DHS OIG, OIG-25-29, CBP Has Inconsistent Processes for Identifying Special Interest Aliens and Did Not Complete Requests for Interviewing [REDACTED] Aliens - (REDACTED) (2025)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OIG-25-29 FINAL REPORT July 1, 2025 CBP Has Inconsistent Processes for Identifying Special Interest Aliens and Did Not Complete Requests for Interviewing Aliens (REDACTED) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE WARNING: This document is For Official Use Only (FOUO) and Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES). Do not distribute or copy this report without the expressed written consent of the Office of Inspector General. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528 | www.oig.dhs.gov MEMORANDUM FOR: FROM: SUBJECT: July 1, 2025 The Honorable Rodney S. Scott Commissioner U.S. Customs and Border Protection Joseph V. Cuffari, Ph.D. Inspector General JOSEPH V CUFFARI Digitally signed by JOSEPH V CUFFARI Date: 2025.07.01 08:45:12 -04'00' CBP Has Inconsistent Processes for Identifying Special Interest Aliens and Did Not Complete Requests for Interviewing Official Use Only // Law Enforcement Sensitive Aliens – For Attached for your action is our final report, CBP Has Inconsistent Processes for Identifying Special Interest Aliens and Did Not Complete Requests for Interviewing Aliens. We incorporated the formal comments provided by your office.

The report contains three recommendations aimed at improving CBP’s screening processes. Your office concurred with one recommendation and did not concur with two recommendations. Based on information provided in your response to the draft report, we consider recommendations 2 and 3 open and unresolved. As prescribed by Department of Homeland Security Directive 077-01, Follow-Up and Resolutions for the Office of Inspector General Report Recommendations, within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, please provide our office with a written response that includes your (1) agreement or disagreement, (2) corrective action plan, and (3) target completion date for each recommendation.

Also, please include responsible parties and any other supporting documentation necessary to inform us about the current status of the recommendation. Until your response is received and evaluated, the recommendations will be considered open and unresolved. Based on information provided in your response to the draft report, we consider recommendation 1 open and resolved. Once your office has fully implemented the recommendation, please submit a formal closeout letter to us within 30 days so that we may close the recommendation.

The memorandum should be accompanied by evidence of completion of agreed-upon corrective actions. Please send your response or closure request to [email protected]. OIG Project No. 23-062-ISP-CBP FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 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 a redacted version of the report on our website.

Please contact me with any questions, or your staff may contact Thomas Kait, Deputy Inspector General for Inspections and Evaluations, at (202) 981-6000. Attachment Office of Inspector General U.S. Department of Homeland Security | Washington, DC 20528 | www.oig.dhs.gov 2 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE DHS OIG HIGHLIGHTS CBP Has Inconsistent Processes for Identifying Special Interest Aliens and Did Not Complete Requests for Interviewing Aliens July 1, 2025 What We Found Why We Did This Evaluation We conducted this evaluation to review CBP’s screening of Central Asian aliens who entered the United States with assistance from smuggling networks from June to October 2023. What We Recommend We made three recommendations to ensure CBP develops and implements an agency-wide policy for identifying and screening SIAs and establishes processes for completing interview requests and disseminating FCMs. For Further Information: Contact our Office of Public Affairs at (202) 981-6000, or email us at: [email protected].

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) inconsistent processes for identifying special interest aliens (SIAs) created disparities in alien screening. In July 2023, CBP’s Office of Field Operations (OFO) San Diego Field Office and the U.S. Border Patrol (Border Patrol) Yuma and El Centro sectors had a process to identify and provide additional screening of SIAs, yet San Diego sector did not. This inconsistency occurred because CBP did not have an agency-wide policy stating whether to identify aliens from certain countries as SIAs. As a result, aliens from countries with links to terrorism entered at least one CBP region that did not provide additional screening.

We found that Border Patrol San Diego sector agents did not consistently conduct and document interviews of aliens. From July 12, 2023, to July 17, 2023, Border Patrol San Diego sector task force officers (TFOs) — assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Joint Terrorism Task Force — requested agents interview aliens. Agents told us there were too many interview before releasing them. The agents also did not consistently document interviews, per sector policy.

On July 21, 2023, CBP’s Office of Intelligence issued a focused collection message (FCM) requesting aliens, but it was not Southwest border personnel interview disseminated to agents in San Diego sector until 5 days later, potentially missing opportunities to identify aliens who posed a potential risk to national security and to collect information about smuggling networks. aliens in custody matching TFOs’ requests to Further, the OFO San Diego Field Office could not determine whether officers completed TFOs’ July 14, 2023 request to search aliens’ phones. The officers documented phone searches for about half of the aliens who matched TFOs’ request. CBP does not know if the others had phones or had broken phones because the San Diego Field Office does not document whether arriving aliens have phones in their possession. CBP Response CBP concurred with recommendation 1 but did not concur with recommendations 2 and 3.

We consider recommendation 1 resolved and open and recommendations 2 and 3 unresolved and open. www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security Table of Contents Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Results of Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 3 CBP’s Inconsistent Processes for Identifying SIAs Created Disparities in Screening .................................................................................................................................. 4 Alien Border Patrol San Diego Sector Agents Did Not Consistently Conduct and Document Interviews of Aliens .......................................................................................................

6 OFO San Diego Field Office Cannot Determine Whether It Completed TFOs’ Request to Search Aliens’ Phones ................................................................................................... 8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 9 Management Comments and OIG Analysis .........................................................................................

9 Appendix A: Objective, Scope, and Methodology ............................................................................. 12 DHS OIG’s Access to DHS Information ................................................................................... 12 Appendix B: Timeline for CBP’s Additional Screening Efforts of Aliens ............................... 13 Appendix C: CBP Comments on the Draft Report .............................................................................

14 Appendix D: Office of Inspections and Evaluations Major Contributors to This Report ................. 18 Appendix E: Report Distribution ........................................................................................................ 19 Abbreviations CBP FBI FCM ICE MOU OFO OI POE SIA TFO U.S. Customs and Border Protection Federal Bureau of Investigation focused collection message U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement memorandum of understanding Office of Field Operations Office of Intelligence port of entry special interest alien task force officer www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security Background U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Office of Field Operations (OFO) manages U.S. ports of entry (POEs), where officers perform immigration and customs functions, inspecting all individuals arriving in the United States to verify identity and purpose of travel. Between POEs, CBP’s U.S. Border Patrol (Border Patrol) detects and interdicts people suspected of entering the United States without inspection.

OFO and Border Patrol are generally responsible for short- term detention of aliens1 who are inadmissible to or deportable from the United States or subject to criminal prosecution. CBP’s authority to protect the United States includes screening,2 arresting, and coordinating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to remove aliens who threaten national security. Toward that end, OFO officers and Border Patrol agents collect biographical and biometric information and conduct record checks to determine whether available information indicates a potential national security threat. Officers and agents review the results of the record checks and coordinate with ICE to place aliens who may pose a threat in long-term detention facilities ICE manages, or release aliens who do not pose a threat while they await immigration removal proceedings.

If aliens’ record checks do not initially reveal derogatory information, OFO officers and Border Patrol agents may conduct additional screening, such as interviews3 or phone searches,4 to further assess whether the aliens pose a threat. Reasons for further assessment may include: • Special interest alien (SIA) screening: OFO officers and Border Patrol agents may conduct additional screening of SIAs, defined by the Department of Homeland Security as a “foreign national originating from a country […] identified as having possible or established links to terrorism.”5 In these instances, officers and agents 1 DHS defines an alien as “a person not a citizen or national of the United States.” Instruction Manual 262-12-001-01, DHS Lexicon Terms and Definitions, 2018 Edition, Rev. 4, April 23, 2018, p. 36. 2 DHS defines screening as “physical and/or information-based examination or review of cargo, people and their belongings.” Instruction Manual 262-12-001-01, DHS Lexicon Terms and Definitions, 2018 Edition, Rev. 4, April 23, 2018, p. 656. 3 In this report, we use the term “interviews” to refer to CBP asking aliens questions to determine whether they pose a threat.

We do not use the term “interviews” to refer to CBP speaking with aliens while processing them into custody. 4 When permitted by law and policy, CBP may search aliens’ phones and other electronic devices to determine admissibility or identify other violations of law enforced or administered by CBP. We previously audited and issued reports on CBP’s electronic device searches, including CBP’s Searches of Electronic Devices At Ports of Entry, OIG-19- 10, and CBP Continues to Experience Challenges Managing Searches of Electronic Devices at Ports of Entry, OIG-21-63. 5 Instruction Manual 262-12-001-01, DHS Lexicon Terms and Definitions, 2018 Edition, Rev. 4, April 23, 2018, p. 687.

The Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans confirmed this is DHS’ SIA definition. However, DHS’ public website defines SIAs as aliens “who, based on an analysis of travel patterns, potentially poses a national security risk to the United States www.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security maintain a list of countries posing terrorism concerns and screen those aliens whose country of origin matches the list to determine if the individual is a threat. • Task force officer (TFO) requests: OFO officers and Border Patrol agents assigned to Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Joint Terrorism Task Forces,6 known as TFOs,7 may learn about a threat related to certain aliens and request their colleagues conduct additional screening of the aliens. After conducting additional screening, officers and agents notify the TFOs when they identify aliens who may relate to the threat. • Focused collection messages (FCMs): CBP Office of Intelligence (OI) officials may issue FCMs requesting OFO officers and Border Patrol agents conduct additional screening of certain aliens during a specific timeframe to collect information on smuggling networks, foreign terrorist affiliation, and other information. Officers and agents document significant information in reports that OI officials analyze, subsequently advising CBP leadership on how to respond to the threat. aliens8 arriving at the Southwest border CBP encountered more than a fourfold increase of aliens in fiscal year 2022 to approximately 13,000 in FY 2023. — from approximately 3,000 aliens’ flights to Latin America, and then According to CBP, smuggling networks scheduled organized their travel by land through Baja California, Mexico.

Subsequently, aliens often arrived at the U.S. border in San Diego and nearby areas. These aliens scheduled appointments with the CBP One™ application9 to apply for admission at POEs within the OFO San Diego Field Office, or illegally crossed the border and encountered Border Patrol agents in San Diego, El Centro, and Yuma sectors. or its interests.” It is unclear why DHS’ website incorrectly states DHS defines SIAs by analyzing travel patterns, rather than country of origin. https://www.dhs.gov/archive/news/2019/01/07/mythfact-known-and-suspected- terroristsspecial-interest-aliens. 6 FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces include personnel from U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including CBP, who work together to combat terrorism. There are approximately 200 Joint Terrorism Task Forces throughout the country. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/joint-terrorism-task-forces.

7 TFOs engage in several joint law enforcement activities focused on national security, including conducting interviews, gathering evidence, and collecting and sharing information. 8 For this report, “ aliens” refer to individuals who migrated from 9 In October 2020, CBP developed CBP One™ to serve as a single portal for a variety of CBP services. The CBP One™ Appointment feature allowed aliens seeking admission into the United States to submit advance information and schedule appointments at POEs along the Southwest Border, including OFO San Diego Field Office POEs. In January 2025, CBP ended the CBP One™ Appointment feature. to the United States. www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security Figure 1.

Map of CBP locations across the border from Baja California, Mexico Source: DHS Office of Inspector General analysis of CBP and publicly available documents. In July 2023, CBP and the FBI became concerned that the smuggling networks responsible for the migration could pose a national security threat to the United States.10 As a increase of result, TFOs and OI officials requested that OFO officers and Border Patrol agents in San Diego and nearby areas conduct additional screening to gather more information from these aliens and help CBP and the FBI disrupt the potential threat. We conducted this evaluation to review CBP’s screening of Central Asian aliens who entered the United States with assistance from smuggling networks from June to October 2023. We focused specifically on CBP’s screening of that smuggling networks responsible for the increase of security threat.11 aliens in July 2023 because of CBP officials’ concerns migration could pose a national Results of Evaluation CBP’s inconsistent processes for identifying SIAs created disparities in July 2023, OFO San Diego Field Office, Border Patrol Yuma sector, and Border Patrol El Centro sector had a process to identify and provide additional screening of SIAs; Border Patrol San Diego alien screening.

In 10 CBP and the FBI are generally concerned that foreign terrorist organizations could exploit smuggling routes to facilitate the movement of terrorists or use smuggling activities to fund terrorism operations. 11 This evaluation focused on CBP’s additional screening efforts initiated in July 2023 responsive to concerns about aliens, and CBP’s aliens’ smuggling networks. This evaluation did not review all CBP efforts to screen processes for screening these aliens changed over time as it learned more about the threat. www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security sector did not. This inconsistency occurred because CBP did not have an agency-wide policy stating whether to identify aliens from certain countries as SIAs.

As a result, aliens from countries with links to terrorism entered at least one CBP region that did not provide additional screening. We found that Border Patrol San Diego sector agents did not consistently conduct and document interviews of aliens. TFOs requested Border Patrol San Diego sector agents interview aliens from July 12, 2023, to July 17, 2023. Agents told us there were too many aliens in custody matching these requests to interview before releasing them.

The agents also did not consistently document their interviews, per sector policy. On July 21, 2023, OI issued an FCM requesting Southwest border personnel interview aliens, but it was not disseminated to agents in San Diego sector until 5 days later, potentially missing opportunities to identify aliens who posed a potential risk to national security and to collect information about smuggling networks. Further, OFO San Diego Field Office could not determine whether officers completed the TFOs’ aliens’ phones. The officers documented phone searches July 14, 2023 request to search for about half of the aliens who matched TFOs’ request, but the others may not have had phones or had broken phones.

The OFO San Diego Field Office does not document whether arriving aliens have phones in their possession. See Appendix B for a timeline of CBP’s additional screening efforts of aliens. CBP’s Inconsistent Processes for Identifying SIAs Created Disparities in Alien Screening In July 2023, OFO San Diego Field Office, Border Patrol Yuma sector, and Border Patrol El Centro sector maintained a list of countries with possible or established links to terrorism and had processes in place to prioritize SIAs for interviews and phone searches and transfer those who may have posed a threat to ICE for long-term detention. In contrast, the Border Patrol San Diego sector did not maintain a list, nor did it did prioritize these SIAs for interviews and phone searches to determine whether they were a threat.

When CBP became concerned that smuggling networks responsible for the increase of migration could pose a national security threat, OFO San Diego Field Office and Border Patrol on their lists for identifying SIAs; Border Patrol El Centro Yuma sector already had Sector added According to a Border Patrol Yuma sector agent, leadership within each Border Patrol sector has the flexibility to decide on the list of countries agents use to identify SIAs. to its list to begin providing additional screening of aliens. www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security aliens for interviews and phone searches.12 This occurred Conversely, in July 2023, Border Patrol San Diego sector did not have a process for identifying SIAs, nor did it prioritize because CBP does not have an agency-wide policy stating whether sectors or field offices should determine whether aliens from countries with possible or established links to terrorism are SIAs. Although CBP has an agency-wide list of countries with possible or established links to terrorism, it has not updated this list since 2016. Even if it updated the list, CBP sectors and field offices do not use this list for screening purposes to identify SIAs. Instead, OI uses this list to write intelligence reports on aliens from these countries.

Figure 2. CBP Processes for Identifying SIAs in the San Diego Area in July 2023 Source: DHS OIG analysis of CBP processes As a result of inconsistent processes for identifying SIAs, CBP applied different levels of screening aliens depending on where they entered the United States. During the first half of 2023, to 7,553 aliens arrived at the Southwest border; Border Patrol encountered 4,933 of them (65 percent) at the Border Patrol San Diego sector, which had no process for identifying SIAs. Without consistent processes to identify SIAs, aliens from countries with links to terrorism entered at least one CBP region that does not provide additional screening.

A Border Patrol San Diego sector supervisor told us that in July 2023, when he learned about concerns related to migration, he reviewed his sector’s alien encounter data and noticed it released thousands of aliens without prioritizing them for interviews and phone searches. Despite not prioritizing sector still had opportunities to further screen these aliens to respond to national security concerns through other methods, including TFOs’ requests and an OI FCM. This did not consistently happen in the sector. aliens for interviews and phone searches, Border Patrol San Diego 12 While Border Patrol San Diego Sector previously had a process to identify SIAs, a supervisory agent told us the sector does not use it anymore because agents encounter too many SIAs to interview all of them. The agents we spoke with confirmed they did not have a process to identify SIAs in July 2023.

However, the agents conducted interviews and phone searches when aliens’ record checks revealed derogatory information. www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security Border Patrol San Diego Sector Agents Did Not Consistently Conduct and Document Interviews of Aliens In July 2023, TFOs requested that Border Patrol San Diego sector agents interview but the agents did not interview all matching this request. In addition, OI issued an FCM requesting that Southwest border personnel interview Sector TFOs did not disseminate the FCM to agents who conduct interviews until 5 days after receiving the FCM. As a result, the sector missed opportunities to identify aliens who pose a potential risk to national security and collect and analyze information about their smuggling networks. aliens, but Border Patrol San Diego aliens, Border Patrol San Diego Sector Agents Did Not Interview All Requests Aliens Matching TFO From July 12, 2023, to July 17, 2023, Border Patrol San Diego Sector TFOs requested that Border Patrol San Diego agents interview certain aliens, specifically: • On July 12, TFOs asked agents to interview all • On July 13, TFOs altered the guidance, asking agents to interview aliens. aliens who did not arrive . • On July 17, TFOs ended its request for agents to interview aliens. TFOs advised agents to ask aliens and to notify TFOs A TFO told us these interviews would help CBP narrow the number of aliens to those who may pose a threat.

After identifying additional screening, TFOs coordinated to conduct aliens . aliens matching their requests because of the aliens in custody. Per National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, TFOs told us agents did not interview all large number of and Search,13 CBP generally should not hold aliens in custody longer than 72 hours. CBP must interview the aliens before releasing them; therefore, it has limited time to interview aliens. Border Patrol San Diego leadership tried to interview aliens within this timeframe by transferring those encountered at different stations to the San Diego sector’s centralized processing center and sending additional agents there to complete the interviews.

Despite this effort, one TFO said 13 CBP, National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search (TEDS), Oct. 2015, Section 4.1, Duration of Detention. TEDS states that every effort must be made to hold detainees for the least amount of time required for their processing, transfer, release, or repatriation, as appropriate and as operationally feasible. For DHS authority to detain individuals, see 6 U.S.C. § 211(c)(8)(B) and 6 U.S.C. § 211(m)(3). www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security the volume of timeframe was “not sustainable.” in custody was “huge” and the attempt to interview all within the limited We could not determine how many aliens CBP interviewed or how many previously because agents did not consistently document whether they interviewed these aliens.

A supervisory agent told his agents to document TFOs’ requested interviews in a CBP system of record, as required by San Diego sector policy, so they could review the responses. However, the CBP systems of record only contained responses for 5 of 207 (2 percent) aliens matching the TFOs’ requests. In addition to the responses for the five in CBP’s aliens’ responses to the TFOs without system of record, the agents also emailed other documenting them. Ultimately, a supervisory agent told us the sector identified approximately 45 to 60 estimate” because the sector did not keep an “official tracker.” , but also noted, “this is an aliens who previously aliens’ Border Patrol San Diego Sector TFOs Did Not Disseminate OI’s FCM for in a Timely Manner Alien Interviews aliens about the smuggling networks that facilitated their movement On July 21, 2023, OI officials drafted a 3-month FCM requesting that CBP Southwest border personnel interview and document significant information in reports for OI analysis.

OI officials initially planned to issue this FCM on July 25, 2023, but an FBI agent asked OI officials to issue it sooner so CBP could immediately begin the interviews that day (a Friday) and continue them throughout the weekend. Following this request, OI officials finalized the FCM on July 21, 2023, and emailed it to senior CBP officials, including a TFO who coordinates with other TFOs across the Nation, asking them to “disseminate further to the appropriate” personnel. While the CBP TFO forwarded the FCM to a Border Patrol San Diego sector TFO on this date, the sector TFO did not share it with Border Patrol San Diego sector agents conducting interviews.14 The sector TFO explained that he did not need to disseminate the FCM because it was an OI document and CBP personnel can access OI documents in a CBP system of record for intelligence reporting. However, OI officials told us CBP personnel generally should disseminate FCMs to the appropriate officers and agents.

One official said OI is “formalizing guidance and procedures for FCMs.” On July 25, 2023, a senior OI official told other OI officials that CBP personnel were not generating many reports referencing the FCM. OI planned to use these reports to provide “vital information” to senior leadership, such as whether the aliens may be affiliated with a foreign terrorist organization. CBP may have missed opportunities to collect and analyze this information. The senior official asked OI to confirm whether sectors and field offices received the FCM and to 14 The CBP TFO also forwarded the FCM to an OFO San Diego TFO on July 21, who distributed it to officers conducting interviews the same day. www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security inform sectors and field offices that the FCM was “a priority.” On July 26, 2023, another OI official informed a Border Patrol San Diego supervisory agent about the FCM, who forwarded it to agents who conduct interviews.

OFO San Diego Field Office Cannot Determine Whether It Completed TFOs’ Request to Search Aliens’ Phones From July 14, 2023, to October 10, 2023, OFO San Diego Field Office TFOs requested that officers . The TFOs told search the phones of officers to review the aliens’ contact lists for numbers provided by the FBI related to a threat and call a TFO after finding one of these numbers on a phone. After identifying one of alien in long- these numbers in a phone’s contact list, a TFO contacted ICE to place the term detention. aliens who arrived During this timeframe, the officers documented phone searches in a CBP system of record for 213 out of 461 (46 percent) of supervisory officer told us it is possible the remaining had broken phones; we could not verify this because the OFO San Diego Field Office does not document whether arriving aliens have phones in their possession. As a result, we could not determine whether the officers searched the phone of all requests. aliens may not have had phones or aliens who matched the TFOs’ aliens who arrived .

A Our prior unannounced inspections of CBP holding facilities also found CBP personnel did not consistently document aliens’ property, including an alien’s phone,15 and recommended CBP leadership provide training on CBP’s policies and guidance for property. The U.S. Government Accountability Office additionally issued a recent report calling for CBP to improve its handling of personal property.16 Following OIG and GAO oversight, CBP issued Directive 5240-010, “Short- Term Holding Facilities Handling, Storage, Transference, and/or Return of Detainee Personal Property” in August 2024; we therefore are not issuing a new recommendation related to OFO San Diego Field Office’s documentation of aliens’ phones. 15 In Results of Unannounced Inspections of CBP Holding Facilities in Yuma and Tucson Areas, OIG-23-29, we reported on inconsistent management of alien personal property and religious items across the facilities we inspected. In Results of Unannounced Inspections of CBP Holding Facilities in the Laredo Area, OIG-23-62, we found that three of four facilities we inspected did not accurately document property.

In one instance, a CBP inventory form did not document an alien’s phone. In Results of July 2023 Unannounced Inspections of CBP Holding Facilities in the Rio Grande Valley Area, OIG-24-20, we also found that two facilities we inspected did not consistently document detainees’ property. 16 Southwest Border: Additional Guidance and Monitoring Needed to Improve CBP's Handling of Personal Property, GAO-24-106540, April 23, 2024. www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security Conclusion As a result of inconsistent processes for identifying SIAs, CBP screens aliens differently depending on where they enter the United States. Smuggling networks can use this disparity to bring aliens to areas that receive less screening.

Without a CBP-wide policy for identifying SIAs, CBP will continue to inconsistently screen aliens from countries with possible links to terrorism. While TFOs and OI officials may warn about possible threats and request remedial action, CBP personnel may not thwart threats unless they are aware of and adhere to requests to provide additional screening to aliens. While Border Patrol San Diego sector does not identify aliens as SIAs, it did receive requests to interview Diego sector agents did not consistently complete these interviews because of the surge and limited timeframe CBP holds aliens in custody. The sector missed opportunities to identify aliens who may pose a threat to national security and collect and analyze information about related smuggling networks. aliens.

However, Border Patrol San alien Recommendations Recommendation 1: We recommend the CBP Office of Intelligence develop and issue policy for identifying and screening SIAs. Recommendation 2: We recommend the CBP Border Patrol Intelligence Division develop and issue guidance on the prioritization and tracking completion of TFO interview requests. Recommendation 3: We recommend the CBP Border Patrol develop and implement a process for timely disseminating FCMs to agents conducting interviews. Management Comments and OIG Analysis CBP provided management comments on a draft of this report.

We included the comments in their entirety in Appendix C. We also received technical comments from CBP on the draft report; we revised the report as appropriate. In its management comments, CBP concurred with recommendation 1, which we consider resolved and open. CBP did not concur with recommendations 2 and 3, which we consider unresolved and open. Prior to providing its management comments to the draft report, CBP had multiple opportunities to raise questions or concerns over our recommendations during the stages of our standard report review process.

This included a Notice of Findings and Recommendations preview document; two opportunities to provide technical comments; and two conference calls, one for the Notice of Findings and Recommendations, and one for the exit conference. We discussed the recommendations extensively during our meeting on the Notice of Findings and www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security Recommendations, and refined the recommendations based on the discussion. At no time during our discussions did CBP express an intent to non-concur with two recommendations. A summary of the CBP response and our analysis follows.

CBP Response to Recommendation 1: Concur. related to this recommendation and requested we consider this recommendation resolved and closed, as implemented. CBP sent us documentation OIG Analysis: We consider these actions responsive to the recommendation, which is resolved and open. CBP provided documentation of will close this recommendation when CBP provides documentation that it has implemented We CBP Response to Recommendation 2: Non-concur. function under the direction of their chain of command and focus on enforcing immigration, customs, and other Federal laws at the border, including preventing terrorists from entering the United States. CBP stated TFOs do not direct operations and establishing guidance to prioritize their interview requests would set a requirement and process for which TFOs are not intended or empowered to perform.

CBP provided recommendation resolved and closed. and requested we consider this TFOs OIG Analysis: We do not consider these actions responsive to the recommendation, which is unresolved and open. CBP’s does not apply to our recommendation, which addresses internal Border Patrol processes. For example, TFOs may learn about a threat related to certain aliens, including threats posed by terrorists attempting to enter the United States, and request their colleagues conduct additional screening of the aliens. We reported that Border Patrol agents assigned as TFOs were concerned about a potential threat, and requested other Border Patrol agents conduct interviews to help narrow the number of aliens to those who may have posed a threat.

We found that Border Patrol agents did not interview all aliens matching the TFOs’ requests in July 2023. To ensure Border Patrol can thwart future threats, we recommend Border Patrol Intelligence Division develop a process internal to Border Patrol to prioritize and track Border Patrol completion of TFO interview requests. We will close this www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security recommendation when Border Patrol Intelligence Division develops and issues guidance on prioritizing and tracking completion of TFO interview requests. CBP Response to Recommendation 3: Non-concur.

CBP stated CBP provided resolved and closed. and requested we consider this recommendation OIG Analysis: We do not consider these actions responsive to the recommendation, which is unresolved and open. Although CBP described the accompanying, unrelated documentation does not reference . Additionally, we found that Border Patrol agents did not use will close this recommendation when Border Patrol provides current documentation it has implemented a process for timely disseminating FCMs to agents conducting interviews. during the timeframe evaluated. We www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security Appendix A: Objective, Scope, and Methodology The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub.

L. No. 107−296) by amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978. Our objective was to review CBP’s screening of Central Asian aliens who entered the United States with assistance from smuggling networks. We focused specifically on CBP’s screening of aliens because of CBP officials’ concerns that smuggling networks responsible for the migration could pose a national security threat. This evaluation focused on increase of CBP’s additional screening efforts initiated in July 2023 responsive to concerns about aliens’ smuggling networks.

This evaluation did not review all CBP efforts to screen and CBP’s processes for screening these aliens changed over time as it learned more about the threat. aliens, We conducted 31 interviews with CBP, ICE, and DHS’ Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans officials about the screening and release of Central Asian aliens and SIA policies and processes. We reviewed CBP officials’ correspondence and other documents concerning the screening and aliens; SIA processes; and interview, phone search, and FCM processes. We also release of analyzed data from CBP systems related to alien interviews and phone searches. We conducted our evaluation under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. §§ 401–424, and according to the Quality Standards for Inspections and Evaluations, issued by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.

DHS OIG’s Access to DHS Information During this evaluation, DHS provided timely responses to our requests for information and did not delay or deny access to information we requested. www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security Appendix B: Timeline for CBP’s Additional Screening Efforts of Aliens Source: DHS OIG analysis of CBP screening efforts www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security Appendix C: CBP Comments on the Draft Report www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security Appendix D: Office of Inspections and Evaluations Major Contributors to This Report Seth Winnick, Chief Inspector Gregory Flatow, Lead Inspector Nicholas Lawless, Senior Inspector Stephanie Murguia, Senior Inspector Dorie Chang, Communications Analyst Melanie Lake, Independent Referencer www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security Appendix E: Report Distribution Department of Homeland Security Secretary Deputy Secretary Chief of Staff Deputy Chiefs of Staff General Counsel Executive Secretary Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office Under Secretary, Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection CBP Audit Liaison Office of Management and Budget Chief, Homeland Security Branch DHS OIG Budget Examiner Congress Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-25-29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE To view this and any other DHS OIG reports, Please visit our website: www.oig.dhs.gov Additional Information For further information or questions, please contact the DHS OIG Office of Public Affairs via email: [email protected] DHS OIG Hotline To report fraud, waste, abuse, or criminal misconduct involving U.S. Department of Homeland Security programs, personnel, and funds, please visit: www.oig.dhs.gov/hotline If you cannot access our website, please contact the hotline by phone or mail: Call: 1-800-323-8603 U.S. Mail: Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305 Attention: Hotline 245 Murray Drive SW Washington, DC 20528-0305