Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Immigration, Border Security, and 

Claims, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

May 2005 COMBATING ALIEN 

SMUGGLING 

Opportunities Exist to 

Improve the Federal 

Response 

GAO-05-305 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-305.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Rich Stana at 

(202) 512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-305, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Border Security, and Claims, Committee 

on the Judiciary, House of 

Representatives 

May 2005

COMBATING ALIEN SMUGGLING

Opportunities Exist to Improve the 

Federal Response 

As of April 2005, ICE had not finalized its strategy for combating alien 

smuggling. ICE was adjusting the draft strategy to focus on the southwest 

border and encompass all aspects of smuggling, aliens as well as drugs and 

other contraband. In adjusting the strategy, ICE officials stressed the 

importance of incorporating lessons learned from ongoing follow-the-money 

approaches such as Operation ICE Storm, a multi-agency task force 

launched in October 2003 to crack down on migrant smuggling and related 

violence in Arizona. Also, the strategy’s effectiveness depends partly on 

having clearly defined roles and responsibilities for ICE and CBP, two DHS 

components that have complementary antismuggling missions. In this 

regard, ICE and CBP signed a memorandum of understanding in November 

2004 to address their respective roles and responsibilities, including 

provisions for sharing information and intelligence. Currently, however, 

there is no mechanism in place for tracking the number and the results of 

referrals made by CBP to ICE for investigation. CBP and ICE officials 

acknowledged that establishing a tracking mechanism could have benefits 

for both DHS components. Such a mechanism would help ICE ensure that 

appropriate action is taken on the referrals. Also, CBP could continue to 

pursue certain leads if ICE—for lack of available resources or other 

reasons—cannot take action on the referrals. 

In fiscal year 2004, about 2,400 criminal defendants were convicted in federal

district courts under the primary alien-smuggling statute, and ICE reported 

seizures totaling $7.3 million from its alien-smuggling investigations. For the 

first 6 months of fiscal year 2005, ICE reported $7.8 million in seizures from 

alien-smuggling investigations. A concern raised by ICE and the Department 

of Justice is the lack of adequate statutory civil forfeiture authority for 

seizing real property, such as “stash” houses where smugglers hide aliens 

while awaiting payment and travel arrangements to final destinations 

throughout the nation. However, Justice does not have a legislative proposal 

on this subject pending before Congress because the department’s legislative 

policy resources have been focused on other priorities. 

Aliens Held in “Stash” House in Southern California 

Globally, alien smuggling generates 

billions of dollars in illicit revenues 

annually and poses a threat to the 

nation’s security. Creation of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) in March 2003 has provided 

an opportunity to use financial 

investigative techniques to combat 

alien smugglers by targeting and 

seizing their monetary assets. For 

instance, the composition of DHS’s 

largest investigative component—

U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE)—includes the 

legacy Customs Service, which has 

extensive experience with money 

laundering and other financial 

crimes. Another DHS component, 

U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) has primary 

responsibility for interdictions 

between ports of entry. In summer 

2003, ICE announced that it was 

developing a national strategy for 

combating alien smuggling. Among 

other objectives, GAO determined 

the implementation status of the 

strategy and investigative results in 

terms of convictions and seized 

assets. 

What GAO Recommends

To enhance the federal response to 

alien smuggling, GAO recommends 

that (1) the Secretary of Homeland 

Security establish a mechanism for 

tracking the results of referrals 

made by CBP to ICE and (2) the 

Attorney General consider 

developing and submitting to 

Congress a legislative proposal, 

with appropriate justification, for 

amending the civil forfeiture 

authority for alien smuggling. The 

departments agreed. 
Page i GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 5 

ICE’s Strategy for Combating Alien Smuggling Not Yet Issued 7 

Prosecutions and Convictions Pursued in Alien-Smuggling Cases; 

Asset Seizures Expected to Increase 15 

Conclusions 30 

Recommendations for Executive Action 31 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 31 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 33 

Objectives 33 

Scope and Methodology 33 

Data Reliability 37 

Appendix II Creation of the Department of Homeland Security Has 

Provided New Opportunities for Combating Alien 

Smuggling 38 

Seminal Case Cited as New Model for Fighting Alien Smuggling 38 

Operation ICE Storm Launched in Phoenix: A Focus on Targeting 

the Monetary Assets of Smuggling Organizations 39 

Arizona Border Control Initiative Launched in March 2004 41 

Expansion of Strategy Beyond Arizona 42 

Appendix III Federal Agencies Responsible for Combating Alien 

Smuggling 44 

Department of Homeland Security and Its Components 45 

Department of Justice and Its Components 47 

Department of the Treasury and Its Components 52 

Department of State and Its Components 55 

Migrant Smuggling and Trafficking Interagency Working Group: An 

Overarching Coordination Mechanism 57 

Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center: Operational Potential 

Not Yet Fully Achieved 59 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Appendix IV Federal Efforts to Work with Foreign Governments to 

Reduce the Flow of Smuggled Aliens into the United 

States 63 

Federal Bilateral Efforts to Work with Foreign Governments 63 

Multilateral Protocol on Migrant Smuggling 67 

Federal Efforts to Identify and Seize Smugglers’ Funds or Assets 

Abroad 68 

Appendix V Examples of Alien-Smuggling Cases Prosecuted in 

Federal District Courts 71 

District of Arizona 71 

California, Southern District 74 

Texas, Southern District 76 

Appendix VI Possible Effects of Not Having a Civil Forfeiture 

Provision for Real Property Used to Facilitate Alien 

Smuggling 84 

District of Arizona 84 

Central District of California 85 

Southern District of Texas 85 

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 86 

Tables 

Table 1: Number of Defendants Convicted (under 8 U.S.C. § 1324) 

in Federal Courts for Smuggling Unlawful Aliens, Fiscal 

Years 1995 through 2004 16 

Table 2: Amount of ICE Seizures from Alien-Smuggling 

Investigations, Fiscal Year 2004 20 

Table 3: Amount of ICE Seizures from Alien-Smuggling 

Investigations (Oct. 1, 2004, to Mar. 31, 2005) 23 

Table 4: National Overview of ICE Investigative Hours Worked by 

Program, Fiscal Year 2004 24 

Table 5: Federal, State, and Local Composition of Operation ICE 

Storm (Arizona) 39 
Page iii GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Table 6: Federal Departments and Components Responsible for 

Combating Alien Smuggling 45 

Table 7: Analytical Support Provided by FinCEN for AlienSmuggling Cases (Oct. 2000 through Aug. 2004) 54 

Table 8: District of Arizona Alien-Smuggling Cases Reported by 

U.S. Attorney’s Office Press Releases (January to June 

2004)72 

Table 9: Southern District of California Alien-Smuggling Cases 

Reported by U.S. Attorney’s Office Press Releases 

(January to June 2004) 75 

Table 10: Southern District of Texas Alien-Smuggling Cases 

Reported by U.S. Attorney’s Office Press Releases 

(January to June 2004) 77 

Abbreviations 

CAFRA Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 

CBP Customs and Border Protection 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

FinCEN Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service 

IRS-CI Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation 

MLAT Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

May 27, 2005 

The Honorable John N. Hostettler 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Globally, alien smuggling generates illicit revenues estimated to total 

billions of dollars annually and is recognized as a significant and growing 

problem that can pose a serious threat to the security of the United States, 

a primary destination country. Our May 2000 report noted that although it 

is likely that most aliens smuggled into the United States seek economic 

opportunities, some are brought into the United States as part of criminal 

or terrorist enterprises.1

 This concern has heightened since September 11, 

2001. Creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in March 

2003 has provided new opportunities to more effectively combat alien 

smuggling, particularly in reference to using financial investigative 

techniques to target and seize the monetary assets of smuggling 

organizations. For instance, the department’s largest investigative 

component—U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—

integrates the legal authorities and investigative tools of the legacy 

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Customs Service, 

which has extensive experience in combating money laundering and other 

financial crimes. 

Accordingly, at congressional hearings in June and July 2003, ICE officials 

testified that ICE was developing a national strategy to dismantle criminal 

and terrorist organizations that smuggle or traffic in people by tracing and 

stripping away their monetary assets. This report addresses the following 

principal questions: 

• What is the implementation status of ICE’s strategy for combating alien 

smuggling, particularly regarding efforts to use financial investigative 

 1

GAO, Alien Smuggling: Management and Operational Improvements Needed to Address 

Growing Problem, GAO/GGD-00-103 (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2000). 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

techniques to follow the money trail and seize the monetary assets of 

smuggling organizations? 

• Since the creation of DHS and ICE, what results have been achieved 

from alien-smuggling investigations in terms of prosecutions and 

convictions, as well as seizures of smugglers’ monetary assets? 

Also, to provide supplementary and contextual perspectives on the federal 

response to alien smuggling, appendix III of this report presents an 

overview of the roles of various federal agencies—DHS components such 

as ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as well as 

components of the Departments of Justice, the Treasury, and State; and 

appendix IV discusses federal efforts to work with the governments of 

source and transit countries to reduce the flow of smuggled aliens into the 

United States. 

To address these questions and topics, we interviewed responsible 

officials at and reviewed relevant documentation obtained from the 

Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, the Treasury, and State and 

their components. Regarding ICE’s strategy for combating alien smuggling, 

we interviewed ICE officials to determine its implementation status and 

the extent to which it includes a focus on following the money trail. 

Regarding prosecutions and convictions in alien-smuggling cases, we 

obtained relevant statistics from the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. 

Regarding seizures of monetary assets, we obtained data from the federal 

government’s applicable asset forfeiture funds. We discussed the sources 

of these data with federal agency officials and worked with them to 

resolve any inconsistencies. We determined that the data were sufficiently 

reliable for the purposes of this review. Also, to more fully understand and 

illustrate the results of alien-smuggling investigations, we identified and 

summarized recent alien-smuggling cases prosecuted in federal district 

courts in three districts—the District of Arizona, the Southern District of 

California, and the Southern District of Texas—each of which is 

coterminous with the U.S.-Mexico, or southwest, border (see app. V).2

 To 

identify recent alien-smuggling cases federally prosecuted in these 

districts, we reviewed press releases issued by the respective U.S. 

Attorney’s Office during January through June 2004. We discussed each of 

 2

Mexico represented 91 percent of deportable aliens (by region or country of nationality) 

who entered the United States without inspection and were apprehended in fiscal year 

2003, according to DHS’s 2003 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 2004). 
Page 3 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

these cases with U.S. Attorney’s Office and ICE officials. Because these 

cases were selected using a nonprobabilistic method, they are not 

representative of all cases in the districts or nationwide. We conducted 

our work from April 2004 to March 2005 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I presents more details 

about our objectives, scope, and methodology. 

Although its development was announced as early as June 2003, ICE’s 

national strategy for combating alien smuggling had not been finalized as 

of April 2005. In the absence of a national strategy, ICE used various 

means to provide interim guidance to investigators. ICE officials said the 

draft strategy was being adjusted to broadly cover all aspects of 

smuggling, encompassing aliens as well as drugs and other illegal 

contraband, and to focus initially on the southwest border. Officials 

stressed the importance of incorporating lessons learned from ongoing 

follow-the-money approaches before issuing the strategy. An example of 

such an approach is Operation ICE Storm, a multi-agency task force 

launched in October 2003 to crack down on migrant smuggling and related 

violence in Arizona. Another reason for the strategy’s continuing 

development period is that the working relationship of ICE and CBP is still 

evolving. The strategy’s effectiveness depends partly on having clearly 

defined roles and responsibilities for these two DHS components, which 

have complementary antismuggling missions. In this regard, ICE and CBP 

signed a memorandum of understanding in November 2004 to address 

their respective roles and responsibilities, including provisions for sharing 

information and intelligence. Currently, however, there is no mechanism 

in place for tracking the number and the results of referrals or leads made 

by CBP to ICE for investigation. Without such a mechanism, there may be 

missed opportunities for identifying and developing cases on large or 

significant alien-smuggling organizations. CBP and ICE officials 

acknowledged that establishing a tracking mechanism could have benefits 

for both agencies. Such a mechanism would help ICE ensure that 

appropriate action is taken on the referrals. Also, CBP could continue to 

pursue certain leads if ICE—for lack of available resources or other 

reasons—cannot take action on the referrals. This report recommends that 

the Secretary of Homeland Security establish a referral-tracking 

mechanism. DHS agreed with our recommendation. 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

In fiscal year 2004, about 2,400 criminal defendants were convicted in 

federal district courts under section 274 of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, the primary statute for prosecuting alien smuggling.3

Further, for fiscal year 2004, ICE reported seizures totaling $7.3 million 

from its alien-smuggling investigations—plus an additional $5.3 million 

generated by the state of Arizona under Operation ICE Storm. ICE officials 

anticipate increased seizures from alien-smuggling investigations in future 

years, as ICE more broadly applies its financial and money-laundering 

expertise. For the first 6 months of fiscal year 2005, for instance, ICE 

officials reported seizures of $7.8 million. The officials cautioned, 

however, that there are competing demands for investigative resources 

and also noted that alien-smuggling cases, in contrast to drug-trafficking 

cases, are much less likely to result in large seizures of currency. But, even 

absent seizures of money or other assets from alien smugglers, ICE 

officials noted the importance of applying financial investigative expertise 

in appropriate cases to determine the scope and operational patterns of 

alien-smuggling organizations, identify the principals, and obtain evidence 

to build prosecutable cases. Regarding potential forfeitures in aliensmuggling cases, ICE and Department of Justice officials said that a 

concern for investigators is lack of adequate statutory civil forfeiture 

authority for seizing real property, such as “stash” houses, used to 

facilitate the smuggling of aliens. According to Justice, analysis of civil and 

criminal forfeiture statutes generally has led the department to conclude 

that a statute that provides only for criminal and not civil forfeiture of 

facilitating property will be inadequate in such cases, and investigative 

experience indicates that these cases are numerous. Justice officials 

noted, however, that the department has not developed and submitted to 

Congress a legislative proposal because the department’s legislative policy 

resources have been focused on other priorities. This report recommends 

that the Attorney General, in collaboration with the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, consider developing and submitting to Congress a legislative 

proposal, with appropriate justification, for amending the civil forfeiture 

authority for alien smuggling. The Department of Justice agreed with our 

recommendation. 

 3

Also, according to the Department of Justice, alien-smuggling-related activity may have 

been prosecuted under a variety of other federal criminal statutes covering, for example, 

passport fraud, immigration document fraud, bribery of a public official, and racketeering 

activity. 
Page 5 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

By definition, alien smuggling (sometimes called people smuggling or 

human smuggling) is transnational in that it involves more than one 

country and also usually involves persons who have consented to be 

transported to another country. This activity generally produces shortterm profits for the smugglers. That is, after the aliens reach their final 

destinations, they have no continuing relationship with the smugglers. In 

legal and diplomatic references, alien smuggling is distinct from human 

trafficking, although both smuggling and trafficking may have similarities 

or common elements. In human trafficking, the criminality and human 

rights abuses—such as coercion for prostitution, labor sweat shops, or 

other exploitative purposes and servitude arrangements—may continue 

after the migrants reach the United States in order to produce both shortterm and long-term profits. Whereas a trafficked person is a victim, an 

alien who consents to be smuggled is subject to criminal processing and 

deportation. 

Given the underground nature of alien smuggling, exact figures quantifying 

the size or scope of this transnational crime are not available. Nonetheless, 

estimates by the United Nations and the federal law enforcement and 

intelligence communities indicate that people smuggling is a huge and 

highly profitable business worldwide, involving billions of dollars 

annually, and the United States is a major destination country. People 

smuggling is a continuously growing phenomenon, according to the 

International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol). The types of 

smugglers can range from opportunistic business owners who seek cheap 

labor to well-organized criminal groups that engage in alien smuggling, 

drug trafficking, and other illegal activities. Partly because of increased 

border monitoring by governments, Interpol has noted that criminal 

networks increasingly control the transnational flow of migrants. That is, 

willing illegal migrants increasingly rely on the services of criminal 

syndicates that specialize in people smuggling, even though traveling 

conditions may be inhumane and unsafe. 

Alien smuggling generally is prosecuted under section 274 of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits knowingly or recklessly 

bringing in, transporting, or harboring certain aliens.4

 Depending on the 

conduct charged, a conviction under section 274 could result in a 

 4

See 8 U.S.C. § 1324. Also, as mentioned previously, alien-smuggling-related activity may be 

prosecuted under a variety of other federal criminal statutes covering, for example, 

passport fraud, immigration document fraud, bribery of public officials, and racketeering 

activity. 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment per alien smuggled. 

Moreover, significant enhanced penalties are provided for some section 

274 violations that involve serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. 

If certain violations result in the death of any person, the convicted 

defendant may be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or be 

subjected to a death sentence.5 Other federal criminal statutes may also be 

applicable. Specifically, alien-smuggling-related offenses are among the list 

of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations predicate offenses (18 

U.S.C. § 1961(1)) and also are included within the definition of specified 

unlawful activity for purposes of the money-laundering statute (18 U.S.C. § 

1956). Further, criminal and civil forfeiture statutes may apply to aliensmuggling cases. 

Although ICE is a primary DHS component for investigating alien 

smuggling, combating the smuggling of aliens into the United States can 

involve numerous federal agencies, as well as the cooperation and 

assistance of foreign governments. In addition to ICE, other relevant DHS 

components are the Border Patrol (a “front-line defender”), which is now 

part of CBP, and the U.S. Coast Guard, which is tasked with enforcing 

immigration law at sea. Additionally, significant roles in combating alien 

smuggling are carried out by Department of Justice components, including 

the Criminal Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and U.S. 

Attorney’s Offices, and Department of the Treasury components, such as 

Internal Revenue Service (Criminal Investigation) and the Financial 

Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Further, Department of State 

components have significant roles. For instance, the Bureau of Diplomatic 

Security—the law enforcement arm of the State Department—is 

statutorily responsible for protecting the integrity of U.S. travel 

documents. Perhaps the most coveted and sought after travel documents 

 5

There are various differences in penalty provisions applicable to alien smuggling, including 

the following: 

• There are mandatory minimum penalties for certain violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2) 

but not for similar violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A). 

• Enhanced penalties for causing serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy apply 

to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A) but not to similar violations of 8 U.S.C. § 

1324(a)(2). 

• The death penalty or imprisonment for life may be imposed for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 

1324(a)(1)(A) in which death results, but such penalties are not available for similar 

violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2). 
Page 7 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

in the world are U.S. passports and visas. Alien smuggling and travel 

document fraud often are inextricably linked. 

The March 2003 creation of DHS, including its largest investigative 

component (ICE), ushered in an opportunity for developing a strategy to 

combat alien smuggling by, among other means, using financial 

investigative techniques. Two months later, in May 2003, ICE used such 

techniques to follow the money and prosecute the perpetrators of a 

smuggling operation that had resulted in the deaths of 19 aliens in Victoria, 

Texas. The Victoria 19 case has been cited by ICE as representing a new 

model for fighting alien smuggling—a model that ICE (1) subsequently 

used to launch a multi-agency task force (Operation ICE Storm) in the 

Phoenix (Arizona) metropolitan area and (2) reportedly was using to 

develop ICE’s national “Antismuggling/Human-Trafficking Strategy.”6

Although its development was announced as early as June 2003, a national 

strategy for combating alien smuggling had not been finalized and 

implemented by ICE as of April 2005. In the absence of a national strategy 

to combat alien smuggling, including investigating the money trail, ICE 

used various means to provide interim guidance to investigators. ICE 

officials indicated that the draft strategy was being adjusted to broadly 

cover all aspects of smuggling—encompassing aliens, as well as drugs and 

other illegal contraband—and to focus initially on the southwest border. 

The strategy’s continuing development period is attributable partly to 

organizational and training needs associated with integrating the separate 

and distinct investigative functions of the legacy INS and the U.S. Customs 

Service, following creation of DHS in March 2003. Also, ICE and CBP—

two DHS components with complementary antismuggling missions—

signed a memorandum of understanding in November 2004 to address 

their respective roles and responsibilities, including provisions to ensure 

proper and timely sharing of information and intelligence. Such sharing is 

critical to achieving ICE’s investigative objective of determining “how each 

single violation ties into the larger mosaic of systemic vulnerabilities and 

organized crime.” The ability to make such determinations should be 

enhanced when DHS components have compatible or interoperable 

information technology systems—which is a long-term goal of an ongoing, 

 6

See appendix II for additional background information about the Victoria 19 case and 

Operation ICE Storm, which was subsequently expanded statewide as part of the Arizona 

Border Control Initiative. 

ICE’s Strategy for 

Combating Alien 

Smuggling Not Yet 

Issued 
Page 8 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

multiyear project called the Consolidated Enforcement Environment. 

Currently, however, there is no mechanism in place for tracking the 

number and the results of referrals or leads made by CBP to ICE for 

investigation, including even whether ICE declined to act on the referrals. 

Without such a mechanism, there may be missed opportunities for 

identifying and developing cases on large or significant alien-smuggling 

organizations. For instance, if a tracking mechanism were in place, CBP 

could continue pursuing certain leads if ICE—for lack of available 

resources or other reasons—does not take action on the referrals. 

At congressional hearings in June and July 2003, ICE officials testified that 

ICE was developing a strategy—the Antismuggling/Human-Trafficking 

Strategy—to address alien smuggling and human trafficking at the national 

and international levels. The strategy was to concentrate ICE’s efforts in 

intelligence-driven investigations against major violators, specifically 

targeting organizations with ties to countries that support terrorist 

organizations such as al Qaeda.7

 A strategic goal was to dismantle the 

criminal and terrorist organizations that smuggle or traffic in people by 

tracing and stripping away their monetary assets. 

In May 2004, in response to our initial inquiry, ICE headquarters officials 

told us that the national Antismuggling/Human-Trafficking Strategy was 

still in draft and was being vetted among DHS components. In October 

2004, the officials told us that ICE was narrowing the initial focus of the 

strategy to the southwest border, between the United States and Mexico—

the most active area in terms of smuggling activity and open 

investigations. The officials explained that ICE was developing a 

comprehensive southwest border strategy, given the anticipated 

displacement of smuggling activity to other areas along the border 

resulting from Operation ICE Storm and the Arizona Border Control 

Initiative (see app. II). In further elaboration, ICE headquarters officials 

said that the southwest border strategy would broadly cover all aspects of 

smuggling to encompass aliens as well as drugs and other illegal 

 7

Statement of Tom Homan, ICE Interim Resident Agent-In-Charge (San Antonio, Tex.); at a 

hearing (“Deadly Consequences of Illegal Alien Smuggling”) before the Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, House Committee on the Judiciary; June 24, 

2003; and statement of Charles H. Demore, ICE Interim Assistant Director of Investigations; 

at a hearing (“Alien Smuggling/Human Trafficking: Sending a Meaningful Message of 

Deterrence”) before the Subcommittee on Crime, Corrections and Victims’ Rights, Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary, July 25, 2003. 

National Strategy 

Announced as Early as 

June 2003 Is Still in Draft 

and Has Changed to Focus 

on the Southwest Border 
Page 9 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

contraband. The officials explained that lessons learned—based, for 

example, on the results of Operation ICE Storm and the Arizona Border 

Control Initiative—indicated that criminal enterprises tend to smuggle not 

only people but also drugs, weapons, counterfeit trade goods, and other 

illegal contraband. The ICE officials emphasized that it was important to 

incorporate these lessons learned into the southwest border strategy 

before issuing it. Also, the officials noted that irrespective of whether 

smuggling involves aliens or contraband, ICE can use similar investigative 

techniques for following the money trail. 

In April 2005, ICE officials told us that the draft southwest border strategy 

was in the final stages of review; had been vetted with CBP, which is ICE’s 

closest partner in the antismuggling arena; and was expected to be 

implemented within the next 30 to 60 days. Moreover, the officials said 

that, following a certain period of implementation, the southwest border 

strategy would be evaluated and expanded into a nationwide strategy. The 

officials noted, for instance, that although there is no one law enforcement 

strategy totally effective in all areas of the nation, the methodologies 

applied in Arizona with both Operation ICE Storm and the Arizona Border 

Control Initiative would be evaluated and tailored for use in other parts of 

the country. 

ICE has had to evolve into an organization that integrates the separate and 

distinct investigative functions of the legacy INS and the U.S. Customs 

Service. As stated in our October 2004 report: 

“The integration of INS and Customs investigators into a single investigative program has 

involved blending two vastly different workforces, each with its own culture, policies, 

procedures, and mission priorities. Both programs were in agencies with dual missions that 

prior to the merger had differences in investigative priorities. For example, INS primarily 

looked for illegal aliens and Customs primarily looked for illegal drugs. In addition, INS 

investigators typically pursued administrative violations, while Customs investigators 

typically pursued criminal violations.”8

Thus, at the outset of ICE’s formation in March 2003, a substantial amount 

of cross-training was needed regarding the relevant enforcement functions 

and authorities of the respective legacy agencies. As of October 1, 2003, 

 8

GAO, Homeland Security: Management Challenges Remain in Transforming 

Immigration Programs, GAO-05-81 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 14, 2004), page 11. 

Continuing Development 

Period for ICE’s Strategy 

Attributable Partly to 

Organizational and 

Training Needs 
Page 10 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

for example, ICE had about 2,400 legacy INS agents who were not trained 

on the subject of money laundering or financial investigative techniques. 

Equally important, legacy Customs agents had to obtain training and 

experience in handling immigration-related cases. In several aspects, aliensmuggling cases can be challenging and time-consuming. ICE and CBP 

officials noted, for example, that alien-smuggling cases usually involve 

language and humanitarian issues, as well as logistical challenges and 

difficulties (e.g., transporting, housing, and processing aliens). Also, the 

officials explained that certain investigative techniques, such as controlled 

delivery operations used to develop drug-trafficking cases, are either very 

difficult or unavailable in alien-smuggling cases because humans are 

involved.9

 Further, the officials said that unlike drug-trafficking cases 

where the contraband itself is proof of the illegal activity, the successful 

prosecution of alien-smuggling cases relies on the availability of material 

witnesses (illegal migrants) who often get terrified before or during trial 

and change their mind about testifying against smugglers. The officials 

noted that this is an everyday phenomenon—partly because, in an aliensmuggling case, even the best witness is a party of interest to the crime. 

The continuing development period for issuing and implementing an 

antismuggling strategy also stems partly from the fact that the working 

relationship between ICE and CBP is still evolving, as evidenced by two 

memorandums of understanding signed by these DHS components in 2004. 

The March 2003 formation of ICE raised issues about the future of the 

antismuggling investigative units that the Border Patrol had established in 

sectors and districts along the southwest border. About a year later, in 

April 2004, ICE and CBP—two components within DHS—signed a 

memorandum of understanding regarding the transition of the Border 

Patrol’s former antismuggling units to ICE. The memorandum listed the 

following general guidelines to facilitate the transition: 

 9

In some drug-trafficking investigations, the traffickers are allowed to proceed on their 

journey and deliver a shipment, unaware that law enforcement authorities are monitoring 

the shipment. The purpose of this controlled-delivery investigative technique is to capture 

organizers or kingpins, rather than simply arresting a courier or seizing a single shipment. 

Working Relationship 

between ICE and CBP 

Addressed in 

Memorandums of 

Understanding 

ICE and CBP Agreement 

(April 2004) 
Page 11 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

• ICE would assume the full burden of administratively supporting, 

equipping, and funding the antismuggling units. Existing equipment 

would not be transferred from one DHS component to another unless 

otherwise mutually agreed upon. 

• ICE would have lead responsibility for certain nationally designated 

cases as well as Joint Terrorism Task Force cases. 

• The Border Patrol would have lead responsibility for all cross-border, 

border-related interdiction activities, including check-point operations. 

• The Border Patrol and ICE would be jointly responsible for ensuring 

the proper and timely sharing of information and intelligence. 

The April 2004 memorandum of understanding also recognized a need to 

develop a more comprehensive agreement regarding the working 

relationship between ICE investigations and CBP. 

In November 2004, ICE and CBP signed a second memorandum of 

understanding, which acknowledged that the missions of the two DHS 

components “are intricately connected and complementary.” The 

memorandum stated, for instance, that ICE’s Office of Investigations has 

primary responsibility for all investigations, while the Border Patrol has 

primary responsibility for all interdictions between ports of entry. The 

purpose of the November 2004 memorandum of understanding (a 14-page 

document) was to comprehensively address the roles and responsibilities 

of the Border Patrol and ICE’s Office of Investigations, including 

provisions for sharing intelligence. To ensure proper and timely sharing of 

information and intelligence, the memorandum stated that colocation of 

the intelligence assets of ICE and the Border Patrol is a “best practice and 

a policy preference.” 

The November 2004 memorandum of understanding also contains 

provisions requiring periodic implementation reviews, which are to be the 

joint responsibility of the Assistant Secretary, ICE, and the Commissioner, 

CBP. Specifically, the memorandum calls for joint reviews (1) 6 months 

from the date of the memorandum, (2) 1 year after its initial effective date, 

and (3) thereafter every 2 years or at any time requested by either party. 

After these reviews are conducted, the Under Secretary for the Border and 

Transportation Security Directorate (or his designee) is to concur with any 

modifications to be made to the memorandum of understanding. 

ICE and CBP Agreement 

(November 2004) 
Page 12 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

In the absence of a national strategy to combat alien smuggling, including 

investigating the money trail, ICE used various means to provide interim 

guidance to investigators. Such guidance included, for instance, the 

formation of working groups with members from various field offices and 

disciplines, as well as a presentation at a March 2004 conference of 

special-agents-in-charge and attachés. Moreover, ICE said it continues to 

provide guidance to the field in the form of training seminars and 

managerial conferences. Also, ICE indicated that it has posted guidance 

and policy memorandums to the field on its Web site, which is available 

and accessible to agents at their desktops for reference. According to ICE, 

the Web site is regularly reviewed and updated to ensure that the most 

recent guidance is available to the field. Additionally, ICE officials said 

that headquarters staff routinely travel to field offices to review ongoing 

undercover operations and large-scale investigations to help ensure 

compliance with existing policies and priorities. 

In April 2004, ICE’s Office of Investigations electronically disseminated 

guidance to all field offices advising them of ICE’s mission and priorities. 

The guidance noted that, since mission threats vary by regions or areas of 

responsibility, field offices have the latitude to manage their resources to 

address designated national priorities in the manner they determine the 

most effective. The guidance designated that the major national priorities 

to be targeted by field offices consist of three broad investigative 

categories—smuggling, financial, and national security. Also, the guidance 

explained that all investigative priorities tie together through the 

Cornerstone initiative,10 which 

“is now evolving far beyond its initial designation as an umbrella financial program ... and 

represents the essence of what ICE ... [investigators] should be striving for in all 

disciplines. We should be focusing our resources on efforts that determine systemic 

vulnerabilities that can be exploited by criminal organizations and terrorists ... We should 

be looking to examine all of our different investigative activities to see if there is 

connectivity between them and to see if this connectivity provides evidence of systemic 

vulnerabilities. ... We may start each investigation with the most simple of border 

violations, but we should always aim to see how each single violation ties into the larger 

mosaic of systemic vulnerabilities and organized crime.” 

 10Launched in July 2003, Cornerstone is ICE’s comprehensive enforcement initiative 

focusing on financial and trade investigations to identify and eliminate vulnerabilities that 

can be exploited. Besides financial and money-laundering investigations, Cornerstone 

targets commercial fraud, smuggling and trafficking, export and trade violations, and 

intellectual property crimes. 

Interim Guidance in 

Absence of a Strategy 
Page 13 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Generally, the ability to identify connectivity or the larger mosaic depends 

largely on the effectiveness of information and intelligence sharing by ICE 

and CBP—whose working relationship is continuing to evolve. Also, the 

necessary technology infrastructure is continuing to evolve, as discussed 

in the following section. 

A key aspect of implementing any antismuggling strategy is the 

interagency sharing of information and intelligence. Such sharing is 

critical to achieving ICE’s investigative objective of determining “how each 

single violation ties into the larger mosaic of systemic vulnerabilities and 

organized crime.” This analytical connectivity ability should be enhanced 

when DHS components have interoperable information technology 

systems—the goal of an ongoing, multiyear project (the Consolidated 

Enforcement Environment). 

The ongoing Consolidated Enforcement Environment project is a 

department-level information technology initiative to address the 

enforcement and investigative needs of DHS components—ICE, CBP 

(including the Border Patrol), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Secret 

Service. In December 2004, ICE officials told us that the initiative was still 

in the conceptual stage. 

In further perspective, the Consolidated Enforcement Environment 

project is part of a larger initiative—the Federal Investigative Case 

Management System—that envisions a “common solution platform” to be 

used governmentwide to support the missions of investigative agencies. 

Here again, this initiative is in its early stages. In September 2004, DHS and 

the Department of Justice jointly released a “request for information” and 

scheduled an “industry day” to seek submission of product/solution 

descriptions that would allow investigative agencies to “systematically 

build new and/or evolve existing case management systems into common 

case management architecture throughout the federal government.” An 

interim goal is to have the system’s architecture reflected in business 

cases submitted for the fiscal year 2006 budget review. The envisioned 

common system architecture could have particular relevance for managing 

alien-smuggling cases, given that various federal agencies—including 

components of the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, the 

Treasury, and State—can be involved in investigations (see app. III). 

Ongoing Project to 

Improve Information 

Technology Systems 
Page 14 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

An important aspect of the working relationship between ICE and CBP 

involves referrals of alien-smuggling leads for investigation. The Border 

Patrol is the primary DHS component responsible for interdicting aliens 

smuggled between ports of entry. Generally, after the Border Patrol makes 

an interdiction, the smuggled aliens are separated from members (drivers, 

guides, etc.) of the smuggling organization; interviews are conducted of 

both groups; sworn statements are solicited from material witnesses; 

fingerprints are taken; and other relevant information is accumulated. 

Given the large annual volume of interdictions, the Border Patrol usually 

refers to ICE’s Office of Investigations only those cases that it believes 

involve a significant scope, violence, or other egregious circumstances. To 

facilitate investigative efforts, the November 2004 memorandum of 

understanding specified, for example, that the Border Patrol is to notify 

ICE’s Office of Investigations of certain interdiction events, such as the 

deaths of aliens, hostage situations, and the arrests of aliens from special 

interest countries. During our review, ICE officials stressed to us the 

importance of maximizing enforcement efforts by prioritizing 

investigations to target the most egregious cases, such as criminal 

organizations, violent offenders, and threats against U.S. security. 

In addition to making notifications or referrals that result from tactical 

interdictions, the Border Patrol also makes referrals to ICE based on more 

in-depth or strategic analyses conducted by intelligence units. That is, the 

Border Patrol’s intelligence units—which are located in each of the 

organization’s 20 geographical sectors—routinely analyze alien-smuggling 

interdictions to develop information on smuggling patterns and identify 

leads warranting further investigation. For these leads, the Border Patrol 

prepares and submits target or intelligence folders to ICE. In this regard, 

the November 2004 memorandum of understanding specified that the 

Border Patrol would actively prepare intelligence folders and forward 

them to ICE on a case-by-case basis as the need arises. 

The memorandum made no mention of tracking either the number or the 

results of such referrals. Moreover, headquarters officials at both ICE and 

CBP told us there was no mechanism in place for tracking the number and 

the results of these referrals, including even whether ICE declined to act 

on the referrals. ICE officials noted, however, that establishment of a 

tracking mechanism would help ICE ensure that appropriate action is 

taken on referrals. Also, in response to our inquiry at ICE headquarters, 

the chief of the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Unit said that 

implementing a tracking mechanism could have benefits for both agencies, 

particularly in reference to identifying opportunities for developing cases 

on large or significant alien-smuggling organizations. 

Opportunity for Increasing 

the Utility of Referrals 

from CBP to ICE 
Page 15 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Similarly, CBP headquarters and field officials commented that having a 

mechanism for tracking the disposition of investigative referrals to ICE 

could have benefits for the Border Patrol. The officials noted, for instance, 

that the Border Patrol could continue pursuing leads if ICE—for lack of 

available resources or other reasons—does not take action on the 

referrals. Further, the CBP officials said that having information on the 

results of referrals—including, if applicable, the reasons for declinations—

could help the Border Patrol develop better target or intelligence folders in 

making referrals to ICE. 

CBP officials also commented that implementing a tracking mechanism 

probably would involve minimal costs while providing substantial benefits. 

The CBP officials noted, for instance, that such a mechanism could consist 

of recording referrals and monitoring progress or dispositions. 

About 2,400 criminal defendants were convicted in federal district courts 

in fiscal year 2004 under the primary alien-smuggling statute. According to 

federal officials we interviewed, most alien-smuggling prosecutions stem 

from reactive or interdiction-type cases at the border, wherein in-depth 

investigations to follow a money trail either are not warranted or are 

precluded by resource and time constraints. For fiscal year 2004, ICE 

reported seizures totaling $7.3 million from its alien-smuggling 

investigations—plus an additional $5.3 million generated by the state of 

Arizona under Operation ICE Storm. Officials at Treasury’s Executive 

Office for Asset Forfeiture told us they anticipate that ICE will have 

increased seizures in fiscal year 2005 or later, as ICE further applies its 

financial and money-laundering expertise to address alien smuggling. 

Similarly, ICE officials anticipate increased seizures. In this regard, for the 

first 6 months of fiscal year 2005, ICE reported seizures of $7.8 million 

from alien-smuggling investigations. Also, according to Justice and ICE 

officials, federal efforts to dismantle smuggling organizations could be 

enhanced by civil forfeiture authority for real property (such as stash 

houses) used to facilitate alien smuggling. 

The principal federal statute used to prosecute alien smugglers is section 

274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits knowingly or 

recklessly bringing in, transporting, or harboring certain aliens. Under this 

statute, which is codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1324, federal prosecutors have 

obtained more than 2,000 convictions annually since fiscal year 1999, as 

table 1 shows. 

Prosecutions and 

Convictions Pursued 

in Alien-Smuggling 

Cases; Asset Seizures 

Expected to Increase 

Prosecutions of Alien 

Smugglers: More than 

2,000 Convictions Annually 
Page 16 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Table 1: Number of Defendants Convicted (under 8 U.S.C. § 1324) in Federal Courts 

for Smuggling Unlawful Aliens, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004 

Fiscal year 

Number of defendants convicted

under 8 U.S.C. § 1324

1995 589

1996 1,253

1997 1,310

1998 1,694

1999 2,302

2000 2,429

2001 2,348

2002 2,103

2003 2,654

2004 2,457

Source: Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys data. 

Note: According to Justice, alien-smuggling-related activity also may have been prosecuted under a 

variety of other statutes, including 18 U.S.C. § 1543 (passport fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1544 (misuse of 

passport); 18 U.S.C. § 1546 (immigration document fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (identification document 

fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 201 (bribery of public official); 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (racketeering activity); 8 U.S.C. § 

1325 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting illegal entry); and 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (reentry after 

removal). 

Prosecutions of immigration offenses may result from either reactive or 

proactive investigations. As the name implies, the first category (reactive 

investigations) is analogous to instances where police officers encounter 

and instantly react to street crimes as they occur. Whereas proactive 

investigations generally have planning and targeting aspects and may 

involve undercover operations and the use of electronic surveillance and 

other long-term investigative techniques, including support from ICE’s 

Asset Identification and Removal Groups, which are specialized units that 

focus on locating, tracing, and seizing assets of criminal organizations. 

Regarding table 1, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys data did not 

indicate which cases resulted from proactive versus reactive 

investigations. 
Page 17 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

According to the federal officials we interviewed in three federal judicial 

districts encompassing much of the southwest border—the District of 

Arizona, the Southern District of California, and the Southern District of 

Texas—the vast majority of immigration offense cases are reactive rather 

than proactive.11 Officials noted, for instance, that most prosecutions result 

from interdictions made by the Border Patrol, the front-line DHS 

component that functions in a fast-paced operations tempo and 

encounters a tremendous volume of instant cases, wherein in-depth 

investigations either are not warranted or are precluded by resource and 

time constraints. 

Nevertheless, the creation of DHS—which included the formation of 

ICE—has provided an opportunity for more proactive investigations of 

alien-smuggling organizations, such as using financial investigative 

techniques to follow the money trail from smuggling fees. ICE officials told 

us that while many of the investigations opened by ICE are the result of 

referrals from the Border Patrol and other law enforcement firstresponders, ICE has always been involved in proactive investigations 

related to alien smuggling and trafficking. 

In response to our inquiry, officials in the Domestic Security Section of 

Justice’s Criminal Division indicated that the creation of DHS was an 

important development and has resulted in an investigative entity (ICE) 

that can focus on asset forfeiture and money-laundering offenses as part of 

significant alien-smuggling investigations.12 According to ICE 

headquarters, significant investigations would include, for example, aliensmuggling networks identified by the targeting subgroup of the National 

Security Council’s Migrant Smuggling and Trafficking Interagency Working 

Group. 

During our visits in September 2004 to ICE field offices responsible for 

southwest border areas, we asked to review the files of any closed aliensmuggling cases that reflected the use of financial investigative techniques. 

In response to our inquiries, the field office managers informed us that 

 11To more fully understand and illustrate the types and results of alien-smuggling 

investigations, we identified and summarized recent cases that have been prosecuted in 

these three federal judicial districts (see app. V). 

12The Justice officials noted that—based on interagency working relationships, including 

participation on the ICE Undercover Review Committee—it is clear that the development 

of a financial evaluation of investigative targets has become a routine part of the 

investigative process. 

Officials Reported That 

Most Immigration Offense 

Cases Are Reactive, but 

the Formation of ICE Has 

Provided an Opportunity 

for More Proactive Cases 

Using Financial 

Investigative Techniques 
Page 18 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

their respective offices had not yet completely closed relevant cases. For 

instance, ICE officials in the southern district of Texas said that they were 

still tracing illegal proceeds in the Salman case involving the smuggling of 

Chinese nationals, which is summarized in appendix V based on press 

release information. ICE headquarters officials explained that criminal 

investigations in which persons are targeted for prosecution and assets are 

identified for seizure can remain open for 1, 2, or more years before being 

completely closed. The officials noted that it is not uncommon for targeted 

individuals to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced while seized assets 

are still pending final disposition through civil or criminal forfeiture 

proceedings. 

Also, during our field visits in September 2004, we asked U.S. Attorney’s 

Office officials for their observations regarding whether there has been an 

increasing emphasis on the financial aspects of alien-smuggling 

investigations since the creation of DHS and ICE. In Arizona, federal 

prosecutors emphasized that Operation ICE Storm is a clear indication of 

ICE’s efforts to become more proactive in alien-smuggling investigations. 

Also, federal prosecutors in Texas (Houston) said the money trail is being 

pursued when appropriate, such as proactive cases involving smuggling 

organizations that are based in the Far East (e.g., Thailand and certain 

provinces in the People’s Republic of China) and have networks in Latin 

America and Mexico. The federal officials noted that investigations of 

these cases may include FBI participation and the use of undercover 

agents and electronic surveillance and may result in assets being seized 

and suspects being charged with money laundering and violations of the 

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. 

In December 2004, ICE headquarters officials told us that ongoing aliensmuggling cases in other areas of the nation—Florida, Georgia, New York, 

and Washington—were also using financial investigative techniques and 

are expected to result in substantial seizures. Because these cases were 

ongoing, the officials declined to provide specific details, other than 

information already made available to the public. For example, according 

to ICE or U.S. Attorney’s Office news releases: 

• Southern District of Florida: Sixteen people were arrested in 

December 2004, following an investigation conducted by ICE in Miami, 

New York, and Ecuador. Using immigration documents provided by 

undercover agents, the defendants participated in smuggling 

Ecuadorian and Chinese nationals into the United States by 
Page 19 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

commercial airline. The criminal organizations behind the scheme 

charged as much as $20,000 per alien.13

• Northern District of Georgia: In November 2004, federal indictments 

were unsealed regarding 19 defendants allegedly connected with an 

illegal-alien-smuggling conspiracy. According to the indictments, the 

defendants employed hundreds of undocumented aliens in various gas 

station/convenience stores in the Atlanta metropolitan area as a means 

of attaining higher profits through nonpayment of overtime 

compensation, nonpayment of employer-share taxes, and nonpayment 

of mandatory employee benefits. Forfeitures amounting to “millions of 

dollars” are being sought.”14

• Northern District of New York: From January 1999 through November 

17, 2004, the defendants, all operators of various Chinese buffet 

restaurants in Albany, Schenectady, Saratoga, Columbia, and Dutchess 

Counties, used illegal aliens of Chinese and Mexican nationality as 

workers in their restaurants and laundered proceeds from the 

operation of those restaurants. Forfeitures are being sought relating to 

more than 40 bank accounts, as well as vehicles (allegedly used during 

the commission of the offenses) and parcels of real property (allegedly 

purchased with the illegal proceeds).15

• Western District of Washington: In November 2004, the defendant—

who had admitted to organizing a scheme whereby Cambodian 

children were taken from their families and represented on 

immigration forms as orphans for adoption by American families—was 

sentenced to 18 months in prison, 3 years of supervised release, 300 

hours of community service, and more than $60,000 in restitution. Also, 

the defendant was ordered to forfeit the proceeds of the crime to the 

 13ICE, Inside ICE, “ICE’s ‘Operation Palmdale’ Disrupts Major International Smuggling 

Ring,” Volume 1, Issue 18, December 20, 2004. 

14U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Georgia, “Operation Sugar Crisp Takes Down 

Ring, Indictment Unsealed Naming 19 Defendants,” November 19, 2004. 

15ICE, news release, “Operators of Chinese Restaurants in New York Charged with Money 

Laundering and Harboring Illegal Aliens,” November 18, 2004. Also, the February 2005 issue 

of Government Executive (“ICE Warms Up—New Partnership Nets Major Bust for 

Immigration and Customs Agents”) reported that “Last November, ICE executed search 

warrants on several restaurants and homes, arrested ringleaders, and seized 11 vehicles 

and nearly $4 million in cash, real estate, and other assets.” 
Page 20 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

government—a home in Hawaii worth $1.4 million and a Jaguar car 

(approximately $25,000).16

More recently, in April 2005, ICE officials emphasized to us that ICE has 

many ongoing investigations in which criminal organizations are targeted 

for alien smuggling violations and their assets are being targeted for 

seizure. The officials declined to provide specific details because 

disclosure of information could compromise the ongoing investigations. 

For fiscal year 2004, ICE reported seizures totaling $7.3 million from aliensmuggling investigations, as table 2 shows. 

Table 2: Amount of ICE Seizures from Alien-Smuggling Investigations, Fiscal Year 

2004 

ICE investigation program Seizure amount

Alien smuggling $3,400,000

Other investigations involving alien smugglinga 3,900,000

Total $7,300,000

Source: ICE data. 

Note: According to Justice, these seizure amounts may not reflect all proceeds derived from aliensmuggling investigations. Specifically, Justice noted that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 2081 and 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1363a, ICE has the authority to use proceeds from certified undercover operations to offset the 

necessary and reasonable expenses of the operations. 

a

According to ICE, these investigations were money-laundering investigations linked to humansmuggling violations. 

Also, under Operation ICE Storm, the state of Arizona had generated an 

additional $5.3 million in seizures, as of September 2004 (see app. II). 

Further, at the time of our visit to Phoenix in September 2004, ICE officials 

told us that the most significant alien-smuggling cases under Operation 

ICE Storm were still being developed. The officials anticipated that several 

major smuggling organizations would be the subjects of arrests and 

indictments in the coming months. In October 2004, for example, ICE and 

the Arizona Attorney General’s Office announced that a multi-agency 

investigation had resulted in state grand jury indictments of 21 individuals 

involved in providing criminal groups with used cars for smuggling illegal 

immigrants, drugs, or cash. According to ICE, 11 used car lots located in 

 16ICE, news release, “Woman Sentenced to 18 Months in Prison for Visa Fraud and Money 

Laundering in Connection with Cambodian Adoption Scam,” November 19, 2004. 

Alien-Smuggling Cases: 

ICE Reported Seizures 

Totaling $7.3 Million in 

2004 
Page 21 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

the Phoenix metropolitan area were shut down, and 349 cars worth almost 

$1.4 million were seized by ICE and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. 

To obtain additional perspectives on the results of alien-smuggling 

investigations in terms of recovered funds or seized assets, we contacted 

Treasury’s Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture, which provides 

management oversight of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund—the receipt 

account for the deposit of nontax forfeitures made pursuant to laws 

enforced or administered by the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal 

Investigation and DHS components (including ICE, CBP, the U.S. Secret 

Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard). Regarding fund deposits since October 

2003 that resulted from alien smuggling cases, Executive Office for Asset 

Forfeiture officials commented (in July 2004) substantially as follows: 

• Fund deposits are not tracked by type of case. All member agencies are 

mandated to deposit forfeited funds regardless of the type of 

investigation. 

• Anecdotally, however, as of July 2004, the Executive Office for Asset 

Forfeiture has had no real experience with alien-smuggling 

investigations that resulted in substantial enforcement actions 

(seizures with a value of more than $100,000). But substantial 

investigations of any kind (except bulk cash smuggling) go through the 

judicial process, which in many cases takes 1 to 3 years from the date 

of seizure to perfect the forfeiture. 

More recently, we reviewed the Treasury Forfeiture Fund Accountability 

Report—Fiscal Year 2004 and found no case highlights regarding aliensmuggling investigations. The report stated: 

“FY 2004 was a robust and unprecedented revenue year for the law enforcement bureaus 

participating in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, with over $335 million from all sources. ... It 

is our view that the greatest damage to criminal enterprise can be effected through large 

forfeitures, hence we have set a target level of 75 percent of our currency forfeitures to be 

high impact forfeitures. Fund Management works through budgetary and policy means to 

emphasize high-impact cases, i.e., those cash forfeiture cases equal to or greater than 

$100,000 in value. For FY 2004 we exceeded our target significantly with 84 percent of our 

cash forfeiture revenue stemming from high-impact cases. This is a credit to our law 

enforcement bureaus and their dedication to the fight against crime.” 

To illustrate the types of investigative cases worked by the fund’s law 

enforcement agencies, the report gave summary highlights of 33 cases—

IRS (17 cases), CBP (8 cases), ICE (5 cases), U.S. Secret Service (2 cases), 
Page 22 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

and U.S. Coast Guard (1 case). None of the 33 case summaries referenced 

alien smuggling. The 5 ICE cases involved, respectively, a bank scam, an 

adult video store and other businesses seized for racketeering, counterfeit 

cigarette traffickers, a counterfeit motion picture network, and a church 

fraud scheme. Of the 17 IRS cases, 5 were narcotics-related investigations, 

and another 3 involved bulk-cash seizures in south Texas of approximately 

$370,000; $993,000; and $5.3 million, respectively.17 Also, of the 8 CBP 

cases, 4 involved bulk-cash seizures—Nogales, Arizona (about $464,000); 

Eagle Pass, Texas (about $518,000); and 2 separate seizures at Rouses 

Point, New York (about $991,000 and $995,000). 

Treasury’s Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture officials told us they 

anticipate that ICE’s alien-smuggling investigations will begin having an 

impact on the fund in fiscal year 2005 or later. The officials explained that, 

over time, if ICE applies the financial and money-laundering expertise of 

the former Customs Service special agents to address alien smuggling, ICE 

should develop an immigrations investigations program on par with the 

narcotics, money-laundering, trade, and export programs—each of which 

produces significant asset forfeiture revenue. For instance, according to 

the Treasury officials, it is not uncommon for export or trade cases to 

render plea agreements for cash forfeitures of tens of millions of dollars. 

ICE headquarters officials also told us they anticipate that alien-smuggling 

investigations will begin having an impact on the Treasury Forfeiture Fund 

in fiscal year 2005 and future years. For the first 6 months of fiscal year 

2005, ICE reported seizures totaling $7.8 million from alien-smuggling 

investigations, as table 3 shows. 

 17Regarding the bulk-cash seizures, the report noted that IRS-CI agents worked closely with 

other law enforcement agencies of the South Texas Asset Forfeiture and Money 

Laundering Task Force. 

Alien-Smuggling Cases: 

Asset Seizures Expected to 

Increase, although There 

Are Caveats 
Page 23 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Table 3: Amount of ICE Seizures from Alien-Smuggling Investigations (Oct. 1, 2004, 

to Mar. 31, 2005) 

ICE investigation program Seizure amount

Alien smuggling $5,200,000

Other investigations involving alien smugglinga 2,600,000

Total $7,800,000

Source: ICE data. 

a

According to ICE, these investigations were money-laundering investigations linked to humansmuggling violations. 

Generally, regarding asset seizures and forfeitures from alien-smuggling 

investigations, ICE officials noted that there can be competing demands 

for investigative resources. The mission of ICE’s Office of Investigations—

which has more than 5,000 agents in 26 field offices nationwide—

encompasses a broad array of national security, financial, and smuggling 

violations, including narcotics smuggling, financial crimes, illegal arms 

exports, commercial fraud, child pornography/exploitation, immigration 

fraud, and human trafficking. Regarding immigration enforcement, the 

Office of Investigations is responsible not only for deterring, dismantling, 

and diminishing the smuggling and trafficking of aliens but also for 

minimizing immigrant benefit fraud, removing employers’ access to 

undocumented workers, and responding to community complaints about 

illegal immigration. Nationally, about 7 percent of ICE’s total investigative 

hours were devoted to alien-smuggling cases in fiscal year 2004. As noted 

in table 4, these investigative hours included cases involving aliensmuggling organizations (5 percent), as well as individuals and groups (2 

percent). 

In its technical comments on a draft of this report, DHS noted that other 

investigative programs conducted by ICE involve criminal organizations 

that profit, wholly or in part, from alien smuggling. Specifically, DHS said 

that the percentage of ICE’s total investigative hours devoted to aliensmuggling cases in fiscal year 2004 could be up to 29 percent when, in 

addition to the 7 percent statistic, other relevant investigative programs 

are considered (see table 4)—criminal alien (12 percent), identity and 

benefit fraud (5 percent), Joint Terrorism Task Force (3 percent), and 

human trafficking (2 percent). In providing an overall perspective 

regarding ICE investigative resources devoted to alien-smuggling cases, 

we agree that the 7 percent statistic is properly supplemented by other 

investigative programs. However, reporting a 29 percent statistic may be 
Page 24 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

overreaching, given that these other programs may only partly involve 

alien smuggling. 

Table 4: National Overview of ICE Investigative Hours Worked by Program, Fiscal 

Year 2004 

Investigative program 

Percentage of all 

investigative hours 

worked

Drugs 26

Financial 17

Other 16

Criminal alien 12

Alien-smuggling and alien absconder (744,337 hours) 7

Alien-smuggling organizations (526,668 hours or 

5 percent of total) 

Alien-smuggling individuals/groups (198,763 hours or 

2 percent of total) 

Alien absconder (18,906 hours or less than 1 percent of 

total) 

Identity and benefit fraud 5

Child pornography 4

Fraud 4

Strategic 4

Joint Terrorism Task Force 3

Human trafficking 2

Total investigative hours: 10,037,981 100%

Source: ICE data. 

In further reference to the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, ICE headquarters 

officials cautioned that alien-smuggling cases, in comparison with drug 

cases, are much less likely to result in seizures of money. The officials 

explained that almost all drug deals are conducted in cash; therefore, it is 

not unusual for law enforcement to arrest criminals handling hundreds of 

thousands or even millions of dollars in drug money. In contrast, the 

officials noted that alien-smuggling fees per person generally involve 

smaller amounts that are paid by wire transfers, which present law 

enforcement the challenge of identifying consolidation points. ICE 

officials said that wire transfers reflect a developing trend by alien 

smugglers to exploit money services—a trend that ICE is addressing. For 

instance, the officials noted that the use of wire transfers by criminal 
Page 25 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

organizations has been aggressively investigated during Operation ICE 

Storm and the Arizona Border Control Initiative. 

From another perspective, Canadian immigration and law enforcement 

officials, including Royal Canadian Mounted Police representatives, told 

us that alien-smuggling cases that result in seizures of money can be 

considered a bonus—that is, such results are more the exception than the 

norm. However, even absent seizures of money or other assets from alien 

smugglers, ICE headquarters and field office officials stressed to us the 

importance and utility of applying financial investigative expertise in 

appropriate cases. The officials noted that such investigative expertise is 

very useful for determining the scope and operational patterns of aliensmuggling organizations, identifying the principals, and obtaining evidence 

to build prosecutable cases. As a case in point, the officials cited the 

Victoria 19 case (see app. II), which they described as being very 

successful in dismantling a smuggling organization, even though the case 

did not produce substantial asset seizures or forfeitures. 

Regarding potential forfeitures in alien-smuggling cases, Justice and ICE 

headquarters officials said a concern for investigators is the lack of 

adequate statutory civil forfeiture authority for seizing real property—

particularly stash houses used by smugglers.18 Asset forfeiture law has long 

been used by federal prosecutors and law enforcement as a tool for 

punishing criminals and deterring further illegal activity. For instance, as a 

result of the government’s seizure of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft used to 

traffic drugs or smuggle aliens, criminals are prevented from using the 

property to commit new crimes. Under current federal law, the 

government has both criminal and civil forfeiture authority, but its 

availability depends on several factors, including whether there has been a 

conviction for the underlying offense and the nature of that offense. 

Criminal forfeiture refers to the seizure of assets in the context of a 

criminal prosecution. That is, upon his or her conviction, the defendant 

forfeits and the government takes ownership of property that the 

defendant used to commit or facilitate the offense or property that 

constituted the proceeds of the illegal activity. In alien-smuggling cases, 

 18These houses sometimes are also referred to as “drop” houses or “safe” houses where 

smugglers hide aliens while awaiting payment and travel arrangements to final destinations 

throughout the nation. 

According to Justice and 

ICE, Civil Forfeiture 

Authority Is Not Adequate 

to Seize Stash Houses 

Used by Alien Smugglers 

Criminal Forfeiture Authority: 

Not Available for Fugitive 

Defendants or Property Owners 

Not Indicted 
Page 26 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

the current criminal forfeiture authority—codified at 18 U.S.C. 

982(a)(6)(A)—provides that in imposing sentence on a person convicted 

of an applicable violation, the court 

“shall order that the person forfeit to the United States, regardless of any provision of State 

law—(i) any conveyance, including any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft used in the commission 

of the offense of which the person is convicted; and (ii) and property real or personal—(I) 

that constitutes, or is derived from or is traceable to the proceeds obtained directly or 

indirectly from the commission of the offense of which the person is convicted; or (II) that 

is used to facilitate, or is intended to be used to facilitate, the commission of the offense of 

which the person is convicted.” 

Before the resolution of a criminal forfeiture action, there must be a 

conviction of the defendant based on a high evidentiary standard—the 

beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. Thus, irrespective of the type of 

criminal offense involved, the criminal forfeiture authority is not available 

for seizing the property of alleged felons who have fled to avoid 

prosecution. 

Additionally, in alien-smuggling cases, the use of the criminal forfeiture 

authority is rarely an option for seizing rented real property (e.g., stash 

houses) used to facilitate the offense. In many alien-smuggling cases, 

according to Justice and ICE, the real properties at issue are not owned by 

the smugglers; rather, the properties are rental units, often in distressed 

areas. Justice and ICE noted that evidence that the owner of a rented stash 

house knew about the illegal activity and intentionally ignored it is not 

sufficient to indict the owner for smuggling, and there is rarely evidence of 

greater involvement in the offense by the owner; as a result, the criminal 

forfeiture option is not available in such cases. 

In contrast to criminal forfeiture procedure, civil forfeiture, in which the 

government seizes real property and initiates a civil action to forfeit the 

property, does not require that the owner of the property be charged with 

a federal offense. Rather, the action is against the property, and the 

government would have to demonstrate that the property is subject to 

forfeiture under the applicable civil forfeiture statute for the underlying 

offense. If the government is able to do so, the burden would shift to the 

property owner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or 

she was an innocent owner. The innocent-owner defense is not available 

to someone who intentionally turned a blind eye to the illegal use of his or 

her property, although such an individual most likely could not be 

convicted of the offense involved. 

Civil Forfeiture Authority: 

Innocent Owners Have 

Statutory Protections 
Page 27 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

The innocent-owner defense and other substantive and procedural 

protections were enacted as part of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act 

of 2000 (CAFRA),19 which was intended to prevent abuses of civil asset 

forfeiture law. Before CAFRA’s enactment, news articles and 

congressional hearings recounted stories of innocent owners of motels or 

air transport services who had lost their businesses trying to meet the legal 

requirements for recovering their seized property. CAFRA eliminated or 

modified some of these requirements. For example, the burden of proof 

shifted to the government to show that the property was subject to 

forfeiture, rather than the claimant having to prove that it was not. Also, 

individuals seeking to recover their property no longer have to post a bond 

in order to make a claim. 

After CAFRA, in order to forfeit facilitating property that was purchased 

with legitimately earned funds, the government must demonstrate a 

substantial connection between the use of the property and the offense. 

Before CAFRA, some courts had allowed such forfeitures based on a 

weaker connection to the crime. CAFRA was written to create uniform 

procedures for civil asset forfeiture, regardless of the nature of the 

underlying offense. Moreover, CAFRA increased uniformity among the 

substantive forfeiture statutes by creating a single definition of proceeds 

of the offense, expanding statutes to allow forfeiture of proceeds if not 

already allowed, and creating a single innocent-owner defense with clearer 

criteria for invoking it. Although its focus was civil forfeiture, CAFRA also 

amended the criminal asset forfeiture provision for alien-smuggling cases, 

which had been inadvertently written in a manner that rendered it 

inoperable when it was enacted as part of a larger package of legislation 

addressing immigration law in 1996. There is no evidence in the CAFRA 

legislative history that Congress considered expanding civil asset 

forfeiture in alien-smuggling cases to include real property used to commit 

the offense. 

Although the CAFRA amendments to criminal and civil forfeiture in aliensmuggling cases were important, the statutory civil forfeiture authority in 

alien-smuggling cases needs further enhancing, according to Justice and 

ICE. The current statutory authority for civil forfeiture of assets used in 

alien smuggling is codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1324(b) and provides that 

 19Pub. L. No. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202 (Apr. 24, 2000). 

Civil Forfeiture Authority: 

Statutorily Limited in AlienSmuggling Cases Compared to 

Other Criminal Offenses 
Page 28 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

“Any conveyance, including any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft, that has been or is being used in 

the commission of a violation of subsection (a) [of 8 U.S.C. § 1324], the gross proceeds of 

such violation, and any property traceable to such conveyance or proceeds, shall be seized 

and subject to forfeiture.” 

It is important to note that the civil forfeiture authority for alien smuggling 

is not parallel to the criminal forfeiture provision. Most notably, the civil 

provision does not include forfeiture of real property used to facilitate the 

offense. Rather, the civil forfeiture provision addresses only personal 

property, such as vessels, vehicles, and aircraft. Thus, under the civil 

forfeiture statute for alien smuggling, a house used to hide the aliens, 

conduct the alien-smuggling business, etc., could not be forfeited as 

facilitating property.20

This statutory limitation contrasts with provisions in other federal criminal 

statutes, which do have parallel civil forfeiture provisions. That is, civil 

forfeiture provisions applicable to various criminal offense categories—

including drug trafficking, child pornography, and money laundering—are 

available for seizing facilitating real property. For instance, if a house is 

used to conduct drug transactions, store the drugs and money, etc., the 

house can be forfeited as facilitating property. In the view of Justice and 

ICE, regarding civil forfeiture authority for seizing facilitating real 

property, the statutory distinction between alien smuggling and other 

criminal offenses is inappropriate. 

Justice and ICE consider the current civil forfeiture authority inadequate 

to effectively seize real property (stash houses) used to facilitate alien 

smuggling. In a December 2004 written response to our inquiry regarding 

whether an amendment to 8 U.S.C. § 1324(b) is needed, Justice 

emphasized that 

“One of the major remaining omissions in the forfeiture statutes for alien smuggling 

offenses is the lack of civil forfeiture authority over facilitating property other than vessels, 

vehicles and aircraft. In particular, there is no civil forfeiture authority over real property 

used to conceal illegal aliens or otherwise to facilitate the alien smuggling offense. ... The 

Department of Justice supports amending section 1324 to address this problem.” 

 20However, if money laundering were charged in this example case, the house used for 

alien smuggling could be forfeited under a money-laundering forfeiture provision. 

Justice and ICE Consider the 

Current Civil Forfeiture 

Authority Inadequate 
Page 29 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

An amendment to the civil forfeiture authority, according to Justice, would 

enhance federal efforts to dismantle smuggling organizations because 

would-be defendants often are fugitives, which makes criminal forfeiture 

unavailable. Also, a civil forfeiture authority for real property used to 

facilitate alien smuggling would enable the government to establish willful 

blindness arguments against landlords who hope to profit from such 

ventures without becoming directly involved. Justice officials told us in 

April 2005, however, that the department does not have a legislative 

proposal on this subject pending before Congress because the 

department’s legislative policy resources have been focused on other 

priorities. 

We asked Justice whether there has been a broad analysis of investigative 

case data to determine the scope and significance of the perceived 

inadequacy of the current civil forfeiture authority—that is, an analysis to 

provide a basis or justification for consideration of a legislative 

amendment. In its response, Justice noted that statistics are not collected 

on civil forfeiture cases that could not be brought, such as cases involving 

real property held by fugitives or third parties that was used to facilitate 

alien smuggling. However, Justice’s analysis of civil and criminal forfeiture 

statutes generally has led the department to conclude that a statute that 

provides only for criminal and not civil forfeiture of facilitating property 

will be inadequate in such cases. In addition, Justice officials told us that 

investigative experience with alien smuggling has convinced them that 

such cases are numerous. Further, in March 2005, Justice provided us 

summary examples of recent or pending alien-smuggling cases in which 

real property used to facilitate the offense could not be forfeited because 

of the absence of statutory civil forfeiture authority (see app. VI). 

According to Justice, the summary examples provided are illustrative of 

typical cases that recur with great frequency in federal judicial districts 

along the southwest border.21

Expanding civil forfeiture authority in alien-smuggling cases to include 

real property used to facilitate the offense may raise some of the same 

concerns addressed by CAFRA in 2000. These concerns include the 

potential for abuse of this type of forfeiture and the adequacy of 

protection for the rights of innocent property owners. CAFRA was 

 21A related concern raised by Justice is that the current alien smuggling statutes need to be 

amended to define “proceeds” as including the cost savings realized by an employer who 

engages in alien smuggling for the purpose of employing cheap illegal labor. The scope of 

our work did not cover this issue. 
Page 30 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

compromise legislation that was developed over several years by 

Congress, the Executive Branch, and interest groups. Some observers felt 

that the legislation did not provide enough reforms and protections, while 

others felt that it went too far and would curtail a legitimate law 

enforcement tool. The procedural protections in CAFRA included specific 

requirements for real property forfeitures, such as notice and an 

opportunity to be heard prior to seizure and judicial, as opposed to 

administrative, forfeiture for all real property. CAFRA’s requirement that 

the government prove a substantial connection between facilitating 

property and the underlying offense also would apply to any expansion of 

civil forfeiture authority in the alien-smuggling statute, absent a specific 

exemption. Views as to whether these CAFRA protections were adequate 

likely will affect whether expanding the civil forfeiture authority to include 

real property used to facilitate alien smuggling is seen as striking an 

appropriate balance of the law enforcement and the property interests 

involved. 

Creation of DHS in March 2003 has provided new opportunities to more 

effectively combat alien smuggling, particularly in reference to using 

financial investigative techniques to target and seize the monetary assets 

of smuggling organizations. 

However, after more than 2 years, the federal response to alien smuggling 

is still evolving, including development and implementation of a strategy 

to follow the money trail. Also evolving is the working relationship of ICE 

and CBP, two DHS components that have the primary responsibility for 

investigating and interdicting alien smugglers. Having clearly defined roles 

and responsibilities for these components is important, given their 

complementary antismuggling missions. In this regard, ICE’s and CBP’s 

November 2004 memorandum of understanding did not address a 

mechanism for tracking the number and the results of leads referred by 

CBP to ICE for investigation. If a tracking mechanism were in place, CBP 

could continue pursuing certain leads if ICE—for lack of available 

resources or other reasons—does not take action on the referrals. As such, 

a tracking mechanism would help to further ensure that large or 

significant alien-smuggling organizations are identified and investigated. 

Federal law enforcement has concerns that efforts to dismantle aliensmuggling organizations are constrained by the current absence of civil 

forfeiture authority for real property used to facilitate the smuggling of 

aliens. In contrast, for drug trafficking and various other criminal offense 

categories, civil forfeiture authority is available for seizing real property 

Conclusions 
Page 31 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

used to facilitate these crimes. Our review of CAFRA legislative history 

found no evidence that Congress considered modifying this statutory 

distinction when CAFRA was enacted. According to Justice and ICE, the 

absence of civil forfeiture authority for real property used to facilitate the 

smuggling of aliens is inappropriate because law enforcement is unable in 

many cases to seize stash houses where smugglers hide aliens while 

awaiting payment and travel arrangements to final destinations throughout 

the nation. However, because its legislative policy resources have been 

focused on other priorities, Justice has not developed and submitted a 

legislative proposal to Congress. 

To enhance the federal response to alien smuggling, we are making two 

recommendations. Specifically, we recommend that 

• the Secretary of Homeland Security establish a cost-effective 

mechanism for tracking the number and results of referrals by CBP to 

ICE, and 

• the Attorney General, in collaboration with the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, consider developing and submitting to Congress a legislative 

proposal, with appropriate justification, for amending the civil 

forfeiture authority for real property used to facilitate the smuggling of 

aliens. 

We provided a draft of this report for comment to the Departments of 

Homeland Security, Justice, the Treasury, and State. In its written 

comments, DHS expressed general agreement with our findings and 

outlined steps it planned to take to implement our recommendation on the 

establishment of a cost-effective mechanism for tracking the number and 

results of referrals by CBP to ICE. 

DHS also raised a concern regarding interpretation of the data in table 4 

(national overview of ICE’s investigative hours worked by program, fiscal 

year 2004), noting that the percentage of ICE’s total investigative hours 

devoted to alien-smuggling cases in fiscal year 2004 could be up to 29 

percent when, in addition to the 7 percent statistic we reported, other 

relevant investigative programs are considered. In providing an overall 

perspective regarding ICE investigative resources devoted to aliensmuggling cases, we agree that the 7 percent statistic is properly 

supplemented by other investigative programs. However, reporting a 29 

percent statistic may be overreaching, given that these other programs 

may only partly involve alien smuggling. The full text of DHS’s written 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 32 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

comments is reprinted in appendix VII. DHS also provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated in this report where appropriate. 

We also received comments via e-mail from designated liaisons at the 

Departments of Justice, the Treasury, and State. Justice agreed with our 

recommendation to consider developing and submitting to Congress a 

legislative proposal, with appropriate justification, for amending the civil 

forfeiture authority for real property used to facilitate the smuggling of 

aliens. Treasury said that the report accurately and fairly portrayed the 

department’s role in helping to identify, track, and attack the financing of 

alien smuggling. Treasury did not comment on the two recommendations, 

which were made to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney 

General, respectively. Similarly, State concurred with the report but did 

not comment on the recommendations. Also, State provided one technical 

comment, which we incorporated in this report where appropriate. 

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the 

date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to 

interested congressional committees and subcommittees. We will also 

make copies available to others on request. In addition, this report will be 

available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report or wish to discuss 

the matter further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Danny Burton at 

(214) 777-5600. Other key contributors to this report were Odilon Cuero, 

Kathleen Ebert, Frances Cook, Jan Montgomery, Mary K. Muse, Maureen 

Shields, and David Alexander. 

Sincerely yours, 

Richard M. Stana 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 33 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Our overall purpose was to study the federal response to alien smuggling, 

especially efforts of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its 

largest investigative component, U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE). The key questions addressed were as follows: 

• What is the implementation status of ICE’s strategy for combating alien 

smuggling, particularly regarding efforts to use financial investigative 

techniques to follow the money trail and seize the monetary assets of 

smuggling organizations? 

• Since the creation of DHS and ICE, what results have been achieved 

from alien-smuggling investigations in terms of prosecutions and 

convictions, as well as seizures of smugglers’ monetary assets? 

Also, to provide supplementary and contextual perspectives on the federal 

response to alien smuggling, we obtained overview information on (1) the 

roles of various federal agencies—DHS components such as ICE and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as well as components of the 

Departments of Justice, the Treasury, and State; and (2) federal efforts to 

work with the governments of source and transit countries to reduce the 

flow of smuggled aliens into the United States. 

To address these questions and obtain contextual perspectives, we 

interviewed responsible officials at and reviewed relevant documentation 

obtained from the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, the 

Treasury, and State and their components. Our work focused on alien 

smuggling and not human trafficking, although both smuggling and 

trafficking may have common elements. In legal and diplomatic 

references, alien smuggling is distinct from human trafficking. By 

definition, alien smuggling (sometimes called people smuggling or human 

smuggling) involves more than one country—that is, alien smuggling 

involves procuring illegal entry into a country of which the smuggled 

person is neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. Alien 

smuggling usually involves persons who have consented to be transported 

to another country, and this activity generally produces short-term profits 

for the smugglers. That is, after the aliens reach their final destinations, 

they have no continuing relationship with the smugglers. In contrast, the 

criminality and human rights abuses associated with human trafficking—

such as coercion for prostitution, labor sweat shops, or other exploitative 

purposes and servitude arrangements—may continue after the migrants 

reach the United States in order to produce both short-term and long-term 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Objectives 

Scope and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 34 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

profits. Whereas a trafficked person is a victim, an alien who consents to 

be smuggled is subject to criminal processing and deportation. 

Initially, in addressing the key questions, we reviewed information 

available on the Web sites of the Departments of Homeland Security, 

Justice, the Treasury, and State. To obtain additional background and 

overview perspectives, we conducted a literature search to identify 

relevant reports, studies, articles, and other documents—including 

congressional hearing testimony—regarding the federal response to alien 

smuggling. For example, at congressional hearings in June and July 2003, 

ICE officials testified that ICE was developing a strategy—the 

Antismuggling/Human-Trafficking Strategy—to address alien smuggling 

and human trafficking at the national and international levels and that the 

strategy would concentrate ICE’s efforts in intelligence-driven 

investigations against major violators, specifically targeting organizations 

with ties to countries that support terrorist organizations such as al 

Qaeda.1

Regarding ICE’s strategy for combating alien smuggling, we interviewed 

officials of relevant DHS components, particularly ICE, to determine the 

status of the strategy’s development and implementation and the extent to 

which it included a focus on investigating the money trail from smuggling 

fees. The scope of our review was limited because ICE’s strategy for 

combating alien smuggling had not been finalized as of April 2005. Rather, 

ICE was in the process of adjusting the draft strategy to focus on the 

southwest border and encompass all aspects of smuggling, aliens as well 

as drugs and other contraband. 

In the absence of a final strategy, we determined what interim guidance 

ICE headquarters had disseminated to its field offices to ensure a focus on 

following the money trail in alien-smuggling investigations. Also, we 

obtained information about Operation ICE Storm, a multi-agency task 

force launched in October 2003 to crack down on migrant smuggling and 

 1

Statement of Tom Homan, ICE Interim Resident Agent-In-Charge (San Antonio, Tex.), at a 

hearing (“Deadly Consequences of Illegal Alien Smuggling”) before the Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, House Committee on the Judiciary, June 24, 

2003, and statement of Charles H. Demore, ICE Interim Assistant Director of Investigations, 

at a hearing (“Alien Smuggling/Human Trafficking: Sending a Meaningful Message of 

Deterrence”) before the Subcommittee on Crime, Corrections and Victims’ Rights; Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary, July 17, 2003. 

ICE’s Strategy for 

Combating Alien 

Smuggling 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 35 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

related violence in Arizona by, among other means, targeting the monetary 

assets of smuggling organizations (see app. II). 

To determine the results that have been achieved from alien-smuggling 

investigations in terms of prosecutions and convictions, we obtained 

statistics from the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. Specifically, for 

fiscal years 1995 through 2004, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys 

provided us data on the number of defendants convicted (under 8 U.S.C. § 

1324) in federal courts for smuggling unlawful aliens. 

To determine the results that have been achieved from alien-smuggling 

investigations in terms of recovered funds or seized assets, we contacted 

managers of the federal government’s applicable asset forfeiture funds: 

• Asset seizures and forfeitures resulting from alien smuggling cases 

accrued to the Department of Justice Forfeiture Fund in 2003 and 

previous fiscal years, given that the legacy Immigration and 

Naturalization Service was a component of Justice. 

• For 2004 and subsequent fiscal years, seizures and forfeitures made by 

ICE accrue to the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. The Department of the 

Treasury’s Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture provides management 

oversight of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, which is the receipt account 

for the deposit of nontax forfeitures made pursuant to laws enforced or 

administered by DHS components (including ICE, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, the U.S. Secret Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard) 

and Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation. 

Further, we obtained perspectives from Justice and ICE on the usefulness 

(and limitations) of statutory revisions (under the Civil Asset Forfeiture 

Reform Act of 2000) that were intended to enhance the government’s 

authority to pursue civil forfeiture of the gross proceeds of alien 

smugglers. 

Also, to more fully understand and illustrate the results of alien-smuggling 

investigations, we identified and summarized recent cases that have been 

prosecuted in three federal judicial districts—the District of Arizona, the 

Southern District of California, and the Southern District of Texas (see 

app. V). Each of these federal judicial districts is coterminous with the 

U.S.-Mexico, or southwest, border. To identify alien-smuggling cases 

federally prosecuted in these districts, we reviewed press releases issued 

by the respective U.S. Attorney’s Office during January through June 2004. 

Results Achieved from 

Investigations 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 36 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

In this 6-month period, the three districts issued press releases that 

covered a collective total of 23 alien-smuggling cases—District of Arizona 

(9), Southern District of California (3), and Southern District of Texas 

(11). We discussed these cases with U.S. Attorney’s Office and ICE 

officials in each of the three districts. Because these cases were selected 

using a nonprobabilistic method, they are not representative of all cases in 

the districts or nationwide. 

To determine how the Departments of Justice, the Treasury, and State 

have helped DHS address alien smuggling, particularly efforts of smugglers 

to launder their proceeds, we interviewed component agency officials and 

reviewed documentation regarding relevant initiatives, programs, task 

forces, or other activities (see app. III). Also, from the applicable 

components, we solicited examples of recent alien-smuggling cases that 

agency officials considered to be significant, and we discussed with 

agency officials the nature and extent of interagency cooperation in the 

cases. A limitation is that these cases may not be representative of the 

universe. 

As an additional probe regarding interagency efforts, we obtained 

information about the roles and functioning of relevant coordination 

mechanisms, such as (1) the National Security Council’s Migrant 

Smuggling and Trafficking Interagency Working Group, which has a 

targeting subgroup to identify for investigation the most dangerous 

international alien-smuggling networks, especially those that pose a threat 

to national security and (2) the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center, 

an interagency entity for disseminating intelligence and other information 

to address the separate but related issues of alien smuggling, trafficking in 

persons, and clandestine terrorist travel. 

To determine the extent to which federal entities have been working with 

the governments of source and transit countries to reduce the flow of 

smuggled aliens into the United States, we interviewed officials at and 

reviewed documentation obtained from the Departments of Homeland 

Security, Justice, the Treasury, and State (see app. IV). We focused on 

relevant bilateral efforts with border nations (Mexico and Canada), as well 

as other source and transit countries. We discussed bilateral efforts with 

representatives of the Mexican and Canadian embassies in Washington, 

D.C. 

Other Departments’ 

Efforts to Help Address 

Alien Smuggling 

Working with Source and 

Transit Countries 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 37 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Regarding multilateral efforts, we contacted the Department of State to 

obtain information about the implementation status of the “Protocol 

against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air,” which is an 

agreement supplementing the United Nations Convention against 

Transnational Organized Crime. 

We conducted our work from April 2004 to March 2005 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Regarding the results 

of alien-smuggling investigations—for example, convictions and asset 

seizures and forfeitures—we discussed the sources of the data with 

federal agency officials and worked with them to resolve any 

inconsistencies. Similarly, regarding ICE investigative hours by program, 

as well as analytical support provided for alien-smuggling cases by the 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, we discussed the sources of the 

data with federal agency officials and worked with them to resolve any 

inconsistencies. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable 

for the purposes of this review. 

Also, appendix III summarizes Department of State data—such as the 

number of passports issued and the number of arrests for passport fraud—

that were presented in a fact sheet (dated May 12, 2004). Because these 

data are used in our report only for background or contextual purposes, 

we did not assess their reliability. 

Data Reliability 
Appendix II: Creation of the Department of 

Homeland Security Has Provided New 

Opportunities for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 38 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Creation of the Department of Homeland Security in March 2003 provided 

new opportunities to more effectively combat alien smuggling by, among 

other means, bringing to bear financial investigative techniques. In 

particular, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement—the largest 

investigative component of DHS—integrates the legal authorities and 

investigative tools of the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 

and the Treasury Department’s U.S. Customs Service, which has extensive 

experience in combating money laundering and other financial crimes. 

A seminal case illustrating the potential of these integrated legal 

authorities and investigative tools to combat alien smuggling began on 

May 14, 2003, with the tragic discovery of 17 bodies and more than 50 

other undocumented aliens in a trailer abandoned at a truck stop near 

Victoria, Texas.1

 In this case, the smuggling operation involved aliens from 

Mexico and several Central American countries (El Salvador, Honduras, 

Nicaragua, and Guatemala) who were to be transported to Houston, 

Texas. According to congressional testimony: 

“ICE worked closely with other DHS components, local law enforcement, and intelligence 

and law enforcement agencies in Mexico and Guatemala. Our unique combination of 

investigative tools allowed us to follow the money, pinpoint the conspirators, and bring 

them to justice. In one month’s period, ICE’s coordinated approach led to the arrest and 

prosecution of 14 defendants in the United States and abroad. 

“This success was the foundation for a new model for fighting smuggling, which we’ve now 

taken to Arizona. ICE assembled a task force known as ‘Operation ICE Storm’ to combat 

violent crime in the Phoenix metropolitan area.”2

 1

Two other immigrants who were inside the trailer later died at a hospital, making a death 

toll of 19. More details about the “Victoria 19” case are presented in appendix V. 

2

Statement of John P. Torres, ICE Deputy Assistant Director, Smuggling and Public Safety, 

at a hearing (“Pushing the Border Out on Alien Smuggling: New Tools and Intelligence 

Initiatives”) before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims; House 

Committee on the Judiciary, May 18, 2004. 

Appendix II: Creation of the Department of 

Homeland Security Has Provided New 

Opportunities for Combating Alien Smuggling

Seminal Case Cited as 

New Model for 

Fighting Alien 

Smuggling 
Appendix II: Creation of the Department of 

Homeland Security Has Provided New 

Opportunities for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 39 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

In October 2003, ICE launched Operation ICE Storm, described as an 

unprecedented multi-agency initiative to combat human smuggling and the 

violence it has generated in Arizona. ICE’s November 2003 press release 

says: 

“ICE ... brings to bear a broad array of authorities and resources that make it uniquely 

qualified to lead the fight against human smuggling. ICE agents will combine immigration, 

smuggling, and financial investigative powers to attack the criminal rings from a variety of 

levels. ICE’s financial investigations expertise, for example, will allow the task force to 

follow the money trail in ways not previously possible. ... A critical facet of ICE Storm 

involves targeting the monetary assets of smuggling organizations. Authorities say 

‘following the money trail’ and crippling the organizations’ financial infrastructure is crucial 

to disabling their operations.”3

A key aspect of the initiative was formation of a task force consisting of 

local, state, and federal agencies (see table 5)—including ICE’s 

deployment of 50 additional special agents to the Phoenix area, which 

effectively doubled the size of ICE’s field office there. 

Table 5: Federal, State, and Local Composition of Operation ICE Storm (Arizona) 

Governmental levels Participating agencies 

Federal U.S. Attorney’s Office 

ICE 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

 and Explosives 

State Arizona Attorney General’s Office 

Arizona Department of Public Safety 

Local Maricopa County Attorney’s Office 

Phoenix Police Department 

Mesa Police Department 

Tempe Police Department 

Scottsdale Police Department 

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 

Pinal County Sheriff’s Office 

Source: ICE. 

In September 2004, about 1 year after Operation ICE Storm was launched, 

we visited Phoenix to discuss the progress and results of the initiative. 

 3

ICE press release, “Department of Homeland Security Launches Operation ‘ICE Storm’—

ICE to Lead Landmark Crackdown on Human Smuggling,” November 10, 2003. 

Operation ICE Storm 

Launched in Phoenix: 

A Focus on Targeting 

the Monetary Assets 

of Smuggling 

Organizations 
Appendix II: Creation of the Department of 

Homeland Security Has Provided New 

Opportunities for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 40 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

According to ICE officials, results as of September 20, 2004, included the 

following: 

• Some $5.5 million in U.S. currency (funds potentially earmarked for 

smuggling organizations) had been seized. 

• Some 275 persons had been arrested for alien smuggling or violencerelated offenses. Of these, 36 had been charged with hostage taking, 

which is punishable by a term of imprisonment up to life. 

• Some 5,013 smuggled aliens had been arrested. Of these, about 700 had 

been held against their will by the smugglers, who were attempting to 

extort additional payments. 

Of the currency seized, the large majority ($5.3 million) resulted from 

efforts conducted by state and local agency participants—e.g., the Arizona 

Attorney General’s Office, the Arizona Department of Public Safety, and 

the Phoenix Police Department—in the multi-jurisdictional task force. ICE 

officials noted that this success is due partly to the fact that Arizona’s laws 

and judicial processes are more conducive (compared with federal laws 

and processes) to using “sweeping or damming warrants” for seizing aliensmuggling-related funds being transmitted through money remittance 

outlets. In this regard, the ICE officials commented that the ability to draw 

upon and leverage the authorities and resources of all participants are 

important advantages of the multi-agency law enforcement task force led 

by ICE. 

As of September 20, 2004, none of the seizures under Operation ICE Storm 

involved real property, such as stash houses used by smugglers.4

 However, 

the Arizona Attorney General’s Office expects that a new state law enacted 

in June 2004 will facilitate such seizures in the future. Sometimes referred 

to in the vernacular as “coyote RICO” legislation, the new law allows a 

house to be seized if there is evidence that it was used to facilitate the 

smuggling of at least 15 immigrants a month.5

 4

As of April 2005, according to ICE, federal seizures under ICE Operation Storm included 

$38,000 in real property; and four additional properties were pending seizure, with a total 

potential seizure value of $260,000. 

5

Act of June 1, 2004, ch. 291, 2004 Ariz. Legis. Serv. 291 (West) (amending the definition of 

racketeering related to money laundering). The law became effective August 25, 2004, and 

is codified at Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2317.F.3(c)(2004). 
Appendix II: Creation of the Department of 

Homeland Security Has Provided New 

Opportunities for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 41 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Further, at the time of our visit to Phoenix, in September 2004, ICE 

officials told us that the most significant alien-smuggling cases under 

Operation ICE Storm were still being developed. The officials anticipated 

that several major smuggling organizations would be the subjects of 

arrests and indictments in the coming months. In October 2004, for 

example, ICE and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office announced that a 

multi-agency investigation had resulted in state grand jury indictments of 

21 individuals involved in providing criminal groups with used cars for 

smuggling illegal immigrants, drugs, or cash. According to ICE, 11 used car 

lots located in the Phoenix metropolitan area were shut down, and 349 

cars worth almost $1.4 million were seized by ICE and the Arizona 

Attorney General’s Office. 

Regarding seizures of currency under Operation ICE Storm, as of April 

2005, ICE reported that the cumulative total had reached $7.4 million, 

which consisted of $6.7 million seized by the state of Arizona and about 

$654,000 seized federally. 

Expanding on Operation ICE Storm, in March 2004, DHS announced the 

Arizona Border Control Initiative, a program to support the priority 

mission of Homeland Security agencies to detect and deter terrorist 

activities and all cross-border illicit trafficking.6

 Among other efforts to 

achieve a safer and more secure southwest border, the initiative 

envisioned the deployment of additional resources (e.g., Border Patrol 

agents) and use of unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as fixed-wing aircraft 

and helicopters. Further, the initiative called for continued efforts to 

disrupt, dismantle, and target the financial assets of human smugglers. For 

instance, in congressional testimony, an ICE official explained that 

“We’re building on ICE Storm’s success with DHS’ Arizona Border Control initiative, in 

which the vigorous application of money laundering and other federal and state statutes is 

depriving smuggling organizations of the criminal proceeds, disrupting their operations and 

decimating their organizational hierarchies in the United States and abroad.”7

 6

DHS, Press Office, “Department of Homeland Security Announces Arizona Border Control 

Initiative,” March 16, 2004. 

7

Statement of John P. Torres, ICE Deputy Assistant Director, Smuggling and Public Safety, 

at a hearing (“Pushing the Border Out on Alien Smuggling: New Tools and Intelligence 

Initiatives”) before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims; House 

Committee on the Judiciary; May 18, 2004. 

Arizona Border 

Control Initiative 

Launched in March 

2004 
Appendix II: Creation of the Department of 

Homeland Security Has Provided New 

Opportunities for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 42 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

ICE officials have characterized Operation ICE Storm as the “investigative 

component” of the Arizona Border Control Initiative. Also, ICE officials 

noted that a majority of the efforts under the Arizona Border Control 

Initiative are geared toward interdiction as opposed to investigation, 

which means that U.S. Customs and Border Protection has a larger role 

than ICE. 

In May 2004, ICE reported that Special Agents-in-Charge of ICE’s offices in 

Chicago, Denver, El Paso, Los Angeles, San Diego, Tucson, and Mexico 

City had met in Phoenix to “review the strides made under ICE Storm and 

evaluate how aspects of the strategy might be adapted to combat 

smuggling activity beyond Arizona.”8

 In July 2004, ICE reported that as a 

result of the crackdown in Arizona: 

• Many criminal smuggling organizations were shifting their activities to 

the Los Angeles area, where they hold the undocumented migrants 

while arranging for transportation to destinations nationwide. 

• And, in response, DHS was placing teams (including ICE investigators 

and Border Patrol agents) for operation at Los Angeles International 

Airport—a key West Coast transportation hub used increasingly by 

smugglers.9

The placement and operation of enforcement teams at the Los Angeles 

International Airport, according to ICE, was an outgrowth of the Arizona 

Border Control Initiative. In October 2004, ICE headquarters officials told 

us that ICE was developing a comprehensive southwest border strategy, 

 8

ICE press release, “Feds Vow to Use ‘ICE Storm’ Tactics in Other Cities as Phoenix Sees 

Progress in Human Smuggling Crackdown,” May 18, 2004. 

9

ICE news release, “Homeland Security Expands Efforts to Combat Human Smuggling in 

the Los Angeles Area—Initial Phase of Multi-Agency Operation Focuses on LAX,” July 14, 

2004. 

Expansion of Strategy 

Beyond Arizona 
Appendix II: Creation of the Department of 

Homeland Security Has Provided New 

Opportunities for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 43 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

given the anticipated displacement of smuggling activity to other areas 

along the border resulting from Operation ICE Storm and the Arizona 

Border Control Initiative. Also, the officials noted that although there is no 

one law enforcement strategy totally effective in all areas of the nation, the 

methodologies applied in Arizona with both Operation ICE Storm and the 

Arizona Border Control Initiative were being evaluated and tailored for 

use in other parts of the country. 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 44 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Although Department of Homeland Security components, particularly U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, have primary roles in investigating and interdicting alien 

smuggling, various other agencies—including components of the 

Departments of Justice, the Treasury, and State—also have significant 

roles. While not exhaustive, this appendix highlights some of the 

antismuggling roles of various components of the Departments of 

Homeland Security, Justice, the Treasury, and State (see table 6) and 

provides some examples of actual cases. Also, this appendix discusses two 

coordination mechanisms used to help ensure that available resources are 

effectively leveraged. One coordination mechanism is the National 

Security Council’s Migrant Smuggling and Trafficking Interagency Working 

Group, which is cochaired by State and Justice. The Interagency Working 

Group has a targeting subgroup, whose role is to identify for investigation 

and prosecution the most dangerous international alien smuggling 

networks, especially those that pose a threat to national security. Another 

coordination mechanism is the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center, 

an interagency entity for disseminating intelligence and other information 

to address the separate but related issues of alien smuggling, trafficking in 

persons, and clandestine terrorist travel. Although its establishment was 

announced in December 2000, the center was not operational until July 

2004. 

Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 45 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Table 6: Federal Departments and Components Responsible for Combating Alien 

Smuggling 

Department Components 

Department of Homeland Security U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

• Office of Investigations 

• Office of Intelligence 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

U.S. Coast Guard 

Department of Justice U.S. Attorneys Offices 

Criminal Division 

• Domestic Security Section 

• Organized Crime and Racketeering Section

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service 

• Criminal Investigation 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

Department of State Bureau of Diplomatic Security 

Bureau for International Narcotics and Law 

 Enforcement Affairs 

Source: GAO, based on discussions with federal officials. 

DHS components that have immigration enforcement responsibilities 

include ICE, CBP, and the U.S. Coast Guard. 

ICE is the largest investigative arm of DHS. ICE’s Office of Investigations 

has field offices throughout the nation that are supported by various 

divisions, including the Smuggling/Public Safety Division, whose 

Smuggling/Human Trafficking Branch is responsible for overseeing 

programs to identify, locate, disrupt, and prosecute criminal enterprises 

that (1) bring, transport, harbor, and smuggle people into the United States 

in violation of law or (2) engage in human trafficking. Also, assigned to 

U.S. embassies throughout the world, ICE attachés are to work with their 

counterparts in foreign law enforcement agencies to help coordinate 

Department of 

Homeland Security 

and Its Components 

U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 46 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

investigations and communication, including efforts to follow the money 

and seize the profits of smuggling organizations.1

The types of alien-smuggling cases handled by ICE are illustrated in 

appendix V, which summarizes recent cases prosecuted in three federal 

judicial districts coterminous with the U.S.-Mexico border. Of the total 23 

alien-smuggling cases summarized, the majority (15) involved enforcement 

actions taken by ICE. 

Also, in October 2003, ICE launched Operation ICE Storm in Phoenix, an 

initiative to combat human smuggling and the violence it has generated in 

Arizona (see app. II). The Office of Investigations and ICE’s other major 

internal components—Office of Intelligence, Air and Marine Operations,2

Federal Air Marshal Service, Detention and Removal Operations, and 

Federal Protective Service—are represented in the initiative. 

In August 2004, to enhance efforts aimed at shutting down narcotics and 

human-smuggling routes and networks that operate along the U.S.-Canada 

border, ICE opened an air and marine facility at Bellingham, Washington, 

and announced that similar facilities in four additional northern states 

(New York, Michigan, North Dakota, and Montana) were planned. 

CBP resulted from the merger of most of the legacy U.S. Customs Service 

with all the immigration inspectors and the Border Patrol from the former 

Immigration and Naturalization Service—a merger designed to establish 

“one face at the border.”3

 The Border Patrol’s mission as a front-line 

defender is to patrol the border between official ports of entry to deter, 

detect, and prevent the entry of terrorists and terrorist weapons, illegal 

aliens, and the smuggling of contraband into the United States. 

The types of alien-smuggling cases handled by CBP or the Border Patrol 

are illustrated in appendix V, which summarizes recent cases prosecuted 

 1

Remarks of Michael J. Garcia (Assistant Secretary, ICE), at the U.S. Coast Guard 

Intelligence Coordination Center’s Fourth Annual Human Smuggling and Illegal Migration 

Conference (Apr. 6, 2004). 

2

In 2004, Air and Marine Operations was transferred to CBP. 

3

Our 1993 report provides an historical context of the need for such a merger. See GAO, 

Customs Service and INS: Dual Management Structure for Border Inspections Should Be 

Ended, GAO/GGD-93-111 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 1993). 

U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 47 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

in three federal judicial districts coterminous with the U.S.-Mexico border. 

Of the total 23 alien smuggling cases summarized, almost one-half (10) 

involved enforcement actions taken by U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection or the Border Patrol. 

The Coast Guard is tasked with enforcing U.S. immigration law at sea. The 

Coast Guard implements this responsibility principally by interdicting 

illegal migrants at sea before they reach the shores of the United States. 

Through its interdiction and deterrence efforts, the Coast Guard’s goal is 

to eliminate most of the potential flow of undocumented migrants entering 

the country by maritime routes. 

After the Coast Guard makes interdictions at sea, disposition of the 

migrants may be determined under the Presidential Directive 27 process, 

which involves interagency deliberations that include the National 

Security Council, the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and 

other relevant federal entities.4

 Some cases result in criminal prosecutions 

in the United States, while others may result in foreign prosecutions. 

Generally, however, most migrants interdicted by the Coast Guard are not 

brought into the United States; rather, the migrants are repatriated to the 

departure countries. 

Department of Justice components that have roles in combating the 

smuggling of aliens into the United States include U.S. Attorneys, the 

Criminal Division’s Domestic Security Section and the Organized Crime 

and Racketeering Section, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 

U.S. Attorneys serve as the nation’s principal litigators under the direction 

of the Attorney General. There are 93 U.S. Attorneys stationed throughout 

the United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern 

Mariana Islands. U.S. Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the 

discretion of, the President of the United States, with the advice and 

consent of the U.S. Senate. Each U.S. Attorney is the chief federal law 

enforcement officer of the United States within his or her particular 

 4

The White House; Presidential Directive/NSC 27, Subject: Procedures for Dealing with 

Non-Military Incidents; January 19, 1978. 

U.S. Coast Guard 

Department of Justice 

and Its Components 

U.S. Attorneys 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 48 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

jurisdiction. Among other responsibilities, U.S. Attorneys are responsible 

for prosecuting criminal cases brought by the federal government. For 

example, appendix V summarizes recent alien-smuggling cases prosecuted 

by U.S. Attorneys in three federal judicial districts. 

Among other functions, the Criminal Division’s Domestic Security Section 

has collaborative responsibility for criminal immigration offenses. 

Domestic Security Section officials said: 

• The Domestic Security Section routinely collaborates with U.S. 

Attorney’s Offices in the investigation and prosecution of alien 

smugglers. Nearly all such cases involve investigative activity outside 

the United States. The Domestic Security Section, by reason of its close 

working relationship with ICE and the State Department’s Bureau of 

Diplomatic Security investigators abroad, is in a position to provide 

immediate legal advice and guidance at the early stages of 

investigations. As an investigation develops to the point where venue 

for prosecution becomes evident, the appropriate U.S. Attorney’s 

Office is brought into the investigation. At times, U.S. Attorney’s 

Offices also request the assistance of the Domestic Security Section in 

cases where its expertise in international and intelligence matters 

would significantly assist prosecution efforts. 

• Domestic Security Section attorneys routinely respond to inquiries 

from U.S. Attorney’s Offices for legal and policy guidance on matters 

relating to immigration crimes and violent crime. For example, the 

section works closely with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern 

District of Florida on matters related to maritime alien smuggling, 

especially from Cuba and Haiti. 

Moreover, the officials noted that the Domestic Security Section 

participates on the committee that reviews ICE’s proposed undercover 

investigations involving “sensitive circumstances” that relate to alien 

smuggling or immigration fraud violations. Since proposals often involve 

investigative activity in multiple districts, the Domestic Security Section 

tries to ensure that the appropriate U.S. Attorneys Offices are fully 

informed of and support the proposed undercover operational plans and 

have agreed to prosecute meritorious cases that are developed. 

Criminal Division’s 

Domestic Security Section 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 49 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

According to Justice, the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section has a 

role in combating alien smuggling because (1) alien smuggling has become 

a sophisticated organized criminal activity and (2) the alien-smuggling 

statute and certain immigration fraud offenses are predicate offenses 

under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Justice 

noted, for instance, that Organized Crime Strike Force Units in several 

U.S. Attorney’s Offices, under the supervision of the Organized Crime and 

Racketeering Section, prosecute alien-smuggling cases when the offenses 

involve the activities of organized crime groups. 

While recognizing that DHS is the primary investigating agency with 

respect to alien smuggling, the FBI may play a role in specific 

investigations, particularly those with a nexus to terrorism. Also, the FBI 

may also get involved when alien smuggling becomes the predicate crime 

on an investigation under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 

Organizations Act, or when federal officers, such as Border Patrol agents, 

are assaulted by smugglers. Moreover, the FBI participates in various 

international groups or projects that include a focus on addressing alien 

smuggling. Further, FBI legal attaches in other countries participate in 

activities related to combating alien smuggling. 

At times, alien-smuggling activity may be a component of a terrorist 

organization or other criminal enterprise. Regarding terrorist 

organizations, the FBI’s goal is to identify the global infrastructure of 

terrorists’ travel-facilitating networks that focus on alien smuggling, as 

well as fraudulent document vendors, corrupt foreign government 

officials, and suspect travel agencies. If a nexus to terrorism is established 

for an identified target, the FBI is to assume the lead investigative role 

pursuant to a memorandum of agreement, which was signed in May 2003 

by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security and 

contained a number of provisions designed to resolve jurisdictional issues 

and enhance interagency coordination regarding terrorist-financing 

investigations.5

 The FBI’s lead role in these investigations is implemented 

through Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which can have participants from 

 5

GAO, Investigations of Terrorist Financing, Money Laundering, and Other Financial 

Crimes, GAO-04-464R (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 20, 2004). 

Criminal Division’s 

Organized Crime and 

Racketeering Section 

Federal Bureau of 

Investigation 

Investigations with a Nexus to 

Terrorism or Organized 

Criminal Enterprises 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 50 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.6 In July 2004, the FBI 

provided us the following information: 

• Each JTTF member, including assigned DHS agents, has access to 

investigative and other pertinent information. For instance, the FBI is 

to share intelligence gathered related to alien smuggling and assist in 

assessing trends of this activity. 

• For the period following September 11, 2001, to date, records indicate 

that 5 Joint Terrorism Task Forces reported a total of 11 

accomplishments related to immigration violations. That is, four 

persons were arrested and seven were summoned to appear, which 

initiated their respective deportation process. 

Additionally, in its July 2004 response to our inquiry, the FBI noted that 

two investigations were recently opened with a primary focus on the use 

of false visas and fraudulent entry documents by terrorist group affiliates. 

In its June 2004 response to our inquiries, the FBI cited the following as 

examples of its participation in international groups or projects related to 

alien smuggling: 

• Italian American Working Group. Historically, the Italian American 

Working Group has been a “cop-to-cop” forum for U.S. and Italian 

authorities (executives, supervisory special agents, investigators, 

analysts, etc.) to discuss current law enforcement issues of mutual 

interest, such as drug smuggling, organized crime, international 

terrorism, computer crime, money laundering, and illegal immigration. 

The group meets every other year, alternating between the United 

States and Italy. 

• Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Crime Forum. Held annually since its 

establishment in 1997, the Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Crime Forum 

allows Canadian and U.S. authorities to develop coordinated policies 

for addressing cross-border crimes. According to Justice, the forum 

works through subgroups that deal with various issues, including the 

targeting of alien-smuggling organizations. Justice noted that 

subgroups work on specific law enforcement issues and objectives 

 6

According to the FBI, the first Joint Terrorism Task Force came into being in 1980, and the 

total number of task forces has nearly doubled since September 11, 2001. Today, there is a 

Joint Terrorism Task Force in each of the FBI’s 56 main field offices, and additional task 

forces are located in smaller FBI offices. 

Participation in International 

Groups or Projects 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 51 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

throughout the year and report on their progress and make 

recommendations at the annual meeting of the forum. 

• Project Bridge. Initiated in 1999 and led by Interpol, Project Bridge 

seeks to collect information on organized-crime groups and criminal 

enterprises involved with alien-smuggling activity. The project provides 

strategic intelligence analysis to identify human-smuggling trends and 

routes. Also, the project provides a forum for the international law 

enforcement community to identify issues, discuss cases, and develop 

collaborative investigative and legislative efforts. Besides the FBI, 

other U.S. participants are the Department of Justice, ICE, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection. Also, in addition to the United States, 

participating countries include Australia, Canada, Great Britain, 

member states of the European Union, and countries in central Europe 

and Asia. 

According to the FBI, most (if not all) of the agency’s legal attachés 

overseas are involved in activities related to combating alien smuggling. 

Routinely, for instance, legal attachés liaise with law enforcement 

agencies within the respective countries to target and address aliensmuggling problems. Some examples cited by the FBI in its June 2004 

response to our inquiry included the following: 

• Legat Athens organized a visitation of a Macedonian delegation of 

judges, prosecutors, and investigators. There have been attempts by 

Macedonians to illegally enter the United States through the use of 

false documents—that is, documents that have been found to be 

counterfeit or legitimate documents with the pictures altered. The 

Macedonians are also in the process of implementing more aggressive 

laws to combat this issue. 

• Legat Bangkok is involved in multiple joint investigations targeting 

alien-smuggling organizations based in Bangkok and addressing aliensmuggling activities transiting through Thailand. 

• Legat Rome has a priority interest in alien smuggling from the Balkan 

countries, particularly Albania. For the sole purpose of prostitution, 

women from Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, and other Eastern European 

countries are trafficked through the Balkans for destinations 

throughout Western Europe, Great Britain, and the United States. 

Also, the FBI’s June 2004 response to our inquiry indicated that FBI 

officials had recently met with host government officials in Albania and 

Greece to address various crime problems, including alien smuggling and 

FBI Attachés in Other 

Countries 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 52 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

trafficking of persons. As a result, the FBI noted that it will seek to 

establish a task force in Albania as part of an “upstream” effort to address 

crimes that affect the United States before problems become 

insurmountable. 

Department of the Treasury components that have roles in combating the 

smuggling of aliens into the United States include Internal Revenue 

Service-Criminal Investigation and the Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network (FinCEN). 

Criminal Investigation (CI) is the law enforcement arm of the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS). At times, IRS-CI has conducted alien-smuggling 

investigations jointly with ICE, particularly in areas of high-volume illegal 

immigration, such as Texas, Arizona, and New York. In June 2004, in 

response to our inquiry, IRS-CI provided us the following examples of 

alien-smuggling investigations conducted jointly with ICE (or legacy INS): 

• Valente Sillero, et al. (Austin, Tex.). From 1998 through May 2002, 

Sillero and his associates in Austin were involved in smuggling more 

than 1,000 aliens from Mexico into the United States, charging from 

$800 to $2,200 a head. Sillero’s organization smuggled not only Hispanic 

aliens but also Middle Eastern aliens, although for a higher fee. IRS-CI 

estimates that Sillero’s organization grossed $2 million in a 2-year 

period. Most of the smuggling fees were paid in cash, although a 

portion was paid by wire transmittals made by the aliens’ relatives in 

the United States. In 2002, Sillero was sentenced to 120 months of 

imprisonment. Seized assets included cash ($10,000), a 2002 Solara 

($24,000), a Harley Davidson motorcycle ($10,000), and two tow trucks 

($8,000 and $5,000). 

• Robert and Sheery Lu Porges (New York, New York). From 1993 

through September 2000, Robert Porges (a prominent Manhattan 

immigration lawyer) and his wife, Sheery Lu Porges, aided Chinese 

smugglers by using their law firm to fraudulently create asylum 

requests. In that period of time, more than 1,000 Chinese aliens were 

smuggled into the country, with the Porgeses charging $40,000 to 

$50,000 per alien. Further, the Porgeses filed false income tax returns 

and paid their employees in cash, avoiding all withholdings. On August 

9, 2002, Robert and Sheery Lu Porges were each sentenced to 97 

months of imprisonment and were also ordered to forfeit to the 

government $6 million through the sale of assets. 

Department of the 

Treasury and Its 

Components 

Internal Revenue ServiceCriminal Investigation 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 53 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

• Richard “Trigger” Jones (Abilene, Tex,). Jones was a Deputy U.S. 

Marshal who used his position, from 1996 through 2002, to obtain 

Immigration and Naturalization “parole” documents for several aliens 

whom he had encouraged or induced to remain in the United States on 

the false premises that they would be “law enforcement confidential 

informants.” Jones and others made the aliens provide manual labor at 

various places in and near Abilene. Jones transported the aliens for this 

purpose, and he also filed false tax returns for 1997 through 2002. In 

2004, Jones was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment and fined 

$100,000. 

According to IRS-CI case agents, the smuggling fees paid by aliens often 

are in currency and, therefore, are very difficult to track. Agents noted, for 

instance, that currency proceeds from smuggling on the southwest border 

are simply “bulk carried” back to Mexico where the smugglers (called 

coyotes) have trusted relationships. 

FinCEN, which was established in 1990 to help combat money laundering 

and other financial crimes, does not initiate or carry out any investigations 

on its own. Rather, by serving as a central source for financial intelligence 

information and analysis, FinCEN supports the investigative and 

prosecutive efforts of numerous law enforcement agencies. In doing so, 

FinCEN has access to a variety of commercially maintained databases, as 

well as the investigative-case databases of various federal law 

enforcement agencies.7

 Also, FinCEN administers the largest financial 

transaction reporting system in the world, which is based on recordkeeping and reporting requirements mandated or authorized under the 

Bank Secrecy Act, as amended. 

Enacted in 1970, the Bank Secrecy Act—Public Law 91-508, 84 Stat. 1114 

(1970)—provides the U.S. government’s framework for preventing, 

detecting, and prosecuting money laundering. Despite its name, the Bank 

Secrecy Act, among other things, is a record-keeping and reporting law. As 

originally enacted, the legislation required, for example, the maintenance 

of records by financial institutions and the reporting of certain domestic 

currency transactions and cross-border transportation of currency. A 

purpose of the Bank Secrecy Act is to prevent financial institutions from 

being used as intermediaries for the transfer or deposit of money derived 

 7

GAO, Money Laundering: FinCEN’s Law Enforcement Support Role Is Evolving, 

GAO/GGD-98-117 (Washington, D.C.: June 19, 1998). 

Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 54 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

from criminal activity and to provide a paper trail for law enforcement 

agencies in their investigations of possible money laundering. Over the 

years, the Bank Secrecy Act has evolved into an important tool to help 

deter money laundering, drug trafficking, terrorist financing, and other 

financial crimes. For instance, passage of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 

expanded provisions to prevent, detect, and prosecute terrorist financing 

and extended anti-money laundering requirements to financial service 

providers previously not covered.8

For the period October 2000 through August 2004, FinCEN reported that it 

provided analytical support for a total of 201 alien-smuggling cases. As 

table 7 indicates, the large majority of these cases involved support for 

current or legacy DHS components. 

Table 7: Analytical Support Provided by FinCEN for Alien-Smuggling Cases (Oct. 2000 through Aug. 2004) 

Agency receiving FinCEN assistance Number of cases

Number of 

subjects 

Number of

FinCEN hours

Department of Homeland Securitya 184 1,147 2,616

Department of Justice—Federal Bureau of Investigation 7 20 223

Department of Labor—Inspector General 3 28 No data

Department of State—Bureau of Diplomatic Security 3 5 79

State of Maryland High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force 1 17 No data

Department of the Treasury—IRS-CI 1 9 No data

Social Security Administration—Inspector General 1 2 7

Air Force Office of Special Investigations 1 1 2

Total 201 1,229 2,927

Source: FinCEN data. 

a

The Department of Homeland Security figures include cases of the U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the legacy Immigration and Naturalization 

Service. 

According to FinCEN, the value of its contributions and the significance of 

cases may not be readily apparent because many cases involve long lag 

times between investigation and successful prosecution. Generally, 

however, the way in which FinCEN provided value to the majority of these 

investigations involved identifying and tracking subjects, accounts, and 

businesses through analysis of Bank Secrecy Act data and the available 

 8

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept 

and Obstruct Terrorism Act, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001). 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 55 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

commercial and law enforcement databases. Also, FinCEN noted that it 

has helped investigators understand more complex money-laundering 

methodologies, such as informal transfer systems, that may be associated 

with alien smuggling. 

Department of State components that have roles in combating the 

smuggling of aliens into the United States include the Bureau of 

Diplomatic Security and the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law 

Enforcement Affairs. 

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the law enforcement arm of the 

Department of State, has agents posted in over 160 countries worldwide. 

Diplomatic Security has statutory responsibility for protecting the integrity 

of U.S. passports and visas—widely considered to be the most valuable 

identity and travel documents in the world. Investigations of passport and 

visa fraud often show direct links to alien smuggling. A State Department 

fact sheet (dated May 12, 2004) stated: 

• Nearly 7 million U.S. passports are issued every year. Last year, 

Diplomatic Security investigated 3,200 new cases of passport fraud and 

made 642 arrests. Currently there are more than 400 active arrest 

warrants for passport fraud. 

• Also, visa fraud is coming under closer scrutiny after September 11. 

Such fraud is most commonly committed not by counterfeiting but 

through the sale, or facilitating the issuance process for, unqualified 

visa applicants. 

• Last year, Diplomatic Security arrested 90 individuals on visa fraud 

charges. Of these, 16 arrests were the result of investigations of largescale visa malfeasance operations at 4 locations—the U.S. embassies in 

Colombo (Sri Lanka) and Prague (Czech Republic) and the U.S. 

consulates in Nuevo Laredo and Ciudad Juarez (Mexico). 

The Colombo case involved the payment of hundreds of thousands of 

dollars by people in Sacramento, California, and elsewhere to two U.S. 

citizen employees of the American embassy in exchange for the issuance 

of visas to various foreign nationals, primarily from Vietnam and India. 

The 2-year investigative case—which was initially indicted on May 1, 2003, 

and resulted in guilty pleas on April 30, 2004—reflected multi-agency 

cooperation that involved Diplomatic Security and the State Department’s 

Department of State 

and Its Components 

Bureau of Diplomatic 

Security 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 56 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Bureau of Consular Affairs; the governments of Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and 

Fiji; the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California; the 

Sacramento Joint Terrorism Task Force; FBI; ICE; and state and local law 

enforcement in California, Oregon, and Virginia. 

Announcing the guilty pleas, the Department of Justice’s press release 

noted that the two employees—a State Department foreign service officer 

and her husband, who had been employed in the consular section of the 

American embassy in Sri Lanka—each faced a minimum of at least 5 years 

in prison, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a substantial fine.9

 Also, 

Justice reported that the couple had agreed to forfeit two homes (one in 

Oregon and another in Colorado); a sum of $361,766, including funds 

seized from bank accounts in California, Oregon, Washington, and 

Virginia; and nearly $90,000 in cash recovered from the Oregon home and 

from the pillows of a love seat in Sri Lanka. 

In response to our inquiry regarding efforts to follow the money trail in 

this case, bureau officials explained that: 

• Diplomatic Security investigated the financial gains associated with 

this conspiracy by using established relationships with both domestic 

and foreign law enforcement agencies. Through the use of grand jury 

subpoenas, Diplomatic Security acquired evidence and leads into 

banking and investment firms located in the United States and abroad. 

Additional ill-gotten gains were discovered through intelligence 

analysis and law enforcement techniques, such as interviews, 

surveillance, and trash recovery. 

• Also, Diplomatic Security performed financial analyses of all targets in 

the case, including several “visa brokers.” Through the tracking of 

assets and proceeds, targets were found to be involved in money 

laundering, hiding profits, and using proceeds to invest and make 

mortgage payments. Further, by working with Justice’s Office of 

International Affairs, requests were sent to both Sri Lanka and Fiji for 

information from banks, and both countries provided helpful 

responses. 

 9

Department of Justice press release, “Two U.S. State Department Employees Plead Guilty 

in Bribes-For-Visas Scheme” (Apr. 30, 2004). 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 57 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

In sum, according to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the Colombo case 

exemplifies how document fraud investigations help dismantle illegal 

smuggling rings. 

While the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs 

does not have arrest or other law enforcement authority, its role is to help 

develop policies and programs (e.g., technical assistance and training) to 

combat international narcotics trafficking and other crimes, including 

alien smuggling. For instance, the State Department’s fiscal year 2005 

budget justification reported that the bureau, among other activities (1) 

had provided law enforcement training on combating alien smuggling to 

more than 300 foreign officials in the past 3 years and (2) will work with 

international partners to interdict and halt alien smuggling as far from U.S. 

borders as possible. The budget justification further noted that the bureau 

anticipated providing support to foreign governments that have chosen to 

ratify and implement the UN Convention against Transnational Organized 

Crime and its protocol on migrant smuggling. 

In addition to providing foreign governments with training and other 

material assistance specifically targeted to counter alien smuggling and 

trafficking in persons, the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law 

Enforcement Affairs works with various U.S. federal law enforcement 

agencies to strengthen the institutional capacity of selected countries and 

international organizations to fight crime. State Department officials noted 

that strengthening the underlying rule of law and justice sector 

institutions—such as legal codes, court systems, prosecutorial capabilities, 

investigative capacity, and interagency cooperation—enhances the ability 

to combat alien smuggling and trafficking in persons, even when 

assistance efforts are not targeted exclusively against these crimes. 

In combating alien smuggling, an overarching coordination mechanism to 

help avoid duplication of efforts and ensure that available resources are 

effectively leveraged is the National Security Council’s Migrant Smuggling 

and Trafficking Interagency Working Group, which is cochaired by State 

and Justice and includes participants from DHS and the intelligence 

community. The Interagency Working Group has a targeting subgroup, 

whose role is to identify for investigation the most dangerous international 

alien-smuggling networks, especially those that pose a threat to national 

security. Generally, top priority is to be given to targeting smugglers who 

are suspected of having links to terrorism, whether or not the smugglers 

are aware of those links. Such links may include special interest aliens, 

Bureau for International 

Narcotics and Law 

Enforcement Affairs 

Migrant Smuggling 

and Trafficking 

Interagency Working 

Group: An 

Overarching 

Coordination 

Mechanism 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 58 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

that is, aliens from countries hostile to the United States or where global 

terrorist groups are known to have operated or recruited. Also, the 

subgroup may recommend actions other than investigations. For example, 

the subgroup may recommend intelligence gathering on an identified 

target or recommend that the Department of State use diplomatic means 

to convince a foreign government to take its own action against a target. 

As mentioned previously, if a nexus to terrorism is established for an 

identified target regarding terrorist financing investigations, the FBI is to 

assume the lead investigative role pursuant to a memorandum of 

agreement, which was signed in May 2003 by the Attorney General and the 

Secretary of Homeland Security and contained a number of provisions 

designed to resolve jurisdictional issues and enhance interagency 

coordination.10 The FBI’s lead role in these investigations is implemented 

through Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which can have participants from 

federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. 

Since 2002, according to Justice and the FBI, the efforts of the Interagency 

Working Group, its targeting subgroup, and investigative agencies have 

resulted in the apprehension and prosecution of leaders (more than 15) of 

major smuggling organizations. ICE was the lead investigative entity in the 

majority of the targeted cases. In its May 2005 comments on a draft of this 

report, DHS noted that several of the cases had a nexus to terrorism and 

that ICE had the lead investigative role on all but one of these cases. DHS 

explained that the May 2003 memorandum of agreement pertained to 

financial investigations and not to alien-smuggling investigations. Also, in 

its May 2005 comments on a draft of this report, the State Department 

noted that ICE has been the lead investigative agency in many terrorismrelated investigations, notwithstanding the May 2003 memorandum of 

agreement. State explained that these investigations had considerable 

overseas operations, and ICE had the legacy resources, experience, and 

capabilities. 

 10GAO, Investigations of Terrorist Financing, Money Laundering, and Other Financial 

Crimes, GAO-04-464R (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 20, 2004). 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 59 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

The Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center is an interagency 

coordination entity designed to address the separate but related issues of 

alien smuggling, trafficking in persons, and clandestine terrorist travel. 

The center has had an extended startup history. State and Justice 

announced the center’s establishment (with a slightly different 

predecessor name) as early as December 2000.11 However, because of 

subsequent events—the attacks of September 11, 2001, which resulted in a 

redirection of personnel and resources and a reorganization of the U.S. 

government—the center did not become operational until July 2004. 

The center’s current charter was signed on behalf of the Secretary of State 

on May 19, 2004, and on behalf of the Attorney General and the Secretary 

of Homeland Security on July 9, 2004. The charter states: 

• Federal agencies have acknowledged that intensified efforts, together 

with enhanced interagency coordination, are needed to support more 

effective enforcement, diplomatic, and other actions to counter 

smugglers and traffickers. 

• The center’s efforts will be fundamentally supportive rather than 

directive in nature, consisting primarily of facilitating the dissemination 

of intelligence, preparing strategic assessments, identifying issues that 

would benefit from enhanced interagency coordination or attention, 

and coordinating or otherwise supporting agency or interagency efforts 

in appropriate cases. 

• As such, the center will serve as an all-source fusion entity and 

clearinghouse, with a view to ensuring that the entire community of 

interest receives all useful information relating to migrant smuggling, 

trafficking in persons, and clandestine terrorist travel. 

In December 2004, the center was formally established by Section 7202 of 

the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.12 In addition 

to providing a statutory underpinning for the charter, the 2004 act added 

 11The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Fact Sheet, Migrant Smuggling and 

Trafficking in Persons Coordination Center (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2000). The fact 

sheet reported that “Today, in furtherance of the President’s International Crime Control 

Strategy, the Departments of State and Justice announced the establishment of a Migrant 

Smuggling and Trafficking in Persons Coordination Center.” 

12Pub. L. No. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638, 3813 (Dec. 17, 2004). 

Human Smuggling 

and Trafficking 

Center: Operational 

Potential Not Yet 

Fully Achieved 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 60 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

several additional mandates to the center. Specifically, the act requires the 

center to 

• serve as the focal point for interagency efforts to address terrorist 

mobility; 

• serve as a clearinghouse with respect to all relevant information from 

all federal government agencies in support of the U.S. government 

strategy to prevent terrorist travel, human smuggling, and trafficking in 

persons; 

• ensure cooperation among all relevant policy, law enforcement, 

diplomatic, and intelligence agencies of the federal government to 

improve effectiveness, and to convert all information available to the 

federal government relating to clandestine terrorist travel, human 

smuggling, and trafficking in persons into tactical, operational, and 

strategic intelligence that can be used to combat such illegal activities; 

and 

• prepare and submit to Congress an annual strategic assessment 

regarding vulnerabilities in the United States and foreign travel system 

that may be exploited by international terrorists, human smugglers and 

traffickers, and their facilitators. 

In addition, as part of its mission to combat terrorist travel, the center is to 

work to support the efforts of the National Counterterrorism Center. 

According to State Department officials, the Human Smuggling and 

Trafficking Center is to have a strong foreign focus, and information 

synthesized by the center will support diplomatic efforts and U.S. law 

enforcement cooperation with foreign agencies, as well as inform State’s 

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs in 

providing assistance programs to strengthen certain foreign agencies. For 

example, as of late July 2004, State reported that the center’s 

accomplishments included (1) preparing a strategic assessment on alien 

smuggling from a certain South American country and (2) proposing an 

action plan that the United States presented to the G813 to address 

 13Annual G8 summits bring together the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 

Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In addition, the European Union 

participates and is represented by the President of the European Council and the President 

of the European Commission. The annual meetings cover a broad-based agenda of 

international economic, political, and social issues. 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 61 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

fraudulent document production and alien smuggling in a certain Asian 

country. 

Also, according to State, the center serves as the venue for interagency 

meetings on terrorist mobility, alien smuggling, and trafficking issues, 

including hosting the targeting subgroup of the Interagency Working 

Group. State recognized that partly because the center had only recently 

become operational and was still being staffed,14 there is a need to more 

fully establish procedures for processing and sharing intelligence, law 

enforcement, and other information. For instance, State provided 

explanatory details substantially as follows: 

• A significant amount of the information handled by the center will be 

highly classified or originator controlled and may not be able to be 

used in its original form by law enforcement. Thus, the center will 

explore methods for redacting or summarizing information to be 

shared in appropriate cases. 

• Also, the center is developing relationships with international 

organizations, such as Interpol, as well as with foreign law 

enforcement, intelligence, and immigration authorities to exchange 

information more efficiently. If negotiated agreements are necessary, 

estimating time frames is difficult. 

As mentioned previously, as of March 2005, the center’s staffing level was 

only about one-half of the total full-time-equivalent positions anticipated to 

be filled by the end of calendar year 2005. In this regard, it should be 

noted that section 7202(d) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 

Prevention Act requires the President to transmit to Congress a report 

that, among other things, describes the staffing and resource needs of the 

 14As of July 2004, center staffing consisted of eight full-time-equivalent personnel—that is, 

three full-time State Department personnel (an officer and an information technologist 

detailed from the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs and an 

intelligence analyst detailed from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security); four full-time DHS 

personnel (a Director nominee designate, two senior special agents, and one analyst); one 

part-time DHS senior special agent; and one part-time Central Intelligence Agency senior 

analyst. In March 2005, State Department officials provided us updated information, which 

indicated that the center’s staffing level was approximately one-half of the total 24 fulltime-equivalent positions anticipated to be filled by the end of calendar year 2005. 
Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible 

for Combating Alien Smuggling 

Page 62 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

center.15 The required report is important because the center’s staffing and 

resource needs may affect its ability to perform mandated functions, such 

as preparing and submitting to Congress an annual strategic assessment 

regarding vulnerabilities in the United States and foreign travel system that 

may be exploited. 

 15Section 7202(d) specified that the report shall be transmitted not later than 180 days after 

enactment of the act—that is, not later than June 15, 2005. By memorandum dated April 

21, 2005, the President assigned this reporting function to the Secretary of State. The 

memorandum noted that the reporting function shall be coordinated with the Attorney 

General and the Secretary of Homeland Security. 
Appendix IV: Federal Efforts to Work with 

Foreign Governments to Reduce the Flow of 

Smuggled Aliens into the United States 

Page 63 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Federal efforts to work with governments of source and transit countries 

to prevent illegal entries into the United States include participation in 

both bilateral and multilateral agreements and activities. While not 

exhaustive, this appendix provides an overview of various agreements and 

activities, including efforts to identify and seize smugglers’ funds or assets 

located abroad. 

Federal bilateral efforts to work with foreign governments include 

focusing on source and transit countries, including border nations (Mexico 

and Canada), and using the skills and contacts of federal agents posted 

abroad to address issues upstream. 

The United States has negotiated and signed more than 50 bilateral mutual 

legal assistance treaties (MLATs) with law enforcement partners around 

the world, according to the Department of Justice. Such treaties—which 

are a mechanism for obtaining evidence in a form admissible in a 

prosecution—provide for a broad range of cooperation in criminal 

matters, such as locating or identifying persons, taking testimonies and 

statements, obtaining bank and business records, and assisting in 

proceedings related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets. Justice’s 

Office of International Affairs coordinates the gathering of international 

evidence and, in concert with the State Department, engages in the 

negotiation of new MLATs. 

According to the State Department, the U.S. government has few bilateral 

agreements that solely address alien smuggling; rather, the agreements 

cover a broad range of criminal activity. As examples of bilateral 

agreements that have alien-smuggling provisions, State noted that the 

cross-border accord with Canada and the accord with Cuba have aliensmuggling elements, as do agreements with the government of The 

Bahamas concerning cooperation in maritime law enforcement (which 

entered into force June 29, 2004) and with the government of the 

Dominican Republic concerning maritime counterdrug operations. Also, 

State noted that some extradition treaties that apply the concept of mutual 

criminality allow extradition for the crime of alien smuggling. 

In March 2002, the U.S. and Mexican governments adopted a plan—the 

U.S.-Mexico Border Partnership Agreement—designed to increase border 

security while still facilitating the legitimate flow of people and goods. One 

outcome of the agreement was establishment of a binational Alien 

Appendix IV: Federal Efforts to Work with 

Foreign Governments to Reduce the Flow of 

Smuggled Aliens into the United States 

Federal Bilateral 

Efforts to Work with 

Foreign Governments 

Bilateral Agreements 

Generally Cover a Broad 

Range of Criminal Activity 

U.S.-Mexico Bilateral 

Efforts 
Appendix IV: Federal Efforts to Work with 

Foreign Governments to Reduce the Flow of 

Smuggled Aliens into the United States 

Page 64 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Smuggling and Trafficking Task Force, with a lead role designated for 

ICE’s office in Mexico City. According to ICE, the task force has evolved 

to a point whereby information sharing is now standard operating 

procedure for both ICE and Mexican law enforcement and intelligence 

agencies. ICE officials noted, for example, that Mexican authorities have 

provided information useful in compiling target lists of smugglers to be 

investigated under Operation ICE Storm. 

Another outcome of the partnership agreement was initiation of a pilot 

program in November 2002, the Guide Identification and Prosecution 

Program. The pilot program was initiated by the U.S. Border Patrol’s El 

Centro Sector (located in the southern judicial district of California) and 

Mexico’s Attorney General’s Office (the Procuraduria General de la 

Republica, or PGR). The program’s objective is to target alien smugglers 

and turn them over to Mexican authorities for prosecution, particularly if 

prosecution in the United States is declined. For instance, when a 

smuggler is interdicted in the United States and the U.S. Attorney’s Office 

declines prosecution, Mexican authorities are to review the case and—if 

the case is deemed prosecutable in Mexico—the El Centro Border Patrol 

Sector is to turn over any applicable evidence or casework information. 

According to El Centro Sector officials, the prosecution program was 

needed because the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of 

California was unable to handle all of the potential immigrationenforcement cases. Equally important, both the U.S. and Mexican 

governments were mutually concerned with preserving lives by identifying 

and prosecuting unscrupulous “guides or coyotes” who may lead migrants 

to death or harm in the harsh border terrain. 

For the approximately 2-year period from inception of the pilot Guide 

Identification and Prosecution Program in November 2002 to November 

2004, the El Centro Border Patrol Sector has reported referring 80 aliensmuggling cases to Mexican authorities. On the basis of these referrals, 

Border Patrol officials told us that Mexican federal authorities have 

obtained 31 convictions with jail sentences ranging from 1 to 6 years. 

According to Border Patrol headquarters officials, the Guide Identification 

and Prosecution Program is important and useful in combating alien 

smuggling because the program directly focuses on “foot guides.” The 

officials explained that foot guides who have knowledge of routes through 

deserts or other harsh terrain on the border are far fewer in number than 

truck drivers and are much more difficult to replace or recruit. Thus, the 

officials noted that prosecuting the foot guides helps to dismantle 

smuggling organizations. 
Appendix IV: Federal Efforts to Work with 

Foreign Governments to Reduce the Flow of 

Smuggled Aliens into the United States 

Page 65 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Regarding the future of the program, in August 2003, the Commissioner of 

CBP approved expansion to three additional Border Patrol sectors—San 

Diego, Tucson, and Yuma. However, as of January 2005, the program had 

not been expanded. According to the Assistant Chief Patrol Agent of the El 

Centro Sector, the government of Mexico supports expansion but faces 

resource issues. To help facilitate expansion, the Assistant Chief Patrol 

Agent suggested that it may be necessary for officials from CBP’s Office of 

International Affairs to meet with Mexican government representatives in 

Mexico City. 

Also, to increase bilateral coordination and intelligence sharing, CBP 

officials noted that every southwest border sector has a Mexican Liaison 

Unit to work full-time with counterparts in Mexico. 

U.S.-Canada bilateral efforts to address cross-border crimes include the 

formation of multi-agency Integrated Border Enforcement Teams. 

Originally developed in 1996 to target cross-border criminal activity 

between British Columbia and Washington state, the teams have since 

expanded to cover strategic locations across the entire northern border. 

Core participants in these multi-agency teams are ICE, CBP, U.S. Coast 

Guard, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada Customs and Revenue 

Agency, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Additional participants 

are municipal and provincial law enforcement agencies. Besides targeting 

trafficking in illegal drugs, weapons, vehicles, liquor, and tobacco, the 

integrated teams have reported successful intercepts of criminal networks 

attempting to smuggle illegal migrants across the border. 

Another bilateral effort is the Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Crime Forum. The 

purpose of the forum, held annually since its establishment in 1997, is to 

allow Canadian and U.S. authorities to develop coordinated policies for 

addressing cross-border crimes. According to Justice, the forum works 

through subgroups that deal with various issues, including the targeting of 

alien-smuggling organizations. Justice noted that subgroups work on 

specific law enforcement issues and objectives throughout the year and 

report on their progress and make recommendations to the Canadian 

Deputy Prime Minister and the U.S. Attorney General at the annual 

meeting of the forum. 

In December 2001, the Canadian and U.S. governments signed the Smart 

Border Declaration and an associated 30-point action plan designed to 

enhance the security of the two nations’ shared border while facilitating 

the legitimate flow of people and goods. The action plan reflected 

U.S.-Canada Bilateral 

Efforts 
Appendix IV: Federal Efforts to Work with 

Foreign Governments to Reduce the Flow of 

Smuggled Aliens into the United States 

Page 66 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

continuing support for Integrated Border Enforcement Teams and the 

Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Crime Forum. 

In recent years, recognizing that Ecuador had become a major source and 

transit country for aliens entering the United States, the State 

Department’s Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement 

Affairs has provided technical assistance to Ecuador for strengthening its 

investigative and prosecutorial capacity to combat alien smuggling. For 

example, the bureau’s budget justification for fiscal year 2005 reported 

that the first-ever, U.S.-funded alien smuggling vetted unit was established 

in Quito, Ecuador; computers were purchased for use at the international 

airport in Quito; and funding was also provided to detail a team of 

attorneys to Ecuador to provide guidance on strengthening aliensmuggling legislation. Further, the 2005 budget justification noted plans 

for creating one or more additional alien-smuggling vetted units in the 

Dominican Republic, Guatemala, or Mexico and that the unit(s) would be 

trained in the areas of investigative techniques, consensual monitoring, 

anticorruption, and antismuggling. 

As mentioned previously, in addition to providing foreign governments 

with training and other material assistance specifically targeted to counter 

alien smuggling and trafficking in persons, the Bureau for International 

Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs works with various U.S. federal 

law enforcement agencies to strengthen the institutional capacity of 

selected countries and international organizations to fight crime. In this 

regard, State Department officials noted that strengthening the underlying 

rule of law and justice sector institutions—such as legal codes, court 

systems, prosecutorial capabilities, investigative capacity, and interagency 

cooperation—enhances the ability to combat alien smuggling and 

trafficking in persons, even when assistance efforts are not targeted 

exclusively against these crimes. 

Also, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials said that CBP has been 

proactive in pushing out the border. As an example, the officials noted that 

BORTAC—-a specially trained tactical unit of the Border Patrol—has 

helped Honduras plan and put into operation an organization with border 

police-type responsibilities. 

Another upstream effort by the U.S. government to combat alien 

smuggling and other transnational crime is the posting of federal law 

enforcement agents abroad to work with their counterparts in foreign law 

enforcement agencies: 

Federal Assistance to 

Ecuador and Other 

Countries 

Federal Law Enforcement 

Agents at U.S. Embassies 

and Consulates 
Appendix IV: Federal Efforts to Work with 

Foreign Governments to Reduce the Flow of 

Smuggled Aliens into the United States 

Page 67 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

“In order to develop prosecutable criminal cases against principals in international aliensmuggling organizations, the United States must have an effective investigative capability 

in various parts of the world. ... Exact capabilities will vary by country, but United States 

law enforcement agents and prosecutors stationed at United States embassies and 

consulates often have excellent working relationships with their counterparts. Frequently, 

United States law enforcement personnel posted abroad can obtain information or 

evidence informally. If formal mutual assistance is needed, for example, if the evidence 

was not obtained in an admissible form, the information or evidence gathered informally 

may provide the basis for drafting a formal request.”1

As discussed in appendix III, federal agencies with overseas postings 

include not only the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, 

but also the FBI and ICE. 

ICE has 50 overseas offices (attachés). According to ICE, to reduce the 

flow of aliens into the United States, federal agents posted abroad are a 

necessary element in planning operations and exchanging case-related 

intelligence between ICE investigative units and foreign law enforcement. 

ICE headquarters officials said that human smuggling and related criminal 

activities are directly connected to the activities of organizations operating 

throughout the Americas (South America, Central America, and Mexico), 

as well as South Africa. The officials noted, for example, that—as a result 

of increased coordination, training, and communications led by ICE with 

the governments of Colombia, Guatemala, and South Africa—new 

investigations have been initiated into human-smuggling organizations. 

Also, the officials noted that the ICE attaché in Ecuador has made 

progress in addressing ICE’s mission of extending the border by 

dismantling human-smuggling organizations abroad. 

Regarding multilateral efforts to address people smuggling, in December 

2000, the United States and over 120 other countries signed the UN 

Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and more than 75 of 

these countries signed a supplementary agreement—the Protocol against 

the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air. The main purpose of the 

convention and the protocol is to enable the international community to 

better combat organized crime by harmonizing nations’ criminal laws and 

promoting increased cooperation. Before entering into force, the 

 1

Michael Surgalla and Arthur Norton, “International Aspects of Criminal Immigration 

Enforcement,” United States Attorneys’ Bulletin, September 2003. 

Multilateral Protocol 

on Migrant Smuggling 
Appendix IV: Federal Efforts to Work with 

Foreign Governments to Reduce the Flow of 

Smuggled Aliens into the United States 

Page 68 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

convention had to be ratified by at least 40 countries. Nations may be a 

party to the convention only but not to the protocol only. 

The convention and the protocol have entered into force, although the 

United States has signed but has yet to ratify the convention. According to 

Justice, the entry into force of the convention and the protocol has 

increased the effectiveness of immigration enforcement efforts with 

regard to several countries. For instance, the fact that the protocol is now 

in force in a particular country can be used to induce that country to 

assume its responsibilities by accepting the return of its nationals and 

prosecuting smugglers under its criminal laws. Also, Justice noted that, 

once the United States becomes a party to the protocol, certain extradition 

treaties that the United States has with other state parties will be deemed 

amended to include alien-smuggling offenses and travel document fraud as 

defined in the protocol. In addition, Justice noted that the United States 

will be able to utilize the protocol’s mutual legal assistance provisions in 

dealing with those state parties that currently do not have a bilateral treaty 

with the United States for such assistance. 

According to some estimates, alien smuggling globally generates billions of 

dollars in illicit revenues annually. How much of the total involves aliens 

smuggled into the United States is not known, although the United States 

is often a primary destination country. Also, according to ICE officials, 

much of the U.S.-related smuggling revenues either may not be paid in this 

country or, if paid here, may be transported or transmitted abroad quickly. 

As such, federal efforts to combat alien smuggling by following the money 

trail frequently may present investigators and prosecutors with 

opportunities and challenges related to identifying and seizing funds or 

assets not located in the United States. The MLAT process is one tool 

available to help investigators and prosecutors meet these opportunities 

and challenges. 

In March 2005, to get a sense of the extent to which federal law 

enforcement agencies were using the MLAT process to follow the money 

trail abroad in alien smuggling cases, we contacted Justice’s Office of 

International Affairs. In reference to alien-smuggling cases, we asked for 

information regarding the number of requests made to foreign 

governments for assistance through provisions of an applicable MLAT or 

Federal Efforts to 

Identify and Seize 

Smugglers’ Funds or 

Assets Abroad 
Appendix IV: Federal Efforts to Work with 

Foreign Governments to Reduce the Flow of 

Smuggled Aliens into the United States 

Page 69 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

by a letter rogatory.2 According to the Deputy Director, the number of 

outgoing requests for formal law enforcement assistance in aliensmuggling cases is few in comparison with requests in cases of drug 

trafficking, money laundering, fraud, and various other offenses. For 

matters considered to be alien-smuggling cases, the Deputy Director noted 

that it would be very difficult to quantify the exact number of requests 

made to foreign countries. In explanation, the Deputy Director commented 

substantially as follows: 

• The Office of International Affairs’ database was created a number of 

years ago to track an extremely large volume of international requests. 

The database was not originally designed to include a category of “alien 

smuggling.” This category designation was added to the database 

within only the last few years. Under this specific category, the 

database currently shows 10 pending outgoing requests and 3 closed 

outgoing requests. 

• Further, the database has an “immigration violation” category, which 

would include alien smuggling and has existed for some time. 

Currently, the database shows over 160 closed cases in this category. 

Also, we asked ICE headquarters for information regarding formal 

requests made in attempts to follow the money trail on alien-smuggling 

investigations that have extended overseas. That is, we asked how many 

MLAT requests were made in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, to which 

countries, and what have been the results in terms of assets tracked or 

seized. The Office of Investigations’ Asset Forfeiture Unit responded that it 

had no way of determining the number of MLAT requests. ICE officials 

noted, however, that none of ICE’s reported seizures from alien-smuggling 

cases in fiscal year 2004 ($7.3 million) and the first 6 months of fiscal year 

2005 ($7.8 million) were made abroad. 

We made a similar inquiry for information from the State Department’s 

Bureau of Diplomatic Security. In response, the bureau noted that it has 

been a full member of the Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture 

Program since October 1, 2004, and—after admission to the program—has 

taken steps to prepare and encourage agents to consider forfeiture 

 2

A letter rogatory is a method of obtaining assistance from abroad in the absence of a treaty 

or executive agreement. Essentially, this formal device is a request from a court in one 

country to a court in another country to seek international judicial assistance in obtaining 

testimony or other evidence. 
Appendix IV: Federal Efforts to Work with 

Foreign Governments to Reduce the Flow of 

Smuggled Aliens into the United States 

Page 70 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

whenever possible, including seeking the seizure and forfeiture of assets 

abroad. Additional comments were substantially as follows: 

• Because participation in Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Program is relatively 

new, the bureau has submitted only one MLAT request seeking the 

seizure and forfeiture of illegal assets overseas, and this request was 

still pending as of March 2005. However, the bureau currently is 

conducting numerous criminal investigations that most likely will 

result in the submission of several more MLAT requests to various 

foreign countries to seek the seizure and forfeiture of illegal funds and 

assets. 

• The MLAT process sometimes may be very time consuming and on 

occasion has discouraged Assistant U.S. Attorneys from pursuing 

forfeiture of illegal assets via an MLAT request. In the absence of an 

MLAT, the letter rogatory process may be even more burdensome and 

time consuming and the results less certain. 

The bureau noted that in addition to utilizing the MLAT process, there are 

other procedures for gathering evidence or seizing the proceeds of a 

crime. For example, as part of a plea agreement, a defendant may consent 

to repatriate overseas assets to the United States without the involvement 

of the host country. Finally, the bureau emphasized that the ability to 

equitably share with foreign law enforcement agencies a percentage of the 

proceeds seized based on their assistance and participation in 

investigations is a very useful tool in securing the seizure and forfeiture of 

illegal assets overseas. 
Appendix V: Examples of Alien-Smuggling 

Cases Prosecuted in Federal District Courts 

Page 71 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

This appendix summarizes selected alien-smuggling cases prosecuted in 

federal district courts in three districts—the District of Arizona, the 

Southern District of California, and the Southern District of Texas. Each of 

these federal judicial districts is coterminous with the U.S.-Mexico, or 

southwest, border. To identify alien-smuggling cases federally prosecuted 

in these districts, we reviewed press releases issued by the respective U.S. 

Attorney’s Office during January through June 2004. For this 6-month 

period, our review found that the three districts issued press releases that 

covered a collective total of 23 alien-smuggling cases—District of Arizona 

(9), Southern District of California (3), and Southern District of Texas 

(11). In April and May 2005, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys 

provided us updated information on the results (e.g., convictions and 

sentencing provisions) of these cases. 

As summarized below, most of the 23 cases were reactive-type cases, with 

no money trail being pursued. However, a few cases (particularly in 

Texas) were proactive investigations—including the use of undercover 

agents—and had a focus on pursuing financial transactions. Further, 

according to ICE officials, certain aspects of the relevant cases were still 

open at the time of our review, and investigators were continuing to follow 

the money trail. Regarding the reactive-type cases, ICE and U.S. Attorney’s 

Office officials emphasized that several of the cases involved fatalities and 

were prosecuted based on public safety concerns. Also, officials indicated 

that law enforcement agencies can gather and consolidate intelligence 

from reactive cases as a basis for developing larger or proactive cases. 

The nine alien-smuggling cases prosecuted in Arizona reflected a range of 

circumstances. For example (see table 8): 

• Five of the cases involved truck (or tractor-trailer) drivers who were 

transporting as many as 65 undocumented aliens. In one of these cases, 

when the driver was fleeing from authorities, a 16-year-old female fell 

from the truck bed and died after being run over by the truck. 

• Another two cases involved female U.S. citizens who were attempting 

to bring Mexican children into the United States. One of these cases 

involved 5 Mexican children, and the other case involved a 1-year-old 

Mexican boy. 

• Another case reflects victimization and intimidation in the humansmuggling trade; that is, 23 undocumented aliens who were walking 

Appendix V: Examples of Alien-Smuggling 

Cases Prosecuted in Federal District Courts 

District of Arizona 
Appendix V: Examples of Alien-Smuggling 

Cases Prosecuted in Federal District Courts 

Page 72 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

through the desert near Three Points, Arizona, were robbed and held 

for ransom. 

Table 8: District of Arizona Alien-Smuggling Cases Reported by U.S. Attorney’s Office Press Releases (January to June 2004) 

Press release number, date, and U.S. 

Attorney case number 

Case facts, law enforcement agencies involved, and results (sentencing penalties 

or case status) 

Press release 2004-027 

February 6, 2004 

Case number CR-03-2360 TUC 

Facts: The evidence showed at trial that, on November 4, 2003, the defendant was driving 

a pickup truck near Arivaca, Arizona. A U.S. Border Patrol agent could see the knees and 

elbows of numerous individuals bouncing in the bed of the truck as it traveled through dips 

and washes. When the agent tried to perform a traffic stop on the vehicle, it failed to yield. 

Additional Border Patrol agents were able to successfully deflate the vehicle’s front tires 

with controlled tire deflation devices. However, the vehicle continued to elude agents until 

it eventually left the roadway and crashed through a fence into the open desert. Border 

Patrol agents riding ATVs continued the pursuit despite having objects, including a spare 

tire, thrown at them from the back of the truck. When the vehicle came to rest, agents 

immediately apprehended the driver (the defendant) as he attempted to flee. 

Subsequent investigation revealed the presence of 11 undocumented aliens in the bed of 

the truck and 14 undocumented aliens in the cab of the truck, including numerous children 

and infants. Defendant was also an illegal alien who had previously been deported from 

the United States. 

Law enforcement agencies: Tucson and Nogales Sectors of U.S. Border Patrol. 

Results: On February 5, 2004, a federal jury in Tucson found the defendant guilty of two 

counts of transportation of illegal aliens for commercial advantage or private financial gain 

(8 U.S.C. § 1324) and one count of illegal reentry following deportation (8 U.S.C. § 1326). 

The defendant was sentenced to 43 months in prison, but after being appealed, the 

sentence was reduced to 21 months. 

Press release 2004-032 

February 13, 2004 

Case number CR-03-1728 

Facts: At trial, the evidence showed that on August 7, 2003, the defendant was driving a 

pickup truck with five illegal aliens, including three in the open bed of the truck, when 

stopped by U.S. Border Patrol agents near Marana, Arizona. The defendant claimed that 

he was just helping the people by taking them to a store. He also told Border Patrol 

agents there were more people on his property in a mobile home, where agents 

subsequently found 18 illegal aliens hiding. 

Law enforcement agencies: U.S. Border Patrol. 

Results: On February 12, 2004, a federal jury in Tucson found the defendant guilty of two 

counts of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and one count of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii). On 

October 29, 2004, the defendant was sentenced to 18 months in prison, to be followed by 

2 years of supervised release. 

Press release 2004-035 

February 17, 2004 

Press release 2004-056 

March 15, 2004 

Case number CR-04-0147-PHX-SRB 

Facts: On January 20, 2004, the defendant’s tractor-trailer was stopped at a Border Patrol 

checkpoint near Yuma, Arizona. A routine canine sniff alerted agents to search the tractortrailer. Removing stacked pallets in the back of the tractor-trailer, agents discovered 65 

illegal aliens, including 20 females and 11 juveniles. The defendant admitted to knowingly 

transporting the aliens for a fee of $1,600. 

Law enforcement agencies: U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

Results: On March 15, 2004, the defendant pled guilty to one count of transporting illegal 

aliens for profit. The defendant was sentenced to 24 months in prison, to be followed by 

3 years of supervised release. 
Appendix V: Examples of Alien-Smuggling 

Cases Prosecuted in Federal District Courts 

Page 73 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Press release number, date, and U.S. 

Attorney case number 

Case facts, law enforcement agencies involved, and results (sentencing penalties 

or case status) 

Press release 2004-038 

February 18, 2004 

Case number CR-04-0153-PHX 

Facts: On January 26, 2004, defendant was driving a Freightliner tractor-trailer when he 

stopped at a Border Patrol checkpoint on Highway 95 north of Yuma, Arizona. He told the 

agents he was hauling citrus crates, but he could not produce any documentation for the 

load. Upon receiving consent to search the trailer, agents removed some of the stacked 

crates, discovering 50 illegal aliens (46 from Mexico and 4 from El Salvador) hiding in the 

trailer. The aliens had entered the trailer in a citrus grove in Yuma and had been shut 

inside for about 2 hours. 

Law enforcement agencies: U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

Results: Defendant was indicted on February 18, 2004, for transporting illegal aliens. 

Records regarding the sentencing and judgment of conviction are sealed. 

Press release 2004-041 

February 20, 2004 

Case number CR-03-1854-TUC-FRZ 

Facts: The evidence revealed on August 22, 2003, that two female U.S. citizens were 

stopped at the Douglas Port of Entry in Arizona, attempting to enter the United States with 

five children, who were citizens of Mexico. Both defendants claimed the children were 

theirs and were also U.S. citizens. The defendants had made prior arrangements with a 

man named Juan to pick up the children in Mexico from a stranger and get them into the 

United States illegally. Defendants were going to be paid $50 per child. 

Law enforcement agencies: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

Results: On February 19, 2004, both defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy to bring in 

illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. The defendants were sentenced to prison 

terms of 16 and 15 months, respectively. 

Press release 2004-045 

February 23, 2004 

Case number CR-03-2297-TUC-CKJ 

Facts: On October 23, 2003, a female U.S. citizen with three children was stopped at the 

Douglas Port of Entry in Arizona. She claimed all the children were U.S. citizens. 

However, a 1-year-old boy was a citizen of Mexico. The woman falsely claimed to be a 

babysitter for this child, but the evidence showed that she had driven to Mexico and 

picked up this boy, whom she did not know, from a stranger. She planned to take him to 

“Luis” in a trailer park in the United States. She expected to receive $300 once she 

delivered the child. 

Law enforcement agencies: ICE. 

Results: On December 12, 2003, the defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to bring in 

illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. On February 23, 2003, the defendant was 

sentenced to 22 months in prison—18 months for this offense plus 4 months for violating 

her probation by engaging in the same act of child smuggling. 

Press release 2003-069 

April 8, 2004 

Case number CR-03-2448-TUC 

Facts: On November 15, 2003, the defendant attempted to enter the United States from 

Mexico at Arizona’s Douglas Port of Entry accompanied by an adult female and a 7-yearold female. The defendant falsely claimed that the child was a U.S. citizen. The adult 

presented an Oregon identification document claiming U.S. citizenship. Upon further 

questioning by authorities, the defendant admitted she did not know the names of either 

the adult or child. The defendant said she had been given documents for the two aliens to 

facilitate entry into the United States and had coached them on what to say when they 

entered. The defendant also said that she and the two Mexican citizens were planning to 

take the bus to Tucson where the child’s father would pick her up. 

Law enforcement agencies: ICE. 

Results: On April 8, 2004, the defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to transport illegal 

aliens, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324, and was sentenced to 33 months in prison to be 

followed by 3 years of supervised release. 
Appendix V: Examples of Alien-Smuggling 

Cases Prosecuted in Federal District Courts 

Page 74 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Press release number, date, and U.S. 

Attorney case number 

Case facts, law enforcement agencies involved, and results (sentencing penalties 

or case status) 

Press release 2004-079 

April 27, 2004 

Case number CR-03-1709-TUC-RCC 

(NFF) 

Facts: On August 7, 2003, law enforcement agents observed numerous suspected 

undocumented aliens loading into the bed of a parked truck outside of Sells, Arizona The 

agents pulled in front of the truck and identified themselves as law enforcement agents. 

The defendant backed the truck up and then went forward, fleeing from the scene. In 

doing so, a 16-year-old undocumented female in the truck bed fell out of the truck, and the 

defendant ran over her, killing her instantly. The defendant crashed into another truck and 

was arrested. The defendant told agents that he was taking the group of undocumented 

aliens to Phoenix, where he would be paid a set amount for each illegal alien. 

Law enforcement agencies: ICE and Tohono O’Odham Police Department. 

Results: On April 23, 2004, the defendant pled guilty to felony transportation of an illegal 

alien (resulting in death) and conspiracy to transport illegal aliens. The defendant was 

sentenced to 57 months in prison and ordered to pay restitution of $1,104 (the cost of 

transporting the body of the deceased female to Mexico). Also, the defendant was 

sentenced in state court for negligent homicide, with the state sentence (6 years in prison) 

to run concurrently with the federal sentence. 

Press release 2004-094 

May 18, 2004 

Case number CR-04-4857M 

Facts: On March 29, 2004, five Mexican men with numerous firearms approached a group 

of 23 undocumented aliens who were walking through the desert near Three Points, 

Arizona. The defendants robbed the group and told the aliens they would be taken to a 

nearby trailer where members of the group could contact a family member to pay a 

ransom. One member of the group escaped and contacted a Department of Public Safety 

officer. This member later led U.S. Border Patrol officers back to the scene, and the 

defendants fled but were soon captured. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is working closely with 

Department of Homeland Security agencies to prosecute human smugglers identified as 

part of the Arizona Border Control initiative, a statewide law enforcement effort launched 

by DHS in March 2004 to deter the illicit trafficking of people and drugs. ICE described this 

case “as yet another example of the victimization and intimidation that amount to business 

as usual in the human smuggling trade.” 

Law enforcement agencies: ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

Results: On May 17, 2004, all five defendants pled guilty to conspiracy to commit hostage 

taking, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1203. Three of the five defendants were each sentenced to 

10 years of prison. Also, the other two defendants were sentenced to prison for 121 

months and 120 months, respectively, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. 

Source: GAO summary of press releases (January through June 2004) by U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, and sentencing 

information provided by the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. 

During the period January to June 2004, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the 

Southern District of California issued press releases for three aliensmuggling cases (see table 9). One case involved the attempted smuggling 

of Chinese aliens, which resulted in the death of a Border Patrol agent. In 

the second case, an inspector from the legacy Immigration and 

Naturalization Service was charged with conspiracy. The third case 

involved a vehicle accident, resulting in the death of four aliens. 

California, Southern 

District 
Appendix V: Examples of Alien-Smuggling 

Cases Prosecuted in Federal District Courts 

Page 75 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Table 9: Southern District of California Alien-Smuggling Cases Reported by U.S. Attorney’s Office Press Releases (January to 

June 2004) 

Press release datea

 Case facts, law enforcement agencies involved, and results (sentencing penalties or case status) 

April 30, 2004 Facts: On December 16, 2003, the defendant was caught attempting to smuggle three undocumented 

Chinese nationals across the Colorado River to Arizona on the border area between California and 

Arizona. During the course of the rescue and apprehension of the group, a U.S. Border Patrol agent died 

of apparent drowning. The defendant was charged in a12-count indictment, including bringing in and 

transporting illegal aliens resulting in death, and bringing in illegal aliens for financial gain. 

Law enforcement agencies: FBI and U.S. Border Patrol. 

Results: The defendant pled guilty to bringing in illegal aliens resulting in death in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 

1324(a)(1)(a),(V)(ii) and (a)(1)(B)(iv) and aiding and abetting. The defendant was sentenced on 

September 10, 2004, to serve a prison term of 57 months, followed by 5 years of supervised release. 

May 25, 2004 Facts: Two members of a Mexican family allegedly arranged for the smuggling of marijuana and aliens 

through lanes at the San Ysidro Port of Entry manned by an INS inspector (defendant number 1). The 

inspector resigned in August 2001, following the seizure of a large amount of marijuana at an auto repair 

shop he frequented. The investigation, which began with the sale of false immigration documents to an 

INS undercover agent, was subsequently assigned to the Border Corruption Task Force, which included 

agents from the FBI, ICE, and the DHS Inspector General’s Office. Ten defendants are involved in this 

case: the former INS inspector (defendant number 1) and three other U.S. citizens, three Mexican 

citizens, and three resident aliens. FBI and DHS agents arrested defendant number 1 in Atlanta, Georgia, 

as he was returning from Paris, France. 

Law enforcement agencies: FBI, ICE, DHS Office of Inspector General, and Border Corruption Task 

Force. 

Results: On May 25, 2004, the former INS inspector and nine additional defendants were arraigned. All 10 

defendants were charged with conspiracy to bring in illegal aliens and bringing in illegal aliens for financial 

gain in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. Five defendants were charged with conspiracy to import marijuana in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963. Three defendants were charged with importation of marijuana 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. One defendant was charged with use of false immigration 

documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546. 

As of April 15, 2005, nine defendants had pled guilty (including defendant number 1), and sentencing was 

pending; one defendant remained at large. 

June 16, 2004 Facts: Two defendants were involved in the smuggling of 21 undocumented aliens through the desert of 

Imperial County in a SUV. While in route, the loaded vehicle blew a tire and rolled over on highway 78, 

resulting in the deaths of four of the aliens. 

Law enforcement agencies: U.S. Border Patrol, ICE, California Highway Patrol, and Imperial County 

Sheriff’s Office. 

Results: On June 16, 2004, one defendant, as part of a plea agreement, pled guilty to one count of 

bringing in an illegal alien, resulting in death, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) and (B)(iv); and 

three counts of bringing in illegal aliens for financial gain, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). The 

second defendant pled guilty to one count of bringing in an illegal alien, resulting in death, a violation of 8 

U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i); and one count of bringing in an illegal alien for financial gain in violation of 8 

U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). 

On October 1, 2004, one defendant was sentenced to 60 months in prison, followed by 3 years of 

supervised release. The second defendant was sentenced to 46 months in prison, followed by 3 years of 

supervised release. 

Source: GAO summary of press releases (January through June 2004) by U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, and 

sentencing information provided by the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. 

a

The press releases from this district had dates but did not have reference numbers, nor did the press 

releases cite U.S. Attorney case numbers. 
Appendix V: Examples of Alien-Smuggling 

Cases Prosecuted in Federal District Courts 

Page 76 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

During the period January to June 2004, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the 

Southern District of Texas issued press releases for 11 alien-smuggling 

cases (see table 10): 

• Two of these cases involved multiple alien fatalities—specifically, 11 

illegal immigrants in a locked railroad grain car and 19 from 

confinement in an abandoned tractor-trailer. And, in a third case, a 

fleeing 17-year-old Guatemalan national was struck and killed by 

oncoming highway traffic. 

• Two other cases involved the smuggling of Chinese nationals into the 

United States. In one of these cases, the convicted defendant forfeited 

$250,000 in cash assets earned from the smuggling venture. 

• In another case, five South Americans involved in an international 

smuggling ring were prosecuted in the United States, even though the 

truck that transported the ring’s human cargo of undocumented aliens 

was intercepted near Monterrey, Mexico. According to the press 

release, prosecution of these defendants was the first use in the 

Southern District of Texas of a law providing for the prosecution of 

crimes that occurred outside the territorial limits of the United States. 

The law takes into account the facts that the aliens’ ultimate 

destination was the United States and the smuggling operation would 

have the most effect in the United States. 

Texas, Southern 

District 
Appendix V: Examples of Alien-Smuggling 

Cases Prosecuted in Federal District Courts 

Page 77 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Table 10: Southern District of Texas Alien-Smuggling Cases Reported by U.S. Attorney’s Office Press Releases (January to 

June 2004) 

Press release number and datea

Case facts, law enforcement agencies involved, and results (sentencing penalties 

or case status) 

040105-flores 

January 5, 2004 

Facts: The evidence introduced during the trial showed that the charges resulted from an 

incident that occurred in east Houston on June 3, 2003. On that date, a Houston Police 

officer responded to a call regarding possible alien smuggling taking place at 908 Cesar 

Chavez Street, Houston, Texas. On arrival, 29 illegal aliens were found inside the building 

at that address. ICE agents were called to the scene and began interviews, which led to 

the arrests of the two defendants. Defendant number 1 was identified as being in charge 

of the premises on Cesar Chavez Street. A search of the premises revealed a notepad 

containing information with which the smugglers could contact family members and friends 

to arrange the payment of smuggling fees. The notepad containing the contact information 

was sent to the DHS forensic unit, and a handwriting analysis found that the handwriting 

in the notepad matched the known handwriting of defendant number 1. 

The illegal aliens told investigating agents they entered the United States near 

Brownsville, Texas. Defendant number 2 was identified as a guide who led them through 

the brush in South Texas to circumvent the Border Patrol checkpoint in Sarita, Texas. 

Testimony also showed the illegal aliens were transported from South Texas to Houston in 

a number of vehicles to the building on Cesar Chavez Street. 

Law enforcement agencies: ICE and Houston Police Department. 

Results: Both defendants were convicted in a jury trial that concluded on August 28, 2003. 

On January 5, 2004, the U.S. Attorney announced that each defendant was sentenced to 

27 months imprisonment for conspiracy to harbor and transport illegal aliens and five 

counts of concealing illegal aliens. 

040115-reyes 

January 15, 2004 

Facts: The evidence introduced during three separate trials showed that five South 

Americans were involved in an international smuggling ring that transported 

undocumented aliens through El Salvador, Guatemala, and Mexico into the United States. 

The truck transporting the aliens was intercepted near Monterrey, Mexico, and Mexican 

authorities detained the truck and human cargo. The group (who were mostly El 

Salvadorans) had traveled by foot and then were transported in open bed trucks to 

become part of a human cargo of 146 men and women loaded into a tractor-trailer among 

stacked crates of bananas and apples. Witnesses identified defendant number 1 as the 

owner of the house in San Salvador where they paid initial smuggling fees, along with 

providing relatives’ names to be contacted for the remaining payment of their fees. 

Defendants number 2, 3, 4, and 5 acted as guides or provided food and water during the 

journey. 

Law enforcement agencies: ICE. 

Results: Five persons (four El Salvadorans and one Guatemalan) were convicted in three 

jury trials that ended on January 15, 2004. Defendant number 1 was sentenced to 82 

months in federal prison without parole for conspiring to aid and abet the smuggling of 

undocumented workers into the United States and transporting illegal aliens. The other 

prison terms levied were 8 years for defendants number 2 and 4, 66 months for defendant 

number 3, and 33 months for defendant number 5. 

Prosecution of these defendants was the first use in the Southern District of Texas of a 

law providing for the prosecution of crimes that occurred outside the territorial limits of the 

United States. The law takes into account the facts that the aliens’ ultimate destination 

was the United States and the smuggling operation would have the most effect in the 

United States. 
Appendix V: Examples of Alien-Smuggling 

Cases Prosecuted in Federal District Courts 

Page 78 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Press release number and datea

Case facts, law enforcement agencies involved, and results (sentencing penalties 

or case status) 

040204-frazier 

February 4, 2004 

Facts: The defendant was arrested on April 21, 2003, after U.S. Border Patrol agents 

discovered four undocumented Mexican aliens in the trunk of a rental car. Among the four 

persons were a 3-year-old girl and her mother. The defendant was a front-seat passenger 

when the car was stopped and searched at the immigration checkpoint on Interstate 

Highway 35, approximately 15 miles north of Laredo. Evidence presented at trial showed 

he was involved in a larger conspiracy to transport and harbor aliens approximately 2 

months before his arrest. He picked up undocumented aliens at a local hotel near the 

interstate highway and the Rio Grande river, placing them in the trunk of a rental car for 

transport to San Antonio, Texas. He dropped them off at a hotel, which served as a 

staging area and drop-off point for the undocumented aliens. According to trial testimony, 

it is believed that most of the undocumented aliens were bound for locations in and 

around Texas, including San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, and Houston. 

Law enforcement agencies: U.S. Border Patrol. 

Results: The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in September 2003 of conspiracy to 

transport 26 undocumented aliens within the United States and was sentenced to 70 

months in federal prison, without parole. He was also fined $5,000 and assessed a $200 

fee for the federal crime victims’ fund. 

040218-lara 

February 18, 2004 

Facts: On May 16, 2003, Victoria County Sheriff’s Department officers discovered a group 

of 18 aliens concealed in the back of a tractor-trailer after being called to a rest area on 

U.S. Highway 59, about 5 miles north of Victoria, Texas. According to aliens aboard the 

tractor-trailer, the defendant (a Mexican national with U.S. resident alien status) had given 

them a pickaxe to use as a way out of the trailer in the event of an emergency. 

On June 26, 2003, Border Patrol agents discovered another group of illegal aliens inside 

two grain-hopper bins in a train yard in Harlingen, Texas. Upon discovery, the agents 

estimated that the temperature inside the grain-hopper approached 120 degrees. One 

woman, who was 5 months pregnant, was airlifted to Valley Baptist Hospital, and another 

four aliens required medical treatment. According to agents, the local fire department had 

to decontaminate the aliens, who were all covered in soda ash. The majority of the aliens 

in both groups were Mexican nationals, but some were from Honduras and El Salvador. 

The defendant paid drivers $500 to $800 for every alien transported, and two aliens stated 

they had agreed to pay the defendant $1,500 to transport them from the Rio Grande 

Valley to Houston. 

Law enforcement agencies: U.S. Border Patrol, ICE, and Victoria County Sheriff’s Office. 

Results: The defendant pleaded guilty to smuggling, transporting, and harboring over 200 

undocumented aliens from the Rio Grande Valley to Corpus Christi, Victoria, and Houston, 

Texas. Further, he possessed a firearm during the commission of the offense and had 

obstructed justice by threatening a potential witness against him. He was sentenced to 

188 months in federal prison, without parole. 
Appendix V: Examples of Alien-Smuggling 

Cases Prosecuted in Federal District Courts 

Page 79 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Press release number and datea

Case facts, law enforcement agencies involved, and results (sentencing penalties 

or case status) 

040220-salman 

February 20, 2004 

Facts: Mexican federal agents arrested the defendant in November 1999 attempting to 

transport four Chinese nationals into the United States. He was transferred to the United 

States in a prisoner exchange program. The defendant admitted that—while based in 

Quito, Ecuador, and Mexico City—he worked closely with his wife in Houston and others 

to move Chinese nationals into the United States for commercial and private financial 

gain, creating and using fraudulent immigration documents to facilitate their movement 

into the United States, and laundering the money generated by his illegal activity. The 

defendant and others operated from five separate locations—including Brooklyn, New 

York; Mexico City; and Guang-Zhou City, China—and a Houston house and condominium 

the defendant owned. Federal undercover agents successfully penetrated the smuggling 

enterprise. The defendant unwittingly directed his wife to pay an undercover agent over 

$250,000 in cash for his services relating to the aliens’ arrival in Houston from Quito. The 

defendant arranged for the aliens to be transported by plane from Houston to New York. 

The defendant also admitted that he and others agreed to launder over $250,000 in cash 

proceeds earned from their smuggling enterprise. They set up bank accounts in Houston 

and New York to deposit smuggling funds and also used a safe deposit box to store cash 

proceeds. The defendant will be forfeiting his interest in a condominium used during the 

conspiracy to conceal and harbor some of the aliens and $250,000 in cash assets earned 

from the smuggling venture. 

Law enforcement agencies: U.S. Border Patrol, legacy Immigration and Naturalization 

Service, FBI, and Internal Revenue Service. 

Results: The defendant pleaded guilty to importing 29 Chinese nationals into the United 

States via Mexico and Ecuador between 1999 and 2001. The defendant was convicted of 

racketeering conspiracy with an international smuggling enterprise based in China and 

was sentenced to prison for 51 months, without parole. 

040226-romero 

February 26, 2004 

Facts: ICE initiated an investigation in October 2003 based on information about possible 

alien-smuggling activity occurring at an apartment complex in Houston. Agents witnessed 

activity consistent with alien smuggling while conducting physical surveillance on the 

apartment. Upon entering the apartment, agents found a total of 36 undocumented aliens, 

mostly from Brazil and some from Mexico. Further investigation revealed that defendant 

number 4 delivered the aliens to the apartment, and defendant number 2 concealed and 

guarded the aliens. After defendant number 3 had delivered several undocumented aliens 

to defendant number 4 in Corpus Christi, Texas, Western Union receipts indicated that 

defendant number 4 had wired $3,300 to defendant number 3 in McAllen, Texas. Finally, 

defendant number 4 and defendant number 1 drove some of the aliens in separate 

vehicles from the apartment to Atlanta, Georgia. 

Law enforcement agencies: ICE. 

Results: On February 25, 2004, all four defendants were convicted of conspiring to harbor 

and transport undocumented aliens. The four defendants were sentenced to prison for 12, 

21, 24, and 30 months, respectively. 
Appendix V: Examples of Alien-Smuggling 

Cases Prosecuted in Federal District Courts 

Page 80 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Press release number and datea

Case facts, law enforcement agencies involved, and results (sentencing penalties 

or case status) 

040304-licea 

March 3, 2004 

Facts: Defendant number 1, a Mexican citizen, was convicted in March 2003 for his role in 

a smuggling operation that resulted in the deaths of 11 illegal immigrants in a rail car in 

October 2002 in Denison, Iowa. He pled guilty to conspiring to transport and harboring 

undocumented aliens. Court documents indicated that the defendant was an integral part 

of an international smuggling operation moving illegal aliens from Central America into the 

United States through Mexico between January 2000 and February 2003. The 

organization harbored the aliens in drop houses in or near Harlingen, Texas, transported 

the aliens usually by rail past the U.S. Border Patrol check point in Sarita, Texas, then by 

vehicle to Houston, Texas, and other parts of the country. In June 2002, the defendant 

and other coconspirators lost track of a locked railroad grain car into which 11 

undocumented aliens had been loaded. The 11 aliens were found 4 months later in the 

same locked rail car at a depot in Denison, Iowa, having died of dehydration and 

hyperthermia. 

Several other defendants have been charged with various aspects of the crime. One 

defendant, a former conductor for the Union Pacific Railroad, provided the group with 

information on the scheduled stops and locations of northbound trains headed out of the 

Rio Grande Valley so that the smugglers would know when and where they could load the 

aliens. 

Law enforcement agencies: ICE, FBI, Crawford County Iowa Sheriff’s Office, Denison 

Police and Fire Departments, Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation, Union Pacific 

Railroad Police, and the Iowa State Medical Examiner’s Office. 

Results: As of April 2005, sentencing was still pending for defendant number 1 and the 

former railroad conductor. Four other defendants received sentences of 57 months, 33 

months, and 21 months (two defendants), respectively. Another two individuals remained 

fugitives as of April 2005. 
Appendix V: Examples of Alien-Smuggling 

Cases Prosecuted in Federal District Courts 

Page 81 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Press release number and datea

Case facts, law enforcement agencies involved, and results (sentencing penalties 

or case status) 

Five press releases (the “Victoria 19” 

case): 

040301-Williams 

March 15, 2004 

040322-Gaytan 

March 22, 2004 

040412-Holloway 

April 12, 2004 

040429-Garcia 

April 29, 2004 

040614-Chavez 

June 14, 2004 

Facts: Fourteen persons were charged in a superseding indictment on March 15, 2004, 

for their alleged involvement in a smuggling operation in which at least 74 undocumented 

aliens from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, and 

Guatemala were loaded onto a tractor-trailer near Harlingen, Texas, to be transported to 

Houston. This smuggling operation resulted in the deaths of 19 undocumented aliens—17 

of whom were found dead in and around the trailer abandoned by the driver in Victoria, 

Texas, on May 14, 2003. Fifty-five undocumented aliens survived the ill-fated journey. 

Each undocumented alien was charged approximately $1,800 in smuggling fees for the 

trip. 

Law enforcement agencies: ICE; Texas Department of Public Safety (including the Texas 

Rangers); the Victoria County Sheriff’s Department; and the McAllen, Harlingen, and 

Victoria Police Departments. 

Results: A Jamaican national (the truck driver) has been charged with being part of a 

conspiracy to smuggle and transport undocumented aliens for financial gain that allegedly 

resulted in the death of some of the aliens. The Attorney General has authorized the 

death penalty be sought against this defendant, whose jury trial began on February 22, 

2005. A partial verdict was returned on March 23, 2005; appellate issues are pending. 

The status (as of April 2005) of other 13 defendants was as follows: 

• Four defendants had pled to the conspiracy count, which carries a maximum penalty 

of life imprisonment, and were awaiting sentencing. 

• One defendant had pled guilty to harboring and transporting a smuggled 3-year-old 

child and was sentenced to 14 months’ confinement. 

• One defendant’s jury trial had been suspended pending completion of an appeal to 

the Fifth Circuit. 

• Following a 3-week jury trial, two defendants were convicted on numerous counts of 

the superseding indictment. Many of the counts carry a maximum penalty of life 

imprisonment. The defendants were awaiting sentencing. 

• One defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal 

Rules of Criminal Procedure was granted by the district court judge upon completion 

of the government’s case in chief. The defendant was in the custody of ICE and was 

undergoing deportation proceedings. 

• Three defendants were expelled from Mexico to the United States on February 9, 

2005, and were apprehended that same day upon arrival at the George Bush 

Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas. The defendants were being detained 

awaiting trial, which is scheduled for October 17, 2005. 

• One defendant was a fugitive in Mexico, and the United States was seeking 

extradition. 
Appendix V: Examples of Alien-Smuggling 

Cases Prosecuted in Federal District Courts 

Page 82 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Press release number and datea

Case facts, law enforcement agencies involved, and results (sentencing penalties 

or case status) 

040401-Chen 

April 1, 2004 

Facts: The indictment is the result of an ICE undercover operation in late 2003, during 

which federal agents infiltrated an organization by posing as alien smugglers willing to 

transport Chinese nationals into the United States. The husband and wife defendants 

(both Chinese nationals) made payments of $12,000 to $17,000 per alien to undercover 

agents for their assistance in the smuggling scheme, which allegedly reached over 

$100,000 for the 12 undocumented aliens brought to the United States over a 3-month 

period. 

According to the indictment, the two defendants were members of an organization 

specializing in making arrangements for illegal alien immigrants from the People’s 

Republic of China to be smuggled into the United States via Thailand and certain Central 

American countries. Human smugglers guided the aliens in the Central American 

countries to staging areas south of the U.S. border. Typically, the aliens were required to 

pay a portion of their total smuggling fee in advance of their departure, with the balance 

due after arriving in the United States. Upon being guided into the United States by 

smugglers, the aliens were held in drop houses or hotels until their relatives or friends paid 

the balance of the smuggling fee. 

Law enforcement agencies: ICE. 

Results: The defendants were charged with 12 counts of smuggling for commercial gain 

and private financial advantage and 4 counts of money laundering for the more than 

$100,000 in fees paid to the undercover officers. Sentencing of the two convicted 

defendants was set for May 2005; each defendant faces a mandatory minimum sentence 

of 3 years in prison. 

040526-Garcia-Garcia 

May 26, 2004 

Facts: The evidence showed that on December 2, 2003, U. S. Border Patrol agents on 

routine patrol near Premont, Texas, saw a pickup truck they believed to contain 

undocumented aliens. The agents turned on their emergency equipment and attempted to 

stop the vehicle. As the driver (later identified as the defendant) of the vehicle slowed, all 

of the occupants of the truck jumped out and fled. One occupant, a 17-year-old 

Guatemalan national, ran across the highway into the path of an oncoming tractor-trailer 

and was struck and killed. The defendant was tracked down and arrested. 

Law enforcement agencies: U. S. Border Patrol and ICE. 

Results: The defendant (a Mexican citizen) pleaded guilty to transporting an 

undocumented alien for private financial gain, resulting in the death of a 17-year-old 

Guatemalan national. The defendant was sentenced to 64 months in prison. 

040629-Vera 

June 29, 2004 

Facts: Evidence revealed that on April 29, 2004, a Texas Department of Public Safety 

trooper attempted to stop a speeding Chevrolet Suburban traveling along Highway 59 

near El Campo, Texas. The defendant attempted to elude the trooper by veering into the 

southbound lane of oncoming traffic, jumping the median into the northbound lane and 

resuming travel at a high speed. However, a tire on the car blew out, forcing him to stop. 

He attempted to escape on foot but was arrested by the trooper. Five aliens illegally in the 

United States were found hiding in the Suburban. 

The defendant admitted to ICE agents that he had received a telephone call from an alien 

smuggler offering to pay him a fee to transport undocumented aliens from Victoria, Texas, 

to Houston. He said he had picked up the aliens in Victoria, Texas, and was transporting 

the aliens to Houston, Texas. 

Law enforcement agencies: ICE and Texas Department of Public Safety. 

Results: On June 28, 2004, the defendant (a U.S. citizen) pleaded guilty to transporting 

undocumented aliens for private financial gain. The defendant was sentenced to 6 months 

of imprisonment. 
Appendix V: Examples of Alien-Smuggling 

Cases Prosecuted in Federal District Courts 

Page 83 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Source: GAO summary of press releases (January through June 2004) by U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, and 

sentencing information provided by the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. 

a

The press releases from this district did not cite U.S. Attorney case numbers. 
Appendix VI: Possible Effects of Not Having a 

Civil Forfeiture Provision for Real Property 

Used to Facilitate Alien Smuggling 

Page 84 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

In March 2005, on the basis of its survey of U.S. Attorneys Offices along 

the southwest border, the Department of Justice provided us summary 

examples of recent or pending alien-smuggling cases in which real 

property used to facilitate the offense could not be forfeited because of the 

absence of statutory civil forfeiture authority. According to Justice, the 

following summaries are illustrative of typical cases that recur with great 

frequency. 

The Phoenix office of the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona 

reported a variety of instances in which the absence of a civil forfeiture 

statute for real property used to commit an alien-smuggling offense 

precluded the forfeiture of the property. In one case, the government did 

not discover that the alien smuggler owned real property that he had used 

to commit the offense until after the criminal case was over. At that point 

it was too late to seek criminal forfeiture of the property, because criminal 

forfeiture must be imposed as part of the defendant’s sentence, and the 

absence of civil forfeiture made it impossible to recover the property. 

Therefore, the property remained in the hands of the convicted smuggler. 

In two other cases, the U.S. Attorney was unable to forfeit stash houses 

used to hold illegal aliens because the houses were rented from third 

parties, who could not be charged with the criminal offense. In the 

absence of civil forfeiture authority, the government was powerless to 

forfeit these properties, even after the government sent the landlords 

warning letters giving them notice that their property was being used 

illegally and advising them to take steps to stop the illegal use.1

The Tucson office of the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona 

reported having cases in which properties used to store illegal aliens are 

owned by corporations. Because the corporations themselves are not 

prosecuted criminally for the alien-smuggling offenses, there was no 

possibility of criminal forfeiture of the properties, even if the alien 

smugglers were convicted. 

 1

Justice noted that, in some instances, the federal authorities were able to refer cases to the 

Arizona Attorney General for civil forfeiture under Arizona law. 

Appendix VI: Possible Effects of Not Having 

a Civil Forfeiture Provision for Real Property 

Used to Facilitate Alien Smuggling 

District of Arizona 
Appendix VI: Possible Effects of Not Having a 

Civil Forfeiture Provision for Real Property 

Used to Facilitate Alien Smuggling 

Page 85 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

The United States Attorney for the Central District of California reported 

three separate incidents in the second half of calendar year 2004 in which 

a rental property was used as a stash house for the forced detention of 

large numbers of illegal aliens. In each case, the stash house was a virtual 

prison, complete with bars and steel gates. Those facts and other 

circumstances made it likely that the landlord was aware of the purposes 

for which the properties were being used. Thus, the landlord would not 

have been able to assert a valid innocent owner defense to a civil 

forfeiture action. However, there was insufficient evidence to charge the 

landlord (as opposed to the tenant) with an alien-smuggling violation—

thus, precluding criminal forfeiture of the property. As a result, given the 

absence of a civil forfeiture provision for real property, the rental 

properties used as stash houses were exempt from forfeiture. 

The United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas reported 

having a pending case in which fugitives hiding in Mexico owned real 

property in Texas that they have used as a staging area for alien smuggling. 

Because the property owners are fugitives, there is no possibility of 

forfeiting the property criminally. Also, in the absence of a civil forfeiture 

statute for real property, there is no possibility of forfeiting the property 

civilly. 

The same office reported being currently engaged in active investigations 

of cases in which hotels, motels, and private homes are used as staging 

areas for alien smuggling. Typically, the properties are temporary holding 

sites for aliens awaiting transport. In most cases, the owners of the 

properties are relatives of the smugglers—and, therefore, are aware of the 

smuggling activity—but are not themselves engaged in the smuggling 

operation. Thus, it is unlikely that any of the properties could be forfeited 

criminally. 

Central District of 

California 

Southern District of 

Texas 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security 

Page 86 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 

Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security 

Page 87 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security 

Page 88 GAO-05-305 Federal Response to Alien Smuggling (440317) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER