ICE Did Not Consistently
Provide Separated MigrantParents the Opportunity toBring Their Children upon
RemovalMay 18, 2021
OIG-21-36

DHS OIG HIGHLIGHTSICE Did Not Consistently Provide Separated
Migrant Parents the Opportunity to Bring
Their Children upon Removal
May 18, 2021

Why WeDid This
Special Review
We conducted this review
because removed migrantparents alleged that U.S.
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) did notafford them the opportunity tobring their children back withthem to their home country,
contradicting claims by the
Department of Homeland
Security and ICE.

What We
Recommend
We made two recommendations
to ensure ICE documents
separated migrant parents’decisions regarding their minor
children upon removal from theUnited States, and develops a
process to share information
with Government officials tocontact parents for whom ICE
lacks documentation about
reunification preferences.

What We Found
We confirmed that before July 12, 2018, migrantparents did not consistently have the opportunity toreunify with their children before removal. Although
DHS and ICE have claimed that parents removed
without their children chose to leave them behind,
there was no policy or standard process requiring ICE
officers to ascertain, document, or honor parents’decisions regarding their children. As a result, fromthe time the Government began increasing criminal
prosecutions in July 2017, ICE removed at least 348
parents separated from their children without
documenting that those parents wanted to leave theirchildren in the United States. In fact, ICE removed
some parents without their children despite having
evidence the parents wanted to bring their children
back to their home country. In addition, we found thatsome ICE records purportedly documenting migrantparents’ decisions to leave their children in the UnitedStates were significantly flawed. For example, somerecords reflect that removed parents orally waived
reunification prior to removal, but did not include theinformation ICE provided to the parent before theparent had to make the decision, or whether ICE gave
the parent the option to reunify with his or her child.

ICE Response
ICE concurred with the two recommendations, which
are resolved and open.

For Further Information:
Contact our Office of Public Affairs at(202) 981-6000, or email us at
DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov



www.oig.dhs.gov

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Table of Contents
Background .................................................................................................... 2
Results of Review ............................................................................................ 4
Lack of Clear ICE Guidance Resulted in Inconsistent Opportunities
for Migrant Parents to Elect or Waive Reunification with Their
Children before Removal ........................................................................ 5
ICE Removed Some Separated Migrant Parents without Allowing
Them to Bring Their Children ............................................................. 10
Recommendations ......................................................................................... 14
Management Comments and OIG Analysis .................................................... 1

Appendixes
Appendix A: Objective, Scope, and Methodology ................................. 17
Appendix B: ICE Comments to the Draft Report................................... 19
Appendix C: Office of Inspector General Major Contributors to This
Report ................................................................................................. 23
Appendix D: Report Distribution .......................................................... 24

Abbreviations
AFOD
CBP
C.F.R.
DO
FOD
HHS
ICE
ORR
SDDO
U.S.C.

www.oig.dhs.gov

Assistant Field Office Director
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Code of Federal Regulations
Deportation Officer
Field Office Director
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Office of Refugee Resettlement
Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer
United States CodeOIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Background
Historically, when U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) apprehended
migrant family units1 attempting to enter the United States illegally, it placed
most family units in civil immigration proceedings. While these proceedings
were pending, the Government typically detained the families together orreleased them.2 If the detained migrants ultimately received final removal
orders, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) returned them totheir home country.
However, beginning in July 2017, the Department of Homeland Security beganreferring some parents entering the United States illegally with their children
for criminal prosecution, primarily under a pilot program in El Paso, Texas.3
Because minor children could not be held in criminal custody with theirparents,4 CBP separated the parents and children, and transferred the children
to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Officeof Refugee Resettlement (ORR).5 Upon resolution of the parents’ criminal
charges, the Government transferred the parents to the custody of ICE, while
their children typically remained in the custody of ORR.
In May 2018, DHS expanded criminal referrals beyond its El Paso pilot
program when it adopted the Administration’s Zero Tolerance Policy.6 This
1 When CBP apprehends a child younger than 18 years old with his or her parent or legal

guardian, the child and parent or guardian are classified as a family unit.
Parole allows the inadmissible alien to enter andtemporarily remain in the United States pending the outcome of his or her immigration
proceeding. 8 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1226(a)(2); 8 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) §212.5(d).
3 “Border Patrol officials in the El Paso, Texas, sector reached an agreement with the District of
New Mexico U.S. Attorney’s Office to refer more individuals who had been apprehended,
including parents who arrived with minor children, for criminal prosecution. Prior to thisinitiative, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in this district had placed limits on the number of referrals
it would accept from Border Patrol for prosecution of immigration offenses.” UnaccompaniedChildren: Agency Efforts to Reunify Children Separated from Parents at the Border, GAO-19-163,
p. 14, Oct. 2018.
4 Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Oversight of Immigration Enforcement and Family
Reunification Efforts, 115th U.S. Cong., 2nd sess., July 31, 2018.
5 Upon separation from their parents, the children were deemed unaccompanied alien children,
who are children younger than 18 years of age with no lawful immigration status in the UnitedStates who do not have a parent or legal guardian in the United States “available” to provide
care and physical custody for them. 6 U.S.C. § 279(g)(2).
6 On April 6, 2018, the U.S. Attorney General issued a memorandum directing all Federal
prosecutors’ offices along the Southwest Border to work with DHS to adopt a Zero Tolerance
Policy, which required criminal prosecution of DHS referrals of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) violations, tothe extent practicable. See Dept. of Justice, Memorandum for Federal Prosecutors Along theSouthwest Border, Apr. 6, 2018.
2 In this context, release means parole.

www.oig.dhs.gov

2

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

policy required DHS to refer all parents apprehended entering the country
illegally for criminal prosecution — and consequently, greatly increased thenumber of separated parents and children.
On June 20, 2018, the President signed an Executive Order that ended theGovernment’s practice of separating most families apprehended at the border,
stating that it was the Administration’s policy to detain migrant families
together unless child welfare concerns outweighed maintaining family unity.7
Shortly thereafter, a Federal court issued an order in Ms. L v. ICE prohibiting
the Government from detaining most separated parents apart from theirchildren, and ordered the Government to reunify many separated families
within 30 days.8 Because CBP did not consistently track families it separated
as a result of Zero Tolerance, this order required the Government to undertakea largely manual effort to identify and locate separated parents and children
across multiple agencies’ files and data systems.9
Around this time, the Ms. L v. ICE court also approved a notice and election
form for the Government to provide to detained parents affected by its orders,often referred to as “class members.”10 The election form allowed classmembers to document whether they wanted to take their children with them;
return to their home country without their children; or speak with an attorney
before making a decision. ICE field offices received this court-approved election
form on July 11, 2018.


7 Exec. Order No. 13841, Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separations,

was announced and became effective on June 20, 2018, and was published in the Federal
Register at 83 FR 29,435 on June 25, 2018.
8 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Classwide Preliminary Injunction, Ms. L. v. U.S.
Immigration & Customs Enforcement (Ms. L. v. ICE), 18-cv-428 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018). The
court’s order covered “[a]ll adult parents who enter the United States at or between designatedports of entry who (1) have been, are, or will be detained in immigration custody by the DHS,
and (2) have a minor child who is or will be separated from them by DHS and detained in ORR
custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody absent a determination that the parent is unfit orpresents a danger to the child.” Hereinafter, when this report attributes actions to a court, it
refers to the orders and other decisions of the Federal judge in the Ms. L. v. ICE litigation.
9 See, e.g., Special Review - Initial Observations Regarding Family Separation Issues Under the
Zero Tolerance Policy, OIG-18-84, Sept. 2018; DHS Lacked Technology Needed to Successfully
Account for Separated Migrant Families, OIG-20-06, Nov. 2019; Children Waited for Extended
Periods in Vehicles to Be Reunified with Their Parents at ICE’s Port Isabel Detention Center inJuly 2018, OIG-20-65, Aug. 2020.
10 The Ms. L v. ICE court’s orders did not apply to parents deemed unfit or a danger to theirchild; parents with a criminal history or communicable disease; or parents apprehended in theinterior of the country. See Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, Ms.
L. v. ICE, 18-cv-428 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018).
www.oig.dhs.gov

3

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

The Government has acknowledged that prior to the issuance of the orders
ending most family separations, ICE removed some separated parents without
their children.11 But in subsequent public testimony and statements, DHS andICE officials maintained that, pursuant to long-standing ICE policy,12 all
separated migrant parents removed without their children chose to leave theirchildren in the United States. However, some removed parents havechallenged those assertions, stating that they were not afforded the opportunity
to bring their children back with them to their home country13 — and someseparated parents removed to their home countries have subsequently
requested the Government reunify them with children still in the UnitedStates.14
In light of these allegations, we reviewed whether ICE consistently ascertained
and honored migrant parents’ decisions regarding their minor children before
removing them,15 and the extent to which ICE policies required it to do so.
Because the process became more standardized after ICE field offices received
the court-ordered election form on July 11, 2018, we focused our review on
ICE’s practices before July 12, 2018. This report does not evaluate DHS’
compliance with any court order or the adequacy of any election form signed byparents removed on or after July 12, 2018. We also did not evaluate ICE’sefforts to reunite families after the parent’s removal from the United States.

Results of Review
We confirmed that before July 12, 2018, migrant parents did not consistently
have the opportunity to reunify with their children before removal. Although
DHS and ICE have claimed that parents removed without their children choseto leave them behind, there was no policy or standard process requiring ICE
officers to ascertain, document, or honor parents’ decisions regarding theirchildren. As a result, from the time the Government began increasing criminal
prosecutions in July 2017, ICE removed at least 348 parents separated fromtheir children without documenting that those parents wanted to leave theirchildren in the United States. In fact, ICE removed some parents without their
11 See, e.g., Joint Status Report, Ms. L v. ICE, 18-cv-428 (S.D. Cal. March 6, 2019), at 6.
12 The relevant ICE directive, 11064.2, entitled Detention and Removal of Alien Parents or Legal

Guardians, was revised in August 2017, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detentionreform/pdf/directiveDetainedParents.pdf.
13 See, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum In Support of Classwide Preliminary
Injunction, Ms. L v. ICE, 18-cv-428 (S.D. Cal. June 25, 2018), at 43, 50, 232-33.
14 See, e.g., Joint Status Report, Ms. L v. ICE, 18-cv-428 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018), at 13.
15 In some instances, ICE provided information about migrant parents that could affect ICE's
ability to honor parents’ wishes to be removed with their minor children, including a criminal
record or a potential false claim of parentage. See Appendix A. ICE officials also explained that
ORR makes decisions regarding child custody that impacts the reunification process.
www.oig.dhs.gov

4

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

children despite having evidence the parents wanted to bring their children
back to their home country. In addition, we found that some ICE records
purportedly documenting migrant parents’ decisions to leave their children in
the United States were significantly flawed. For example, some records reflectthat removed parents orally waived reunification prior to removal, but did notinclude the information ICE provided to the parent before the parent had tomake the decision, or whether ICE gave the parent the option to reunify withhis or her child.
Lack of Clear ICE Guidance Resulted in Inconsistent
Opportunities for Migrant Parents to Elect or Waive
Reunification with Their Children before Removal
Although DHS claims that parents removed without their children chose toleave them behind, ICE policy did not include clear guidance or a prescribed
procedure for parents to elect or waive reunification with their children prior to
removal. Between July 2017 and July 11, 2018, the lack of a clearly definedprocess led to inconsistent practices across ICE, with migrant parents’experiences varying widely depending on the timing of their removal and the
ICE field office effecting it.
DHS and ICE Stated that ICE Policy Allowed Separated Parents to Bring
Their Children upon Removal, but ICE Did Not Have a Standard Process
for the Parents to Elect Reunification
In the months following Zero Tolerance, DHS and ICE leaders repeatedly
maintained that ICE policy provided migrant parents with the opportunity tobring their children with them upon removal to their home country. Therefore,
per DHS and ICE officials, any instance of a child left behind was the result ofa parent’s affirmative decision not to have the child accompany them, which
would be documented in ICE records. Here are examples of such publicstatements:xx

During congressional testimony on December 20, 2018, then-DHS
Secretary Kirstjen Nielson stated, “Every parent had the choice to bringthe child back with them when they were removed. The ones who did
not bring the children with them made the choice not to have the childaccompany them.”16
On March 6, 2019, then-Secretary Nielson stated, “[T]here was no parent
who has been deported, to my knowledge, without multiple opportunities

16 House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security,

115th U.S. Cong., 2nd sess., December 20, 2018.
www.oig.dhs.gov

5

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Securityxx

to take their children with them.” In providing examples of theseopportunities, then-Secretary Nielsen cited parents’ conversations with
U.S. Government officials effecting their removal; communications with
their home country’s consulate or embassy; and court orders requiring
the Government to confirm migrant parents’ decisions regarding theirchildren.17
In July 31, 2018 testimony to Congress, ICE’s then-Executive Associate
Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Matthew Albence
stated that “longstanding ICE policy … dictates how reunification may
occur.” When asked whether ICE could produce documentation thatparents waived reunification with any children who remained in the
United States, he implied that it could, indicating ICE could “go into each[paper] file and see the records that are there” as well as DHS’ electronic
record system in which “officers will make a note that the parent declined
reunification as well.”18
In a June 23, 2018 DHS news release entitled, “Fact Sheet: ZeroTolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification,” DHS indicated thatupon conclusion of a parent’s immigration case, ICE would “seek toreunite verified family units and link their removal proceedings so thatfamily units can be returned to their home countries together.”19

Despite DHS and ICE statements, ICE did not have clear guidance to include
any prescribed process or procedure requiring officers to ascertain, document,or honor parents’ decisions as to whether to leave their children in the UnitedStates when they were removed. In fact, the ICE policy pertaining to parental
rights provides only broad guidance regarding the removal of alien parents,
granting significant discretion to ICE Field Office Directors (FOD).
The only relevant ICE policy we identified is the August 2017 directive
Detention and Removal of Alien Parents or Legal Guardians (“Directive”). The
17 House Homeland Security Committee Hearing on The Way Forward on Border Security, 116th

U.S. Cong., 1st sess., March 6, 2019.
18 Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Oversight of Immigration Enforcement and Family
Reunification Efforts, 115th U.S. Cong., 2nd sess., July 31, 2018.
19 See DHS Press Release, Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification(June 23, 2018), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/06/23/fact-sheet-zero-toleranceprosecution-and-family-reunification. Note that this precise language was added to the press
release on DHS’s website on June 26, 2018. However, the messaging in the original version
was similar: “A parent who is ordered removed from the U.S. may request that his or her minor
child accompany them[,]” and ICE would work with HHS and foreign consulates to coordinate“the reuniting of the child prior to the parents’ departure from the United States.” See DHS
Press Release, Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification (June 23, 2018),
https://web.archive.org/web/20180624034204/www.dhs.gov/news/2018/06/23/fact-sheetzero-tolerance-prosecution-and-family-reunification.
www.oig.dhs.gov

6

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Directive includes a section regarding the coordination of children’s travel
pending their parents’ removal and has several specific provisions:xxx

For detained parents with a final order of removal, FODs or theirdesignees “should accommodate, to the extent practicable,” detainedparents’ “individual efforts to make arrangements for their minor
child(ren),” including parents’ attempts to arrange care for their children
in the United States or to obtain travel documents so their children can
travel with them to their home country.
The FOD “must coordinate, to the extent practicable,” to allow detainedparents “access to counsel, consulates and consular officials, courts
and/or family members in the weeks preceding removal,” so parents areable to make arrangements for their children, to include executing
documents and purchasing airline tickets.
The FOD may, subject to security considerations, provide detainedparents with “sufficient notice of the removal itinerary” to allow them tocoordinate their children’s travel.

Beyond this broad, discretionary Directive, ICE does not have any guidance onprocedures requiring field offices to take particular steps before removing
migrant parents. For example, the existing policy does not require ICE officers
effecting parents’ removals to do any of the following:xxx

to ask whether parents want to bring their children back to the homecountry;
to honor parents’ requests even when the parents express that they want
to bring their children; orto document comprehensively matters relating to the separated childrenof detained parents.

The existing ICE policy also lacks any standardized forms or other processes
for parents to request reunification with their children; prescribed methods for
documenting any parent’s waiver of reunification, meaning a parent’s voluntary
removal without his or her child; and uniform procedures for instances when
the Government determines parents present a danger to their child.
This policy void is particularly notable when compared to other ICE policies
and procedures relating to detainees’ processing for removal. For example,
ICE’s 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards include more thana page of detailed guidance regarding the return of a detainee’s personal
property, requiring ICE officers to use a standardized property receipt form;
obtain the detainee’s signature; verify both the detainee’s identity andsignature; and obtain the approval of a shift supervisor. In contrast, when it
www.oig.dhs.gov

7

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

comes to separated children, under the current Directive, an ICE officer mightchoose to memorialize a parent’s oral request to waive reunification in ICE’selectronic record before removing the parent without his or her child — orchoose to never ask the parent about the child at all. Indeed, in its June 26,2018 order prohibiting the Government from detaining most separated parents
apart from their children, the Ms. L v. ICE court observed that “the unfortunate
reality is that under the present system migrant children are not accounted forwith the same efficiency and accuracy as property.”20
Although ICE Provided More Separated Migrant Parents with
Opportunities to Elect or Waive Reunification Later in the Zero Tolerance
Period, the Lack of Initial Guidance Resulted in Inconsistencies
The absence of prescribed removal procedures led to ICE’s dissimilar treatment
of separated parents and inconsistent documentation of parents’ decisions.
Before July 12, 2018, separated parents’ ability to bring their children withthem upon removal varied widely, largely depending on how early during Zero
Tolerance the parent was removed. Also, although the documentation ofparents’ decisions generally improved over time, initially it varied depending on
the particular field office effecting removals.
The timing of the parents’ removal played a major part in whether they had theopportunity to elect or waive reunification. ICE officers explained that early in
the Zero Tolerance period, ICE did not typically try to ascertain or honor
parents’ wishes with respect to bringing their children or leaving them in the
United States. For example, one Assistant Field Office Director (AFOD) said
that early in the Zero Tolerance period, without any policy or court order
requiring ICE to determine parents’ wishes with respect to their children, inthat field office, ICE typically removed parents without asking if they wanted tobe joined by their children.
Likewise, in an email dated May 25, 2018, a Supervisory Detention andDeportation Officer (SDDO) in another ICE field office advised Deportation
Officers (DO) that it was the parent’s responsibility “to validate his/her
association with the child and gain support from the[ir] consulate” for thefamily to be removed together. The SDDO explained that ICE would “make theeffort” if a consulate “requests we attempt to reunite the adult and the child forremoval” — but once a consulate issues travel documents for a parent, the
20 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Classwide Preliminary Injunction, Ms. L. v. ICE., 18-cv-

428 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018), at 14-15.
www.oig.dhs.gov

8

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

SDDO said the DOs should proceed with the removal of the parent, with orwithout his or her child.
However, during the course of the Zero Tolerance period, ICE’s practices
changed. For example, on June 18, 2018, the same SDDO who directed DOs
to remove any parent with travel documents just a month earlier, “rescinded”
this order, stating it was “imperative” that ICE officers make an effort toidentify separated parents, and in cooperation with HHS ORR, “attempt toreunify parents and children prior to removal.” Similarly, a DO in the same
field office reported that early in Zero Tolerance, he was told to stop taking
separated parents off removal flights; but as the number of separated parents
grew, his management reversed course, and he received orders to remove
detainees from flights if they said they had been separated from a child.

Our review of records and interviews with ICE staff indicated that ICE
procedures for documenting parents’ wishes with respect to their children alsochanged over time, but lack of initial guidance created inconsistencies among
ICE field offices. Although no such documentation was required during theZero Tolerance period, some ICE officers in various field offices neverthelessdocumented parents’ oral decisions regarding their children in ICE’s electronic
record system. In mid-June 2018, officials in at least one ICE field officedecided that all officers should take this step before removing any parent who
requested removal without his or her child. That field office also created its
own election form, to memorialize parents’ decisions in writing before theirremoval. An AFOD told us the field office took this step because it had not yet
received guidance from ICE headquarters, but wanted ICE to document any
separated parent’s decision to be removed without his or her child.
Shortly thereafter, on June 29, 2018, all ICE field offices received an election
form drafted with input from ICE’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor.21
About 2 weeks later, on the evening of July 11, 2018, ICE headquarters
distributed the court-approved election form to all field offices, directing themto use this form to memorialize the decisions of Ms. L v. ICE class members
before they were removed.22
21 ICE’s creation and use of these various forms was not required by policy, court order, or law,

but rather represented a voluntary attempt to improve record keeping with respect to separated
families. However, as discussed in more detail later, some of these early forms had
deficiencies, and there were allegations that parents who signed them did not always make aknowing, voluntary decision to do so.
22 As noted previously, some separated parents were not Ms. L v. ICE class members, including
parents deemed unfit or a danger to their child; parents with a criminal history; parents with acommunicable disease; or parents apprehended in the interior of the country. Therefore, ICE
was under no obligation to use the court-approved election form or otherwise document thoseparents’ decisions regarding their children.
www.oig.dhs.gov

9

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

However, the absence of comprehensive guidance and defined processes
created inconsistencies in how ICE conducted removals and documented thewishes of separated parents, because individual ICE field offices and officers
were left to exercise considerable discretion. Without clear guidance, separated
migrant parents will continue to have inconsistent outcomes depending on
factors unrelated to their wishes or the safety of their children, including
whether the parent is a part of any ongoing litigation or which individual ICE
officer happens to effect the parent’s removal.

ICE Removed Some Separated Migrant Parents without
Allowing Them to Bring Their Children
For at least 348 separated parents removed without their children before July12, 2018, ICE has no records demonstrating that they wanted to leave theirchildren in the United States. In some cases, ICE removed separated parents
without their children even though ICE officers effecting their removal knew theparents wanted to bring their children with them. Further, even when ICE
documented a parent’s choice to leave the child behind, some of the available
records are significantly flawed, suggesting that not all parents who
purportedly waived reunification did so knowingly and voluntarily.
ICE Removed Some Separated Parents without Their Children despite
Knowing the Parents Wanted to Bring Their Children
ICE records reflect that in some cases, parents told ICE officers they wanted
their children to accompany them back to their home country — but ICE
nevertheless removed the parents without reunifying them, leaving theirchildren in the United States. Therefore, at least some of ICE’s removals of
parents without their children were intentional, and not just inadvertent
incidents resulting from human error or inaccurate records.
For example, during Zero Tolerance, a DO charged with effecting removals in
one ICE field office told the Office of Inspector General (OIG) that he beganencountering detainees on a daily basis who claimed they had been separated
from their children, but who had no information about their children’s
whereabouts. In late May 2018, the DO sent the SDDO a series of emails
regarding two mothers and three fathers, advising that their consulates had
issued their travel documents, but that they were all asking to be removed with
their children. The DO advised the SDDO that he told the mothers thatremoval with their children was “not possible.” In his reply to DO’s email about
the three fathers, the SDDO confirmed DO’s understanding of his orders,stating, “As previously instructed, when we gain knowledge of an adultwww.oig.dhs.gov

10

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

traveling with a minor, we will process the final order as any other; cycle thecase through the consulate interview and onward toward removal.” The SDDO
emphasized that “[o]nce a case is referred to [DO’s] team for removal, every
effort shall be made to execute the removal,” indicating that any adult whose
consulate issues his or her travel documents “must go.”In other cases, comments in ICE’s electronic record system indicated thatdetained separated parents had requested their children be removed withthem, but ICE removed these parents without their children anyway. For
example, according to ICE’s electronic records:xxx

On September 26, 2017, ICE documented that it received a letter from afather “requesting to be removed with his son.” On October 11, 2017,
ICE received an additional letter from the father “inquiring about hisson.” However, ICE removed the father on October 16, 2017, without hisson.
On December 12, 2017, ICE documented that a father “requested to be
returned to Guatemala WITH child [sic],” yet ICE removed the father
without his child on February 9, 2018.
On May 29, 2018, ICE documented that a father “wished to be removed
with his child.” ICE also noted this in his daughter’s record.
Nevertheless, ICE removed the father on June 18, 2018, without his
daughter.

ICE Could Not Provide Documentation for Hundreds of Separated Parents
Demonstrating They Did Not Want to Bring Their Children
In the course of our review, although ICE examined both its electronic records
and paper alien files23 for any documentation regarding whether parents
wanted to reunify with their child or leave them in the United States, ICE still
could not provide a well-documented parental decision for 348 separated
parents.24 Because ICE records are incomplete, it is unclear whether ICE
presented these parents with the option of bringing their children back to theirhome country, or whether these parents wanted to be reunified with theirchildren. Though we lack records of these parents’ preferences before their
23 Alien files contain records of migrants as they move through the immigration process.

The
files may contain visas, photographs, affidavits, immigration forms, and correspondence.
24 Due to incomplete data regarding separated family units, ICE may have removed some ofthese 348 detainees before the Government identified them as separated parents.
www.oig.dhs.gov

11

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

removal, some parents later opted to return their children to their homecountry.
As discussed previously, one reason that no records of parental decisions could
be found is that ICE had no clear policy requiring officers to ascertain thesedetainees’ wishes with respect to their children. Further, even if ICE officers
gave all these separated parents the opportunity to reunite upon removal, ICE’sexisting policy did not require the officers to document either offering parents
the choice or their subsequent decisions.
Given the lack of records, we could not determine whether all of these parents
wanted to bring their children back to their home country.25 As we found,some parents removed without their children later opted to leave their children
in the United States, rather than return them to their home country. Although
the scope of our review differs from parents included in the Ms. L v. ICE class,26
filings in the Ms. L v. ICE case suggest that at least some separated, removed
parents would have preferred to bring their children with them back to theirhome country. In the Ms. L v. ICE case, a steering committee worked to locate
parents who had already been removed to their home country without theirchildren.27 Their counsel subsequently filed affidavits on their behalf, advising
the court as to whether the parents wanted the Government to reunify themwith children who remained in the United States.28 While subsequent events
are not necessarily indicative of what parents might have chosen before theirremoval in 2018, those affidavits indicate that at least 15 removed parents
requested reunification with children still in the United States, while at least 66
removed parents opted for their children to remain in the United States without
them.
Some ICE Records Documenting Migrant Parents’ Purported Waivers Were
Significantly Flawed
25 As noted previously, we did determine that some of these parents wanted to bring theirchildren, as documented by their unfulfilled requests to ICE officers.
26 Our review focused on parents separated and removed before July 12, 2018, who may or

may not be Ms. L v. ICE class members.
27 The court stated that Ms. L v. ICE class members removed without their children werelocated through the “herculean efforts of the parties,” with many parents “located in remotevillages in the recesses of Central America.” Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Parents Deported Without Their Children to Travel to the UnitedStates, Ms. L v. ICE, 18-cv-428 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2019), at 2.
28 The Ms. L v. ICE court noted these parents had to make “the difficult decision either toreunify with their children in their home countries or to waive reunification and allow theirchildren to remain in the United States to pursue their own claims for asylum.” Order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Parents Deported Without Their
Children to Travel to the United States, Ms. L v. ICE, 18-cv-428 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2019), at 2.
www.oig.dhs.gov

12

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

For 149 migrant parents, ICE was able to produce some documentationsuggesting that they decided to waive reunification with their children before
removal. However, we also identified substantive issues with ICE’s
documentation of purported waivers in this period.29
ICE’s electronic case records reflect that 63 detained and removed parents
either orally waived reunification prior to removal, or signed a waiver form thatICE cannot locate. However, these case comments entered by ICE officers are
an imperfect record of these parents’ decisions. These case comments do notconsistently include, for example:xxxx

what information ICE provided to the parent before the parent had tomake the decision;
whether ICE gave the parent the option to reunify with his or her child;whether the ICE officer making the case comment spoke the samelanguage as the parent; orthe identity of the individual who purportedly heard the parent’s oral
waiver or witnessed the parent signing the waiver.

Additionally, as with any manual process, information received orally issusceptible to human error when officers record it; the accuracy of these casecomments wholly depends on the competency of each ICE officer entering theinformation and the officer’s understanding of the parents’ wishes. The flaws
we identified in recording such critical information stands in stark contrast to,for example, the need for supervisor approval before releasing a detainee’s
personal property.

In the course of this review, ICE provided to us copies of written waivers signedby 86 parents. These documents represent ICE’s voluntary attempt to create acontemporaneous, written record of parents’ decisions regarding theirchildren.30 The substance of these documents varies, but at least some records
appear to comprehensively document the parents’ desire to leave their children
in the United States. Other records are less comprehensive. For example,
although some forms outline the parents’ options in both English and Spanish,others are only in English, and instruct the ICE officer to translate and readthe English text to the parent in a language the parent understands. Other
waiver forms are missing children’s names, are undated, or are missing the29 See Appendix A for more information regarding the scope DHS OIG’s review, and its analysis

of ICE data.

30 While there were some similarities between these documents and the election form ICE

implemented on July 12, 2018, these documents pre-dated that court-approved form.
www.oig.dhs.gov

13

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

name of the ICE official present during the signing. Additionally, we cannot
substantiate other concerns relating to these forms, including allegations ofcoercion or misunderstanding.31

Conclusion
Before July 12, 2018, migrant parents did not consistently have theopportunity to be removed with their children because ICE had no clear
guidance or procedure requiring officers to ascertain, document, or honor
parents’ decisions regarding their children. As a result, ICE removed at least
348 separated parents without documenting that those parents wanted to leave
their children in the United States, and in some cases, removed parents
without their children even after parents told ICE officers that they wanted
their children to accompany them upon removal. Additionally, some ICE
records have significant flaws, making it difficult to determine whether they
truly represent an accurate record of a parent’s knowing, voluntary decision
regarding their child.


Recommendations
We recommend the Acting Director of ICE:
Recommendation 1: Ensure that before removing parents who have minor
children in the United States, ICE staff document and obtain supervisory
acknowledgement for each parent’s preference for whether the children should
remain in the United States or be removed with the parent.
Recommendation 2: For parents already removed without documentation ofreunification preferences, develop a process to share information with therelevant Government officials, and assist with Government efforts to coordinate
reunification, if requested and appropriate.


31 See, e.g., Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part Plaintiffs’ Motion To Allow Parents

Deported Without Their Children To Travel To The United States, Ms. L. v. ICE, 18-cv-428 (S.D.
Cal. Sept. 4, 2019), at 14, 15, 17, 18-19.
www.oig.dhs.gov

14

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Management Comments and OIG Analysis
ICE provided technical comments and formal management comments in
response to our draft report and concurred with our recommendations. We
addressed the technical comments throughout our report as appropriate andincluded a copy of ICE’s management comments in their entirety in Appendix
B. A summary of ICE’s response and our analysis follows.
ICE Comments to Recommendation 1: Concur. In October 2020, ICE ERO
deployed a web-based management application system, and modified the
ENFORCE database Alien Removal Module (EARM), to receive flags on cases
which U.S. Customs and Border Protection identifies as Family Units. The new
application and EARM update allow ICE users to create and manage records
for family units. In particular, the new application collects, tracks, and stores
data on family units and other members of family groups. Through this new
application, ICE is now able to create family unit identification numbers, track
family members, designate familial relationships among family members, andannotate a family separation and reunification, which will help ICE ensure that
separated parents who are subject to removal are able to make arrangements
for their minor child or children (including being removed with them), pursuant
to ICE Policy 11064.2, “Detention and Removal of Alien Parents and Legal
Guardians.”
OIG Analysis: We acknowledge ICE’s efforts to manage records for family
units and annotate family separations and reunifications. We consider thisrecommendation resolved, but it will remain open until ICE provides
documentation ensuring that staff record and obtain supervisory
acknowledgement for each parent’s preference for whether the children should
remain in the United States or be removed with the parent.
ICE Comments to Recommendation 2: Concur. Pursuant to the February
2, 2021, Executive Order 14011, “Establishment of Interagency Task Force on
the Reunification of Families,” ICE representatives from ERO, Homeland
Security Investigations, and the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor participate
on the Family Reunification Task Force. Functions of the task force include“identifying all children who were separated from their families at the UnitedStates-Mexico border between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, in
connection with the operation of the “Zero-Tolerance” policy; and “to thegreatest extent possible, facilitating and enabling the reunification of each of
the identified children with their families….” ICE referenced the Secretary ofHomeland Security press release, dated March 1, 2021, announcing principles
and Executive Director for the Task Force for additional insights, available atwww.dhs.gov under “News/Press Releases.” The Task Force anticipates issuingwww.oig.dhs.gov

15

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

an initial progress report in early June 2021, and interim progress reports
every 60 days thereafter until it issues a final report when its mission iscompleted.
OIG Analysis: We consider these actions responsive to the recommendation,
which is resolved and open. We will close this recommendation when we
receive documentation confirming that ICE representatives share information
and assist with the Family Reunification Task Force’s efforts to coordinate
reunification.

www.oig.dhs.gov

16

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Appendix A
Objective, Scope, and Methodology
The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) wasestablished by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107ï296) byamendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978.
We conducted this review to determine whether ICE gave migrant parents theoption of bringing their children with them when they were removed from theUnited States.
We conducted fieldwork for this review between September 2018 and December
2020, in Washington, D.C., and on site in Texas. We interviewed more than 40
ICE employees, separated parents, and members of the private sector involved
with family separations. The ICE employee interviews included both
headquarters and field office personnel at all levels, including senior
management officials, supervisors, and detention officers.
We reviewed communications and guidance related to the July 2018 family
reunifications, as well as documents and communications related to the Zero
Tolerance Policy and Ms. L. v. ICE Federal court pleadings and orders.
During the course of our fieldwork, ICE produced approximately 15 datasets
identifying family units, and provided data regarding their apprehension,
separation, detention, and removal. We focused our review from July 2017,
when DHS began referring parents entering the United States illegally with
their children for criminal prosecution, until July 11, 2018, when ICE field
offices received the court-ordered election form. OIG did not analyze data or
documentation relating to parents removed after July 11, 2018; review whether
ICE used the court-approved election form on or after July 12, 2018; orconduct a comprehensive substantive review of all documented waivers, either
written or oral.
To determine how many removed parents may not have been given the option
to bring their children, we reviewed ICE’s data to identify parents who were
removed without their children before July 12, 2018. For these parents, ICE
represented that it comprehensively reviewed its files for any evidence that theparents waived reunification with their children, including both paper alien
files and electronic case records. ICE provided OIG with copies of all written
waivers it could find for these parents. We independently reviewed thesewaivers, but had no way to confirm whether the signature on each form was, inwww.oig.dhs.gov

17

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

fact, the signature of the detainee.32 For detainees with evidence of waivers inelectronic case records, ICE compiled officer case comments relating to parents’
waivers into a spreadsheet that it provided to OIG. These case comments
included, for example, oral waivers made to ICE officers and/or conversations
ICE officers had with detainees’ consulates regarding their children. While we
independently reviewed some records in ICE’s electronic record system, we
generally relied on ICE’s compilation of these comments, and did notcomprehensively review all parents’ case comments in ICE’s electronic records.
While we make no recommendation as to whom any new ICE policy should
apply, for the purposes of determining how many parents ICE removed without
a reunification waiver, we did not include 51 parents who had a criminal
history beyond illegal entries or reentries. We also excluded 26 detainees who,
based on information provided by ICE, may have made a false claim ofparentage. We did not independently confirm either these detainees’ criminal
history or their purportedly false claims of parentage.
This review was initiated in 2018 by the former DHS OIG Special Reviews
Group (SRG) and was conducted in accordance with SRG’s quality control
standards and the Quality Standards for Federal Offices of Inspector General(Silver Book) issued by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity andEfficiency. These standards require work to be carried out with integrity,
objectivity, and independence, and provide information that is factually
accurate and reliable. This report reflects work performed by SRG pursuant to
Section 2 of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended.
This report provides information related to ICE’s policies, procedures, andpractices relating to the removal of separated alien families to determine
whether such parents were given the option of bringing their children when
they were removed from the United States, for the purpose of keeping theSecretary of DHS and Congress fully and currently informed about problems
and deficiencies relating to the administration of DHS programs and operations
and the necessity for and progress of corrective action. This report is designed
to promote the efficient and effective administration of, and to prevent anddetect fraud, waste, and abuse in, the programs and operations of DHS.

32 ICE indicated that because of human error, there may be some additional waivers that it

overlooked and, therefore, may not be reflected in its data.
www.oig.dhs.gov

18

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Appendix B
ICE Comments to the Draft Reportwww.oig.dhs.gov

19

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

www.oig.dhs.gov

20

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

www.oig.dhs.gov

21

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

www.oig.dhs.gov

22

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Appendix C
Office of Inspector General Major Contributors to This Report
Tatyana Martell, Chief Inspector
Matthew Neuburger, Director of Special Reviews Group
Scott Wrightson, Chief Data Officer
Teresa Alutto-Schmidt, Investigative Counsel
Jon Goodrich, Investigative Counsel
Jonathan Parnes, Investigative Counsel
Lorraine Eide, Lead Inspector
Kimberley Lake de Pulla, Lead Inspector
Gregory Flatow, Senior Inspector
Stephen Farrell, Senior Inspector
Gaven Ehrlich, Senior Program Analyst
Hilary Ervin, Data Analyst
Ryan Nelson, Independent Referencer

www.oig.dhs.gov

23

OIG-21-36

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Appendix D
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
Assistant Secretary for Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans
Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs
Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs
Director, ICE
ICE 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

24

OIG-21-36

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: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov.
Follow us on Twitter at: @dhsoig.

OIG Hotline
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov and clickon 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