detainees in our case review whose
appeals were denied, 231 (47 percent) were detained longer than 6 months
before they were repatriated. In addition, of the 96 detainees granted a form of
relief from repatriation, 43 (45 percent) were detained longer than 6 months
before they received a decision.
12
The basis for a detainee’s legal appeal or other challenge, and in what legal jurisdiction the
detainee files the appeal, determines whether ICE is required to allow the detainee to remain in
detention until the appeal is decided (stay removal). For example, if the detainee was ordered
removed in absentia (8 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii)), or requests
protection under the Violence Against Women Act (8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)), ICE cannot
remove the detainee until the claim is resolved. A motion to stay and a petition for review, in
some Circuit Courts, stays removal. Even if a stay of removal is not required, ICE can, at its
discretion, continue to detain the alien until the appeal is decided (8 U.S.C. § 1231(c)(2)).
13
GAO, Immigration Courts: Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing
Management and Operational Challenges, GAO-17-438, June 2017
www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Examples from our electronic case file review of removals delayed due to legal
appeals include:
x A Guatemalan national appealed an immigration judge’s decision to deny
temporary international protection. The appeal court remanded the case
to the immigration judge to reconsider. The immigration judge
rescheduled the hearing several times, then denied the claim. The
detainee appealed this decision and the appeal was still pending at the
time of our case review. This detainee has been in custody for more than
3 years.
x A Mexican national filed a petition with a Circuit Court for the review of
a removal decision. After the petition was denied, ICE transferred the
detainee to a new location, which was also in a new court jurisdiction, in
preparation for a repatriation flight. While waiting to be repatriated, the
detainee filed a request to reconsider the decision with the immigration
court where he had originally been detained. When the request was
denied, the detainee filed a new petition with the Circuit Court with
jurisdiction over the area where he had been staged for removal. At the
time of our review, the petition was still pending and this detainee had
been in custody for more than 3 years.
Overall, delays due to legal appeals or challenges may lead to aliens with final
orders of removal being held in detention for as long as 3 years, as evidenced in
the previous examples. Although legal appeals are an exception to the 90-day
clock, the prolonged detention imposes considerable costs on ICE. For example,
in FY 2017, ICE paid facilities detaining aliens approximately $100 per day, per
detainee.
14
Therefore, detaining an alien for 3 years costs ICE about $109,500.
Foreign Governments’ Inconsistent Cooperation on Repatriation Travel
Delays and Prevents Removals
Foreign governments’ cooperation with the repatriation of their nationals is
vital for achieving removals. Although repatriations to most countries happen
without significant delays, more than 30 countries present challenges to obtain
travel documents. In some instances, foreign governments do not conduct
timely interviews with detainees or notify ICE when additional information is
required to facilitate travel, delaying removals. Even though increased
14
According to GAO, ICE has difficulty estimating the actual cost of detention. ICE estimates a
rate of $132.59 per day per detainee, but GAO concludes this could be an underestimate. Our
estimate uses $100 per detainee because the most expensive beds — for families and detainees
requiring hospitalization — are under-represented in our case review. See GAO, Immigration
Detention: Opportunities Exist to Improve Cost Estimates, GAO-18-343, April 2018.
www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
diplomatic engagement has improved cooperation on removals, some foreign
governments still fail to provide flight approvals or travel documents in time,
causing removal cancellations or delays. In some cases, countries simply do
not have the resources or infrastructure to assist ICE with required document
requests. Despite these factors lying outside of ICE’s control, they do not stop
the 90-day clock for removals.
Inability to Obtain Travel Documents from Foreign Governments Obstructs
Repatriation
Although a combination of increased diplomatic engagement with
uncooperative governments and a demonstrated willingness of the United
States to impose visa sanctions has increased foreign governments’
cooperation, some countries remain unwilling to provide travel documents.
This lack of cooperation, in essence, prohibits ICE removals to such countries.
Other countries lack bureaucratic infrastructure and resources to make
citizenship determinations quickly and issue travel documents for repatriation.
In other cases, the citizenship of detainees cannot even be established.
15
These
barriers to removals result in ICE releasing detainees, which in some cases can
endanger public safety, as our previous work has shown.
16
As figure 3 indicates, 948 of the 3,053
Travel Documents: (948 Cases)
Source: OIG
55%
31%
6%
3%
3%
1%
1%
Figure 3: Travel Documents
detainees (31 percent) in our case review
could not be removed because their travel
document requests were still pending.
With limited exceptions, if ICE is unable
to obtain a travel document for a detainee
within 6 months and there is no prospect
of obtaining one in the near future, the
15
For example, some detainees, such as Palestinians, were born stateless, and others became
stateless when countries such as the former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, and Sudan
fragmented.
16
A Haitian national, Jean Jacques, previously convicted of attempted murder and subject to a
final order of removal, was released from ICE custody after repeated attempts to secure a travel
document from Haiti and killed another individual. See DHS OIG, Release of Jean Jacques from
ICE Custody, June 16, 2016.
www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
detainee must be released.
17
Our case review indicates that ICE eventually
released 22 Chinese, 287 Cubans, 34 Eritreans, 21 Laotians, and 10
Vietnamese — detainees from countries considered uncooperative.
Foreign governments, with limited exceptions, require a passport or temporary
travel permit to accept their nationals back into the country.
18
Hence, ICE
needs to obtain such travel documents to repatriate aliens. El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic, issue travel documents
through an online ICE data system known as eTD (electronic Travel
Document), and Mexico does not require travel documents for repatriations on
the land border. In FY 2017, removals to these five countries accounted for
205,540 of ICE’s 226,119 removals (91 percent). Other foreign government
requirements for travel documents vary widely and the travel document
issuance can be cumbersome. For example, some countries require:
x an in-person consular interview with the detainee, at the country’s
consulate in the United States;
19
x identification documents, such as a national identity card or an expired
passport; or
x additional checks of paper-based records, such as birth certificates or
baptismal records, typically buried in immigration files or only available
at the detainee’s place of birth.
Because foreign governments do not issue travel documents without confirming
the identity and citizenship of the alien, ICE works with the detainees to collect
evidence of their citizenship to prepare a request for a travel document.
Although we heard that generally detainees disclose who they are, ICE
deportation officers described some cases when detainees provide numerous
identities or are unsure of their country of origin. Establishing identities of
such detainees complicates preparations for their repatriation. Examples from
our electronic case file review of removals delayed due to travel document
issues include:
17
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (holding that an alien with a final removal order
cannot be detained longer than 6 months unless there is a significant likelihood of removal in
the reasonably foreseeable future); see also Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 378 (2005)
(extending Zadvydas to inadmissible aliens). See DHS OIG’s prior report ICE’s Compliance With
Detention Limits for Aliens With a Final Order of Removal From the United States, OIG-07-28, for
information on the limited exceptions to this release requirement for public health and national
security cases.
18
ICE maintains country-specific guidelines on its intranet, which are based on the laws of
these governments and any formal and informal agreements between the United States and the
foreign government.
19
Some consulates are hours away from detention facilities and require ICE to make long trips
with detainees to facilitate those interviews.
www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
x An Eritrean who was a registered sex offender had immigrated as a child
and did not have Eritrean identity documents or fluency in any language
spoken in Eritrea which, in some cases, can serve as evidence of
citizenship. Although the Eritrean government interviewed him, they
were unable to verify citizenship and ICE released him from detention.
x A Cambodian was detained for 2 months in Alabama while waiting for a
consular interview to determine citizenship. During that time, Cambodia
was not conducting interviews anywhere in the United States. The
consulate in California agreed to interview him and ICE flew him to
California. Several months later, the Cambodian government still had not
made a decision on whether to issue the detainee a travel document.
Increased Diplomatic Engagement Improves Cooperation on Removals
International standards require governments to issue travel documents to their
citizens within 30 days.
20
In 2015, the State Department and ICE increased
diplomatic engagement to improve cooperation on repatriations. The State
Department prioritized travel document issuance in bilateral relations while
ICE has centralized the travel document request process at headquarters for
the most challenging countries.
21
Between 2016 and 2018, the State
Department and DHS also escalated the use of visa sanctions, imposing them
on seven countries.
22
Most DHS officials we interviewed agreed that the combination of increased
diplomatic engagement and a demonstrated willingness to impose visa
sanctions has increased cooperation from most countries.
23
Between 2015 and
2018, the number of both uncooperative and at risk of noncompliance
countries — countries that do not issue travel documents or accept
20
International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 9, Chapters 5.26 through 5.29, set timeliness
standards for governments to repatriate their nationals. However, not all countries have signed
this Annex.
21
ICE Removal and International Operations officers at headquarters manage consular
relations and travel documents requests for Cambodia, Cameroon, Cuba, Dominica, Eritrea,
Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Kosovo, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania,
Palestine, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Vietnam.
22
In 2016, DHS imposed sanctions on the Gambia (the sanctions were later lifted). In 2017,
DHS imposed sanctions on Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, and Sierra Leone. In 2018, DHS
imposed sanctions on Burma and Laos, and lifted sanctions on Guinea.
23
Of the four countries sanctioned in FY 2017, Cambodia and Eritrea did not respond to
sanctions to increase cooperation.
www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
repatriation flights — decreased considerably, as shown in table 1. Appendix D
lists the countries that fall within these categories.
Table 1: Countries’ Cooperation with Travel Document Issuance
Time Period
Uncooperative
Countries
At Risk of
Noncompliance Countries
July 2015 23 62
September 2016 20 55
September 2017 9 36
May 2018 9 24
Source: ICE
ICE Relies on Diplomatic and Logistical Coordination for Removal Flights
With the exception of 10 western hemisphere countries that accept routine
charter flights,
24
obtaining foreign government permission for repatriation
flights can delay removals. Foreign governments may require negotiations
before accepting charter flights or can limit the number of repatriations allowed
per month. Some foreign governments do not allow transit through their
countries, requiring ICE Air to take a more complex route. In other instances, a
foreign government authorizes a charter flight, but does not issue travel
documents to the detainees or visas to the ICE Air flight crew in time to board
the flight. As shown in figure 4, our case
Flights and Escorts: 201 Cases
(Flight) and 37 Cases (Escorts)
Source: OIG
55%
31%
6%
3%
3%
1%
1%
Figure 4: Flights and Escorts
review indicated that 201 of the 3,053
detainees (6 percent) had a travel
document and were waiting for a
repatriation flight, and the removals of 37
(1 percent) were delayed because a flight
escort needed to be arranged for a
commercial repatriation flight.
ICE typically repatriates detainees via
charter flights, Special High Risk
Charters, or commercial flights, with the
exception of most Mexican nationals, who
are repatriated across the land border.
Although ICE does not publish official
statistics on the number of repatriations
24
ICE Air Operations conducts routine repatriation flights to Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, and Nicaragua. ICE Air
shares its flight manifests with the repatriation country and does not have difficulty securing
landing permission for each flight.
www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
by air, our analysis of ICE Air data indicated that more than 80,000 detainees
were repatriated on ICE Air’s routine charter flights in FY 2017. In addition,
based on our analysis of ICE Air reports, detainee removals included:
x 1,443 by Special High Risk Charter flights;
x 6,155 by commercial flights without an ICE escort; and
x 2,133 by commercial flights with an ICE escort.
With the exception of the 10 western hemisphere countries that have agreed to
accept routine charter flights, ICE staff need to seek approval from foreign
governments for repatriation flights. Specifically, for commercial flights they
may need to obtain approval of flight itineraries, and for charter flights they
must coordinate the flight paths. When no direct commercial flights are
available, ICE works with foreign governments for permission to escort a
detainee through a transit country.
Although ICE tries to arrange charter flights within a month of identifying the
need, some Special High Risk Charters require months to negotiate. In
addition, if transit or repatriation countries limit the number of detainees who
can be placed on flights, lower priority detainees may be held in detention
longer.
Foreign governments must also issue travel visas for ICE deportation officers
performing flight escort missions. When a travel visa is required, ICE has a
limited period in which to obtain one but foreign governments do not always
issue visas in a timely manner, resulting in delayed removals on occasion.
Examples from our electronic case file review of removals delayed due to flight
coordination challenges include:
x An ICE field office secured a travel document for an Iraqi who was
hospitalized and required a medical escort for removal. Because the flight
needed to transit through Turkey, from which it may take several weeks
to obtain clearance, ICE Air scheduled the flight for 6 weeks later, adding
to the expense of extended hospitalization.
x An ICE field office reported that it needed to reschedule flights repeatedly
through Morocco to Sub-Saharan Africa because Morocco limits the
number of transit flights, and higher priority removals were scheduled
first, leaving other aliens eligible for repatriation in detention.
www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Detainees’ Failure to Comply with ICE Repatriation Efforts Delays
Removal
Detainees can delay removal by failing to comply with the removal process.
25
For example, detainees may conceal country of citizenship, refuse to request a
travel document, or resist boarding a repatriation flight. Such cases typically
require additional time and effort because ICE deportation officers need to
obtain evidence of the detainee’s citizenship without his or her cooperation by
researching the alien’s statement at apprehension, documents in the
immigration file, border crossing history, and conducting interviews with
relatives. ICE can also request that the Department of Justice consider
criminal prosecution.
26
Failure to Comply: (93 Cases)
Source: OIG
55%
31%
6%
3%
3%
1%
1%
Figure 5: Failure to Comply
As shown in figure 5, in our case review,
only 93 of the 3,053 detainees (3 percent)
failed to comply with repatriation efforts for
90 days or longer. Detainees cannot obtain
release from detention solely by failing to
cooperate with the removal process. By law,
failure to comply stops the 90-day removal
clock, and ICE can detain indefinitely,
though at considerable expense.
27
Examples from our electronic case file
review include:
x In 2013, ICE obtained a travel document and scheduled a flight for
a detainee ordered removed to Pakistan, but the detainee refused
to board the flight. When Pakistan interviewed the detainee for
another travel document, the detainee claimed he was Somali. The
detainee told a third party he planned to renounce both Pakistani
and Somali citizenship and then request release. The detainee
renounced his Pakistani citizenship and did not provide ICE
sufficient information to request a travel document from Somalia.
In 2017, Pakistan refused to issue a travel document, saying the
detainee had renounced his citizenship and was Somali. In 2018,
the detainee agreed to rescind his revocation of citizenship, and the
25
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C)
26
8 U.S.C. § 1253(a). Federal prosecutors from a United States Attorney’s Office may charge an
alien criminally if the alien fails to assist with, or prevents, removal.
27
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C)
www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
request was pending with the Pakistani government. This alien has
been in custody for more than 4 years.
x In 2014, an Indian national requested asylum after being
immediately detained upon arrival in the United States. The
asylum claim was denied in early 2015, and the detainee was
scheduled for removal, but he refused to sign a travel document
request. In case comments, ICE wrote that the detainee said he
“didn’t mind to remain in custody a long time as he does not want
to go back to India.” In 2018, ICE received a travel document from
India without the detainee’s cooperation. The next charter flight to
India was full, so the detainee was scheduled for a commercial
flight a month later, but the removal was further delayed. This
alien has been in custody for more than 3 years.
Serious Medical Conditions May Delay the Repatriation Process
Detainees’ medical and mental health conditions can complicate each stage of
the removal process including legal appeals, issuance of travel documents, and
arranging repatriation transport. For example, detainees with serious physical
illnesses might require continuances on their legal appeals. In addition, some
foreign governments will not issue travel documents for detainees with medical
conditions until they can verify that the detainee has access to suitable care,
for example dialysis. ICE must also complete treatments for any infectious
diseases, such as tuberculosis, and stabilize any medical conditions, such as
cardiac rehabilitation, before arranging transportation. It may also be difficult
for deportation officers to determine the line between failing to cooperate with
the removal process and being unable to do so.
Medical: (19 Cases)
Source: OIG
55%
31%
6%
3%
3%
1%
1%
Figure 6: Medical
As shown in figure 6, medical conditions
represented only 19 of the 3,053 detainees
(less than 1 percent) in our case review.
However, our case review methodology
may under-represent the number of
detainees with medical conditions, as ICE
or the immigration courts could decide
well before 90 days that continued
detention is not optimal. For example,
detainees with serious mental health
issues may require legal representation,
and DHS or an immigration judge may
www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
determine that continued detention is not in the detainee’s best interest and
release the detainee on bond.
28
Removing detainees with medical and mental health conditions may be delayed
because of special requirements. For example, some foreign governments will
not issue travel documents for detainees with mental health conditions until
they can verify that the detainee has family and a place to stay. ICE may need
to arrange for a Special High Risk Charter, or for medical staff to accompany
ICE Deportation Officers escorting the detainee on a commercial flight. If ICE
cannot obtain a travel document, or the detainee cannot assist with the
removal process, the detainee may be released. Examples from our electronic
case file review include:
x A Mexican national was referred to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) for an interview to determine whether the detainee
required international protection. USCIS reported that the detainee was
unresponsive to interview questions. A medical screening suggested there
was an unspecified psychosis. USCIS determined the protection claim
had merit and referred the case to an immigration judge. After several
continuances, the immigration judge released the detainee on bond.
x A Cuban national diagnosed with mental health issues repeatedly
attacked detention facility staff and other detainees. He was placed in
segregation on several occasions, and local staff recommended he be
transferred to a facility that could handle his mental health issues.
Before a transfer could be effected, ICE released him into the community
because Cuba did not provide ICE with a travel document for removal.
Internal Challenges with ICE Staffing, Technology, and
Accuracy of Metrics Limit Efficiency of Removals
Although many of the barriers to removal are external, internal ICE challenges
with staffing and technology also diminish the efficiency of the removal
process. ICE’s detained docket has high staff turnover, making it difficult to
maintain the expertise needed to manage complex final order cases effectively
and accomplish removals. Limited staffing affects the quality of removal
paperwork ICE submits, causing potential delays in removals. In addition, ICE
28
An April 2013 ruling in Franco v. Holder, 10-cv-2211 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2013) established
the right to representation for detainees with serious mental disorders that render them unable
to represent themselves. The ruling, which applies in California, Arizona, and Washington
State, also requires a custody redetermination hearing for aliens with a serious mental disorder
who have been detained longer than 180 days.
www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Air manages repatriation flights with a cumbersome, labor-intensive manual
process, which can result in detainees who are eligible for repatriation missing
flights. Finally, ICE metrics for determining country cooperation lack an
objective methodology, potentially resulting in visa sanctions on otherwise
cooperative countries.
Insufficient ICE ERO Staffing for Detained Docket Causes Delays in Removals
During our interviews with field office staff, we heard that ICE does not
adequately staff the detained docket and has difficulty recruiting and retaining
officers to perform this function. Some field offices’ workloads are so large that
the staff cannot obtain detainees’ identity information or produce quality travel
document applications timely, which can delay or prevent removals.
29
The ICE mission of monitoring the status of detainees with final orders of
removal and managing their repatriation efficiently is very challenging. Yet, ICE
ERO could not provide any staffing plans recommending optimal workloads for
the deportation officers working detained dockets; hence, the staffing resources
24 ICE field offices devote to detained dockets vary considerably. We
interviewed officials from 12 ICE field offices and most said ICE needs more
staff dedicated to these tasks.
Many of the ICE ERO staff we interviewed said it is difficult for a field
deportation officer to manage a caseload of more than 75 detainees effectively,
especially when the cases include countries with complex travel document
requirements. However, of the 12 field offices we engaged during our review, 5
have deportation officers with heavy caseloads, managing 100 or more cases
each.
For example, we encountered 2 field offices where deportation officers have
more than 120 complex cases
30
each. One officer we interviewed maintained
about 500 cases when he had to step in for another officer while also working
his own caseload. An ICE headquarters employee we spoke with, who
conducted a quality assurance review in the field, described finding an
egregious timeliness issue where it was taking a deportation officer more than
90 days to prepare a travel document request that should be done within the
first 7 days. The headquarters employee then noticed that the officer had a
caseload of 230 detainees, which he opined was unmanageable.
29
Because ICE’s data system is not designed to track causes for delays, we were unable to
analyze the extent to which poor quality of documentation delays repatriation.
30
Complex cases refer to managing removals of detainees who are from countries other than
those western hemisphere countries which do not require travel documents.
www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
ICE headquarters and field office staff reported that heavy workloads held by
some field deportation officers lead to the inconsistent quality of administrative
paperwork they prepare, resulting in errors that delay removals. Our review
confirmed that in some instances:
x Travel document requests were missing required paperwork, such as
evidence of a final order of removal or criminal convictions.
x Detainees’ photos were of such poor quality that they could not be
used and basic biometric information, such as fingerprints or hair
and eye color, were not included.
x Detainees have missed repatriation flights because their medical
paperwork was missing or incomplete and their medications were not
provided.
x Consulates have rejected some travel document requests as incomplete
or inaccurate because initially deportation officers did not thoroughly
check the detainees’ immigration files for missing information or talk to
relatives to obtain it.
ICE ERO has experimented with how it assigns work, attempting to alleviate
staffing issues and improve removal operations, but there are no easy fixes.
ICE ERO field offices that allowed officers to rotate from the detained docket
after 6 months or 1 year observed that such short-term rotations do not give
the officers sufficient time to become proficient in detained docket case
management. On the other hand, field offices that keep staff on the detained
docket long-term or indefinitely reported difficulty recruiting and retaining
staff, and maintaining morale. ICE ERO field offices’ supervisors and officers
we interviewed reported that working the detained docket is considered more
challenging and less satisfying than performing arrests or tracking fugitive
aliens.
ICE Officers Performing Arrests Need Training on Removal Process
Missed opportunities by ICE apprehending officers to locate and secure identity
documents — such as passports or birth certificates — during initial arrest
may delay the removal process. ICE deportation officers tasked with removals
explained that ICE arresting officers do not consistently ask questions, such as
alien’s place of birth or country of origin, or collect the documents, such as
passport or identification cards, vital to the removal process. We were told that
ICE officers tasked with arresting aliens may not have a deep understanding of
www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
immigration laws or they may lack experience with removal operations and do
not always “keep removal in mind.”
As shown in appendix E, deportation officers who work the detained docket are
trained to consult as many sources as possible to obtain evidence of a
detainee’s identity and citizenship. Therefore, ICE must communicate to
apprehending officers the importance of obtaining documentary and
testimonial evidence from aliens during arrests as doing so improves the
likelihood and efficiency of removal.
ICE Air Needs to Enhance Technology for Efficient Repatriation
ICE Air currently manages the complex scheduling of repatriation flights using
manual processes. Without a web-based reservation system, organizing flights
and determining which aliens can be repatriated is a cumbersome, labor-
intensive process occasionally resulting in missed flights for detainees who are
eligible for repatriation.
In FY 2017, ICE Air coordinated the removal of 8,288 aliens via commercial
flights and the removal or transfer of 181,317 aliens via charter flights. Despite
this volume and the complexities of arranging flights, as previously discussed,
ICE Air uses a Microsoft Access database to create flight manifests, and
Microsoft Outlook and Excel to track and manage flights.
ICE Air manually adds and removes detainees from flights based on the highest
priorities for repatriation, legal appeals which stay removal, medical
emergencies, and other logistical considerations. ICE Air emails changes to the
flight manifests to all field offices, sometimes sending two or more email
updates per day, per flight. The 24 field offices must then manually review each
revised manifest to identify which of their detainees can be repatriated on the
next scheduled flight. The field offices have to drive or fly their detainees to
domestic staging sites where ICE Air collects and prepares them for the
international flights. Therefore, one international flight may involve multiple
domestic stops that need to be coordinated as well. In some instances, field
offices have been notified that their detainee was scheduled for repatriation
only to find out on a new manifest that the detainee is no longer on the charter
passenger list, resulting in a missed flight for such detainees. In addition, ICE
Air officials reported that although Special High Risk Charters can take weeks
or months to arrange, they are often not full, even when field offices have aliens
who have valid travel documents and are eligible for removal, causing detainees
to remain in custody until further flights can be coordinated.
www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
ICE acknowledges that the lack of a technological infrastructure is a problem,
but only has plans for a limited upgrade — moving the Access database to a
secured cloud environment. A web-based flight reservation system could
reduce the time ICE Air and ICE field offices spend manually creating and
tracking flight manifests, and could allow field officers to focus more on the
administrative paperwork for the detained docket.
ICE Needs to Improve Its Metrics and Methodology Related to Visa Sanctions
ICE has metrics to track the timeliness of travel document issuance; however,
they do not account for delays in the removal process that are outside of
foreign governments’ control. Although not completely reliable, ICE uses these
imprecise metrics to inform significant diplomatic decisions, such as
recommending visa sanctions.
In the 2017 Memorandum of Understanding, DHS and the State Department
agreed on six measures of cooperation tied to travel document issuance,
acceptance of repatriation flights, and timeliness of responses to requests for
travel documents and flights.
31
However, ICE’s data system lacks the capacity
to track compliance with these measures. Specifically, ICE’s metrics do not
account for travel document applications returned to ICE by consulates
because they are inaccurate or incomplete, nor do they capture logistical flight
delays. Also, the metrics do not identify the date of a travel document request
or the date a travel document was issued or denied.
In an effort to establish an objective measure of countries’ cooperation, ICE
introduced the Removal Cooperation Initiative (RCI) Tool. The RCI Tool
identifies countries as cooperative, at risk of noncompliance, or uncooperative
based on:
x how long it takes on average to remove aliens;
x how many aliens must be released because they cannot be removed;
x the country’s willingness to conduct interviews; and
x the country’s willingness to accept charter flights.
Nonetheless, current metrics do not provide an accurate assessment of a
country’s cooperation status, failing to account for significant steps in the
removal process outside the control of foreign governments and ICE. For
example, the timeliness metric used to identify how long it takes to remove
aliens does not exclude the time for legal appeals or failure to comply with
31
Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the
U.S. Department of State Concerning the Removal of Aliens, August 16, 2017, Section IV
www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
removal, which, as described earlier, can cause significant delays. ICE
manually removes such outliers as delays for legal appeals, resulting in
potentially incorrect assessments of country cooperation. Despite these
limitations, ICE currently uses the statistics from the RCI Tool to assess
countries’ cooperation to make decisions on visa sanctions.
In addition to using imprecise statistics in its assessments, ICE’s conclusions
for determining which countries to sanction and when to lift sanctions are not
clear. We did not find a methodology explaining what circumstances prompt
ICE to disregard or “override” the RCI Tool score for some countries, in essence
modifying their status on cooperation. For example, we heard that some
countries may have been scored as at risk of noncompliance in the RCI Tool,
yet were sanctioned without first being categorized as uncooperative.
Conversely, countries categorized as cooperative have not had sanctions
lifted.
32
Finally, ICE does not share its rationale for imposing and lifting
sanctions with the DHS Office of Policy and the State Department, although
both agencies are involved in diplomatic engagements.
There are valid reasons to use sanctions selectively as the United States has
complex geopolitical relations with some countries. In addition, some countries
lack the institutional capacity to issue travel documents quickly or consistently
and sanctions might not have the desired effect of improved cooperation.
However, a methodology for determining which countries are sanctioned and
what conditions must be met to lift sanctions, as well as better information
sharing with ICE’s partners, could help both DHS and the State Department
engage foreign governments more effectively.
ICE Needs to Improve the eTD Module for Monitoring Country Cooperation
The ICE data system known as ENFORCE Alien Removal Module contains the
eTD module,
33
which can be used to monitor the time it takes for countries to
issue travel documents. ICE has improved the eTD module’s ability to generate
real-time reports from field offices on the status of travel document requests
from any country as well as numbers of travel documents issued and the
issuance rates by country and consulate. However, ICE does not generate
official statistics from the eTD module.
32
In 2017, Guinea and Sierra Leone were sanctioned even though they were just categorized as
at risk of noncompliance. These countries are now listed as cooperative, but continue to be
under sanctions. Meanwhile countries that are consistently categorized as uncooperative,
including Vietnam, Cuba, China, and Iran, have not been sanctioned.
33
ENFORCE is not an acronym. The eTD module refers to the electronic travel document
module.
www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
In 2008, eTD was upgraded specifically to process and track the status of all
travel document requests from all countries, with the exception of Canada and
Mexico. ICE internal guidance from 2008 requires that all new travel document
requests for aliens must be put through the eTD system. For all countries, with
the exception of Mexico, ICE officers should enter the dates of travel document
issuance into eTD; only a few countries can currently approve travel
documents through eTD. Travel document issuance is a key element in
determining countries’ cooperation, but ICE is not using eTD to monitor
whether countries routinely issue travel documents within the 30-day
requirement. The information in the eTD module could enable ICE to more
accurately distinguish delays caused by foreign governments’ lack of
cooperation from the delays outside other countries’ control.
Recommendations
We recommend the Executive Associate Director for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations:
Recommendation 1: Develop a staffing model that assigns sufficient
deportation officers to the detained docket to actively manage post-order
custody cases.
Recommendation 2: Develop training for all Enforcement and Removal
Operations staff assigned to alien apprehensions, highlighting the importance
of obtaining identity documents and complete and accurate information at
apprehension, and how such documents and information affect the removal
process.
We recommend the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director:
Recommendation 3: Develop a web-based flight management and tracking
system to support the domestic air transfer and international removal air travel
operational demands of Enforcement and Removal Operations.
Recommendation 4: Develop written documentation of recommendations and
justifications for imposing, retaining, and lifting visa sanctions.
Recommendation 5: Implement the use of an electronic system comparable
to, or more accurate than, eTD as a source for official statistics, to improve the
measures of cooperation with travel document requests.
www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
OIG Analysis of Management Comments
We have included a copy of ICE’s Management Response in its entirety in
appendix B. We also received technical comments from ICE and incorporated
them in the report where appropriate. We consider all of the recommendations
to be resolved and open. A summary of ICE’s responses and our analysis
follows. ICE concurred with all five recommendations.
ICE Response to Recommendation 1: ICE concurred with the
recommendation. ICE officials stated that ICE would review the workload of its
deportation officers, and determine an ideal staffing level to manage post-order
custody cases. ICE officials noted that the staffing model would need to evolve
with operational trends, and that even the best staffing model may not achieve
the goals outlined in this report. ICE anticipates completing these actions by
October 30, 2019.
OIG Analysis: We consider these actions responsive to the recommendation,
which is resolved and open. We will close this recommendation when we
receive documentation that ICE has developed a staffing model for managing
its post-order custody cases. We recognize that the staffing model will continue
to evolve with operational trends, and that factors external to the staffing
model, such as budget and position vacancies, may affect staffing.
ICE Response to Recommendation 2: ICE concurred with the
recommendation. ICE officials stated that ICE conducts an annual training at
every field office. Although the training is open to all officers, typically only
detained-docket officers attend. ICE officials said they would ensure that all
future trainings are attended by all officers, with an increased emphasis on
attendance of those responsible for conducting alien apprehensions and non-
detained case management. ICE anticipates completing these actions by April
30, 2019.
OIG Analysis: We consider these actions responsive to the recommendation,
which is resolved and open. We will close this recommendation when we
receive documentation that ICE has instructed officers who do not work on
detained cases that they should attend the annual training.
ICE Response to Recommendation 3: ICE concurred with the
recommendation. ICE officials stated that ICE plans to develop a transportation
management system that will be integrated into ICE’s case and removal
management systems. ICE officials noted that the focus of the system would be
on travel management, but that the system would also support financial
www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
management and enable ICE to quantify its workload. ICE officials stated that
the first milestone would be to submit a funding request in the February 2019
budget development cycle. ICE anticipates completing these actions by
December 31, 2020.
OIG Analysis: We consider these actions responsive to the recommendation,
which is resolved and open. We will close this recommendation when we
receive documentation that ICE has received a final decision on its request to
fund the transportation management system.
ICE Response to Recommendation 4: ICE concurred with the
recommendation. ICE officials stated that ICE has the authority to impose visa
sanctions for any incident of lack of cooperation. ICE noted that it conducts
monthly meetings with the Department of States and the Department of
Homeland Security Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans regarding cooperation.
ICE officials also stated that statistics are one of many factors considered in
the visa sanction process. ICE stated that going forward, following each
monthly meeting, it would send meeting notes — documenting the next steps
to take for each country — to the Department of State and the Office of
Strategy, Policy, and Plans. ICE anticipated completing these actions by
February 28, 2019.
OIG Analysis: We consider these actions responsive to the recommendation,
which is resolved and open. We will close this recommendation when we
receive documentation that ICE has submitted to the Department of State and
the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans meeting notes documenting the next
steps to take for each country for four consecutive months.
ICE Response to Recommendation 5: ICE concurred with the
recommendation. ICE officials stated that ICE will prioritize the development
and deployment of an electronic system as a source for official statistics
regarding travel document decisions. The initial requirements process is
scheduled to be completed by June 30, 2019, and the initial rollout by June
30, 2020. ICE anticipates completing these actions by October 31, 2020.
OIG Analysis: We consider these actions responsive to the recommendation,
which is resolved and open. We will close this recommendation when we
receive documentation that ICE has begun publishing official statistics
regarding travel document decisions from its electronic system.
www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-19-28
A
A
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Appendix A
Objective, Scope, and Methodology
The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) was
established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107ï296) by
amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978.
Our objective for this review was to identify barriers to repatriation of detained
aliens with final orders of removal. To achieve our objective, we reviewed ICE’s
policies, procedures, and guidance for removing detained aliens with final
orders of removal. We also reviewed available information from ICE’s data
systems, including data used in the RCI Tool, and data used for ICE’s official
statistics on removals. We assessed ICE’s quality assurance and oversight
programs, including memorandums reporting results of field site visits, ICE Air
feedback on common errors seen in travel packets, and ICE’s training and
guidance materials.
Using ICE data, we selected one staging facility and three field offices to visit
and observe the work performed on flight operations and the detained docket,
based on a range of factors including facility type and complexity of removals.
We also conducted in person or telephonic interviews with personnel from ICE
Air Operations, ICE Headquarters Removal and International Operations,
supervisory deportation officers and deportation officers at numerous field
offices throughout the United States. We also interviewed officials from
Department of State, DHS Office of Policy, ICE Law Enforcement Systems and
Analysis Unit, ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, and ICE Office of Chief
Information Officer.
To better understand what challenges removal operations of detained aliens
face, we took a snapshot of all aliens with final orders of removal in ICE
detention on December 13, 2017. We chose to review those cases where
detainees were held longer than 90 days for a total of 3,053 records. The ICE
deportation officer case comments were reviewed for the 3,053 records to
identify possible barriers that prohibited timely removal. We shared the alien
numbers of detainees from the snapshot with the ICE Law Enforcement
Systems and Analysis Unit to obtain the case disposition of those cases as of
March 24, 2018. The information in this report on case dispositions is based
on the information provided by ICE.
We conducted this review between March 2018 and July 2018 pursuant to the
authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to
www.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency. We believe that the evidence obtained
provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our
objectives.
www.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-19-28
C
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Appendix C
Results of Electronic File Case Review
We took a snapshot of all aliens with final orders of removal in ICE detention
on December 13, 2017. We asked ICE to provide us a case disposition for each
of the cases where the alien was held longer than 90 days as of March 24,
2018. Table 2 reflects our identification of delays or barriers to removal, and
ICE’s information on the status of each case.
Table 2: Snapshot Case Dispositions
Post Order Detention Barrier to Removal
Case Disposition as of March 24, 2018
Removed Detained Released Other Total
91–180 Days
181+ Days
Total
91–180 Days
181+ Days
Total
91–180 Days
181+ Days
Total
91–180 Days
181+ Days
Total
91–180 Days
181+ Days
Total
91–180 Days
181+ Days
Total
91–180 Days
181+ Days
Total
91+ Days
Legal Appeals
Legal Appeals
Legal Appeals
Travel Document
Travel Document
Travel Document
Flight
Flight
Flight
Failure to Comply
Failure to Comply
Failure to Comply
Other
Other
Other
Escort
Escort
Escort
Medical
Medical
Medical
Total
259 387 132 34
231 468 131 28
490 855 263 62
126 151 260 10
100 126 157 18
226 277 417 28
82 37
0
2
55 23
0
2
137 60 0 4
14 14
0
1
15 46 2 1
29 60 2 2
20 12 7 16
8 11 2 9
28 23 9 25
21
0 0
2
13 1
0
0
34 1 0 2
3 3 2 0
4 5 2 0
7 8 4 0
951 1,284 695 123
812
858
1,670
547
401
948
121
80
201
29
64
93
55
30
85
23
14
37
8
11
19
3,053
Source: OIG Analysis of Aliens Detained Longer than 90 Days Post Final Order of Removal,
from ICE ENFORCE Alien Removal Module, ICE Law Enforcement Systems and Analysis case
disposition information as of March 24, 2018
www.oig.dhs.gov 28 OIG-19-28
D
Uncooperative Uncooperative
ARON Other
Uncooperative Uncooperative
ARON Other
ARON
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Appendix D
Countries’ Cooperation with Repatriation
July September September May
Country 2015 2016 2017 2018
Afghanistan Other Other
Albania Other Other
Algeria Uncooperative Uncooperative Other ARON
Angola Other ARON Other Other
Antigua Barbuda ARON ARON Other Other
Armenia ARON Other Other ARON
Azerbaijan Other ARON Other Other
Bahamas Other ARON Other Other
Bangladesh ARON ARON Other Other
Barbados ARON Other ARON Other
Belarus ARON ARON Other Other
Bermuda ARON Other ARON Other
Bhutan Other Other Other ARON
Bolivia ARON Other Other Other
Bosnia And Herzegovina ARON ARON Other Other
Brazil ARON ARON ARON ARON
British Virgin Islands Other ARON Other Other
Bulgaria
Uncooperative
Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative
Uncooperative
Uncooperative
Uncooperative Uncooperative
Other ARON Other Other
Burkina Faso Other
ARON ARON
Burma ARON
Burundi ARON ARON ARON
Cambodia ARON
Cameroon ARON Other Other Other
Cape Verde Uncooperative Other Other Other
Chad ARON ARON Other Other
China
Comoros ARON Other Other Other
Cuba
Czech Republic ARON Other Other Other
Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative
Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative
Democratic Republic Of The
Congo ARON Other Other Other
Dominica ARON ARON ARON ARON
Egypt
Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative
Other ARON ARON ARON
Eritrea
Estonia Other ARON Other Other
Ethiopia Other ARON ARON ARON
Fiji ARON Other Other Other
Gambia Other Other
Georgia Other Other
Ghana Uncooperative ARON ARON
Greece ARON Other Other Other
Grenada Other ARON Other Other
Guinea
Uncooperative Uncooperative ARON Other
www.oig.dhs.gov 29 OIG-19-28
Uncooperative Uncooperative
ARON Other
ARON
ARON ARON
ARON Uncooperative
ARON Other
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Guinea Bissau ARON Other Other Other
Haiti ARON Other Other Other
Hong Kong ARON Other Uncooperative Uncooperative
India Uncooperative Other Other Other
Indonesia ARON Other Other Other
Iran Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative
Iraq Uncooperative Uncooperative ARON ARON
Israel Other Other ARON ARON
Ivory Coast Uncooperative ARON ARON ARON
Jordan ARON ARON Other Other
Kazakhstan ARON Other Other Other
Kenya ARON ARON ARON ARON
Kosovo ARON Other Other Other
Kyrgyzstan ARON Other Other Other
Laos Other Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative
Lebanon ARON ARON Other ARON
Lesotho Other ARON Other Other
Liberia Uncooperative ARON Other Other
Libya Uncooperative ARON ARON Other
Lithuania ARON ARON Other Other
Macedonia Other ARON Other Other
Mali ARON Other
Martinique Other Other
Mauritania Uncooperative ARON Other
Moldova ARON Other Other Other
Mongolia ARON Other Other Other
Montserrat Other ARON ARON
Other
Morocco Uncooperative Uncooperative ARON Other
Namibia Other Other ARON ARON
Nepal ARON ARON Other Other
Niger Other ARON ARON Other
Nigeria Other Other ARON ARON
Norway Other ARON Other Other
Pakistan ARON ARON ARON ARON
Panama Other ARON Other Other
Papua New Guinea ARON Other Other Other
Paraguay ARON ARON Other Other
Qatar Other ARON Other Other
Republic Of Congo ARON ARON ARON Other
Romania Other ARON Other Other
Russia ARON Other Other Other
Rwanda Other ARON Other Other
Samoa ARON Other
Senegal ARON ARON
Serbia Other Other
Sierra Leone Uncooperative Uncooperative ARON Other
Slovakia Other ARON Other Other
Slovenia ARON Other Other Other
Somalia Uncooperative Uncooperative Other Other
South Sudan Uncooperative Uncooperative ARON Other
Sri Lanka ARON Other Other Other
www.oig.dhs.gov 30 OIG-19-28
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
St. Kitts Nevis ARON Other Other Other
St. Lucia ARON ARON Other Other
Sudan Other ARON ARON ARON
Suriname Other ARON Other Other
Sweden ARON Other Other Other
Syria ARON Other Other Other
Tajikistan ARON ARON Other Other
Tanzania ARON ARON ARON Other
Thailand ARON ARON ARON ARON
Togo ARON ARON ARON ARON
Tonga ARON ARON Other Other
Tunisia ARON ARON ARON Other
Turkey ARON Other Other Other
Turkmenistan Other ARON Other Other
Uganda Other ARON ARON ARON
Ukraine ARON Other Other Other
United Kingdom Other ARON Other Other
Uzbekistan ARON Other Other Other
Venezuela Other ARON ARON ARON
Vietnam ARON
Yemen ARON Other Other Other
Zambia Other ARON Other Other
Zimbabwe
Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative
Uncooperative Other ARON Other
Legend: ʄ Uncooperative ʄ ARON (At Risk of Noncompliance) ʄ Other
Source: ICE
www.oig.dhs.gov 31 OIG-19-28
E
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Appendix E
Travel Document Requests
Prior to submitting the travel document request to the embassy or consular
office, ICE staff interviews the alien to complete the Form I-217, Information for
Travel Document or Passport. The Form I-217 is the source document for
information necessary to complete the travel document request. It needs to be
thoroughly completed to avoid delays in the issuance of the travel document.
Complete travel document requests include but are not limited to:
x I-217 – Information for Travel Document or Passport
x Any available identity documents
x Charging Document
x Final Order of Removal
x I-205 – Warrant of Removal
x I-294 – Warning to Alien Ordered Removed or Deported
x I-296 – Notice to Alien Ordered Removed / Departure Verification
x Photograph(s)
Prior to submitting the travel packet, deportation officers must review the
country-specific Removal Guidelines posted on the ICE website (Removal and
International Operations Guidelines) to ascertain requirements for travel
document requests. Following are examples of different requirements countries
might have for travel documents:
x Travel itinerary
x Return of expired passport
x Number of photographs
x Processing fee
x Required consular interview
x Evidence the alien has been ordered removed
x Foreign government travel document application
x Miscellaneous document requirements
x Special requirements
Once the travel document request packet is submitted to the embassy or
consular office, ICE has to follow up with the embassy or consular office every
few weeks until the travel document has been issued or the case closed.
www.oig.dhs.gov 32 OIG-19-28
F
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Appendix F
Office of Special Reviews and Evaluations Major
Contributors to This Report
Tatyana Martell, Chief Inspector
Lorraine Eide, Team Lead
Donna Ruth, Senior Inspector
Adam Robinson, Inspector
Jason Wahl, Independent Referencer
www.oig.dhs.gov 33 OIG-19-28
G
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Appendix G
Report Distribution
Department of Homeland Security
Secretary
Deputy Secretary
Chief of Staff
General Counsel
Executive Secretary
Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office
Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy
Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs
Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs
ICE Liaison
Office of Management and Budget
Chief, Homeland Security Branch
DHS OIG Budget Examiner
Congress
Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees
www.oig.dhs.gov 34 OIG-19-28
Additional Information and Copies
To view this and any of our other reports, please visit our website at:
www.oig.dhs.gov.
For further information or questions, please contact Office of Inspector General
Public Affairs at: [email protected].
Follow us on Twitter at: @dhsoig.
OIG Hotline
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov and click
on the red "Hotline" tab. If you cannot access our website, call our hotline at
(800) 323-8603, fax our hotline at (202) 254-4297, or write to us at:
Department of Homeland Security
Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305
Attention: Hotline
245 Murray Drive, SW
Washington, DC 20528-0305
