DHS OIG, OIG-24-30, CBP and ICE Did Not Have an Effective Process for Detaining and Removing Inadmissible Travelers at an International Airport - (REDACTED) (2024)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OIG-24-30 FINAL REPORT June 12, 2024 CBP and ICE Did Not Have an Effective Process for Detaining and Removing Inadmissible Travelers at an International Airport (REDACTED) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE WARNING: This document is For Official Use Only (FOUO) // 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 June 12, 2024 MEMORANDUM FOR: Troy A. Miller Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner U.S. Customs and Border Protection Patrick J. Lechleitner Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement FROM: SUBJECT: Joseph V. Cuffari, Ph.D. Inspector General JOSEPH V CUFFARI CBP and ICE Did Not Have an Effective Process for Detaining and Removing Inadmissible Travelers at an International Airport REDACTED Digitally signed by JOSEPH V CUFFARI Date: 2024.06.12 15:34:44 -04'00' Attached for your action is our final report, CBP and ICE Did Not Have an Effective Process for Detaining and Removing Inadmissible Travelers at an International Airport. We incorporated the formal comments provided by your office.

The report contains three recommendations aimed at improving inadmissible traveler detention and removal processes. Your office concurred with all three recommendations. Based on information provided in your response to the draft report, we consider recommendation 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. We consider recommendations 1 and 2 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. OIG Project No. 23-027-ISP-CBP, ICE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE Please send your response or closure request to [email protected]. 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 and ICE Did Not Have an Effective Process for Detaining and Removing Inadmissible Travelers at an International Airport June 12, 2024 Why We Did This Evaluation We conducted this evaluation to assess whether CBP and ICE have an effective process for detaining and removing inadmissible travelers arriving at . What We Recommend We made three recommendations to ensure CBP and ICE effectively detain and remove travelers and issue NTAs to inadmissible travelers who do not return for removal flights. inadmissible What We Found office in U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) International Airport Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) did not have an effective process for detaining and removing inadmissible travelers. Between fiscal years 2021 and 2023, CBP released at least 383 inadmissible travelers from custody; , and U.S. office 168 (44 percent) of these travelers did not return for their removal flights.

ICE leadership stated they deny CBP overnight detention requests for inadmissible travelers does not have enough overtime before removal flights because of staffing and bed space limitations. In addition, CBP funds to pay officers to detain inadmissible travelers at the described airport after operating hours. Further, CBP difficulties transferring inadmissible travelers to another airport because they must receive permission from the airline and the other airport’s CBP office and overcome other logistical issues. also did not issue notices to appear in immigration CBP court (NTAs) to 77 inadmissible travelers who did not return for their flights to transfer their cases to ICE for removal proceedings. This occurred because CBP effective process to track which inadmissible travelers failed to return for their removal flights, and thus should receive NTAs.

Additionally, CBP for issuing NTAs to these inadmissible travelers, which contributed to a backlog of unissued NTAs for identified inadmissible travelers. decreased the number of staff responsible did not have an For Further Information: Contact our Office of Public Affairs at (202) 981-6000, or email us at: [email protected]. Department Response DHS concurred with our recommendations. We consider recommendation 1 and 2 open and resolved and recommendation 3 open and unresolved. www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-24-30 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 and ICE CBP Removing Inadmissible Travelers ........................................................................................... 3 Did Not Have an Effective Process for Detaining and CBP Did Not Consistently Issue NTAs to Transfer Inadmissible Traveler Cases to ICE for Removal Proceedings .............................................................................................. 5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Recommendations ...............................................................................................................................

7 Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................................................... 7 Appendix A: Objective, Scope, and Methodology ............................................................................... 9 DHS OIG’s Access to DHS Information ..................................................................................... 9 Appendix B: DHS Comments on the Draft Report.............................................................................

10 Appendix C: Nationwide Inadmissible Traveler Challenges ............................................................ 14 Appendix D: Office of Inspections and Evaluations Major Contributors to This Report ................. 15 Appendix E: Report Distribution ........................................................................................................ 16 Abbreviations CBP ERO ICE NTA OFO U.S. Customs and Border Protection Enforcement and Removal Operations U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement International Airport International Airport notice to appear in immigration court Office of Field Operations www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-24-30 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 The Department of Homeland Security secures U.S. borders and facilitates lawful travel to safeguard the American public.

Within DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspects international travelers entering the United States at all ports of entry, including airports, to determine admissibility.1 When international travelers arrive at U.S. airports, CBP Office of Field Operations (OFO) officers verify identity and purpose of travel during primary inspection. If CBP officers have additional questions, they refer travelers to secondary inspection. Following an interview and document review in secondary inspection, CBP officers determine whether noncitizen2 travelers are inadmissible for any reason, including attempting to enter the United States through fraud, misrepresentation, or without valid entry documents.3 Between October 1, 2021, and May 31, 2023, CBP identified 66,491 inadmissible travelers at U.S. airports.4 DHS’ September 30, 2021, Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law memorandum prioritizes the removal of individuals attempting to enter the United States unlawfully, which includes inadmissible travelers. CBP arranges to return them to their country of residence on the next available flight.

Inadmissible travelers can seek relief or protection from removal if they express a credible fear of persecution.5 If a return flight for an inadmissible traveler is unavailable on the same day, or if the inadmissible traveler has claimed fear, CBP OFO contacts U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)6 Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) to detain the individual until the return flight and refers individuals who claim fear to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum officer. If ICE ERO approves CBP’s request, it detains the inadmissible traveler at a detention center. 1 Within CBP, OFO officers conduct these inspections at ports of entry. Separately, Border Patrol agents work to secure U.S. borders between ports of entry.

2 Noncitizen is defined as a “person who is not a citizen or national of the United States.” DHS, Reporting Terminology and Definitions, Nov. 2023. 3 The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, states that a noncitizen present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General, is inadmissible. INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i).

Pursuant to INA § 235(b)(1), DHS is permitted to remove inadmissible travelers at a designated U.S. port of entry “without further hearing or review” based on lack of proper entry documents, INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i), or an attempt to enter by fraud or misrepresentation, INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i). For example, CBP may determine noncitizen travelers are inadmissible if they plan to work in the United States but have a visitor visa, instead of a work visa or work permit. 4 We began fieldwork on June 1, 2023, and collected inadmissible traveler data from fiscal year 2022 until initiation of our fieldwork. 5 “Credible fear of persecution” means that there is a significant possibility, taking into account the credibility of the noncitizen’s statements and such other facts as are known to the immigration officer, that the noncitizen could establish eligibility for asylum.

INA § 235(b)(1)(B)(v). See also, 8 C.F.R §§ 208.30. 6 Within DHS, ICE ERO officers locate, arrest, and remove noncitizens who are subject to removal from the United States. ICE attorneys in the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor litigate these noncitizens’ removal cases. www.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-24-30 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security If ICE ERO denies CBP’s request, CBP may: • detain the inadmissible traveler at the airport for up to 72 hours;7 • • transfer the inadmissible traveler to another airport for a more immediate return flight; or release the inadmissible traveler on parole until the return flight, or, for an inadmissible traveler who claims fear, pending a decision by a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum officer or immigration judge.

Some inadmissible travelers released for return flights fail to return for their flights. When inadmissible travelers fail to return for their flights, CBP issues a notice to appear in immigration court (NTA) to transfer the inadmissible travelers’ cases to ICE for removal proceedings. . When CBP officers identify inadmissible travelers, the officers , CBP officers inspect all international travelers arriving at In International Airport may not be able to return them to their country of residence on the same day because of limited daily. When an immediate return flight is international flights; some carriers do not fly out of unavailable, CBP request detention. in use approximately 80 beds to detain noncitizens.8 Detention Center is the ICE detention facility closest to the airport can .

The detention center is in a local jail with 540 beds, and ICE contacts ICE ERO officers at the field office (ICE ) to If ICE denies the request, CBP either: • pays its officers overtime to detain the inadmissible traveler at the airport after their last shifts end at midnight;9 • arranges transportation to another airport, usually International Airport ; or • releases the inadmissible traveler until the return flight. We conducted this evaluation to determine whether CBP and ICE have an effective process for detaining and removing inadmissible travelers arriving at .10 7 CBP is responsible for short-term detention, defined as “detention in a [CBP] processing center for 72 hours or less…” Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. § 211(m)(3). 8 An ICE officer explained that the facility houses both inmates and ICE detainees and ICE agreement” with the 9 CBP 10 We also collected data to analyze inadmissible traveler detention and removal trends nationwide, but we could not make any determinations because of inconsistencies in how CBP records traveler data at different airports. However, CBP field offices at airports have informed CBP headquarters of nationwide inadmissible traveler challenges, as described in Appendix C. Detention Center to use “approximately 80 beds” for ICE detainees. daily operating hours are from 8 a.m. to 12 a.m. has a “verbal www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-24-30 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security Results of Evaluation and ICE did not have an effective process for detaining and removing CBP inadmissible travelers.

Between FYs 2021 and 2023, CBP released at least 383 inadmissible travelers from custody; 168 (44 percent) of these inadmissible travelers did not return for their removal flights.11 During this timeframe, ICE leadership instructed its officers to deny overnight detention requests before removal flights because of staffing and bed space CBP does not have enough overtime funds to pay officers to detain limitations. In addition, CBP inadmissible travelers at the airport. Further, CBP cannot transfer them to another airport without receiving permission from the airline and the other airport’s CBP office and overcoming logistical issues. also did not issue NTAs to 77 of the inadmissible travelers who did not return for flights CBP to transfer their cases to ICE for removal proceedings. This occurred because CBP have an effective process to track which inadmissible travelers failed to return for their removal flights, and thus should receive NTAs.

Additionally, CBP responsible for issuing NTAs to these inadmissible travelers, which contributed to a backlog of unissued NTAs for identified inadmissible travelers. decreased the number of staff did not and ICE CBP Removing Inadmissible Travelers Did Not Have an Effective Process for Detaining and Between FYs 2021 and 2023, CBP because it could not transfer them to ICE, detain them at the airport, or fly them to another airport. CBP removal flights; at least 168 inadmissible travelers (44 percent) did not return. verbally instructed these inadmissible travelers to return to the airport for their released at least 383 inadmissible travelers from custody During this timeframe, ICE deny CBP leadership instructed their officers on multiple occasions to requests to hold inadmissible travelers overnight before a removal flight. ICE leadership said they deny these requests because they have limited staff to respond to them due to job vacancies and officers on detail assignments. They said booking inadmissible travelers into a detention center requires a time-consuming paperwork review and medical evaluation process, and the office does not have enough personnel to frequently complete this process for overnight detention requests.

Additionally, CBP’s bed space requests typically occur after business hours, but ICE leadership said their office does not have enough staff to work shifts at night or on weekends.12 Instead, their office only has one officer available to 11 As described below, CBP return for their removal flights. We identified these 383 cases by reviewing inadmissible traveler data, bed space request emails, and case files during our visit to CBP did not have an effective tracking process when inadmissible travelers failed to . There may be additional inadmissible travelers whom CBP released who did not return for removal flights not identified through these methods. 12 ICE operating hours are from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. Monday through Friday. www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-24-30 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security perform unscheduled work at night and on weekends to detain noncitizens released from state prisons and local jails. also denies these requests because it has limited bed space at the ICE Detention Center and reserves this bed space for other priorities.

For example, as stated previously, the detention center is in a local jail with 540 beds, but ICE approximately 80 beds to detain noncitizens. ICE noncitizens who pose public safety or national security threats, such as aggravated felons and gang members arrested during enforcement operations or released from state prisons and local jails. ICE areas of operations to prevent overcapacity at detention facilities in other regions.13 must also prioritize bed space for noncitizens transferred from other ICE officers prioritize this bed space for can only use After ICE denied bed space requests, CBP inadmissible travelers overnight at the airport. CBP overnight shift or sufficient overtime funds to pay its officers for overnight detention on a recurring basis.

CBP has a daily overtime budget of $1,500. CBP officers to conduct primary inspections, cargo and agriculture examinations, and other operations. CBP they have less money to conduct these operations. data show that they use overtime funds for pays $2,000 to $3,000 per night to detain an inadmissible traveler but officers also said that by allocating funds to detain inadmissible travelers, officers could not consistently detain staff told us their office does not have an officers also could not rely on transferring inadmissible travelers to other airports. In did not receive permission from the airline or the other airport’s CBP CBP some instances, CBP office to conduct the transfers.

For example, CBP staffing shortages. In another instance, the airline and CBP CBP the inadmissible traveler would have missed the connecting flight from residence). declined two transfer requests because of agreed to a transfer request, but canceled it because of logistical issues (specifically, the transfer flight was delayed, and to his country of officers could not transfer inadmissible travelers to ICE When CBP , detain them at the airport, or fly them to another airport, the officers released them from custody and verbally instructed them to return for their removal flights. When these inadmissible travelers do not return and CBP proceedings, which is an inefficient use of resources. For example: issues an NTA, ICE offices nationwide become responsible for their removal • ICE’s fugitive operations personnel must locate and arrest the inadmissible travelers, who could travel anywhere in the country after their release; 13 On May 5, 2023, ICE’s Acting Assistant Director for Field Operations sent an email to all field offices instructing them to “expeditiously accept cases and transfers” from other areas of operation to “[m]aximize [ICE’s] finite detention beds across the [ICE] inventory.” www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-24-30 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security • • ICE attorneys must litigate the inadmissible travelers’ cases in removal proceedings that could last years; and ICE must coordinate with foreign governments to obtain travel documents to arrange removal flights.

Did Not Consistently Issue NTAs to Transfer Inadmissible Traveler Cases CBP to ICE for Removal Proceedings did not issue NTAs for 77 of 168 (46 percent) inadmissible Between FYs 2021 and 2023, CBP travelers who did not return for their removal flights, because of an ineffective tracking process and staffing limitations.14 did not have an effective tracking process when inadmissible travelers failed to return CBP for their removal flights. Although CBP leadership instructed its officers to use an electronic spreadsheet to document when they released inadmissible travelers and whether these travelers officers said they would returned, officers did not consistently update the spreadsheet. CBP more frequently update a paper log in the secondary inspections room, but CBP leadership determined that posting a paper log in the second inspections area would not protect inadmissible travelers’ personally identifiable information. Without an effective tracking process, officers did not identify all inadmissible travelers who had not returned, and thus should have received NTAs.

Deferred When officers do document inadmissible travelers who fail to return, CBP Inspections program is responsible for issuing them NTAs when it is not performing its primary responsibilities.15 Following an increase in international travel to leadership allocated more staff to inspect arriving travelers by decreasing staff in other units, including the Deferred Inspections program. After CBP leadership cut its Deferred Inspections program in FY 2023 from two officers to one, the program developed a backlog of unissued NTAs to inadmissible travelers who failed to return. During our June 2023 visit to CBP stacks of files for inadmissible travelers who had not returned and did not receive NTAs (see Figure 1). A CBP receive NTAs.16 officer told us these files remain at the office until the inadmissible travelers , we observed , CBP tracking process is ineffective, there may be additional inadmissible travelers for whom CBP 14 Because CBP did not issue an NTA.

15 Deferred Inspections programs typically work with travelers whose status cannot be determined at the port of entry because of missing or incorrect documentation. 16 After NTA issuance, CBP Services, which sends them to ICE field offices overseeing the removal proceedings. officers transfer the inadmissible travelers’ files to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-24-30 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. Files for Inadmissible Travelers Who Did Not Return for Removal Flights and Did Not Receive NTAs* Observed June 27, 2023 Source: DHS Office of Inspector General *P2D is an acronym for “parole to depart” and refers to inadmissible travelers released before a return flight, and “no show” refers to inadmissible travelers who failed to return for the flight. After our visit, the remaining Deferred Inspections officer issued at least 32 NTAs to reduce the backlog to 77 unissued NTAs,17 but CBP continues to face challenges tracking inadmissible travelers who fail to return for removal flights and assigning sufficient staff to issue them NTAs.

Conclusion Removal of inadmissible travelers remains a DHS law enforcement priority. Without a coordinated approach between CBP inadmissible travelers, many of whom do not return as required for removal flights. This results in ICE offices nationwide assigning personnel and using funds to locate, arrest, litigate cases, and arrange repatriation flights, which is an inefficient use of resources. If CBP does not issue NTAs to transfer these cases to ICE, ICE officers may be unaware that these travelers are still in the United States, and potentially subject to removal proceedings. will continue to release and ICE , CBP 17 CBP headquarters technology experts also provided guidance to the Deferred Inspections program to ensure that CBP sends electronic notifications informing ICE of the case transfer. www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-24-30 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security We recommend ICE : Recommendations Recommendation 1: Coordinate with CBP remove inadmissible travelers. to establish an effective approach to detain and We recommend CBP : Recommendation 2: Inventory inadmissible travelers released on parole between October 1, 2020, and September 30, 2023, who failed to return for removal flights, and ensure that each of these inadmissible travelers is issued an NTA.

Recommendation 3: Ensure sufficient staffing to issue NTAs to released inadmissible travelers who fail to return for removal flights. Management Comments and OIG Analysis In response to our draft report, DHS officials concurred with our recommendations and described corrective actions to address the issues we identified. We consider two recommendations resolved and open, and one recommendation unresolved and open. Appendix B contains DHS’ management response in its entirety.

We also received technical comments on the draft report and revised as appropriate. A summary of DHS’ response to each recommendation and our analysis follows.

ICE CBP

Response to Recommendation 1: Concur. ICE 18 is collaborating with to develop a memorandum of understanding that establishes procedures for ICE accepting custody of inadmissible travelers. The memorandum will also define the roles and responsibilities of each agency regarding CBP inadmissible travelers. ICE , a subsidiary office of ICE , will evaluate CBP bedspace requests on a case-by-case basis.

ICE stated that CBP travelers and their files to ICE travelers to an ICE detention facility in hours. Estimated completion date: August 30, 2024. will facilitate removals by bringing the inadmissible during its business hours, or bringing the inadmissible , outside of ICE business OIG Analysis: We consider these actions responsive to the recommendation, which is resolved and open. We will close this recommendation when ICE provides the memorandum of 18 ICE oversees ICE . ICE area of responsibility includes . www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-24-30 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Homeland Security understanding and documentation that the memorandum’s procedures established an effective inadmissible travelers. approach to detain and remove Response to Recommendation 2: Concur.

CBP CBP has begun inventorying inadmissible travelers encountered and processed from October 1, 2020, to September 30, 2023, and ensuring they received NTAs if they failed to return for removal flights. CBP completed work to the OIG on March 21, 2024. Estimated completion date: June 28, 2024 sent an update on its OIG Analysis: We consider these actions responsive to the recommendation, which is resolved and open. We will close this recommendation when CBP provides documentation that it completed its inventory and issued NTAs to all applicable inadmissible travelers.

Response to Recommendation 3: Concur. CBP CBP ensure it remains at a level enabling the issuance of NTAs to inadmissible travelers who do not depart the United States. CBP said its Deferred Inspection program’s current staffing levels are sufficient to process its workload of deferred inspection appointments. CBP operational needs arise warranting additional staff, it will prioritize that workload in real-time.

CBP requested OIG consider this recommendation resolved and closed, as implemented. stated it prioritizes officer staffing to said if OIG Analysis: We do not consider these actions responsive to the recommendation, which is open and unresolved. Although CBP inadmissible travelers and is willing to provide additional staffing as needed, CBP provided a corrective action plan for ensuring there is sufficient staffing to issue these NTAs. We will resolve and close this recommendation when CBP implemented specific steps to ensure sufficient staffing. stated it prioritizes staffing to ensure NTA issuance to has not provides documentation that it www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-24-30 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 assess whether CBP and ICE have an effective process for detaining and removing inadmissible travelers arriving at . We conducted our fieldwork between June 2023 and October 2023. We reviewed almost 500 documents during this evaluation, including: • DHS policies, guidelines, and practices related to detaining and removing inadmissible travelers; • CBP and ICE documentation related to detaining inadmissible travelers, transferring them to other airports, removing them from the United States, or releasing them on parole; • CBP records on case dispositions of between FY 2021 and FY 2023; and inadmissible travelers released on parole • nationwide inadmissible traveler data from CBP’s Unified Secondary immigration processing system. We also interviewed 31 CBP, ICE, and DHS Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans subject matter experts with oversight of operations. or nationwide admissibility, detention, and removal From June 27, 2023, to June 29, 2023, we visited CBP ICE tracking systems, observe traveler admissibility processes, and review case files. and ICE to analyze CBP and We conducted this 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 9 OIG-24-30 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: DHS Comments on the Draft Report www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-24-30 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 11 OIG-24-30 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 12 OIG-24-30 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 13 OIG-24-30 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: Nationwide Inadmissible Traveler Challenges In November 2022, CBP headquarters conducted a nationwide survey with field offices about their collaboration with ICE. A representative from each field office provided answers to the survey questions. In their responses, some CBP field office representatives at airports discussed limited bed space for detaining inadmissible travelers at ICE detention centers. They also discussed spending overtime funds detaining and releasing inadmissible travelers.

We reviewed the survey responses and summarized information related to airports’ inadmissible traveler challenges into the three categories below: Limited bed space at ICE detention centers and denies all bed space requests. International Airport: ICE does not have available bed space within the area International Airport: After business hours, ICE’s nearest available detention facility is a minimum 5-hour drive from the airport. International Airport :ICE denies CBP’s requests because of “lack of bed space.” Overtime expenditures for airport detention International Airport :CBP spent approximately $72,000 in FY 2022 on overnight detention. FY 2023 on overnight detention.

International Airport :CBP spent approximately $380,000 between FY 2019 and Airport: CBP previously had “large [overtime] expenditures” for detaining inadmissible travelers overnight. CBP assigned officers to a new overnight shift to avoid these expenditures, which created “additional strain” on other operations at the airport. Releasing inadmissible travelers International Airport: CBP released an inadmissible traveler who claimed fear. International Airport: CBP released several inadmissible travelers who claimed fear.

International Airport :CBP released non-criminal and nonviolent-criminal inadmissible travelers. www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-24-30 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 Lorraine Eide, Lead Inspector Gregory Flatow, Lead Inspector Nicholas Lawless, Senior Inspector Stephanie Murguia, Senior Inspector Dorie Chang, Communications Analyst Benjamin Diamond, Independent Referencer www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-24-30 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 CBP Audit Liaison ICE Audit Liaison Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans 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 16 OIG-24-30 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