United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

March 1998 ILLEGAL ALIENS

Changes in the Process

of Denying Aliens

Entry Into the United

States

GAO/GGD-98-81

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-275638 

March 31, 1998

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch

Chairman

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable Henry J. Hyde

Chairman

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was enacted

September 30, 1996. Among other things, this act included new provisions establishing an

expedited removal process for dealing with aliens who attempt to enter the United States by

engaging in fraud or misrepresentation (e.g., falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen or

misrepresenting a material fact) or who arrive with fraudulent, improper, or no documents (e.g.,

visa or passport). The new process went into effect on April 1, 1997, and reduces aliens’ rights

to seek review of an inadmissibility decision. As part of this new process, aliens who are subject

to expedited removal and assert a fear of being returned to their home country or country of

last residence are to be provided a credible fear interview. The purpose of this interview is to

identify aliens whose asylum claims have a significant possibility of succeeding.

This report addresses (1) how the expedited removal process and Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS) procedures to implement it are different from the process and

procedures used to exclude aliens before the 1996 Act; (2) the implementation and results of

the process for making credible fear determinations during the 7 months following April 1, 1997;

and (3) the mechanisms that INS established to monitor expedited removals and credible fear

determinations and to further improve these processes. It also provides information on INS’ and

immigration judges’ estimates of costs to implement the expedited removal process and the

time required to adjudicate expedited removal cases and credible fear determinations.

Copies of this report are being sent to the Attorney General; the Director, Office of Management

and Budget; and other interested parties. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix

IX. If you need any additional information or have any questions, please contact me on

(202) 512-8777.

Richard M. Stana

Associate Director

Administration of Justice Issues
Executive Summary

Purpose The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

(the 1996 Act) amended the Immigration and Nationality Act. The 1996 Act

included provisions establishing a new process for dealing with aliens who

attempt to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or

misrepresentation (e.g., falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen or

misrepresenting a material fact) or who arrive with fraudulent, improper,

or no documents (e.g., visa or passport). This process, which is called

expedited removal, gives Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)

officers, instead of immigration judges, the authority to formally order

these aliens removed from the United States. The expedited removal

process reduces aliens’ rights to seek review of removal orders. Aliens

who are subject to expedited removal and express a fear of being

persecuted or tortured if they are returned to their home country or

country of last residence are to be provided a credible fear interview. The

purpose of this interview is to identify aliens whose asylum claims have a

significant possibility of succeeding. The expedited removal process went

into effect on April 1, 1997.

The 1996 Act requires GAO to report on the implementation of this new

process. This report responds to that requirement by describing (1) how

the expedited removal process and INS procedures to implement it are

different from the process and procedures used to exclude aliens before

the 1996 Act; (2) the implementation and results of the process for making

credible fear determinations during the 7 months following April 1, 1997;

and (3) the mechanisms that INS established to monitor expedited

removals and credible fear determinations and to further improve these

processes. GAO also provides information on INS’ and immigration judges’

estimates of costs to implement the expedited removal process and the

time required to adjudicate expedited removal cases and credible fear

determinations.

Background Aliens who want to be admitted to the United States at a port of entry

generally are to present documents to INS inspectors that show the aliens

are authorized to enter. INS can prohibit aliens from entering the United

States for a number of reasons (e.g., criminal activity or failing to have a

valid visa or passport).

In the years preceding the passage of the 1996 Act, concerns were raised

about the difficulty of preventing illegal aliens from entering the United

States and the difficulty of identifying and removing the illegal aliens once

they entered this country. The expedited removal process was designed to

Page 2 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Executive Summary

prevent aliens who attempt to enter the United States by engaging in fraud

or misrepresentation or who arrive without proper documents from

entering this country at our ports of entry.

Before the 1996 Act, aliens who attempted to enter the United States by

engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or who arrived with fraudulent,

improper, or no documents could be formally ordered removed only by an

immigration judge through a process called an exclusion hearing. With the

passage of the 1996 Act, INS inspectors can issue formal removal orders

(which are called expedited removal orders), instead of immigration

judges, to aliens who attempt to enter the United States by engaging in

fraud or misrepresentation or who arrive with fraudulent, improper, or no

documents. As part of the expedited removal process, INS inspectors are to

provide the aliens with required information and to ask the aliens specific

questions, including questions on whether the aliens have a fear of being

returned to their home country or country of last residence. With few

exceptions, aliens cannot request an immigration judge’s review of the INS

inspectors’ removal decisions. However, before the orders are issued,

supervisors are to review the inspectors’ removal decision.

The purpose of having the inspector ask aliens questions about a fear of

being returned is to identify aliens who may have a credible fear of

persecution and, thus, may be eligible for asylum. Inspectors also are to

pursue any other indications from the aliens that they have such a fear. If

aliens exhibit a fear of return, inspectors are to refer the alien to an asylum

officer for a credible fear interview. The purpose of this interview is to

identify aliens whose asylum claims have a significant possibility of

succeeding. The asylum officers are to provide required information to

aliens and obtain specific information from aliens that is related to their

having a credible fear of persecution and being subjected to torture. In all

cases, a supervisor is to review the asylum officers’ credible fear

determinations.

Aliens whom the asylum officers find to have a credible fear are to be

referred to an immigration judge for a removal proceeding. The judge is to

decide during this proceeding whether the aliens’ asylum claims warrant

their being granted asylum in the United States. If the asylum officer finds

that the alien does not have a credible fear, the alien has a right to request

that an immigration judge review the negative credible fear determination.

If the immigration judge agrees with the asylum officer’s negative credible

fear determination, the alien cannot appeal the immigration judge’s

decision and is to be removed through the expedited removal process. If

Page 3 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Executive Summary

the immigration judge disagrees with the asylum officer’s negative credible

fear determination, the alien then can apply for asylum before an

immigration judge through the removal proceeding process.

In doing its study, GAO reviewed INS’ and immigration courts’ data and

records to obtain nationwide information about aliens attempting to enter

the United States before and after the 1996 Act. GAO visited 5 judgmentally

selected locations that handled about half of the 29,170 expedited removal

cases between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997. At these 5 locations,

GAO (1) reviewed 434 randomly selected case files so that estimates could

be made about all of the expedited removal cases in these locations

between May 1 and July 31, 1997, that did not go on to a credible fear

determination interview and (2) observed a limited number of INS

inspectors’ interviews with aliens, asylum officers’ credible fear

determinations, and immigration judges’ reviews of negative credible fear

determinations. In addition, GAO reviewed all 84 negative credible fear

determination case files nationwide for aliens who attempted to enter the

United States between May 1 and July 31, 1997. GAO also met with

Department of Justice officials and representatives from nongovernmental

organizations who are knowledgeable about the expedited removal

process.

Results in Brief Two major differences between the exclusion process used before the

1996 Act and the act’s expedited removal process are INS inspectors’

authority to issue the expedited removal order and the aliens’ limited right

of review of that order. Other changes included an increased penalty for

inadmissible aliens, including those subject to expedited removal, and a

more structured inspection process for expedited removal than for the

previous exclusion process. Also, generally at the five locations GAO

visited, INS estimated that the amount of time its inspectors took to

complete the expedited removal process was greater than the amount of

time used to complete the steps required of INS inspectors in the exclusion

process. The increase in time was due, in part, to the additional steps

required of INS inspectors in the expedited removal process. This increased

time by INS inspectors could be offset by reductions in time by immigration

judges who no longer make these removal decisions.

During the first 7 months that the expedited removal process was in place,

29,170 aliens attempted to enter the country and were placed in expedited

removal. INS inspectors referred 1,396 of these aliens to asylum officers for

credible fear interviews. As of December 1997, almost all of the

Page 4 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Executive Summary

approximately 27,800 remaining aliens had been removed from the United

States. At the five locations it visited, GAO reviewed documentation in

randomly selected case files of aliens subject to expedited removal (but

were not referred for a credible fear interview) between May 1 and July 31,

1997. The results of this review showed that between an estimated

80 percent and 100 percent of the time INS inspectors and supervisors

documented that they followed certain INS procedures. These documented

procedures included activities such as supervisors’ review of inspectors’

removal orders and inspectors’ asking aliens specific questions about their

fear of being returned to their home country or country of last residence.

Of the 1,396 aliens referred to asylum officers for credible fear

determinations, asylum officers completed interviews with 1,108 as of

November 13, 1997, and found that 79 percent had a credible fear.

Immigration judges received 198 cases to review asylum officers’ negative

credible fear determinations between April 1 and October 31, 1997. The

judges affirmed the asylum officers’ determinations in 83 percent of these

cases. GAO’s nationwide review of all 84 negative credible fear

determination case files between May 1 and July 31, 1997, and 9

observations made during visits to the 5 locations, showed that asylum

officers generally documented that they followed INS procedures.

However, some case files indicated that the asylum officers did not

document reading certain required information to the alien.

INS has developed or is in the process of developing mechanisms to

monitor the expedited removal procedures, including the credible fear

determinations. These mechanisms include creating an Expedited

Removal Working Group to visit locations and address problems, creating

a quality assurance team at headquarters to review selected credible fear

files, and meeting with nongovernmental organizations to discuss issues

and concerns. INS has made changes to its processes on the basis of

concerns raised by these internal reviewers and outside organizations.

GAO’s Analysis

Differences Between the

Exclusion and Expedited

Removal Processes

The 1996 Act and the implementation of the expedited removal provision

affected immigration proceedings in numerous ways. A major difference

between the exclusion process in place before the 1996 Act and the

expedited removal process is that under the exclusion process, aliens

Page 5 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Executive Summary

could have received a hearing before an immigration judge to determine

their eligibility for entry into the United States. Furthermore, under the

exclusion process, aliens had the right to appeal the immigration judges’

decisions not to allow them to enter the country to the Board of

Immigration Appeals. Aliens also could appeal an adverse decision by the

Board through the federal courts. However, the federal court’s review was

limited to whether the government followed established procedures.

Under the expedited removal process, INS inspectors can issue removal

orders to aliens, and aliens cannot request an immigration judge’s review

of the INS’ decisions, with few exceptions. (See pp. 35 and 36.)

Other changes resulting from the 1996 Act or its implementation include

the following:

• The penalty for aliens who are found inadmissible to the United States,

including those subject to expedited removal, generally was increased

from a 1-year reentry prohibition before the 1996 Act to a 5-year

prohibition after the 1996 Act. (See p. 36.)

• INS developed specific procedures for inspectors to follow when

processing aliens subject to expedited removal. These procedures include

specific steps for (1) advising aliens of their rights and the consequences

of the expedited removal process, (2) taking a sworn statement from the

alien that is to include all pertinent facts of the case, and (3) obtaining

supervisory review of inspectors’ decisions. Furthermore, INS inspectors

now have additional responsibility for identifying aliens who fear being

returned to their home country or country of last residence and for

referring these aliens to an asylum officer for a credible fear interview.

(See pp. 36 and 37.)

• INS estimates that the changes in INS’ procedures resulting from the 1996

Act generally increased the average time needed by inspectors to process

affected aliens at the five locations GAO visited. Specifically, for cases not

involving a credible fear referral, the estimated average time needed to

process cases increased between 30 minutes and 2 hours at three

locations, and the time generally remained the same at the other two

locations. Times involved in steps in the pre-1996 exclusion process that

are no longer applicable were not included in GAO’s analysis. (See pp. 37

and 38.)

Implementation of the

Expedited Removal

Procedures

Between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, INS data showed that 29,170

aliens were processed under the expedited removal procedures, which

includes 1,396 aliens who were referred for a credible fear interview and

Page 6 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Executive Summary

27,774 aliens who were not referred for a credible fear interview. Almost

all of the 27,774 aliens were removed from the United States, as of

December 15, 1997. (See pp. 40 and 41.)

GAO’s reviews of case file documentation indicated a range of compliance

with certain aspects of the required expedited removal processes at the

five locations. For example, case file documentation indicated that in

almost all instances aliens signed their sworn statement, as required. The

files showed, however, that at four of the locations inspectors did not

always document that they asked aliens all three of the required questions

to determine if the aliens had a fear of returning to their home country or

country of last residence. The inspectors did not document that they asked

at least one of the required questions between an estimated 1 and

18 percent of the time at these locations. The case files also had

documentation that supervisors reviewed the expedited removal orders in

an estimated 80 to 100 percent of the cases at the five locations. (See pp.

42 through 44.)

An INS official said that INS, through its monitoring efforts, also has

identified case files that did not document that these processes occurred.

She added that INS reiterated to field offices that the required questions

must be asked and that supervisors must review the orders. In addition,

the case files are to contain documentation that these questions were

asked and that the review was done. (See pp. 43 and 44.)

Implementation of the

Credible Fear Process

INS inspectors referred 1,396 aliens who attempted to enter the United

States between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, to an asylum officer for

a credible fear interview. Asylum officers completed interviews for 1,108

of these aliens as of November 13, 1997, and found that 79 percent had a

credible fear of persecution. The percentage of aliens whom asylum

officers determined to have a credible fear ranged by asylum office from

59 to 93 percent. In 198 cases between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997,

aliens requested that an immigration judge review the asylum officers’

negative credible fear determinations. The judges affirmed the asylum

officers’ negative credible fear determinations in about 83 percent of these

cases. (See pp. 48, 49, and 51.)

GAO’s review of all of the 84 negative credible fear determination case files

nationwide for a 3-month period showed that asylum officers generally

documented that they followed procedures for determining an alien’s

credible fear of persecution. However, asylum officers did not consistently

Page 7 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Executive Summary

document in the case files that they followed procedures for providing the

aliens information regarding torture. The case files showed that asylum

officers marked on the record of interview that (1) in 83 cases, they read

the required paragraphs regarding the aliens’ fear of persecution and (2) in

81 cases, they informed the aliens of their right to have an immigration

judge review a negative credible fear determination. In 19 cases, the

asylum officers did not mark that they read the paragraph on torture. Of

the nine credible fear interviews that GAO attended, asylum officers

generally followed INS’ procedures regarding credible fear interviews,

including reading the required information on torture. An INS official said

that INS has reiterated to its asylum officers that they are to ask the torture

questions in the credible fear interview. (See pp. 49 and 50.)

INS Efforts to Monitor the

Expedited Removal

Process, Including the

Credible Fear Process

INS has developed or is in the process of developing mechanisms to

monitor the expedited removal process, which includes the credible fear

determination process. For example, INS established an Expedited

Removal Working Group to identify and address policy questions,

procedural and logistical problems, and quality assurance concerns related

to the expedited removal process. INS’ Asylum Office established a quality

assurance team at headquarters to review selected credible fear case files.

The purposes of the case file reviews are to analyze decisions in individual

cases, provide feedback to applicable asylum officers, and identify trends

or patterns on the basis of the reviews. In addition, INS’ Office of Internal

Audit has incorporated into its field audit program, criteria for reviewing

compliance with the expedited removal procedures. (See pp. 53 and 54.)

INS also has met periodically with nongovernmental organizations to

discuss issues related to the expedited removal process, including the

credible fear process. Several nongovernmental organizations raised

general concerns regarding the expedited removal process and identified

specific problems that aliens said they encountered when they arrived at

ports of entry. (See pp. 54 and 55.)

On the basis of concerns raised by INS internal reviewers and outside

organizations, INS has made or is making changes to its processes and

continues to monitor compliance with its policies and procedures. (See p.

56.)

Recommendations Since INS has established mechanisms to monitor and improve the

expedited removal process and has taken steps to address the

Page 8 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Executive Summary

documentation problems GAO identified, GAO is making no

recommendations in this report.

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review and

comment. On March 16, 1998, we met with Department of Justice officials,

including INS’ Director, International Affairs, to obtain Justice’s comments.

Overall, the officials stated that the report was accurate and fair. They also

provided technical comments, which have been incorporated in this report

where appropriate.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

16

Aliens Attempting to Enter the United States at Ports of Entry 17

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 19

Agency Comments 22

Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and

Expedited Removal

Processes

23

The Exclusion Process 23

The Expedited Removal Process 27

Differences Between the Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

35

Implementation of the Expedited Removal Process 38

Chapter 3 

The Credible Fear

Process

46

The Credible Fear Process 46

Data on Aliens Referred for Credible Fear Interviews 48

Results of Case File Reviews and Observations 49

Negative Credible Fear Determination Review by the Immigration

Judge

51

Chapter 4 

INS’ Mechanisms to

Monitor the

Expedited Removal

Process

53

INS Monitoring Activities 53

Concerns Raised by Nongovernmental Organizations 54

Changes to the Expedited Removal Procedures 56

Appendixes Appendix I: Pending Litigation Challenging the Expedited

Removal Process

58

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 60

Appendix III: Historical Data on Aliens Who Attempted to Enter

the United States

71

Appendix IV: Executive Office for Immigration Review Results

From Exclusion and Removal Hearings

77

Appendix V: Description of the Violations That Subject Aliens to

Expedited Removal

82

Appendix VI: INS Forms Used During the Expedited Removal

Process

84

Page 10 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Contents

Appendix VII: Additional Data on Aliens Who Were Charged

Under the Expedited Removal Provision

96

Appendix VIII: Additional Data on Aliens Who Had a Credible

Fear Interview

103

Appendix IX: Major Contributors to This Report 109

Tables Table 2.1: INS Disposition Data for Aliens Who Attempted to

Enter by Engaging in Fraud or Misrepresentation or Who Arrived

Without Proper Documents, October 1, 1995, to March 31, 1997

27

Table 2.2: INS Inspectors’ and Supervisors’ Estimated Average

Adjudication Time per Exclusion Case, by Location

37

Table 2.3: INS Inspectors’ and Supervisors’ Estimated Average

Adjudication Time per Expedited Removal Case, By Location

38

Table 2.4: Estimated Start-Up Costs for Expedited Removal and

Credible Fear Processes

40

Table 2.5: Cases of Aliens Who Entered the Expedited Removal

Process, Both Nationwide and at Locations We Visited, April 1,

1997, to October 31, 1997

41

Table 3.1: Percentage of Credible Fear Determinations by Asylum

Offices for Aliens Who Attempted to Enter the United States

Between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

49

Table 3.2: Estimated Average Adjudication Time and Interpreter

Costs for Selected Asylum Offices to Process a Credible Fear

Case

51

Table II.1: File Review Dispositions for the Five Locations of

Aliens Who Were Subject to Expedited Removal

69

 Table III.1: Nationwide Historical Data on Aliens Who Attempted

to Enter the United States

71

 Table III.2: Buffalo Land Ports of Entry Data on Aliens

Attempting to Enter the United States

72

 Table III.3: JFK Airport Data on Aliens Attempting to Enter the

United States

73

 Table III.4: Los Angeles Airport Data on Aliens Attempting to

Enter the United States

74

 Table III.5: Miami Airport Data on Aliens Attempting to Enter the

United States

75

Table III.6: San Ysidro Port of Entry data on Aliens Attempting to

Enter the United States

76

Table IV.1: Elapsed Days From Date EOIR Received the Case to

Date EOIR Completed the Case

78

Page 11 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Contents

Table IV.2: The 10 Most Common Nationalities of Aliens Who

Were Scheduled for Exclusion Hearings

79

Table IV.3: Elapsed Days From Date EOIR Received the Case to

Date EOIR Completed the Case

80

Table IV.4: The 10 Most Common Nationalities of Aliens Who

Were Scheduled for Removal Hearings

81

Table VII.1: Gender of Aliens Processed Under the Expedited

Removal Provision Between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

96

 Table VII.2: Age Range of Aliens Processed Under the Expedited

Removal Provision Between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

96

 Table VII.3: The 10 Most Common Countries of Citizenship for

Aliens Processed Under Expedited Removal Nationwide Between

April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

97

Table VII.4: The 11 Most Common Countries of Citizenship for

Aliens Processed Under Expedited Removal at the Buffalo

District Between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

97

 Table VII.5: The 10 Most Common Countries of Citizenship for

Aliens Processed Under Expedited Removal at the JFK Airport

Between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

98

Table VII.6: The 10 Most Common Countries of Citizenship for

Aliens Processed Under Expedited Removal at the Los Angeles

Airport Between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

98

Table VII.7: The 10 Most Common Countries of Citizenship for

Aliens Processed Under Expedited Removal at the Miami Airport

Between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

99

Table VII.8: The 10 Most Common Countries of Citizenship for

Aliens Processed Under Expedited Removal at the San Ysidro

Between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

99

Table VII.9: Languages Used in Secondary Interviews Between

May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997, Either by the INS Inspector or an

Interpreter on the Basis of File Reviews in the Buffalo District

100

 Table VII.10: Languages Used In Secondary Interviews Between

May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997, Either by the INS Inspector or an

Interpreter on the Basis of File Reviews at the JFK Airport

100

Table VII.11: Languages Used in Secondary Interviews Between

May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997, Either by the INS Inspector or an

Interpreter on the Basis of File Reviews at the Los Angeles

Airport

101

 Table VII.12: Languages Used in Secondary Interviews Between

May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997, Either by the INS Inspector or an

Interpreter on the Basis of File Reviews at the Miami Airport

101

Page 12 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Contents

Table VII.13: INS Charges Against Aliens Who Were Processed

Under the Expedited Removal Procedures Between May 1, 1997,

and July 31, 1997

102

Table VIII.1: Gender of Aliens Who Had a Credible Fear Interview

and Attempted to Enter the United States Between April 1, 1997,

and October 31, 1997

103

Table VIII.2: Age Range of Aliens Who Had a Credible Fear

Interview and Attempted to Enter the United States Between

April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

103

 Table VIII.3: The 12 Most Common Countries of Citizenship for

Aliens Who Had a Credible Fear Interview and Attempted to

Enter the United States Between April 1, 1997, and October 31,

1997

104

Table VIII.4: The Six Most Common Countries of Citizenship for

Aliens Who Had a Credible Fear Interview With the Arlington

Asylum Office and Attempted to Enter the United States Between

April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

104

 Table VIII.5: The Six Most Common Countries of Citizenship for

Aliens Who Had a Credible Fear Interview With the Chicago

Asylum Office and Attempted to Enter the United States Between

April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

105

Table VIII.6: The Seven Most Common Countries of Citizenship

for Aliens Who Had a Credible Fear Interview With the Houston

Asylum Office and Attempted to Enter the United States Between

April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

105

 Table VIII.7: The Six Most Common Countries of Citizenship for

Aliens Who Had a Credible Fear Interview With the Los Angeles

Asylum Office and Attempted to Enter the United States Between

April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

106

Table VIII.8: The Eight Most Common Countries of Citizenship

for Aliens Who Had a Credible Fear Interview With the Miami

Asylum Office and Attempted to Enter the United States Between

April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

106

Table VIII.9: The Seven Most Common Countries of Citizenship

for Aliens Who Had a Credible Fear Interview With the Newark

Asylum Office and Attempted to Enter the United States Between

April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

107

Table VIII.10: The Eight Most Common Countries of Citizenship

for Aliens Who Had a Credible Fear Interview With the New York

Asylum Office and Attempted to Enter the United States Between

April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

107

Page 13 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Contents

Table VIII.11: The Two Most Common Countries of Citizenship

for Aliens Who Had a Credible Fear Interview With the San

Francisco Asylum Office and Attempted to Enter the United

States Between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

108

Figures Figure 2.1: Flowchart of the Exclusion Process Used Before

April 1, 1997

25

Figure 2.2: Flowchart of the Expedited Removal Process Under

the 1996 Act

30

Figure VI.1: Record of Sworn Statement in Proceedings under

Section 235 (b)(1) of the Act

84

Figure VI.2: Information about Credible Fear Interview 86

Figure VI.3: Record of Determination/Credible Fear Work Sheet 88

Abbreviations

BIA Board of Immigration Appeals

EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Review

FRCP Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

INA Immigration and Nationality Act

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service

JFK John Fitzgerald Kennedy International Airport

OIA Office of Internal Audit

Page 14 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Page 15 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 1 

Introduction

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

(the 1996 Act), which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),1

as amended, was enacted September 30, 1996 (P.L. 104-208). Among other

things, the 1996 Act included a new provision, which is called expedited

removal, for dealing with aliens who attempt to enter the United States by

engaging in fraud or misrepresentation (e.g., falsely claiming to be a U.S.

citizen or misrepresenting a material fact) or who arrive with fraudulent,

improper, or no documents (e.g., visa or passport). The expedited removal

provision, which went into effect on April 1, 1997, reduces an alien’s right

to seek review of a determination of inadmissibility decision.

In the years preceding the passage of the 1996 Act, concerns were raised

about the difficulty of preventing illegal aliens from entering the United

States and the difficulty of identifying and removing the illegal aliens once

they entered this country. The expedited removal process was designed to

prevent aliens who attempt to enter the United States by engaging in fraud

or misrepresentation or who arrive without proper documents from

entering this country at our ports of entry.

Several legal services organizations and individual aliens have challenged

the constitutionality of the expedited removal process established by the

1996 Act (see app. I for a discussion of these court cases). These suits

claim, among other things, that the expedited removal process denies

substantive and procedural rights to asylum seekers; creates an

unreasonably high risk of erroneous removals of citizens, lawful

permanent residents, and other holders of valid visas; denies the

organizations’ First Amendment right of access to aliens applying for entry

into the United States; and may not be correctly applied to unaccompanied

minors. As of March 15, 1998, these cases were pending in federal court.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and immigration judges

have roles in implementing the provisions of the 1996 Act relating to the

expedited removal of aliens. INS’ responsibilities include (1) inspecting

aliens to determine their admissibility and (2) reviewing the basis and

credibility of aliens who are subject to expedited removal but who claim a

fear of persecution if returned to their home country or country of last

residence.2

 Aliens can request that immigration judges review INS’ negative

credible fear determinations. Immigration judges, who report to the Chief

Immigration Judge, are in the Executive Office for Immigration Review

1

8 U.S.C. 1101, et seq.

2

For the purposes of this report, we use the term “home country” in referring to the aliens’ home

country or their country of last residence.

Page 16 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 1 

Introduction

(EOIR), within the Department of Justice. The immigration judges are

located in immigration courts throughout the country.

Aliens Attempting to

Enter the United

States at Ports of

Entry

Before the 1996 Act, aliens who wanted to be admitted to the United States

at a port of entry were required to establish admissibility to an inspector.

This requirement remains applicable under the 1996 Act. INS has about

4,500 inspectors and about 260 staffed ports of entry. Generally, aliens

provide inspectors with documents that show they are authorized to enter

this country. At this primary inspection, the INS inspector either permits

the aliens to enter or sends the aliens for a more detailed review of their

documents or further questioning by another INS inspector. The more

detailed review is called secondary inspection. In deciding whether to

admit the alien, the INS inspector is to review the alien’s documents for

accuracy and validity and check INS’ and other agencies’ databases for any

information that could affect the alien’s admissibility. After reviewing the

alien’s documents and interviewing the alien at the secondary inspection,

the inspector may either admit or deny admission to the alien or take other

discretionary action. INS can prohibit aliens from entering the United

States for a number of reasons (e.g., criminal activity or failing to have a

valid visa, passport, or other required documents). Inspectors have

discretion to permit aliens to (1) enter the United States under limited

circumstances even though they do not meet the requirements for entry or

(2) withdraw their applications for admission and depart.

Exclusion Process Before

Implementation of the 1996

Act

Before the April 1, 1997, enactment of the expedited removal process, the

INA authorized the Attorney General to exclude certain aliens from

admission into the United States. Aliens whom inspectors determined to

be excludable from this country generally were allowed either to

(1) return voluntarily to the country from which they came or (2) appear

for an exclusion hearing before an immigration judge. During this hearing,

aliens who said they had a fear of persecution if they were returned to

their home country could file an application for asylum. The immigration

judges’ decisions could be appealed to EOIR’s Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA), which is a quasi-judicial body that hears appeals of INS’ and

immigration judges’ decisions. Furthermore, the alien could appeal BIA’s

decision through the federal court system. The scope of the federal court’s

review was limited to whether the government followed established

procedures. Aliens who were excluded from entering the United States

under this process generally were barred from reentering this country for

1 year. The exclusion process is discussed in more detail in chapter 2.

Page 17 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 1 

Introduction

From April 1, 1996, to October 31, 1996, the monthly average number of

aliens who INS (1) inspected at U.S. ports of entry3

 was about 27.1 million;

(2) referred to secondary inspection was about 780,000; and (3) did not

admit into this country was about 63,250.

Expedited Removal

Process After

Implementation of the 1996

Act

Under the 1996 Act, an INS inspector, instead of an immigration judge, can

issue an expedited removal order to aliens who (1) are denied admission

to the United States because they engage in fraud or misrepresentation or

arrive without proper documents when attempting to enter this country

and (2) do not express a fear of returning to their home country. INS is to

remove the alien from this country.4

 Aliens who are issued an expedited

removal order generally are barred from reentering this country for 5

years.

The expedited removal provision also established a new process for aliens

who express a fear of being returned to their home country and who are

subject to expedited removal. Inspectors are to refer such aliens to INS

asylum officers for an interview to determine whether the aliens have a

credible fear of persecution or harm if returned to their home country.

This is called a credible fear interview. The term “credible fear of

persecution” is defined by statute as “a significant possibility, taking into

account the credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of

the alien’s claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the

alien could establish eligibility for asylum under Section 208” of the INA.

INS has a cadre of about 400 asylum officers who are involved with the

asylum process. About 300 of these officers have been trained to conduct

credible fear interviews. INS has eight asylum offices nationwide. The

expedited removal process is discussed in more detail in chapter 2, and

the credible fear process is discussed further in chapter 3.

3

These inspections were done at primary inspection.

4

There are other reasons why INS may find an alien inadmissible (e.g., criminal activity). However,

expedited removal orders can only be issued to aliens whom INS finds inadmissible because the aliens

attempted to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or arrived without

proper documents at the U.S. ports of entry. If INS includes any other charge against an alien, the alien

cannot be processed under expedited removal procedures. INS is not required to charge an alien with

all of the grounds under which it finds the alien inadmissible. With its new authority under the 1996

Act to issue expedited removal orders, INS’ guidance to its inspectors states that, generally, if aliens

are inadmissible because they attempted to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or

misrepresentation or arrived without proper documents, additional charges should not be brought, and

the alien should be placed in the expedited removal process.

Page 18 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 1 

Introduction

From April 1, 1997, to October 31, 1997, the monthly average number of

aliens who INS (1) inspected at ports of entry was about 28.9 million;5

(2) referred to secondary inspection was about 608,000; and (3) did not

admit was about 56,500.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

The 1996 Act requires us to study the implementation of the expedited

removal process, including credible fear determinations, and report to the

Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary. We address the following

aspects of the exclusion and expedited removal processes in this report:

• how the expedited removal process and INS procedures to implement it are

different from the process and procedures used to exclude aliens before

the 1996 Act;

• the implementation and results of the process for making credible fear

determinations during the 7 months following April 1, 1997; and

• the mechanisms that INS established to monitor expedited removals and

credible fear determinations and to further improve these processes.

We also provide information on INS’ and EOIR’s estimates of costs to

implement the expedited removal process and the time required to

adjudicate expedited removal cases and credible fear determinations.

We did our work at INS and EOIR headquarters offices and INS field locations

at five U.S. ports of entry—two land ports and three airports. These five

locations had about 50 percent of the expedited removal cases during the

first 7 months after the 1996 Act was implemented. We judgmentally

selected these 5 of the about 260 staffed ports to include a large number of

entries by aliens, geographically diverse areas, and the 2 major types of

ports of entry (land ports and airports). We selected San Ysidro (CA), as a

southern land port; Niagara Falls (NY), as a northern land port; and Miami

International, Los Angeles International, and John Fitzgerald Kennedy

International (JFK) Airports. According to INS, these ports were expected to

have large volumes of expedited removal orders, and the airports were

anticipated to have a large number of credible fear referrals. We discussed

these selections with INS officials who said that the ports should provide us

with a reasonable representation of its implementation of the new law.

Although we visited the Niagara Falls land port, we included in some of

our analyses, data for the entire Buffalo district, which includes the

Niagara Falls land port.

5

These inspections were done at primary inspection.

Page 19 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 1 

Introduction

We selected the three asylum offices at which we did our field work—New

York, Miami, and Los Angeles—because they conducted credible fear

interviews for four (Los Angeles, JFK, Miami, and San Ysidro) of the five

ports we visited. The Newark (NJ) asylum office conducted credible fear

interviews for the Buffalo District Office. Because Newark was not one of

the five ports we included in our review, we decided not to increase our

audit costs by adding another location. We did our fieldwork related to

EOIR at four of the immigration courts—Wackenhut (New York City),

Krome (Miami), San Pedro (Los Angeles), and El Centro (El Centro,

CA)—which held reviews of negative credible fear determinations for

aliens who attempted entry at the ports we visited. We selected these four

courts because they were near the ports of entry included in our review.

We limited the data on removal of aliens before April 1, 1997, to the

airports because INS did not maintain nationwide data on the reasons

aliens were not admitted into the United States. However, the individual

airports maintained data on the reasons for aliens’ inadmissibility into the

country. Therefore, we analyzed the data for the Miami, Los Angeles, and

JFK airports to determine the aliens’ dispositions.

To present disposition data on aliens who were subject to the expedited

removal process since April 1, 1997, we obtained data from INS on aliens

who were processed under expedited removal but were not referred for a

credible fear interview, both nationwide and for the five ports in our study.

To develop data on inspectors’ completion of required forms, background

information about the aliens, and the length of the expedited removal

process from the day the alien attempted to enter the country to the day

the alien was removed, we reviewed probability samples6

 of 434 files for

aliens who entered the expedited removal process but were not referred

for a credible fear interview. This effort consisted of five separate reviews

of individuals entering the country between May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997,

at the five locations we visited and individuals who were processed

through the expedited removal process.

To obtain data on the time needed to adjudicate cases before and after

expedited removal, we asked INS and EOIR officials to estimate the time

required for different steps in the adjudication process, including credible

fear determinations, for the locations included in our study.

6

A probability sample is drawn using statistical, random selection methods that ensure that each

member of the universe has a known probability of being selected. This approach allows us to make

inferences about the entire universe.

Page 20 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 1 

Introduction

To obtain estimates for the costs to INS and EOIR to implement the

expedited removal process, including the credible fear determinations, we

asked each agency to develop cost data.

To develop workload data related to the credible fear process that went

into effect on April 1, 1997, INS provided nationwide data. These data

included the number of credible fear interviews held and the results of

those interviews. EOIR provided data from a nationwide database on the

results of the negative credible fear reviews conducted by the immigration

judges. Also, we reviewed the immigration judges’ worksheets, for all

cases in which they vacated asylum officers’ negative credible fear

determinations, for the period April 1, 1997, to August 31, 1997.

To determine, in part, whether it was documented that asylum officers

followed certain credible fear determination processes, we reviewed all 84

files of negative credible fear determinations for the months of May

through July, 1997.

In addition, during our field visits we observed inspectors processing 16

aliens through the expedited removal process, asylum officers conducting

9 credible fear interviews, and immigration judges holding 5 negative

credible fear reviews in Miami, the only location where reviews were

conducted at the time of our visit.

We also met and/or talked with various nongovernmental organizations

(e.g., American Bar Association, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights,

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, Office

of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Amnesty

International, and American Civil Liberties Union) to discuss our

methodology and to get input on the types of data we should collect

through these observations and file reviews. Officials from these

organizations provided information on their concerns about the expedited

removal process, including credible fear determinations, and provided

information about specific problems they said were encountered by aliens

during the process.

To describe INS’ controls to monitor and oversee the expedited removal

process, including credible fear determinations, we interviewed INS

officials at headquarters and locations we visited and obtained data

related to these activities.

Page 21 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 1 

Introduction

More details on our objectives, scope, and methodology are in appendix II

of this report. Also included in appendix II is a description of the

databases we used and our efforts to assess these databases’ reliability.

We did our review from November 1996 to March 1998 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards.

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review and

comment. On March 16, 1998, we met with Department of Justice officials,

including INS’ Director, International Affairs, to obtain Justice’s comments.

Overall, the officials stated that the report was accurate and fair. They also

provided technical comments, which have been incorporated in this report

where appropriate.

Page 22 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

The 1996 Act significantly changed INS’ authority over the removal of aliens

requesting admission to the United States at ports of entry. Previously,

aliens could have a hearing before an immigration judge and could appeal

an immigration judge’s decision ordering their exclusion from this country

through BIA and the federal courts. The scope of the federal court’s review

was limited to whether the government followed established procedures.

Generally, under the 1996 Act, aliens who attempt to enter the United

States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or who arrive without

proper documents are subject to an expedited removal order from an INS

inspector that the alien cannot appeal. The penalty for inadmissible aliens,

including those subject to expedited removal, generally increased from the

aliens’ being prohibited from entry in the United States for 1 year in the

pre-1996 Act exclusion process to being prohibited from entry for 5 years

under the post-1996 Act expedited removal process. Furthermore,

inspectors have added responsibility to identify aliens who have a fear of

returning to their home country. Under the expedited removal process, INS

has established more specific procedures to guide inspectors than it had in

the exclusion process used before the 1996 Act. Finally, the inspections

component of the expedited removal process has more steps for INS

inspectors than the exclusion process had and, therefore, INS estimated it

generally took more of the inspectors’ time than the exclusion process did

at the locations we visited.

INS implemented the expedited removal process by issuing regulations as

well as specific guidance and training for its staff who would be

responsible for carrying out the process. Between April 1, 1997, and

October 31, 1997, INS data showed that 29,170 aliens went through the

expedited removal process, including 1,396 aliens who were referred for a

credible fear interview with an asylum officer. Documentation in the INS

files that we reviewed at five locations showed some inconsistencies as to

whether inspectors and supervisors were documenting that they followed

various steps in INS’ expedited removal process, such as signing key forms

and asking required questions. INS staff also have reviewed files and found

that INS inspectors and supervisors were not always documenting that they

followed INS procedures. INS officials told us that they have reinforced with

inspectors the need for proper documentation.

The Exclusion

Process

Before the implementation of the 1996 Act, aliens could be formally

ordered removed only by an immigration judge through an exclusion

hearing. If inspectors found that an alien was not admissible into this

Page 23 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

country, options available to the inspector included allowing the alien to

withdraw his or her application for admission and voluntarily depart,

processing a waiver of inadmissibility, deferring the inspection, paroling

the alien into the United States (i.e., a procedure used to temporarily admit

an excludable alien into the country for emergency reasons or when in the

public interest), or preparing the case for an exclusion hearing.1

 Figure 2.1

shows a flowchart of the exclusion process that was used before the 1996

Act.

1

Appendix III contains INS data for fiscal years 1992 to March 31, 1997, on the number of aliens

requesting admittance into the United States and the number of aliens not admitted. For those aliens

not admitted, we provided the numbers that were (1) allowed to withdraw their application or were

refused entry; (2) paroled; (3) allowed a deferred inspection; and (4) referred to an immigration judge.

Page 24 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

Figure 2.1: Flowchart of the Exclusion Process Used Before April 1, 1997

INS finds 

alien

admissible?

Alien 

requests 

a waiver?

Alien 

permitted entry

by other

means?

 Admit

Alien claims 

asylum?

Admit

Admit

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Admit

Admit Remove

 Remove

Yes Yes

No Yes

No No No

No

Immigration judge

holds exclusion 

hearing

Alien arrives 

at port of 

entry

INS

grants

waiver?

INS ensures

alien's

departure

Alien permitted

entry pending

INS resolution

Immigration

judge grants

asylum?

Alien 

excluded from 

entering

 U.S.?

Alien

appeals

exclusion?

Appeals

process permits

entry?

Alien

permitted to

withdraw

application?

(Figure notes on next page)

Page 25 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

Sources: Information provided in discussions with INS officials and review of INS documentation.

As shown in the flowchart in figure 2.1, aliens who were denied admission

by INS could request an exclusion hearing before an immigration judge. At

these exclusion hearings, aliens were to be afforded the following due

process procedures:

• be represented by counsel at no expense to the government;

• be informed of the nature, purpose, time, and place of the hearing;

• present evidence and witnesses in their own behalf;

• examine and object to evidence against them;

• cross-examine witnesses presented by the government;

• request the immigration judge to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance

of witnesses and/or the production of documentary evidence; and

• appeal the immigration judge decisions to BIA and the federal courts.

At the exclusion hearing, the burden of proving admissibility generally

rested with the alien. INS would present evidence and examine and

cross-examine the alien and witnesses. At the end of the hearing, the judge

would render a decision, such as (1) exclude the alien (i.e., not allow

him/her to enter the United States); (2) grant the alien relief from

exclusion (i.e., allow the alien to enter this country); or (3) permit the alien

to withdraw his or her application for admission (i.e., allow the alien to

voluntarily leave the country).2

Either the alien or INS (or both) could appeal the immigration judge’s

decision to BIA. If BIA upheld the judge’s decision to exclude the alien, the

alien could appeal BIA’s decision to a U.S. district court.3

 The district

court’s review was limited to determining if the government followed

established procedures (e.g., that a fair hearing was held, that INS followed

its regulations, and that the immigration judge’s decision was supported by

the record). The alien then could appeal an adverse district court decision

to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and, ultimately, to the U.S. Supreme

Court. If an alien were found to be excludable after the final legal action

was completed, INS was to arrange for the alien’s removal from this

2

See appendix IV for information related to exclusion cases that EOIR received from INS between

October 1, 1995, and March 31, 1997, for aliens charged with attempting to enter the United States by

engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or arriving without proper documents.

3

The appeal would be under a habeas corpus proceeding (i.e., a writ to bring a person in custody

before the court to determine the legality of the custody).

Page 26 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

country. Aliens removed under this process generally were to be barred

from reentering the United States for 1 year.

To provide some perspective on the disposition of aliens prior to April 1,

1997, who could have been subjected to expedited removal if they had

attempted entry into this country after April 1, 1997, we obtained INS data

for the three airports we visited. The airports’ databases captured up to

three charges as the basis for exclusion. Table 2.1 shows the disposition of

aliens who were not admitted into this country between October 1, 1995,

and March 31, 1997, because at least one of the reasons for their

inadmissibility was that they attempted to enter the United States by

engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or arriving without proper

documents—the only charges for which aliens can be subject to expedited

removal. The majority of the aliens denied entry into this country at these

three airports were sent to immigration judges for exclusion hearings. INS’

options for those aliens who were not sent to an immigration judge for an

exclusion hearing included permitting the alien to withdraw his or her

application or waiving or paroling the alien into the United States. We used

the data from the three airports because INS did not have a nationwide

database on excluded aliens by charge.

Table 2.1: INS Disposition Data for Aliens Who Attempted to Enter by Engaging in Fraud or Misrepresentation or Who

Arrived Without Proper Documents, October 1, 1995, to March 31, 1997

Airport

Aliens

denied

entry

Aliens

withdrew

application

Other

actiona

Aliens

sent to

exclusion

hearing

Percentage of

aliens sent to

exclusion

hearings

JFK 6,187 2,166 949 3,072 50

Los Angelesb 1,292 350 23 919 71

Miami 7,007 2,570 495 3,942 56

a“Other action” column includes the number of aliens detained and turned over to another law

enforcement agency and aliens who were granted waivers or were paroled into the United States.

These aliens were not considered to have entered the country and, therefore, were subject to

exclusion provisions of the INA.

bData were missing for July 1996 and September 1996.

Source: GAO analysis of INS’ Record of Intercepted Passenger System data.

The Expedited

Removal Process

Under the 1996 Act, on behalf of the Attorney General, the Commissioner

of INS carries out the responsibilities to issue expedited removal orders

against aliens classified as “arriving aliens.” Justice regulations have

Page 27 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

defined arriving aliens as those aliens who seek admission to or transit

through the United States at a port of entry4

 or who are interdicted in

international or United States waters and are brought to this country. The

1996 Act also allows expedited removal orders to be issued to aliens who

have entered the United States without being inspected or paroled at a

port of entry.5 INS determined that, at least initially, it would not apply

expedited removal orders to the last category of aliens—namely, those

who entered the United States without inspection or parole. The specific

violations (i.e., aliens attempting to enter the United States by engaging in

fraud or misrepresentation or arriving without proper documents) under

the 1996 Act that could subject the alien to an expedited removal order are

discussed in appendix V.

The 1996 Act defines when INS can use expedited removal orders for

arriving aliens. As discussed below, INS has established procedures for

implementing the new provisions, such as requiring inspectors to read

specific information to the aliens. Figure 2.2 shows the expedited removal

process, including the credible fear process. In comparing figure 2.1 on the

exclusion process with figure 2.2 on the expedited removal process, the

expedited removal process for aliens who do not express a fear of being

returned to their home country is more streamlined than the exclusion

process. However, the expedited removal process for aliens who express a

fear of being returned to their home country contains more steps than the

exclusion process.

4

The 1996 Act excludes from expedited removal Cuban nationals who arrive at a port of entry by

aircraft.

5

The 1996 Act only permits INS to issue expedited removal orders against aliens who have been in the

United States for less than 2 years.

Page 28 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

Page 29 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

Figure 2.2: Flowchart of the Expedited Removal Process Under the 1996 Act

INS 

finds alien

admissible?

Admit

INS grants

waiver?

Admit

Alien 

permitted entry

by other

means?

Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No

Yes

No

Alien

expresses a

fear of

return?

No

No

Yes

Alien arrives at

port of entry

Alien 

permitted 

to withdraw 

application?

Alien

requests a

waiver?

INS issues

expedited removal

order and

removes alien

INS ensures

alien's

departure

Alien permitted

entry pending

INS resolution

A

Page 30 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

Yes

No

No

Admit

Admit

Remove

Remove Admit

Yes

Yes

Yes No

No No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes No Alien

 appeals 

exclusion?

Judge 

finds alien

admissible?

Appeals

 process permits 

entry?

Immigration 

judge grants

asylum?

Alien claims

A asylum?

Immigration

judge holds

removal

hearing

No

Yes

Alien requests 

review of 

decision to

immigration

judge?

Yes

Immigration 

judge agrees

with asylum

officer?

Alien to be 

removed under

expedited

 removal

Asylum officer 

finds fear to be

credible?

Note: Withdrawals can also occur at later stages in the expedited removal process.

Sources: Information provided in discussions with INS officials and review of INS documentation.

Steps in the Expedited

Removal Process

According to INS’ regulations and implementing instructions, when an

inspector plans to issue an expedited removal order to an alien, the

inspector is to follow certain steps, as shown below:

Page 31 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

• Explain the expedited removal process to the alien and read the statement

of rights and consequences in a language the alien can understand.

Included in this statement are the facts that the alien may be immediately

removed from this country without a hearing and, if so, may be barred

from reentering for 5 years or longer; that this may be the alien’s only

opportunity to present information to the inspector before INS makes a

decision; and that if the alien has a fear or concern about being removed

from the United States or being sent to his or her home country, the alien

should tell the inspector during this interview because the alien may not

have another chance to do so.

• Take a sworn statement from the alien, which is to contain all pertinent

facts of the case. As part of the sworn statement process, the inspector

provides information to the alien, interviews the alien, and records the

alien’s responses. The inspector is to cover and document in the sworn

statement such topics as the alien’s identity and reasons for the alien being

inadmissible into the United States; whether the alien has a fear of

persecution or return to his or her home country; and the INS decision (i.e.,

issue the alien an expedited removal order, refer the alien for a credible

fear interview, permit the alien to withdraw his or her application for

admission, admit the alien, allow him or her to apply for any applicable

waiver, or defer the inspection or otherwise parole the alien).

When the inspector completes the record of the sworn statement, he or

she is to have the alien read the statement, or have it read to the alien, and

have the alien sign and initial each page of the statement and any

corrections that are made. The inspector is to provide a copy of the signed

statement to the alien. The alien is to be given an opportunity to respond

to INS’ decision. (See app. VI for a copy of the form used to record the

alien’s sworn statement.)

• Complete other administrative processes and paperwork, including the

documents needed to remove the alien.

• Present the sworn statement and all other related paperwork to the

appropriate supervisor for review and approval.

Need to Identify Potential

Asylum Seekers

According to INS instructions, the inspector is to refer an alien for an

interview with an asylum officer if, for example, the alien indicates a fear

of returning to his or her home country or an intent to apply for asylum.

The asylum officer is to determine if the alien has a credible fear of

persecution. Immigration officers referred 1,396 aliens who requested

admittance to the United States between April 1, 1997, and October 31,

Page 32 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

1997, for a credible fear interview. The process for determining whether

aliens have a credible fear is discussed in chapter 3.

According to INS, to determine if an alien should be referred to an asylum

officer for a credible fear interview, the inspector is to consider any

statement or signs, verbal or nonverbal, that the alien may have a fear of

persecution or a fear of returning to his or her home country. The

questions that the inspector is required to ask and to record were designed

to help determine whether the alien has such a fear. These questions are as

follows:

• Why did you leave your home country or country of last residence?

• Do you have any fear or concern about being returned to your home

country or being removed from the United States?

• Would you be harmed if you are returned to your home country or country

of last residence?

According to INS guidance, if the alien indicates he or she has a fear or

concern or intends to apply for asylum, the inspector may ask additional

questions to ascertain the general nature of the alien’s fear or concern. The

alien does not need to use the specific terms “asylum” or “persecution” for

the inspector to refer the alien for a credible fear interview, nor does the

alien’s fear have to relate specifically to one of the five bases contained

within the definition of refugee, which are the legal basis for an asylum

determination.6 INS training materials note that there have been many

cases for which asylum was ultimately granted that may not have initially

appeared to relate to the definition of asylum. INS further requires that the

inspector should not make eligibility determinations or weigh the

strengths or credibility of the alien’s claim. Additionally, the inspector

should err on the side of caution and refer to the asylum officer any

questionable cases.

If the alien asserts a fear or concern that is clearly unrelated to an

intention to seek asylum or a fear of persecution, then the inspector

should not refer the case to an asylum officer. During our observations, we

saw an instance where an alien initially expressed a fear of removal during

a sworn statement for which the inspector did not refer the alien for a

credible fear interview. The alien expressed concern about not being able

to see her boyfriend who lived in the United States. The inspector checked

6

As discussed in chapter 3, for an asylum officer to find that the alien has a credible fear of

persecution, the alien’s fear must be related to one of the five bases (or grounds) listed in the refugee

definition.

Page 33 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

with the supervisor to make sure that she should not refer this alien for a

credible fear interview.

When an inspector is going to refer an alien for a credible fear interview,

the inspector is to process the alien as an expedited removal case.7

Additionally the inspector is to explain to the alien in a language the alien

understands information about the credible fear interview including

(1) the alien’s right to consult with other persons, (2) the alien’s right to

have an interpreter, and (3) what will transpire if the asylum officer finds

that the alien does not have a credible fear of persecution. This

information is contained in an INS form that the inspector is to give the

alien (see app. VI for a reprint of this form). The inspector also is to

provide the alien with a list of free legal services, which is prepared and

maintained by EOIR.

Removal of Aliens Served

an Expedited Removal

Order

Generally, INS requires that aliens who are subject to expedited removal

should be processed immediately unless they claim lawful status in the

United States or a fear of return to their home country. Those aliens who

arrive at air and sea ports of entry who are to be removed from the United

States are to be returned by the first available means of transportation.

Aliens arriving at land ports of entry who are ordered removed usually

should be returned to Canada or Mexico. If the inspector is unable to

complete the alien’s case or transportation is not available within a

reasonable amount of time from the completion of the case, the inspector

is to send the alien to an INS detention center or other holding facility until

he or she can complete the case or remove the alien. Parole may only be

considered on a case-by-case basis for medical emergencies or for

legitimate law enforcement purposes.8

Other Options Available in

Lieu of Expedited Removal

An expedited removal order is not the only option available for the

inspector to apply to aliens who are inadmissible because they attempted

to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or

arrived without proper documents. Similar to the exclusion process, which

was in place before April 1, 1997, depending upon the specific violation,

the options available to the inspector include (1) allowing the alien to

withdraw his or her application, (2) processing a waiver, (3) deferring the

7

The expedited removal order is not issued at this time.

8

A legitimate law enforcement purpose could include paroling the alien into the custody of another law

enforcement agency for prosecution of the alien or for having the alien testify or assist the government

in the prosecution of a criminal matter.

Page 34 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

inspection, or (4) paroling the alien into the United States.9 However, INS

can no longer refer these aliens to an immigration judge unless the alien is

found to have a credible fear of persecution or the alien swears under oath

to be an U.S. citizen or to have lawful permanent residence, refugee, or

asylee status, but the inspector cannot verify that claim.10

On December 22, 1997, INS issued additional guidance on when an

inspector should offer aliens an opportunity to withdraw their application

for admission. According to this guidance, the inspector should carefully

consider all facts and circumstances related to the case to determine

whether permitting withdrawal would be in the best interest of justice, or

that justice would be ill-served if an order of removal (such as an

expedited removal order) were issued. Factors to consider in making this

decision may include, but are not limited to, previous findings of

inadmissibility against the alien, the alien’s intent to violate the law, the

alien’s age or health, and other humanitarian or public interest

considerations. The guidance further states that ordinarily, the inspector

should issue an expedited removal order when the alien has engaged in

obvious, deliberate fraud. If the alien may have innocently or through

ignorance, misinformation, or bad advice obtained an inappropriate visa

and did not conceal information during the course of the inspection,

withdrawal should ordinarily be permitted.

Differences Between

the Exclusion and

Expedited Removal

Processes

The 1996 Act and its implementation affected the immigration proceedings

in numerous ways. Two major differences between the exclusion and

expedited removal processes are INS’ authority to issue the expedited

removal order and the aliens’ limited right of review of that order. Other

changes include (1) an increased penalty for inadmissible aliens, including

those subject to expedited removal; (2) a more structured inspection

process for expedited removal than for exclusion; and (3) estimated

additional time taken by inspectors to complete the expedited removal

process due to the additional steps in the process.

Limited Review of

Inspectors’ Decisions

Before the 1996 Act, aliens who attempted to enter the United States by

engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or who arrived without proper

9

INS did not have data readily available on the number of aliens subject to expedited removal who

were offered one of the four options.

10The inspector is to issue these aliens an expedited removal order and refer them to an immigration

judge to review the order. If the immigration judge determines the alien has never been admitted as a

lawful permanent resident or as a refugee, has not been granted asylum status, or is not an U.S. citizen,

INS is to remove the alien. The immigration judge’s decision is not appealable. If the judge determines

the alien was admitted as a lawful permanent resident or as a refugee, was granted asylum status, or is

an U.S. citizen, the judge is to cancel the expedited removal order.

Page 35 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

documents could have received a hearing by an immigration judge to

determine if the aliens should be allowed to enter the United States. The

aliens could apply for asylum during this hearing. Furthermore, aliens had

the right to appeal to BIA the immigration judge’s decision not to allow

them to enter the country. Aliens could appeal an adverse decision by BIA

through the federal courts. However, the scope of the federal courts’

review was limited to whether the government followed established

procedures. Under the 1996 Act, inspectors, as opposed to immigration

judges, can issue aliens expedited removal orders if they attempt to enter

the United States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or arrive

without proper documents.11 Generally, aliens who do not express a fear

of being returned to their home country cannot have a review of the INS’

decisions.12 In addition, inspectors are to look for signs from the aliens of

fear of being returned to their home country and, if aliens exhibit such a

fear, inspectors are to refer the alien to an asylum officer for a credible

fear interview.

Increased Penalties Before the 1996 Act, aliens who were issued a formal exclusion order

generally were barred from reentering the United States for 1 year. With

the implementation of the 1996 Act, the reentry restriction for inadmissible

aliens, including those subject to expedited removal, generally increased

to 5 years. Aliens are allowed to request permission to reapply for

admission to this country during the 5-year period.13

More Formal Inspection

and New Credible Fear

Process

Under the exclusion process, INS had general procedures for its inspectors

to follow when referring aliens to an immigration judge. For example, INS

guidance stated that inspectors should make every effort to establish the

grounds of inadmissibility, including taking a formal question and answer

statement from the alien, if necessary. Under the expedited removal

process, INS requires the inspectors to follow specific steps. (For

information on steps in the expedited removal process, see the previous

discussion.)

11Inspectors are to complete expedited removal orders for aliens who claim to be lawful permanent

residents, refugees, asylees, or U.S. citizens. Orders in these cases are to be reviewed by an

immigration judge. For aliens who express a fear of returning to their home countries, inspectors are

to fill in a portion of the expedited removal orders; these orders are not completed unless the asylum

officer determines the fear is not credible.

12Aliens can request an immigration judge’s review of an inspector’s decision if the alien swears under

oath to be an U.S. citizen or to have lawful permanent residence, refugee, or asylee status. If the judge

finds that the alien is not an U.S. citizen or does not have lawful permanent residence, refugee, or

asylee status, then the alien will be subject to expedited removal.

13The 1996 Act also increased the penalties for aliens who were removed under other provisions of the

law.

Page 36 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

The expedited removal process also added new procedures for asylum

officers to follow in determining whether aliens have a credible fear of

persecution and, therefore, should not be immediately removed under the

new process. These procedures are discussed in chapter 3.

INS Estimates That

Expedited Removal Cases

Have Taken More INS Staff

Time to Complete Than

Exclusion Cases

For the five INS field units we reviewed, INS estimates of average

inspection-related adjudication time generally show that the time it took

an inspector at secondary inspection to complete an expedited removal

case was greater than the average time it took to complete an exclusion

case for aliens who attempt to enter the United States by engaging in fraud

or misrepresentation or who arrive without proper documents, as shown

in tables 2.2 and 2.3. According to an INS official, the differences in

inspectors’ time between the two processes are due, in part, to the

additional steps associated with the inspection components of the

expedited removal process.

The time for inspectors and supervisors to prepare a case in secondary

inspection includes interviewing the alien and preparing and reviewing the

paperwork related to an exclusion hearing or an expedited removal order.

Because the methods each office used to develop its estimates varied, the

data are not comparable among the locations.

The estimated times presented in tables 2.2 and 2.3 represent cases where

interpreters were not used. Officials at some of the ports told us that the

use of an interpreter increased the amount of time the inspector spent on

the case from 1/2 hour to 1-1/2 hours. We obtained estimates from the four

ports of entry and the Buffalo district.

Table 2.2: INS Inspectors’ and

Supervisors’ Estimated Average

Adjudication Time per Exclusion Case,

by Location

Estimated average time per exclusion case

Location By inspector By supervisora

Buffalo district 3 hours 40 minutes

JFK airport 3 hours 45 minutes

Los Angeles airport 3 hours 1 hour, 30 minutes

Miami airport 5 hours, 48 minutes 1 hour, 50 minutes

San Ysidro 2 hours, 15 minutes 11 minutes

aThis column combines the estimated time by the first-line and second-line supervisors at each

location. The Miami figure also includes the estimated time by the area supervisor.

Source: INS field offices.

Page 37 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

Table 2.3: INS Inspectors’ and

Supervisors’ Estimated Average

Adjudication Time per Expedited

Removal Case, By Location

No credible fear referral Credible fear referral

Estimated average time per expedited removal case

Location By inspector By supervisora By inspector By supervisora

Buffalo district 5 hours 1 hour, 

15 minutes

6 hours 1 hour,

15 minutes

JFK airport 3 hours,

30 minutes

45 minutes 4 hours,

30 minutes

45 minutes

Los Angeles

airport

3 hours 1 hour, 

30 minutes

4 hours 2 hours, 

30 minutes

Miami airport 6 hours, 

22 minutes

20 minutes 6 hours, 

22 minutes

20 minutes

San Ysidro 2 hours,

11 minutes

11 minutes 3 hours, 

30 minutes

11 minutes

aThis column combines the estimated time by the first-line and second-line supervisors at each

location. The Miami figure also includes the estimated time by the area supervisor.

Source: INS field offices.

The estimated time used by INS inspectors on the exclusion and expedited

removal processes are not comparable because of the differences between

the two processes. Also, the 1996 Act established a new credible fear

referral process for inspectors. In addition, while some locations

estimated that the expedited removal process takes more inspection time,

the process has reduced options for aliens to appear before an

immigration judge and federal courts regarding an INS removal decision.

Times involved in those steps of the pre-1996 Act process were not

included in our analysis.

Implementation of the

Expedited Removal

Process

To implement the expedited removal process, INS developed operating

instructions and planned to provide training to all of its immigration and

asylum officers. INS’ and EOIR’s estimated cost to implement the expedited

removal process was about $4.8 million. The five ports of entry we visited

developed port-specific methods to implement INS’ process. Between

April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, 29,170 aliens, including 1,396 aliens

referred for credible fear interviews (discussed in ch. 3), were processed

under the expedited removal process.

Documentation in the files we reviewed at the locations we visited showed

mixed results as to whether inspectors and supervisors were consistently

documenting that they followed various steps in INS’ expedited removal

process. For the steps we reviewed, the files indicated a range of

Page 38 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

compliance from an estimated 80 to 100 percent. In addition, at the

locations we visited, INS was generally removing aliens to whom it issued

expedited removal orders within a few days. INS officials at the locations

we visited said that they had not encountered any changes in cooperation

from countries and air carriers when removing aliens through the

expedited removal process.

Guidance and Training On January 3, 1997, INS issued proposed rules regarding the

implementation of the 1996 Act, including the expedited removal process.

On March 6, 1997, INS issued its interim rules. These interim rules are to

remain in effect until INS publishes final rules.

INS developed and distributed specific guidance for its inspectors on how

to implement the expedited removal process. This guidance was

incorporated into the training that INS developed for its officers on the

1996 Act. The training information on the expedited removal process

included instructions on who would be subject to expedited removal, what

information should be obtained in a sworn statement, and when to refer an

alien to an asylum officer for a credible fear interview. According to INS, it

trained about 16,400 of its staff. INS has modified its existing training for

newly hired employees to include the expedited removal process.

Estimated Cost to Start Up

the Expedited Removal

Process

The 1996 Act required INS and EOIR to implement a number of changes,

including the expedited removal process. To identify the cost of

implementing only the expedited removal process, which includes the

credible fear determination procedures, we asked INS and EOIR to provide

data on the cost of getting policies and procedures in place and providing

training on the new process and procedures. We asked the offices to limit

their estimates to the start-up costs incurred to implement the procedures.

The data collected included estimated costs for (1) salary and benefits of

employees who worked full- and part-time on the implementation or who

took the training; (2) travel; (3) materials and supplies; (4) office space

and facilities; and (5) goods and services received (including the use of

outside consultants). As shown in table 2.4, the estimated cost to

implement the expedited removal process was about $4 million for INS and

about $700,000 for EOIR. These estimated costs basically represent

one-time costs associated with starting the expedited removal process for

INS and EOIR.

Page 39 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

Table 2.4: Estimated Start-Up Costs for

Expedited Removal and Credible Fear

Processes

INS EOIR

Implementation costs

Number of

staff Costa

Number of

staff Costa

Staff salaries and benefits:

Staff who worked full-time on

implementation 15 $344,600 21 $158,500

Staff who worked part-time on

implementation 397 1,515,000 58 106,000

Staff who received training 16,401 1,171,800 445 175,000

Travel and per diem • 469,000 • 137,300

Materials, office space, goods, and

services • 603,800 • 121,500

Total • $4,104,200 • $698,300

aFigures rounded to the nearest $100.

Note: These costs were incurred through June 30, 1997.

Sources: INS and EOIR estimates.

Aliens Processed Through

the Expedited Removal

Process

According to INS data, about 7 percent of the aliens who attempted entry

between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, and who were not admitted at

ports of entry, were processed under the expedited removal process

(27,774 of 395,335 aliens). Table 2.5 shows the number of aliens who

requested entry between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, and who

entered the expedited removal process (but were not referred for a

credible fear interview). Of the 27,774 cases14 in which aliens were

processed under expedited removal, 27,345 (98.5 percent) had been closed

as of December 15, 1997. In 99.6 percent of the 27,345 cases that were

closed, the alien was removed after receiving a removal order.

14This number represents aliens who were processed through the expedited removal process but were

not referred for a credible fear interview. It is not necessarily 27,774 different aliens, because an alien

may have attempted entry more than once during this time frame and may have been subject to

expedited removal more than once. Subsequent removals subject aliens to a longer reentry bar.

Page 40 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

Table 2.5: Cases of Aliens Who

Entered the Expedited Removal

Process, Both Nationwide and at

Locations We Visited, April 1, 1997, to

October 31, 1997

Location

Number of aliens charged under

the expedited removal processa

Nationwide 27,774

Buffalo district 197

San Ysidro 11,833

JFK airport 902

Los Angeles airport 346

Miami airport 1,036

Note: Data as of December 15, 1997. The data for the airports include cases for aliens entering

through seaports in those locations.

aThese figures represent the number of cases that inspectors at secondary inspection processed

as expedited removal cases. They do not include the number of cases that were referred for a

credible fear determination interview or for a legal status claim review. During this period, there

were another 90 cases for aliens referred for a legal status claim review; 1,396 cases for aliens

referred for a credible fear interview.

Source: GAO analysis of INS Deportable Alien Control System data and Asylum Pre-Screening

Officer database.

More detailed information on the characteristics of aliens who were

processed under the expedited removal process is provided in appendix

VII.

The following are some examples from our case file reviews at the ports

we visited of reasons inspectors found aliens inadmissible and subject to

the expedited removal process: the alien had previously overstayed his or

her visa; the alien intended to work in the United States but did not have

the proper documents to allow him or her to do so; and the alien had a

counterfeit border crossing card or resident alien card.

Port-Specific

Implementation of the

Expedited Removal

Process

In addition to the national guidance, three approaches for implementing

the expedited removal process were employed by the five ports of entry

we visited.

• INS’ Miami airport approach had a separate unit of inspectors to handle the

expedited removal cases. If an alien was sent from primary inspection to

secondary inspection and the inspector at secondary determined the alien

was subject to expedited removal, the inspector was to refer the alien to

the specific unit handling expedited removal cases. The expedited removal

unit was staffed by inspectors and supervisors at the GS-11 level and

Page 41 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

above. These inspectors were to take the sworn statement and complete

other paperwork related to the expedited removal case.

• At the San Ysidro port, INS used a three-step approach. First, when an alien

admitted to the inspector at secondary that he or she presented a malafide

(e.g., fraudulent) application for entry, the inspector was to send the alien

to an enforcement team for processing. The enforcement team that

handled the expedited removal cases was comprised of inspectors and

supervisors at the GS-7 to GS-12 level. Second, among other things, the

team was to show the aliens a Spanish-language video tape explaining the

expedited removal process. The sworn statements were not taken at the

port of entry unless the aliens expressed a fear of returning to their home

country. Third, the women were to be transported to a local motel that is

used for temporary detention, and the males were to be transported to the

El Centro Service Processing Center. At these sites, an enforcement team

member was to take the aliens’ sworn statements, complete the

paperwork, and serve the aliens with the expedited removal order. The

aliens were to be detained at these locations until their removal.

• The Niagara Falls land port (which consisted of three bridges), JFK airport,

and Los Angeles airport did not establish a separate unit to process

expedited removal cases. At these locations, an inspector was to send an

alien from primary inspection to secondary inspection, where the

inspector was to determine if the alien was subject to expedited removal

and, if so, was to complete the case.

Case File Documentation

Indicated Inconsistent

Compliance With INS

Procedures

We reviewed the case files on 434 aliens who attempted entry at the five

locations between May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997, and who were charged

under the expedited removal provision but were not referred for a credible

fear interview. For the Buffalo district, we reviewed all files and for the

other four locations we randomly selected case files for review. Our

review showed that the documentation in the case files at the five

locations we visited indicated inconsistent compliance with the

procedures. See appendix II for information on the case file review

methodology and the calculation of the sampling error.

As part of the case file review, we determined whether (1) the inspectors

documented in the sworn statement that they asked the aliens the three

required questions designed to identify a fear of returning to their home

country, (2) the aliens signed the sworn statements, and (3) the

supervisors reviewed the expedited removal orders. Documentation on

compliance varied among the locations.

Page 42 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

Regarding asking the three required questions, our case file review of the

documentation showed that inspectors at Miami airport documented that

they asked the required questions an estimated 100 percent of the time. At

the other four locations the results were less consistent: the case files

indicated that inspectors did not document asking at least one of the three

required questions, or some version thereof, between an estimated 1 and

18 percent of the time. For example, the documentation in the case files

showed that inspectors did not record asking the required question “Why

did you leave your home country or country of last residence?” (or some

version thereof) an estimated 18 percent of the time at Los Angeles

airport, 15 percent of the time in San Ysidro, 5 percent of the time in the

Buffalo district, and 2 percent of the time at JFK airport. In addition, the

case file documentation showed that the inspectors did not record asking

the required question “Do you have a fear or concern about being returned

to your home country or being removed from the United States?” (or some

version thereof) an estimated 3 percent of the time at Los Angeles,

2 percent of the time in San Ysidro and at JFK airport, and 1 percent of the

time in the Buffalo district. In the 434 files we reviewed, we found 6 cases

involving 4 locations in which the inspector did not document asking any

of the 3 required questions on fear.

According to one of its members, INS’ Expedited Removal Working Group15

 also has identified cases in which inspectors did not ask these required

questions. She said that the failure to ask the questions generally occurred

when the inspectors were using a draft version of the sworn statement,

which had a different version of the required questions. As the Working

Group became aware of this problem at specific ports of entry, the official

said that she informed port officials of the importance of asking these

questions and documenting that they were asked and sent the ports of

entry the correct version of the sworn statement.

In addition to our file reviews, we observed secondary inspectors’

handling of 16 cases of aliens who were subject to expedited removal. In

15 cases, the inspectors asked applicants the required fear of return

questions. In one case the inspector asked two of the three required

questions. In five cases the applicants expressed a fear of return. In three

of the cases, the inspectors referred the aliens to an asylum office for a

credible fear interview. In the other two cases, the aliens initially

expressed a fear. In one of the two cases, the alien recanted his fear. In the

second case, the alien expressed concern about not being able to see her

15The Working Group oversees the implementation of the expedited removal process. See chapter 4 for

a description of the Working Group’s members and functions.

Page 43 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

boyfriend who lived in the United States. The inspector checked with the

supervisor to make sure that she should not refer this alien for a credible

fear interview.

Furthermore, for almost all the cases we reviewed, the files contained

sworn statements signed by the aliens. For the five locations, the files

indicated that aliens signed the statements between an estimated 97 and

100 percent of the time.

Lastly, in our case file review at five locations, the documentation showed

that the range in which supervisors documented that they reviewed the

expedited removal orders was from an estimated 80 to 100 percent. At two

of the locations, documentation in the files showed that a supervisor

reviewed all of the orders. In addition, INS’ Office of Internal Audit (OIA)

conducted reviews of field unit operations, including expedited removal.

Its first audit that included the expedited removal process covered the

activities of the Newark District Office and was conducted between

April 21 and May 2, 1997. OIA found that in 6 of the 27 cases, supervisors

did not review and approve removal orders at the Newark International

Airport. OIA recommended that the District Director require all removal

orders issued by immigration officers be reviewed by a second-line

supervisor and that an indication of the review be annotated on the form

before its execution.16

A member of INS’ Working Group said that, through the group’s case file

reviews, it has identified cases in which the documentation of supervisory

reviews has been missing. She said that when the Working Group has

identified this problem, it has informed relevant port officials of the

problem. She also said that the Working Group has discussed the need for

supervisory review and proper documentation of such review in its field

visits and in written guidance distributed to the field.

Aliens Generally Removed

Within 2 Days

On the basis of our file reviews of cases where aliens were not referred for

a credible fear interview, for three of the locations (Los Angeles airport,

Miami airport, and Buffalo district) we estimated that at least 95 percent of

the aliens who received expedited removal orders were removed either

the day they attempted to enter the United States or the day after. At JFK

airport, an estimated 84 percent of such aliens were removed either the

16INSpect, Final Report Newark District (97-02, Jan. 5, 1998). OIA also found that automated data

systems related to expedited removal were not being updated in a timely manner. OIA recommended

that the District Director implement procedures to ensure that all applicable data systems be updated

in a timely manner.

Page 44 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 2 

The Exclusion and Expedited Removal

Processes

same day or the day after they attempted to enter this country. We

estimated that for the majority of the aliens who requested entry into this

country through the San Ysidro land port of entry (90 percent), it took 2 or

more days for them to be removed.

INS does not maintain nationwide data on the cooperation of foreign

countries and air carriers in accepting aliens who were removed under the

expedited removal provision. We asked INS officials at the locations we

visited if they had problems with air carriers or countries accepting such

aliens since April 1, 1997. INS officials said that air carrier cooperation had

not been a problem. They added that, generally, delays related to the air

carriers have occurred only when there have been a limited number of

available flights. Regarding country cooperation, INS officials at four

locations said they have encountered problems returning aliens to certain

countries. However, these problems also existed before April 1, 1997, and,

therefore, were not unique to aliens who received expedited removal

orders. Buffalo district officials said that the United States has an

agreement with Canada whereby Canada will accept aliens whom the

United States denies entry to this country at the U.S.-Canada border.

Therefore, the officials said that the Buffalo district did not have problems

returning to Canada aliens who received expedited removal orders.

Page 45 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 3 

The Credible Fear Process

Aliens attempting to enter the United States who express to an INS

inspector a fear of being returned to their home country are to be referred

to an asylum officer for a credible fear interview. The purpose of the

interview is to determine if aliens have a credible fear of persecution. The

asylum officers are to read information to the alien about the credible fear

process. If the asylum officer determines that the alien has a credible fear,

the alien is referred to an immigration judge for a removal hearing. If the

asylum officer finds that the alien does not have a credible fear, the alien

can request that an immigration judge review the asylum officer’s negative

credible fear determination.

Asylum officers determined that 79 percent of the aliens who attempted to

enter the United States from April 1 to October 31, 1997, for whom the

officer had completed the credible fear interview, had a credible fear of

persecution. On the basis of the documentation in our nationwide case file

review and nine observations, the asylum officers read most of the

required information to the aliens during the credible fear interviews. INS

estimated the amount of time needed to process a credible fear case

ranged between about 6 to 10 hours for the Los Angeles, Miami, and New

York asylum offices. Nationwide, immigration judges affirmed INS’ negative

credible fear determinations about 83 percent of the time. EOIR estimated

that the amount of time needed to complete a negative credible fear

review was about 1 hour.

The Credible Fear

Process

As discussed in chapter 2, inspectors are to refer aliens who have

expressed a fear of persecution to an asylum officer for a credible fear

interview. Before holding the credible fear interview, asylum officers are

required to inform aliens about the credible fear and asylum processes; to

inform aliens of their option to obtain a consultant who can be a lawyer,

friend, relative, or anyone of the aliens’ choosing; and to provide a list of

people and organizations that provide legal services. According to an INS

official, at some locations, this information is provided during an

orientation. The regulations require INS to provide interpreters in the

credible fear interviews, when necessary.1

In a credible fear interview, the 1996 Act requires the asylum officer to

decide whether there is a significant possibility that the alien could

establish eligibility for asylum. To make this determination, INS requires

1

Regarding the competency of the interpreters, INS permits the alien or the alien’s consultant to

request a different interpreter if he or she feels that the interpreter is not competent or neutral or

requests another interpreter for whatever reason. In addition, the alien’s consultant can request an

interpreter whom he or she knows from past experience.

Page 46 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 3 

The Credible Fear Process

the asylum officer to consider whether a significant possibility exists that

(1) the alien’s statements are credible (i.e., that the alien’s testimony is

consistent, plausible and detailed); (2) the alien faced persecution in the

past or could be harmed in the future; and (3) the alien’s fear is related to

one of five bases for obtaining asylum—persecution because of race,

religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social

group. In addition, the asylum officer is to read mandatory information

about the process, the right to appeal a negative credible fear

determination to an immigration judge, and the fear of being tortured.2

 The

asylum officer is to read aloud the mandatory paragraphs from an INS form

on which the officer also records the results of the credible fear interview.

See appendix VI for a reprint of the Credible Fear Worksheet.

For aliens referred to an asylum officer, INS states that the asylum officer is

to consider the credible fear standard as a low threshold to screen for

persons with promising asylum claims. During the interview with an

asylum officer, an alien can have a consultant present. The asylum officer

is to record the results of the credible fear interview, including his or her

determination of the alien’s ability to meet any of the five grounds for

asylum. INS requires supervisory review of asylum officers’ credible fear

determinations3

.

If the asylum officer finds that the alien has a credible fear of persecution,

the alien will be placed in removal proceedings4

 before 1 of about 200

immigration judges during which the alien can make a formal application

for asylum. During these proceedings, the immigration judge is to decide

whether the alien’s asylum claim warrants his or her being granted asylum

in the United States. If the asylum officer finds that the alien does not have

a credible fear, the alien has a right to request that an immigration judge

review the negative credible fear determination. If the alien does not

request a review of the credible fear determination, the alien is subject to

expedited removal.

2

INS officials said that in cases where credible fear was not found, reading the required torture

information was critical because applicants who are not found to have credible fear may still merit

protection under the Torture Convention. At present, asylum officers are conducting Torture

Convention interviews for aliens who are under a final order of removal and have no appeals or

motions to reopen pending. The INS Office of the General Counsel reviews the asylum officer’s

interview notes and assessment and makes the final decision on which aliens merit protection under

the Torture Convention.

3

INS requires that when either an asylum officer or his or her supervisor determines that an alien has a

credible fear, the alien is to be referred for a removal hearing before an immigration judge.

4

The 1996 Act merged deportation and exclusion proceedings into a single removal proceeding.

Page 47 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 3 

The Credible Fear Process

In cases where the alien requests a review of an asylum officer’s negative

credible fear determination, the immigration judge is to review this

determination. During this review, the immigration judge may receive into

evidence any relevant written or oral statements. If the immigration judge

agrees with the asylum officer’s negative credible fear decision, the alien

cannot appeal the immigration judge’s decision and is to be removed

through the expedited removal process. If the immigration judge disagrees

with the asylum officer’s negative credible fear decision, the alien is to be

placed in removal proceedings, during which he or she can apply for

asylum. During the immigration judge’s review, at the discretion of the

immigration judge, the alien may enlist the aid of a consultant in the

review process.

Data on Aliens

Referred for Credible

Fear Interviews

INS data for aliens who attempted to enter the United States between

April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, show that inspectors referred 1,396

aliens to asylum officers for a credible fear interview. Of the aliens who

were referred, 1,1085

 had completed their interviews as of November 13,

1997. Nationwide, asylum officers determined that 79 percent of these

1,108 aliens had a credible fear of persecution. According to an INS official,

about 10 percent of the aliens referred for a credible fear interview have

recanted their claim of a fear of persecution before an asylum officer. As

shown in table 3.1, positive credible fear determination rates for the eight

asylum offices ranged from 59 to 93 percent.6

5

The remaining 288 aliens included aliens who recanted their claim of a fear of persecution and were

to be removed or who had not yet been interviewed.

6

See appendix VIII for more detailed information on aliens who had a credible fear interview.

Page 48 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 3 

The Credible Fear Process

Table 3.1: Percentage of Credible Fear

Determinations by Asylum Offices for

Aliens Who Attempted to Enter the

United States Between April 1, 1997,

and October 31, 1997

Percentage of determinations

Asylum office

Positive

credible fear

Negative

credible fear

Arlington, VA 86 14

Chicago, IL 93 7

Houston, TXa 59 42

Los Angeles, CA 82 18

Miami, FL 59 41

New York, NY 89 11

Newark, NJ 72 28

San Francisco, CA 89 11

aTotal does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: INS Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database.

Results of Case File

Reviews and

Observations

We reviewed the files for all 84 negative credible fear determinations made

for aliens who requested entry between May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997. Not

all of the 84 case files contained complete documentation and, therefore,

some of our analysis was made on fewer than 84 cases. In most of these

determinations (55 of 81) the asylum officer concluded that the aliens’

fears were not based on 1 of the 5 grounds for asylum. In 25 of 76 cases,

the officer concluded that the aliens’ testimonies were not credible.

Documentation in the 84 case files we reviewed nationwide indicated that

INS generally followed its procedures for determining an alien’s credible

fear, but did not consistently document whether asylum officers provided

information regarding the alien’s fear of being tortured. Our review of the

84 negative credible fear case files showed that the asylum officers

indicated by marking on the records of interview that they (1) read the

required paragraph regarding the aliens’ fear of persecution in all but 1

case and (2) informed the aliens of their right to have an immigration

judge review a negative credible fear determination in all but 3 cases.

However, our review of the case files showed no documentation on

whether the asylum officers read the paragraph on torture in 19 of 83

cases. In addition to the 84 cases, we attended 9 credible fear interviews in

which the asylum officers generally followed INS’ procedures regarding

credible fear interviews, including reading the mandatory material. In eight

out of nine cases we observed, all of the mandatory paragraphs were read

Page 49 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 3 

The Credible Fear Process

or summarized. In the ninth case, the asylum officer did not read the

required paragraph on torture.

An INS official told us that the headquarters Asylum Office reviewed the

cases for which the paragraph on torture was not checked off in the file

and found other evidence in the file to indicate that questions related to

torture were asked and, therefore, she believed that the problem was

related to poor recordkeeping. The INS official also told us that INS has

subsequently reiterated to its asylum officers that they are to read the

paragraph on torture and ask the related questions in the credible fear

interview and to record that the paragraph was read and questions were

asked.

The asylum officers are to record the results of the credible fear interview,

including the alien’s ability to meet any of the five bases for asylum. As

part of our observation, we compared asylum officers’ records of the

credible fear interviews to our observations. We found the credible fear

worksheets completed by the asylum officers to be consistent with our

observations in all of the nine cases.

Our case file review showed evidence that 69 of 75 cases had supervisory

reviews. For the remaining six cases, the files did not have the signatures

of supervisors indicating that they had reviewed the files.

Furthermore, in the negative credible fear determination case files we

reviewed, we also determined whether in credible fear interviews an

interpreter was used and if the alien had a consultant. The case files

indicated that, in 66 of 82 credible fear interviews, an interpreter was used.7

Aliens had consultants in 19 of the 84 cases.

Asylum Adjudication Time

and Interpreter Costs

We requested that the three asylum offices we visited provide the

estimated time required to process a credible fear case. The estimate for

the asylum officer was to include the time needed to provide aliens with

an orientation, prepare for and conduct the credible fear interview, and

complete the associated paperwork. The estimate for the supervisor was

to include the time spent discussing and reviewing the case and its related

paperwork.

7

The following languages were most frequently translated: Haitian Creole (16 times), Spanish (16

times), Mandarin Chinese (10 times), and Albanian (5 times).

Page 50 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 3 

The Credible Fear Process

The New York and Miami asylum offices provided average time estimates

on a per case basis to complete these and other tasks associated with the

credible fear process. We totaled these time estimates to get an overall

average of the amount of time spent per case by the asylum officers and

supervisors at each office. The Los Angeles asylum office estimated

average time spent by asylum officers and supervisors on the basis of total

hours spent for the time period October 1 to December 19, 1997, including

travel time, and did not identify the time by specific tasks. To estimate the

average time per case, the Los Angeles Office divided the total hours for

the asylum officers and supervisors by the number of cases for that period.

Therefore, estimates from the Los Angeles asylum office and the other two

asylum offices are not comparable because of the different approaches

used to develop their time estimates. The data we received are

summarized in table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Estimated Average Adjudication Time and Interpreter Costs for Selected Asylum Offices to Process a Credible

Fear Case

Average time and cost per case

Location Asylum officer time Supervisor Interpreter cost

New York, with an interpretera 7 hours, 30 minutes 1 hour, 5 minutes $160

New York, without an interpretera 6 hours, 45 minutes 1 hour, 5 minutes N/A

Miami, with an interpreterb 5 hours, 50 minutes 25 minutes 335

Los Angeles 10 hours, 10 minutes 5 hours 222

aAccording to an INS headquarters official, the New York asylum office’s travel only involved local

travel.

bThe Miami asylum office said its officers also make one to two trips per month to locations

outside the Miami area. The case time remains the same but there is the added time for travel,

which averaged 16 hours.

Source: INS field offices.

Negative Credible

Fear Determination

Review by the

Immigration Judge

Aliens who have received a negative credible fear determination from

asylum officers have the option of requesting a review of their case by an

immigration judge. Between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, EOIR

received 198 cases for review of a negative credible fear determination. Of

these 198 cases, immigration judges affirmed asylum officers’ negative

credible fear determinations in about 83 percent of the cases.8

8

Five cases were pending and not included in this calculation.

Page 51 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 3 

The Credible Fear Process

We reviewed the bases for immigration judges’ decisions made through

August 31, 1997, in which they overturned (vacated) the asylum officers’

determinations. In 14 of the 18 cases we reviewed, the immigration judges

found that the aliens had established a “significant possibility” of harm as

required by the 1996 Act.

The following six nationalities had the most numbers of aliens who

requested review of their negative credible fear determinations: Haiti (51),

China (24), Albania (15), Guatemala (14), Mexico (12), and El Salvador (8).

The remaining 74 aliens were of 33 nationalities.

The seven judges we interviewed differed on their court procedures for

consultants’ roles. The consultants’ roles ranged from being permitted to

speak to not being allowed to speak in the court at all. The position of the

Office of the Chief Immigration Judge is that although an alien has no

statutory right to consult with anyone during the immigration judge’s

review of a negative credible fear finding, nonetheless, there are

circumstances where the judge may find it extremely helpful to enlist the

aid of the consultant during the review process. To ensure that his or her

decision is based on all relevant material available, the immigration judge

may permit the consultant to speak with the alien, may question the

consultant, or may request a statement from the consultant.

EOIR Adjudication Time According to EOIR data, the average time to complete a negative credible

fear review was about 1.5 hours. This time included about 1 hour spent by

the immigration judge to prepare and conduct the interview and complete

the paperwork. In addition, legal technicians spent about 30 minutes on

the administrative process. Furthermore, the cost for interpreters was $71

per hour for Spanish and Creole and $95 per hour for other languages.

According to EOIR, interpreters were used in about 85 percent of all of the

cases. EOIR based its estimates on data it obtained from the Krome (Miami,

FL), Elizabeth (NJ), and Wackenhut (New York, NY) immigration courts

for the period April 1, 1997, to September 30, 1997.

Page 52 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 4 

INS’ Mechanisms to Monitor the Expedited

Removal Process

In addition to the procedures discussed in chapters 2 and 3, INS has

developed or is in the process of developing mechanisms to monitor the

expedited removal process, including the credible fear determinations.

These mechanisms include establishing headquarters working groups and

field experts, auditing and reviewing the process, training staff who are

involved in the process, establishing procedures to be followed in carrying

out the process, and getting input from nongovernmental organizations.

INS Monitoring

Activities

INS has instituted activities to monitor and provide information on and

identify potential changes to the expedited removal process.

• INS established the Expedited Removal Working Group to identify and

address policy questions, procedural and logistical problems, and quality

assurance concerns related to the expedited removal process. The group

consists of representatives from the Offices of Inspections, International

Affairs, Asylum, Detention and Deportation, Field Operations, and General

Counsel. One way in which the group carries out its duties is through visits

to INS field units where group members review case files and meet with

management and staff involved in the expedited removal process to

discuss such things as resource materials, the process, and policy issues.

Among other things, the Working Group has provided additional written

guidance on the taking of sworn statements and on when to permit aliens

to withdraw their applications.

• INS established an Asylum Office quality assurance team at headquarters to

review selected credible fear files. According to INS officials, the quality

assurance team is to focus on credible fear determination issues, while the

Expedited Removal Working Group is to focus on the entire expedited

removal process, including asylum and inspection. This quality assurance

team consists of four asylum officers who are to analyze decisions in

individual cases, provide feedback to applicable asylum officers, and

identify trends or patterns on the basis of the reviews. Initially, the

feedback to asylum officers was informal and each member of the group

used his or her own review method. Beginning January 2, 1998, the team is

to use a checklist to standardize the monitoring and to review all negative

credible fear determinations before the decision is served on the alien. The

team is to prepare monthly reports that are to address problems faced by

all offices and is to address serious problems immediately.

• INS’ Office of Internal Audit examines field unit functions and operations.

The objectives of these reviews include evaluating units’ effectiveness and

determining compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and

procedures. Beginning in April 1997, the audits were to include reviewing

Page 53 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 4 

INS’ Mechanisms to Monitor the Expedited

Removal Process

the expedited removal process. In chapter 2, we discussed OIA’s first report

that included the expedited removal process.

• As part of its efforts to communicate with outside entities that deal with

immigration issues, INS has met periodically with nongovernmental

organizations to discuss issues related to the expedited removal process,

including the credible fear process. Some of the concerns of the

nongovernmental organizations are discussed in the next section of this

chapter.

In addition to these previously mentioned mechanisms, INS established

certain procedures to help ensure that the expedited removal process is

implemented properly and consistently. First, INS stated it trained about

16,400 of its staff on the implementation process for the 1996 Act,

including the expedited removal (and credible fear) provision. According

to INS officials, asylum officers were to be given additional training on

making credible fear determinations. Second, INS issued operating

procedures that require inspectors and asylum officers to follow specific

steps when considering issuing expedited removal orders and making

credible fear determinations. Third, INS requires that all expedited removal

orders and credible fear determinations be reviewed by a supervisor.

Finally, for aliens who were determined not to have a credible fear of

persecution, INS may, at its discretion, offer a second credible fear

interview to an alien, even if the alien has not established a credible fear

before an asylum officer or after an immigration judge review.

Concerns Raised by

Nongovernmental

Organizations

Several nongovernmental organizations provided information about their

concerns regarding the expedited removal process and including

information on (1) issues related to the expedited removal process and

credible fear determinations and (2) specific problems that aliens said they

encountered when they arrived at ports of entry. In addition, these

organizations provided data describing specific situations of INS’ handling

of aliens who were subject to expedited removal. We did not verify the

data they provided. These organizations’ concerns about the process

included allegations that

• aliens did not understand the expedited removal process because, for

example, the removal order was legalistic and incomprehensible;

• interpreters’ competency varied, which in some instances caused serious

mistakes to be made in translation;

• consultants were denied access to documents in applicants’ case files,

such as the sworn statements; and

Page 54 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 4 

INS’ Mechanisms to Monitor the Expedited

Removal Process

• attorneys were not allowed to play a meaningful role at the credible fear

interview (e.g., they were not permitted to make opening or closing

statements or to ask questions, and they had no opportunity to consult

with their clients before deciding whether to request a negative credible

fear review by an immigration judge).

The organizations also raised allegations of INS officers’ unprofessional

treatment of aliens attempting to enter the United States. The alleged

actions of INS officers included (1) not explaining the expedited removal

process, including applying for asylum; (2) not providing interpretation

services; (3) verbally abusing the aliens; and (4) not providing physical

amenities, such as food, water, bed and blankets, and bathroom facilities.

In addition to the INS mechanisms discussed above that are related to these

types of issues, INS officials told us that every alien and consultant has

access to the relevant documents regarding the alien’s case (e.g., sworn

statement). Regarding the consultant’s role, INS stated that the consultant

and the asylum officer should share a cooperative role in developing and

clarifying the merits of the alien’s claim. Furthermore, the consultant

should generally be given the opportunity to make a statement at the end

of the interview, comment on the evidence presented, and ask the alien

additional questions. Concerning the competency of interpreters, INS

procedures provide that the alien or the alien’s consultant has the right to

request a different interpreter if he or she feels that the interpreter is not

competent or neutral. Additionally, INS officials said that the alien or the

alien’s consultant may request another interpreter for whatever reason.

Regarding unprofessional behavior, INS stated that it will do more to

ensure that aliens, including those who attempt to enter illegally, know

their civil rights and how to register a complaint if abused by an INS officer.

Furthermore, the Commissioner said that INS insists on proper, humane,

and polite treatment of people who are entering the United States whether

their documents are correct or not.

We had no way to determine the validity of the issues that the

organizations raised, including the specifics about any individual alien.

Our limited observations, case file reviews, and discussions with INS

officials did not identify problems similar to those raised by the

organizations. Concerning our observations, our presence may have

affected what took place during inspections, interviews, and reviews, but

we have no way of knowing whether, how, or to what extent this

happened.

Page 55 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Chapter 4 

INS’ Mechanisms to Monitor the Expedited

Removal Process

Changes to the

Expedited Removal

Procedures

INS is in the process of changing aspects of the expedited removal

procedures on the basis of input it has received from its internal groups

and the nongovernmental organizations. These changes include the

following:

• INS is revising some expedited removal forms that contain explanations to

be read to the alien (e.g., Information about Credible Fear Interview).

According to INS, as part of this revision process, it has asked some of the

nongovernmental organizations to review the forms to make them easier

for aliens to understand.

• INS assigned the responsibility of being an expedited removal expert to

selected staff for each region and district to ensure that policy guidance is

distributed, understood, and implemented. INS officials have completed

training these staff on their new duties associated with being an expedited

removal expert.

• INS said that it permits aliens to provide their own interpreters for credible

fear interviews.

Page 56 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Page 57 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix I 

Pending Litigation Challenging the

Expedited Removal Process

INS identified for us four pending lawsuits involving the expedited removal

process. These cases are discussed below.

American Immigration Lawyers Association, et al., v. Reno, No. 97-0597

(D.D.C.) (39-16-1370) and Liberians United for Peace and Democracy, et

al., v. Reno, et al., No. 97-1237 (D.D.C.) (39-16-1381) (Judge Emmet G.

Sullivan).

These consolidated lawsuits, initially brought by various legal services

organizations on March 28, 1997, challenge on behalf of purported

refugees the “expedited removal” procedures under section 235(b)(1) of

the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the 1996 Act.

The 1996 Act establishes a 60-day period for obtaining limited judicial

review of this expedited removal process. Plaintiffs seek such review,

asserting various statutory, constitutional, and international law claims

concerning the substantive and procedural rights of asylum seekers and

potential asylum seekers. Defendants have filed pending motions to

dismiss these lawsuits under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)

12(b)(1) and (b)(6). The Rule 12(b)(1) “jurisdictional” issues and the Rule

12(b)(6) “merits” issues have been briefed and argued. Also briefed and

argued is the government’s motion to dismiss the claims of individual alien

plaintiffs who recently were added to the lawsuits. At the outset of the

litigation, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining

order against certain aspects of the system. The court also has denied,

pending the outcome of the government’s motions to dismiss, two requests

by plaintiffs for compulsory discovery.

Wood, et al., v. Reno, et al., No. 97-1229 (D.D.C.) (39-16-1385) (Judge

Emmet G. Sullivan).

This lawsuit, filed on May 30, 1997, by various legal services organizations

and individual aliens, also challenges the expedited removal process under

INA section 235(b)(1). Plaintiffs contend on statutory, constitutional, and

international law grounds that (1) the process, as administered by

defendants, creates an unreasonably high risk of erroneous removal of

United States citizens, lawful permanent residents, and other holders of

“valid visas”; (2) plaintiff organizations have a First Amendment right to

have access to aliens during expedited removal proceedings; and

(3) expedited removal procedures may not validly be applied to

unaccompanied minors. Defendants recently submitted a motion to

dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1) and (b)(6), which was argued on January 12,

1998. Pending the motion’s outcome, the court has deferred all discovery.

Page 58 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix I 

Pending Litigation Challenging the

Expedited Removal Process

Meng Li v. Robert C. Eddy, District Director, INS, No. A97-231 CV (D.

Alaska, filed June 12, 1997).

The alien is a native and citizen of China who attempted to enter the

United States as a nonimmigrant visitor at the Anchorage, Alaska, port of

entry on June 6, 1997. INS officials determined that the alien was

inadmissible under INA section 212(a)(6)(C) for having sought to enter by

fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact and, accordingly,

issued an expedited removal order against her. On June 12, 1997, the alien

filed a “Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus,” claiming that she had not committed fraud and

arguing on both statutory and constitutional grounds that the court should

look behind her expedited removal order to determine whether INS

officials had acted in good faith and without pretext. On July 2, 1997, the

district court issued an order dismissing the complaint and denying the

habeas corpus petition. The district court held that the scope of review

under INA section 242(e)(2) did not permit adjudication of the alien’s

statutory claim, and that she could not raise a valid constitutional claim

because she has no constitutional rights regarding her application for

admission to the United States. Shortly after this ruling, the INS removed

the alien. Her attorney has filed a notice of appeal.

Page 59 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix II 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The 1996 Act requires us to study the implementation of the expedited

removal process, including credible fear determinations, and report to the

Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary. We address the following

aspects of the exclusion and expedited removal processes in this report:

• how the expedited removal process and INS procedures to implement it are

different from the process and procedures used to exclude aliens before

the 1996 Act;

• the implementation and results of the process for making credible fear

determinations during the 7 months following April 1, 1997; and

• the mechanisms that INS established to monitor expedited removals and

credible fear determinations and to further improve these processes.

We also provide information on INS’ and EOIR’s estimates of costs to

implement the expedited removal process and the time required to

adjudicate expedited removal cases and credible fear determinations.

We did our work at INS and EOIR headquarters offices and INS field locations

at five U.S. ports of entry—two land ports and three airports. These five

locations had about 50 percent of the expedited removal cases during the

7 months after the 1996 Act was implemented. We judgmentally selected

these 5 of about 260 staffed ports to include a large number of entries by

aliens, geographically diverse areas, and the 2 major types of ports of entry

(land ports and airports). We selected San Ysidro (CA), as a southern land

port; Niagara Falls (NY), as a northern land port; and Miami International,

Los Angeles International, and John Fitzgerald Kennedy International (JFK)

Airports. According to INS, these ports were expected to have large

volumes of expedited removal orders and the airports were anticipated to

have a large number of the credible fear referrals. We discussed these

selections with INS officials who said that the ports should provide us with

a reasonable representation of INS’ implementation of the new law.

Although we visited the Niagara Falls land port, we included in some of

our analyses, data for the entire Buffalo district, which includes the

Niagara Falls land port.

We selected the three asylum offices at which we did our fieldwork—New

York, Miami, and Los Angeles—because they conducted credible fear

interviews for four (Los Angeles, JFK, Miami, and San Ysidro) of the five

ports we visited. The Newark (NJ) asylum office conducted credible fear

interviews for the Buffalo District Office. Because Newark was not one of

the five ports we included in our review, we decided not to increase our

audit costs by adding another location. We did our fieldwork related to

Page 60 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix II 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

EOIR at four of the immigration courts—Wackenhut (New York City),

Krome (Miami), San Pedro (Los Angeles), and El Centro (El Centro,

CA)—which held reviews of negative credible fear determinations for

aliens who attempted entry at the ports we visited. We selected these four

courts because they were near the ports of entry included in our review.

To get information on the processes of exclusion and removal, which

includes expedited removal and credible fear determinations, we

(1) reviewed laws and INS regulations and instructions and EOIR procedures

and instructions and (2) interviewed INS and EOIR officials at headquarters

and in the field. We also reviewed various documentation, including the

proposed and interim rules for the procedures for the expedited removal

process and the INS inspectors’ field manual; attended and watched video

tapes of INS training sessions related to the new procedures; and attended

headquarters Expedited Removal Working Group1

 meetings. During our

interviews and data gathering efforts, we identified where comparisons

could be made between exclusion and expedited removal procedures.

Because of the differences in the two processes caused by the 1996 Act

and data limitations, we could only make descriptive comparisons

between the exclusion and expedited removal processes.

Before April 1, 1997, INS would bring all applicable exclusion charges

against aliens, including aliens who attempted to enter the United States

by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or who arrived without proper

documents. Therefore, our analysis of excludable aliens (i.e., aliens whom

INS found inadmissible before April 1, 1997) included any alien who had

been charged with attempting to enter the United States by engaging in

fraud or misrepresentation or arriving without proper documents as well

as any other exclusion charge. However, under the 1996 Act, aliens can be

subject to expedited removal if INS only charges them with attempting to

enter the United States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or

arriving without proper documents. Accordingly, we included in our

analysis those aliens before April 1, 1997, who were charged with

attempting to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or

misrepresentation or arriving without proper documents as well as any

other charges. We included those aliens in our analysis even though after

April 1, 1997, INS is to only issue an expedited removal order to aliens

whom it charged with attempting to enter the United States by engaging in

fraud or misrepresentation or arriving without proper documents. We did

1

INS established a team of officials from different INS organizations to oversee the implementation of

the expedited removal process, including credible fear determinations. (See ch. 4.)

Page 61 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix II 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

this to provide some perspective on the number of aliens who may have

been subject to expedited removal orders before April 1, 1997.

We limited the data on the removal of aliens before April 1, 1997, to the

airports because INS did not maintain nationwide data on the reasons

aliens were not admitted into the United States. However, the individual

airports maintained data on the reasons for aliens’ inadmissibility into the

country. Therefore, we analyzed the data for the Miami, Los Angeles, and

JFK airports to determine the dispositions (e.g., aliens allowed to withdraw

their application to enter the country or scheduled for an exclusion

hearing before an immigration judge).

To obtain data on exclusion hearings before April 1, 1997, we analyzed

EOIR data on the length of the hearing process, the number of asylum

applicants, and the hearing outcomes for those cases EOIR received

between October 1, 1995, and March 31, 1997. We included those cases for

which the alien was charged at least with attempting to enter the United

States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or arriving without

proper documents; other charges could also have been included. We also

identified the number of cases appealed to BIA. To obtain data on removal

hearings that EOIR received from INS between April 1, 1997, and October 31,

1997, we used the same approach as we did for data before April 1, 1997,

except that we included in our analysis only aliens who were only charged

with attempting to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or

misrepresentation or arriving without proper documents.

To present disposition data on aliens who were subject to the expedited

removal process since April 1, 1997, we obtained data from INS on aliens

who were processed under expedited removal but were not referred for a

credible fear interview both nationwide and for the five locations in our

study.

To develop data on inspectors’ completion of required forms, background

information about the aliens, and the length of the expedited removal

process from the day the alien attempted to enter the country to the day

the alien was removed, we reviewed probability samples2

 of 434 files for

aliens who entered the expedited removal process but were not referred

for a credible fear interview. This effort consisted of five separate reviews

of individuals who entered the country between May 1, 1997, and July 31,

1997, at the five locations we visited, and who were processed through the

2

A probability sample is drawn using statistical, random selection methods that ensure that each

member of the universe has a known probability of being selected. This approach allows us to make

inferences about the entire universe.

Page 62 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix II 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

expedited removal process. We selected the starting date of May 1, 1997,

for our review to provide INS with 1 month (April 1997) to resolve any

initial problems in implementation; we selected the ending date of July 31,

1997, because of the reporting date for our work. We did these file reviews

at the four ports of entry and the Buffalo district. For the Buffalo District

Office, which includes the Niagara Falls land port, we reviewed all of the

expedited removal files for all of its ports of entry (including Niagara Falls

land port) because of the small universe of cases in the district. The data

we obtained from the files allowed us to make estimates about all of the

expedited removal cases at these locations between May 1, 1997, and

July 31, 1997, that did not go on to the credible fear determination process.

We excluded minors (children under the age of 18) from our case file

review because INS now generally excludes unaccompanied minors from

the expedited removal process.

To obtain estimates for the costs to INS and EOIR to implement the

expedited removal process, including the credible fear determinations, we

asked each agency to develop cost data. Specifically, the costs we asked

for were salary and benefits, travel and per diem, materials and supplies,

office space and facilities, goods and services received, and any other

significant costs incurred to implement the procedures. In collecting the

cost data, we also obtained the basis on which the estimates were made.

We did not verify the cost data but did ask INS and EOIR to provide

supporting documentation, which we reviewed.

To obtain data on the time to adjudicate cases before and after expedited

removal, we asked INS and EOIR officials to estimate the time required for

different steps in the adjudication process for the locations included in our

study. We also included payments to interpreter services. We had each

major INS unit and EOIR prepare time estimates using a pro forma schedule

(data collection instrument) that we prepared. For the removal estimate

before April 1, 1997, we requested an average time for inspectors to

process an alien for an exclusion hearing. Because INS was no longer

following the exclusion process for aliens who attempted to enter the

United States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or who arrived

without proper documents, INS officials developed times estimated

retrospectively. For the removal time after April 1, 1997, we asked

inspections for two average times—(1) the time to process an alien to

whom an inspector issued an expedited removal order and (2) the time for

processing an alien whom inspectors had referred to an asylum officer for

a credible fear interview. We obtained estimates from the four ports and

the Buffalo District Office. We asked the asylum offices to estimate the

Page 63 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix II 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

time related to the credible fear interview process. We asked EOIR for the

time related to the negative credible fear review process. We did not ask

EOIR to estimate the time of the hearing process, both before and after

April 1, 1997, because this process was not part of our study. In collecting

the time estimates, we also obtained the basis on which the estimates

were made. We did not verify the time estimates but did ask INS and EOIR to

provide supporting documentation, which we reviewed. We could not

obtain the total number of aliens, or the number of aliens for the five ports

we visited, who were subject to exclusion because they attempted to enter

the United States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or arrived

without proper documents because such data were not available.

Therefore, we could not determine the total adjudication time before

April 1, 1997.

To develop workload data related to the credible fear process that went

into effect April 1, 1997, INS provided nationwide data. These data included

the number of credible fear interviews held and the results of the

interviews. EOIR provided data from a nationwide database on the results

of the negative credible fear reviews conducted by the immigration judges.

Also, we reviewed the immigration judges’ worksheets for all cases in

which they vacated asylum officers’ negative credible fear determinations,

for the period April 1, 1997, to August 31, 1997.

To determine, in part, whether it was documented that asylum officers

followed certain credible fear determination processes, we reviewed all 84

files of negative credible fear determinations for the months of May

through July, 1997. Most of the files were reviewed at INS headquarters in

Washington, D.C. Although we are not certain that we examined files for

every negative determination within our time period, we checked the files

that we reviewed against other INS databases, and we are confident that we

have included almost all such cases because very few discrepancies were

found. As previously discussed, we excluded minors from our case file

review. We focused our review on the negative credible fear

determinations because of the possible harm that could arise from INS’

removing aliens who had a credible fear of persecution. However, we did

not assess INS’ determinations. INS field units are to send these files (as

well as a sample of positive credible fear determinations) to INS

headquarters for review by INS headquarters asylum officers. We reviewed

these files to determine if they contained documentation that INS required

and to get demographic data on the aliens.

Page 64 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix II 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In addition, during our field visits we observed inspectors processing 16

aliens through the expedited removal process, asylum officers conducting

9 credible fear interviews, and immigration judges holding 5 negative

credible fear reviews in Miami, the only location where reviews were

conducted at the time of our visit. Our ability to make observations about

what we saw was limited by

• the randomness of the time and location for the arrival of aliens who

would have been subject to the expedited removal process at secondary

inspection and

• scheduling changes, including delays and postponement of a credible fear

interview with an asylum officer and negative credible fear review before

an immigration judge.

In addition, planning such observations had to be done in conjunction with

our field visits. Due to the limited number of interviews and reviews we

were able to observe, our observation data are not generalizable to all

aliens subject to the expedited removal process. Furthermore, we do not

know if our presence affected what took place during our observations.

We also met and/or talked with various nongovernmental organizations

(e.g., American Bar Association, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights,

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, Office

of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Amnesty

International, and American Civil Liberties Union) to discuss our

methodology and to get input on the types of data we should collect

through these observations and file reviews. These organizations provided

information on their concerns about the expedited removal process,

including credible fear determinations, and provided information about

specific problems they said were encountered by aliens during the

process.

To describe INS’ controls to monitor and oversee the expedited removal

process, including credible fear determinations, we interviewed INS

officials at headquarters and locations we visited and obtained data

related to these activities.

Page 65 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix II 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

EOIR’s and INS’

Databases That We

Used and Our

Assessment of Their

Reliability

We used INS’ and EOIR’s databases and, where feasible and practical, we

assessed the databases’ reliability.

EOIR Database • The Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review tracks cases

handled by immigration judges and appeals handled by the BIA. Each EOIR

field location is to enter and validate case data in its local database daily.

The nationwide database also is updated with these data daily.

To develop data on pre- and post-expedited removal cases, EOIR officials

provided us with extracts from the database that contained records on

cases EOIR received between October 1, 1995, and October 31, 1997, for

which the charges against the alien included one of the charges that would

subject an alien to expedited removal. According to an EOIR official, the

data in these extracts were current as of January 6, 1998.

To develop data on the immigration judges’ negative credible fear reviews

since April 1, 1997, EOIR officials provided us with a database extract that

contained records for all open and closed negative credible fear review

cases that EOIR received as of December 17, 1997. Due to the amount of

time involved, we did not assess the reliability of the data in this database

at the immigration courts we visited.

INS Databases • Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database is an interim database that was

created by the Asylum Office. The database is to track data on the aliens

subject to expedited removal who were referred for a credible fear

interview until changes could be made to a mainframe INS database (the

Asylum Pre-Screening System) to track the expedited removal credible

fear process. Data for each case are to be keyed in at the individual asylum

offices and transmitted to headquarters on a weekly basis for

consolidation.

To develop data on the credible fear referrals and determinations, Asylum

Office officials provided us with a copy of this database, which was

current as of November 13, 1997. We spoke to staff at the three Asylum

Offices that we visited about their data entry processes. Due to time and

resource constraints, we did not perform reliability checks on the data.

Page 66 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix II 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

• Deportable Alien Control System is a nationwide database that contains

data related to the arrest, detention, and deportation/removal of illegal

aliens. Data on aliens who are issued an expedited removal order are to be

entered into this database. INS gave us a database extract, as of

December 15, 1997, that contained records for all open and closed

expedited removal cases categorized as:

• alien found inadmissible under expedited removal and the alien does

not express a fear of persecution or claim legal status;

• alien found inadmissible under expedited removal, but alien claims legal

status and is referred to an immigration judge for a legal status claim

review; and

• alien found inadmissible under expedited removal and ordered

removed, but alien failed to surrender for removal after release from

detention.

Data on aliens whom INS finds inadmissible under expedited removal and

refers for a credible fear interview are also to be entered into this

database. We did not capture data on credible fear referrals from this

database because an INS official told us that data on these individuals are

not entered into this database in a timely manner and that the Asylum

Pre-Screening Officer database is a better source for data on credible fear

referrals.

We did a limited review of Deportable Alien Control System data reliability

at the five locations we visited. As discussed in this appendix, at these

locations we did a file review of a sample of cases of aliens that INS found

inadmissible under expedited removal and for which the alien did not

express a fear of persecution. We had INS print out data for every ninth

record in the list of files we reviewed. We compared the Deportable Alien

Control System data in the printouts for some of the fields we are

presenting in this report to the source documents in the files. On the basis

of our review, we believe the data in these fields are generally reliable.

• Record of Intercepted Passenger System contains data on aliens whom INS

finds inadmissible at airports. INS staff at JFK airport created the database

in the 1980s to collect data on inadmissible air passengers that the U.S.

government agreed to provide on a monthly basis to the airline industry.

Each month, headquarters staff are to receive and consolidate such data

from all of the airports, which are shared with the industry.

Before April 1, 1997, INS did not require ports to collect these data through

this database. However, a number of the larger airports did, including

Page 67 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix II 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Miami and Los Angeles. We limited our use of data in this database to the

three airports we visited because of the lack of information on the

reliability of the data entered by other airports using this database. We did

not perform reliability checks on the data. However, we spoke to staff at

these three ports about their data entry and verification processes and

uses of the data. The data entry processes varied among the ports as did

the amount of data entry verification. All three of the ports used the data

internally to generate such things as workload numbers and intelligence

data. Because of time and resource constraints (including source

documents not being available at all the ports we visited) we did not

perform reliability checks on the data.

File Review

Methodology

The objective of our two file reviews was to obtain more detailed

information about the characteristics of individuals subject to expedited

removal and the credible fear interview and the processes actually

followed by INS in implementing the new law. The first file review, which

we conducted at the five locations we visited, was of INS files on aliens

who were subject to the expedited removal process but were not referred

for a credible fear interview. The second file review, which was

nationwide, was of files on aliens who went through a credible fear

interview and for whom INS determined they did not have a credible fear of

persecution. Because of concerns about the quality of INS data, we were

unable to rely exclusively on existing databases.

We developed a data collection instrument for use in extracting

information from the INS files. All of the information was obtained from the

case files on aliens provided to us at the port of entry, the district office, or

headquarters. We relied exclusively on the information in the files, and we

were unable to determine the accuracy of the information in the files.

Therefore, our results cannot distinguish between a failure to ask a

question in an interview and a failure to document that a question was

asked.

All of the files we reviewed were for aliens who attempted to enter the

United States between May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997. For the first file

review, we randomly selected case files (probability samples) at each of

the five locations we visited from lists provided to us by INS of aliens who

were subject to expedited removal and were not referred for a credible

fear interview. For one location (Buffalo district), we selected all cases

because of the small number of entries during this period. The samples

selected at the other locations were large enough to allow us to make

Page 68 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix II 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

estimates with a reasonable degree of accuracy to all individuals entering

each location during those months and who were processed through

expedited removal process. For the file review of aliens whom INS found

not to have a credible fear of persecution, we included all the files that we

could identify using a list of such aliens provided by INS. Our results cannot

be projected to other locations or to other time frames.

Table II.1 provides a description of the sampling frames and dispositions

for the file review of aliens who were subject to expedited removal and

who were not referred for a credible fear interview at each of the locations

we visited.

Table II.1: File Review Dispositions for

the Five Locations of Aliens Who Were

Subject to Expedited Removal Disposition Buffalo JFK

Los

Angeles Miami

San

Ysidro

Original population 81 366 162 484 4,793

Original sample 81 97 95 102 115

Files not found 6 1 14 10 12

Files found 75 96 81 92 103

Files found ineligiblea 1 0 9 3 0

Final sample reviewed 74 96 72 89 103

Adjusted populationb 80 366 144 468 4,793

aCases were deleted from the sample for the following reasons: minor (less than 18 years old),

stowaway, not an expedited removal case, and sent for credible fear interview.

bThe adjusted population is our estimate of the number of eligible cases in the original population

of interest. This estimate multiplies the original population total by the proportion of found files that

were eligible. The adjusted population is calculated as follows:

[ (final sample reviewed) / (files found) ] x (original population)

To identify the population of aliens who attempted to enter between

May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997, who were referred for a credible fear

interview and INS found that they did not have a credible fear of

persecution, we obtained a list from INS of such individuals. We deleted

from this list aliens who were minors or stowaways or who had been

paroled into the country before May 1, 1997. INS found additional files that

met our review criteria, which we included in our review. The total

number of files we reviewed was 84.

Because we used random sampling at four of the locations (JFK airport,

Los Angeles airport, Miami airport, and San Ysidro), the results obtained

for these locations are subject to some uncertainty or sampling error. The

Page 69 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix II 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

sampling error can be expressed in terms of confidence levels and ranges.

The confidence level indicates the degree of confidence that can be placed

in the estimates derived from the sample. The range is a pair of values

derived from the sample data, an upper and lower limit, between which

the actual population values might be found. Our samples were designed

so that the sampling error would not be greater than 10 percentage points

at the 95-percent confidence level. Thus, if all cases in our population for a

particular port of entry had been examined, the chances are 95 out of 100

that the results obtained would be included in the range formed by adding

or subtracting 10 percentage points from the sample estimates. In this

report, all sampling errors fall within this range, unless otherwise noted.

In addition to the reported sampling errors, the practical difficulties of

conducting any file review may introduce other types of errors, commonly

referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how two

reviewers interpret a question, or in the ways in which two INS inspectors

provided file documentation, can introduce unwanted variability into the

results. We included steps in both the data collection and data analysis

stages to minimize such nonsampling errors. We developed and pretested

our data collection instrument in consultation with INS officials, and we

conducted training with all of our staff who would be conducting the

reviews. During the review process, we reviewed a small subset of our

completed forms to ensure consistency in the way they were being filled

out. We verified all data entry of the data collection instruments as well as

all the programming used in the analyses.

We did our review from November 1996 to March 1998 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 70 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix III 

Historical Data on Aliens Who Attempted to

Enter the United States

Table III.1: Nationwide Historical Data on Aliens Who Attempted to Enter the United States

Aliens not admitted into the United States

Fiscal year

Total aliens

inspected at

the primary

inspection

level

Aliens

referred

to the

secondary

inspection

level

Application

withdrawn/

refuseda Paroledb

Inspection

deferred

Referred to

immigration

judge

Total aliens

not admitted

1992 315,093,572 10,102,035 911,040 64,991 23,425 16,488 1,015,944

1993 315,048,108 10,041,184 876,054 64,411 20,678 17,971 979,114

1994 325,615,962 10,480,736 953,320 60,318 23,131 15,187 1,051,956

1995 319,364,450 11,521,615 594,532 62,421 14,906 17,680 689,539

1996 315,453,144 8,646,978 596,813 96,746 17,472 23,350 734,381

1997c (part) 156,348,463 4,164,794 283,692 49,358 8,534 16,215 357,799

Total 1,746,923,699 54,957,342 4,215,451 398,245 108,146 106,891 4,828,733

a“Refused” refers to aliens who were inadmissible and could not appeal their inadmissibility to an

immigration judge because of the type of visa they presented to an inspector.

b“Paroled” refers to a procedure used to temporarily admit an excludable alien into the United

States for emergency reasons or when the alien’s admittance is in the public interest.

cFiscal year 1997 time frame includes October 1, 1996, through March 31, 1997.

Source: GAO analysis of INS data.

Page 71 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix III 

Historical Data on Aliens Who Attempted to

Enter the United States

Table III.2: Buffalo Land Ports of Entry Data on Aliens Attempting to Enter the United States

Aliens not admitted into the United States

Fiscal year

Total aliens

inspected at

the primary

inspection

level

Aliens

referred

to the

secondary

inspection

level

Application

withdrawn/

refuseda Paroledb

Inspection

deferred

Referred to

immigration

judge

Total aliens

not admitted

1992c 26,578,885 860,723 54,986 2,195 322 1,009 58,512

1993 24,750,888 845,316 55,390 2,928 324 824 59,466

1994 22,524,153 798,574 49,635 2,155 262 974 53,026

1995 20,820,252 1,394,683 43,740 2,155 128 1,154 47,177

1996 19,920,772 1,689,952 59,709 2,423 206 1,115 63,453

1997d (part) 8,425,797 667,015 21,708 1,380 109 479 23,676

Total 123,020,747 6,256,263 285,168 13,236 1,351 5,555 305,310

a“Refused” refers to aliens who were inadmissible and could not appeal their inadmissibility to an

immigration judge because of the type of visa they presented to an inspector.

b“Paroled” refers to a procedure used to temporarily admit an excludable alien into the United

States, for emergency reasons or when the alien’s admittance is in the public interest.

cFiscal year 1992 data do not include October 1992 because data were not available.

dFiscal year 1997 time frame includes October 1, 1996, through March 31, 1997.

Source: GAO analysis of INS data.

Page 72 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix III 

Historical Data on Aliens Who Attempted to

Enter the United States

Table III.3: JFK Airport Data on Aliens Attempting to Enter the United States

Aliens not admitted into the United States

Fiscal year

Total aliens

inspected at

the primary

inspection

level

Aliens

referred

to the

secondary

inspection

level

Application

withdrawn/

refuseda Paroledb

Inspection

deferred

Referred to

immigration

judge

Total aliens

not admitted

1992c 4,240,817 112,729 2,858 755 5,319 6,288 15,220

1993 4,648,172 121,188 3,194 816 1,286 7,369 12,665

1994 4,814,346 123,474 3,098 777 1,408 4,525 9,808

1995 5,310,229 133,783 2,778 359 1,428 3,429 7,994

1996 5,485,048 139,325 2,877 464 2,142 2,189 7,672

1997d (part) 2,460,233 61,247 1,232 47 854 1,059 3,192

Total 26,958,845 691,746 16,037 3,218 12,437 24,859 56,551

a“Refused” refers to aliens who were inadmissible and could not appeal their inadmissibility to an

immigration judge because of the type of visa they presented to an inspector.

b“Paroled” refers to a procedure used to temporarily admit an excludable alien into the United

States, for emergency reasons or when the alien’s admittance is in the public interest.

cFiscal year 1992 data do not include October 1992 because data were not available.

dFiscal year 1997 time frame includes October 1, 1996, through March 31, 1997.

Source: GAO analysis of INS data.

Page 73 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix III 

Historical Data on Aliens Who Attempted to

Enter the United States

Table III.4: Los Angeles Airport Data on Aliens Attempting to Enter the United States

Aliens not admitted into the United States

Fiscal year

Total aliens

inspected at

the primary

inspection

level

Aliens

referred

to the

secondary

inspection

level

Application

withdrawn/

refuseda Paroledb

Inspection

deferred

Referred to

immigration

judge

Total aliens

not admitted

1992c 2,649,935 33,858 937 5,112 970 1,674 8,693

1993 3,053,013 46,026 1,293 15,104 1,353 928 18,678

1994 3,605,086 56,297 1,691 9,732 1,537 849 13,809

1995 3,875,347 54,205 1,877 5,938 1,245 877 9,937

1996 4,279,929 53,177 2,017 8,194 1,114 826 12,151

1997d (part) 2,060,235 24,759 1,074 1,897 524 499 3,994

Total 19,523,545 268,322 8,889 45,977 6,743 5,653 67,262

a“Refused” refers to aliens who were inadmissible and could not appeal their inadmissibility to an

immigration judge because of the type of visa they presented to an inspector.

b“Paroled” refers to a procedure used to temporarily admit an excludable alien into the United

States, for emergency reasons or when the alien’s admittance is in the public interest.

cFiscal year 1992 data do not include October 1992 because data were not available.

dFiscal year 1997 time frame includes October 1, 1996, through March 31, 1997.

Source: GAO analysis of INS data.

Page 74 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix III 

Historical Data on Aliens Who Attempted to

Enter the United States

Table III.5: Miami Airport Data on Aliens Attempting to Enter the United States

Aliens not admitted into the United States

Fiscal year

Total aliens

inspected at

the primary

inspection

level

Aliens

referred

to the

secondary

inspection

level

Application

withdrawn/

refuseda Paroledb

Inspection

deferred

Referred to

immigration

judge

Total aliens

not admitted

1992c 3,032,792 40,183 2,088 3,178 492 1,376 7,134

1993 3,720,690 59,169 3,310 3,243 741 3,095 10,389

1994 3,776,063 62,432 3,408 4,087 1,102 3,606 12,203

1995 4,501,090 87,922 3,655 17,961 1,149 3,436 26,201

1996 4,655,623 130,970 3,087 32,885 2,186 2,412 40,570

1997d (part) 1,926,413 46,731 1,049 5,700 600 975 8,324

Total 21,612,671 427,407 16,597 67,054 6,270 14,900 104,821

a“Refused” refers to aliens who were inadmissible and could not appeal their inadmissibility to an

immigration judge because of the type of visa they presented to an inspector.

b“Paroled” refers to a procedure used to temporarily admit an excludable alien into the United

States, for emergency reasons or when the alien’s admittance is in the public interest.

cFiscal year 1992 data do not include October 1992 because data were not available.

dFiscal year 1997 time frame includes October 1, 1996, through March 31, 1997.

Source: GAO analysis of INS data.

Page 75 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix III 

Historical Data on Aliens Who Attempted to

Enter the United States

Table III.6: San Ysidro Port of Entry Data on Aliens Attempting to Enter the United States

Aliens not admitted into the United States

Fiscal year

Total aliens

inspected at

the primary

inspection

level

Aliens

referred

to the

secondary

inspection

level

Application

withdrawn/

refuseda Paroledb

Inspection

deferred

Referred to

immigration

judge

Total aliens

not admitted

1992c 33,559,303 1,461,925 127,308 2,925 70 0 130,303

1993 36,758,143 1,715,130 119,143 2,356 41 21 121,561

1994 38,917,788 2,070,364 146,855 2,679 42 76 149,652

1995 36,787,815 2,226,104 166,629 2,917 20 3,526 173,092

1996 26,857,643 1,414,991 110,561 4,887 17 10,462 125,927

1997d (part) 14,181,317 703,423 44,744 5,021 10 8,018 57,793

Total 187,062,009 9,591,937 715,240 20,785 200 22,103 758,328

a“Refused” refers to aliens who were inadmissible and could not appeal their inadmissibility to an

immigration judge because of the type of visa they presented to an inspector.

b“Paroled” refers to a procedure used to temporarily admit an excludable alien into the United

States, for emergency reasons or when the alien’s admittance is in the public interest.

cFiscal year 1992 data do not include October 1992 because data were not available.

dFiscal year 1997 time frame includes October 1, 1996, through March 31, 1997.

Source: GAO analysis of INS data.

Page 76 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix IV 

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Results From Exclusion and Removal

Hearings

Between October 1, 1995, and March 31, 1997, EOIR received 42,164

exclusion cases from INS against aliens who were at least charged with

attempting to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or

misrepresentation or arriving without proper documents.1

 The final EOIR

decision is made either by the immigration judge or by BIA if the alien or

INS appeals the immigration judge’s decision. As of January 6, 1998, 3,613

cases were pending and 38,551 cases were completed (e.g., cases that had

a final EOIR decision recorded).

In 84 percent of the 38,551 completed cases, the final EOIR decision was

that the alien was not to be admitted into the United States. In 16 percent

of the completed cases, the final EOIR decision was that the alien should

not be denied entry into the United States. However, the alien may have

subsequently been denied entry into the United States. For instance, INS

initially may have brought charges against the alien under the wrong type

of proceeding. If INS subsequently filed charges under the correct

proceeding, the final EOIR decision under that proceeding may be to deny

the alien entry into the United States.2

As of January 6, 1998, aliens had appealed the immigration judges’

decision to BIA in 1,397 cases, INS had appealed the decision in 180 cases,

and another 15 cases were appealed by both the alien and INS or were

referred by the immigration judge. Of these 1,592 cases, 1,003 were still

pending, 178 aliens were to be admitted, 406 aliens were to be removed,

and 5 aliens were permitted to withdraw their applications.

Approximately 8 percent of the 42,164 aliens whose cases EOIR received

between October 1, 1995, and March 31, 1997, applied for asylum before

the immigration judge.

As seen in table IV.1, the length of time to complete a case (for the 38,527

cases for which there was a completion date recorded) varied from 30

days or less for 26,117 (67.8 percent) of the cases, to 721 to 810 days for 44

cases (0.1 percent).3

 As of January 6, 1998, 3,637 cases did not have a

completion date.

1

These are cases against aliens who presented themselves for admission at ports of entry.

2

Additionally, in nine cases the decision was that the alien should be allowed to depart from the United

States voluntarily.

3

A discrepancy exists between the number of cases for which there was a final EOIR decision recorded

and the number of cases for which there was a completion date recorded. The discrepancy is due to

missing data within these fields in the database.

Page 77 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix IV 

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Results From Exclusion and Removal

Hearings

Table IV.1: Elapsed Days From Date

EOIR Received the Case to Date EOIR

Completed the Case Elapsed days

Number of

completed cases

Percentage of

completed cases

0-30 26,117 67.8

31-60 2,014 5.2

61-90 1,484 3.9

91-180 3,611 9.4

181-270 2,397 6.2

271-360 1,505 3.9

361-450 664 1.7

451-540 361 0.9

541-630 230 0.6

631-720 100 0.3

721-810 44 0.1

Total 38,527 100

Source: GAO analysis of data in EOIR’s Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review

database.

For these 42,164 exclusion cases, 13,910 (33 percent) of the aliens were

not detained during the hearing process, while 26,814 (64 percent) were in

detention as of the most recent proceeding, and 1,440 (3 percent) were not

in detention as of the most recent proceeding but had been detained at

some point during the hearing process.

As seen in table IV.2, the nationality of the alien for over half the cases

received by EOIR between October 31, 1995, and March 31, 1997, was

Mexican.

Page 78 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix IV 

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Results From Exclusion and Removal

Hearings

Table IV.2: The 10 Most Common

Nationalities of Aliens Who Were

Scheduled for Exclusion Hearings Nationality

Number of

aliens

Percentage of

exclusion cases

Mexico 24,532 58.2

Cuba 2,905 6.9

Haiti 2,127 5.0

Nationality unknown 1,318 3.1

China 1,312 3.1

Canada 1,246 3.0

India 628 1.5

Jamaica 478 1.1

Sri Lanka 410 1.0

Pakistan 399 0.9

Othera 6,809 16.1

Total 42,164 99.9

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

a“Other” includes aliens of 176 different nationalities and 6 aliens who were “stateless”.

Source: GAO analysis of data in EOIR’s Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review

database.

After April 1, 1997,

Removal Hearing Data

Between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, EOIR received 1,996 removal

cases from INS against aliens whose only charges were for attempting to

enter the United States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or

arriving without proper documents.4

 The final EOIR decision is made either

by the immigration judge or by BIA if the alien or INS appeals the

immigration judge’s decision. As of January 6, 1998, 942 cases were

completed (e.g., cases that had a final EOIR decision recorded), and the

remaining 1,054 cases were pending. Of the completed cases, EOIR decided

not to admit the alien 50 percent of the time or to allow the alien to

voluntarily depart in 3 percent of the cases. In 47 percent of the cases, the

decision was that the alien should not be denied entry into the United

States on the basis of the set of charges presented for these proceedings.

As of January 6, 1998, the alien had appealed the immigration judge’s

decision to BIA in 83 cases, and INS had appealed the decision in 5 cases. Of

4

These would include cases for aliens who presented themselves for admission at ports of entry who

were found not to be admissible but who were found to have a credible fear of persecution. It would

also include cases for the Cuban nationals who are not subject to expedited removal and aliens who

entered the United States without inspection and who subsequently came in contact with INS and

were placed in removal proceedings as inadmissible aliens.

Page 79 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix IV 

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Results From Exclusion and Removal

Hearings

these cases, 80 were still pending, and BIA found the alien was to be

admitted in 4 cases and found the alien was to be removed in 4 cases.

For 1,996 cases received between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, 691

aliens applied for asylum before the immigration judge.

Table IV.3 shows that as of January 6, 1998, 37 percent of the cases EOIR

received between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, and for which there

was a completion date recorded, had been completed within 30 days. As of

January 6, 1998, 1,060 cases did not have a completion date.5

Table IV.3: Elapsed Days From Date

EOIR Received the Case to Date EOIR

Completed the Case Elapsed days

Number of

completed cases

Percentage of

completed cases

0-30 348 37

31-60 175 19

61-90 174 19

91-180 212 23

181-270 27 3

Total 936 101

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of data in EOIR’s Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review

database.

After April, 1, 1997, 615 (31 percent) of the 1,996 aliens were not detained

during the hearing process, while 820 (41 percent) were in detention as of

the most recent proceeding, and 561 (28 percent) were not in detention as

of the most recent proceeding but had been detained at some point during

the hearing process.

The most common nationality of aliens in these removal proceedings, as

shown in table IV.4, was Cuban.

5

A discrepancy exists between the number of cases for which there was a final EOIR decision recorded

and the number of cases for which there was a completion date recorded. The discrepancy is due to

missing data within these fields in the database.

Page 80 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix IV 

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Results From Exclusion and Removal

Hearings

Table IV.4: The 10 Most Common

Nationalities of Aliens Who Were

Scheduled for Removal Hearings Nationality

Number of

aliens

Percentage of

removal cases

Cuba 265 13

China 257 13

Sri Lanka 216 11

Mexico 198 10

Albania 69 3

Somalia 64 3

Haiti 60 3

India 51 3

Nigeria 50 3

Pakistan 48 2

Othera 718 36

Total 1,996 100

a“Other” includes aliens of 112 different nationalities. It also includes 14 aliens for which the

nationality was unknown and 1 alien who was “stateless”. Thirty of the countries of nationality had

only 1 case.

Source: GAO analysis of data in EOIR’s Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review

database.

Page 81 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix V 

Description of the Violations That Subject

Aliens to Expedited Removal

The violations under the INA that would subject aliens to an expedited

removal order are the following: (1) obtained a visa, other documentation,

or admission into the United States or any benefit under the INA through

fraud or misrepresentation (INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i)); (2) obtained a benefit

under federal or state law by falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen (INA

§212(a)(6)(C)(ii)); or (3) were not in possession of valid entry documents

(INA §212(a)(7) subparagraphs (A)(i)(I), (A)(i)(II), (B)(i)(I), or (B)(i)(II)).

According to INS training material, in order for an alien to be found

inadmissible under the first section of the INA, the misrepresentation must

be willful, that is, the alien had knowledge that the information was false

and he or she deliberately used the false information to gain a visa, entry,

or other benefit. In addition, the misrepresentation must be material, that

is, the alien is inadmissible on the true facts, or the misrepresentation

tends to shut off a relevant line of inquiry that might have resulted in a

determination of inadmissibility. Further, the misrepresentation must have

been made to a government official and the purpose of the

misrepresentation was to gain a benefit under the INA for the alien (such as

admittance to the United States). In general, the inspector is not to apply

this section when the alien makes a timely retraction of the

misrepresentation, in most cases at the first opportunity.

The second section of the INA relates to false claims of U.S. citizenship. To

be charged with this violation, the alien must have claimed to be a U.S.

citizen to obtain a benefit under federal or state law.

The third section of the INA relates to specific sections of the law. These

sections of the law state that aliens are inadmissible if their situation is

any of the following at the time they apply for admittance:

• Any immigrant who is not in possession of a valid, unexpired visa; reentry

permit; border crossing identification card; or other valid entry document

and a valid unexpired passport, other suitable travel document, or

document of identity and nationality if required. Two examples provided

in INS training materials of situations which would fall under this basis of

inadmissibility are: an immigrant in possession of an immigrant visa

bearing an immigrant classification for which the alien is not eligible

(hence, the alien has improper documents) and an immigrant in

possession of an expired immigrant visa.

Under the INA, all aliens requesting entry are considered to be immigrants

unless they are able to establish that they are entitled to a nonimmigrant

Page 82 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix V 

Description of the Violations That Subject

Aliens to Expedited Removal

status. If an alien applies for entry as a nonimmigrant, the alien has the

burden of establishing that he or she is entitled to the nonimmigrant status

as reflected on their visa. If the alien fails to establish that he or she is

entitled to the nonimmigrant visa that the alien is presenting, the inspector

may refuse to allow entry because the alien does not have a valid entry

document.

• Any immigrant whose visa had been issued without compliance with

provisions of the INA. This provision applies when the alien has an

immigrant visa bearing an immigrant classification symbol; however, the

alien is not entitled to that immigrant classification and the alien is not

entitled to a preference class.

• Any nonimmigrant not in possession of a valid passport or a valid

nonimmigrant visa or border crossing identification card. An alien who

requests entry and has a valid nonimmigrant visa may be ordered removed

if the inspector finds that the visa is an improper visa (e.g., the alien has a

valid tourist visa but is intending to become a student).

Page 83 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VI 

INS Forms Used During the Expedited

Removal Process

Figure VI.1: Record of Sworn Statement in Proceedings under Section 235 (b)(1) of the Act

Page 84 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VI 

INS Forms Used During the Expedited

Removal Process

Page 85 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VI 

INS Forms Used During the Expedited

Removal Process

Figure VI.2: Information about Credible Fear Interview

Page 86 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VI 

INS Forms Used During the Expedited

Removal Process

Page 87 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VI 

INS Forms Used During the Expedited

Removal Process

Figure VI.3: Record of Determination/Credible Fear Work Sheet

Page 88 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VI 

INS Forms Used During the Expedited

Removal Process

Page 89 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VI 

INS Forms Used During the Expedited

Removal Process

Page 90 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VI 

INS Forms Used During the Expedited

Removal Process

Page 91 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VI 

INS Forms Used During the Expedited

Removal Process

Page 92 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VI 

INS Forms Used During the Expedited

Removal Process

Page 93 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VI 

INS Forms Used During the Expedited

Removal Process

Page 94 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VI 

INS Forms Used During the Expedited

Removal Process

Page 95 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VII 

Additional Data on Aliens Who Were

Charged Under the Expedited Removal

Provision

Following are data on aliens who attempted to enter the United States

between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, and who were processed

under the expedited removal provision but were not referred for a credible

fear interview or a legal status claim review. The data are presented

nationwide and for the five locations in our review. The data for the

airports include cases for aliens entering through seaports for those

locations.

Table VII.1: Gender of Aliens Processed Under the Expedited Removal Provision Between April 1, 1997, and October 31,

1997

Male alien Female alien

Location Number Percent Number Percent

Total

aliens

processed

Nationwide 16,658 60 11,116 40 27,774

Buffalo district 151 77 46 23 197

JFK airport 589 65 313 35 902

Los Angeles airport 218 63 128 37 346

Miami airport 572 55 464 45 1,036

San Ysidro 7,089 60 4,744 40 11,833

Source: GAO analysis of INS data from the Deportable Alien Control System.

Table VII.2: Age Range of Aliens Processed Under the Expedited Removal Provision Between April 1, 1997, and October 31,

1997

1 to 17 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 and older

Age range of aliens

Location Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total

Nationwide 426 2 11,981 43 10,448 38 4,143 15 761 3 27,759a

Buffalo district 1 b 42 21 87 44 55 28 12 6 197

JFK airport 36 4 189 21 400 45 240 27 30 3 895

Los Angeles airport 23 7 100 29 128 37 80 23 14 4 345

Miami airport 29 3 208 20 397 38 343 33 59 6 1,036

San Ysidro 76 b 5,575 47 4,406 37 1,506 13 270 2 11,833

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

aFor 15 cases, the data on age were missing.

bIndicates less than 1 percent of the total aliens processed in the district.

Source: GAO analysis of INS data from the Deportable Alien Control System.

Page 96 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VII 

Additional Data on Aliens Who Were

Charged Under the Expedited Removal

Provision

Table VII.3: The 10 Most Common

Countries of Citizenship for Aliens

Processed Under Expedited Removal

Nationwide Between April 1, 1997, and

October 31, 1997

Country of citizenship

Number of

aliens

Percentage

of aliens

Mexico 24,311 87.5

Jamaica 354 1.3

Canada 247 0.9

Colombia 227 0.8

Guatemala 196 0.7

Dominican Republic 193 0.7

Ecuador 179 0.6

Brazil 168 0.6

China 148 0.5

Peru 137 0.5

Othera 1,614 5.8

Total 27,774 99.9b

a“Other” is comprised of 120 countries, 31 of which had only 1 case.

bTotal does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of INS data from the Deportable Alien Control System.

Table VII.4: The 11 Most Common

Countries of Citizenship for Aliens

Processed Under Expedited Removal

at the Buffalo District Between April 1,

1997, and October 31, 1997

Country of citizenship

Number of

aliens

Percentage

of aliens

Canada 76 38.6

Pakistan 11 5.6

Jamaica 9 4.6

India 7 3.6

Somalia 6 3.0

Guyana 5 2.5

Philippines 5 2.5

United Kingdom 5 2.5

Israel 4 2.0

Sudan 4 2.0

Mexico 4 2.0

Othera 61 31.0

Total 197 99.9b

a“Other” is comprised of 42 countries, 29 of which had only 1 case.

bTotal does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of INS data from the Deportable Alien Control System.

Page 97 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VII 

Additional Data on Aliens Who Were

Charged Under the Expedited Removal

Provision

Table VII.5: The 10 Most Common

Countries of Citizenship for Aliens

Processed Under Expedited Removal

at the JFK Airport Between April 1,

1997, and October 31, 1997

Country of citizenship

Number of

aliens

Percentage

of aliens

Jamaica 93 10.3

Dominican Republic 92 10.2

Ecuador 79 8.8

Brazil 65 7.2

China 51 5.7

Pakistan 42 4.7

Israel 28 3.1

Peru 26 2.9

India 25 2.8

Philippines 24 2.7

Othera 377 41.8

Total 902 100.2b

a“Other” is comprised of 70 countries, 28 of which had only 1 case.

bTotal does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of INS data from the Deportable Alien Control System.

Table VII.6: The 10 Most Common

Countries of Citizenship for Aliens

Processed Under Expedited Removal

at the Los Angeles Airport Between

April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

Country of citizenship

Number of

aliens

Percentage

of aliens

Mexico 140 40.5

China 48 13.9

Guatemala 34 9.8

El Salvador 22 6.4

Bolivia 21 6.1

Philippines 17 4.9

Peru 8 2.3

Pakistan 6 1.7

India 5 1.4

Korea 5 1.4

Othera 40 11.6

Total 346 100.0

a“Other” is comprised of 20 countries, 5 of which had only 1 case.

Source: GAO analysis of INS data from the Deportable Alien Control System.

Page 98 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VII 

Additional Data on Aliens Who Were

Charged Under the Expedited Removal

Provision

Table VII.7: The 10 Most Common

Countries of Citizenship for Aliens

Processed Under Expedited Removal

at the Miami Airport Between April 1,

1997, and October 31, 1997

Country of citizenship

Number of

aliens

Percentage

of aliens

Jamaica 149 14.4

Colombia 145 14.0

Venezuela 71 6.9

Guatemala 62 6.0

Honduras 62 6.0

Costa Rica 58 5.6

Brazil 56 5.4

Peru 55 5.3

Dominican Republic 50 4.8

Ecuador 43 4.2

Othera 285 27.5

Total 1,036 100.1b

a“Other” is comprised of 35 countries, 10 of which had only 1 case.

bTotal does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of INS data from the Deportable Alien Control System.

Table VII.8: The 10 Most Common

Countries of Citizenship for Aliens

Processed Under Expedited Removal

at the San Ysidro Between April 1,

1997, and October 31, 1997

Country of citizenship

Number of

aliens

Percentage

of aliens

Mexico 11,777 99.5

Guatemala 13 0.1

El Salvador 8 0.1

Honduras 5 a

Colombia 4 a

Belize 3 a

Brazil 3 a

Peru 3 a

Costa Rica 2 a

Nicaragua 2 a

Otherb 13 0.1

Total 11,833 99.8c

aIndicates less than 1 percent of the aliens processed in the district.

b“Other” is comprised of 13 countries, all of which had only 1 case.

cTotal does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of INS data from the Deportable Alien Control System.

Page 99 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VII 

Additional Data on Aliens Who Were

Charged Under the Expedited Removal

Provision

Following are data from our review of a sample of files on aliens who

attempted to enter the country between May 1 and July 31, 1997, and were

processed through the expedited removal procedures but were not

referred for a credible fear interview. For tables VII.9 through VII.13, we

based the percentages on the adjusted populations of our case file review

for the five locations we visited. See appendix II for a discussion of our

case file review methodology. As shown in table II.1, the adjusted case file

population for (1) Buffalo was 80, (2) JFK was 366, (3) Los Angeles was

144, (4) Miami was 468, and (5) San Ysidro was 4,793.

Table VII.9: Languages Used in

Secondary Interviews Between May 1,

1997, and July 31, 1997, Either by the

INS Inspector or an Interpreter on the

Basis of File Reviews in the Buffalo

District

Language Percent

English 82

French 9

All others 8

Total 99a

aTotal does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO file review.

Table VII.10: Languages Used in

Secondary Interviews Between May 1,

1997, and July 31, 1997, Either by the

INS Inspector or an Interpreter on the

Basis of File Reviews at the JFK

Airport

Language Percent

English 45

Spanish 31

Portuguese 5

Russian 5

French 4

Mandarin 4

All others 5

Total 99a

aTotal does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO file review.

Page 100 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VII 

Additional Data on Aliens Who Were

Charged Under the Expedited Removal

Provision

Table VII.11: Languages Used in

Secondary Interviews Between May 1,

1997, and July 31, 1997, Either by the

INS Inspector or an Interpreter on the

Basis of File Reviews at the Los

Angeles Airport

Language Percent

Spanish 81

English 10

Chinese/Mandarin 7

Tagalog 3

Total 101a

aTotal does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO file review.

Table VII.12: Languages Used in

Secondary Interviews Between May 1,

1997, and July 31, 1997, Either by the

INS Inspector or an Interpreter on the

Basis of File Reviews at the Miami

Airport

Language Percent

Spanish 65

English 34

Creole 1

Total 100

Source: GAO file review.

In San Ysidro, Spanish was the only language used in secondary interviews

between May 1 and July 31, 1997, by either the INS inspector or an

interpreter on the basis of our case file reviews.

Page 101 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VII 

Additional Data on Aliens Who Were

Charged Under the Expedited Removal

Provision

Table VII.13: INS Charges Against Aliens Who Were Processed Under the Expedited Removal Procedures Between May 1,

1997, and July 31, 1997

Percentage of cases by location

Violation

Buffalo

district

JFK

airport

Miami

airport

Los

Angeles

airport

San

Ysidro

Willful misrepresentation of material fact—6(C)(i) 77 76 72 61 68

False claims to U.S. citizenship—6(C)(ii) 10 9 33 18 27

Immigrant not in possession of valid, unexpired visa, reentry permit, border

crossing card and a valid passport or other travel document—7(A)(i)(I) 51 93 89 52 41a

Immigrant with visa issued without compliance with section 203 of the

INA—7(A)(i)(II) 3 3 3 0 0

Nonimmigrant not in possession of passport valid for at least 6 months

beyond period of initial admission—7(B)(i)(I) 33 48 3 1 0

Nonimmigrant not in possession of valid nonimmigrant visa or border

crossing card—7(B)(i)(II) 10 54 2 1 0

Note: See appendix V for a more detailed description of these charges.

aThe sampling error for this estimate is 10.03 percent.

Source: GAO file review.

Page 102 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VIII 

Additional Data on Aliens Who Had a

Credible Fear Interview

Following are data on aliens who attempted to enter the United States

between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, and had a credible fear

interview. The data are presented nationwide and for the eight asylum

offices.

Table VIII.1: Gender of Aliens Who Had

a Credible Fear Interview and

Attempted to Enter the United States

Between April 1, 1997, and October 31,

1997

Male Female Total

Location Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Nationwide 762 69 346 31 1,108 100

Arlington 26 74 9 26 35 100

Chicago 63 78 18 22 81 100

Houston 73 78 21 22 94 100

Los Angeles 170 68 81 32 251 100

Miami 100 64 57 36 157 100

New York 193 75 64 25 257 100

Newark 89 66 45 34 134 100

San Francisco 48 49 51 52 99 101a

aPercentage does not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.

Table VIII.2: Age Range of Aliens Who Had a Credible Fear Interview and Attempted to Enter the United States Between

April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997

1 to 17 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 and older Total

Location Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Nationwide 93 9 311 29 426 40 225 21 22 2 1,077 101a

Arlington 6 17 8 23 17 49 1 3 3 9 35 101a

Chicago 10 12 23 28 30 37 17 21 1 1 81 99a

Houston 5 6 29 33 37 43 14 16 2 2 87 100

Los Angeles 38 15 62 25 89 36 53 22 5 2 247 100

Miami 5 3 53 34 67 43 29 19 3 2 155 101a

New York 16 6 87 35 92 37 52 21 5 2 252 101a

Newark 2 2 28 22 61 48 33 26 3 2 127 100

San Francisco 11 12 21 23 33 36 26 29 0 0 91 100

aPercentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.

Page 103 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VIII 

Additional Data on Aliens Who Had a

Credible Fear Interview

Table VIII.3: The 12 Most Common

Countries of Citizenship for Aliens

Who Had a Credible Fear Interview and

Attempted to Enter the United States

Between April 1, 1997, and October 31,

1997

Country of citizenship

Number of

aliens

Percentage

of aliens

Sri Lanka 189 17

China 178 16

Albania 76 7

Haiti 76 7

Nigeria 53 5

Somalia 45 4

Mexico 41 4

Pakistan 38 3

Guatemala 35 3

Yugoslavia 29 3

India 24 2

El Salvador 23 2

Othera 301 27

Total 1,108 100

a“Other” is comprised of 67 countries, 24 of which had only 1 case.

Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.

Table VIII.4: The Six Most Common

Countries of Citizenship for Aliens

Who Had a Credible Fear Interview

With the Arlington Asylum Office and

Attempted to Enter the United States

Between April 1, 1997, and October 31,

1997

Country of citizenship

Number of

aliens

Percentage

of aliens

Albania 11 31

Nigeria 6 17

Somalia 3 9

China 2 6

Sierra Leone 2 6

Zaire 2 6

Othera 9 26

Total 35 101

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

a“Other” is comprised of nine countries, all of which had only one case.

Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.

Page 104 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VIII 

Additional Data on Aliens Who Had a

Credible Fear Interview

Table VIII.5: The Six Most Common

Countries of Citizenship for Aliens

Who Had a Credible Fear Interview

With the Chicago Asylum Office and

Attempted to Enter the United States

Between April 1, 1997, and October 31,

1997

Country of citizenship

Number of

aliens

Percentage

of aliens

Sri Lanka 15 19

Somalia 11 14

Albania 9 11

China 7 9

India 6 7

Nigeria 6 7

Othera 27 33

Total 81 100

a“Other” is comprised of 14 countries, 7 of which had only 1 case.

Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.

Table VIII.6: The Seven Most Common

Countries of Citizenship for Aliens

Who Had a Credible Fear Interview

With the Houston Asylum Office and

Attempted to Enter the United States

Between April 1, 1997, and October 31,

1997

Country of citizenship

Number of

aliens

Percentage

of aliens

Guatemala 15 16

Cuba 12 13

Mexico 11 12

El Salvador 6 6

Nigeria 6 6

Honduras 5 5

Sri Lanka 5 5

Othera 34 36

Total 94 99

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

a“Other” is comprised of 20 countries, 10 of which had only 1 case.

Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.

Page 105 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VIII 

Additional Data on Aliens Who Had a

Credible Fear Interview

Table VIII.7: The Six Most Common

Countries of Citizenship for Aliens

Who Had a Credible Fear Interview

With the Los Angeles Asylum Office

and Attempted to Enter the United

States Between April 1, 1997, and

October 31, 1997

Country of citizenship

Number of

aliens

Percentage

of aliens

China 72 29

Sri Lanka 37 15

Mexico 28 11

Pakistan 16 6

El Salvador 14 6

Guatemala 11 4

Othera 73 29

Total 251 100

a“Other” is comprised of 34 countries, 19 of which had only 1 case.

Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.

Table VIII.8: The Eight Most Common

Countries of Citizenship for Aliens

Who Had a Credible Fear Interview

With the Miami Asylum Office and

Attempted to Enter the United States

Between April 1, 1997, and October 31,

1997

Country of citizenship

Number of

aliens

Percentage

of aliens

Haiti 70 45

Sri Lanka 29 19

Guatemala 7 5

Albania 5 3

Colombia 5 3

Lebanon 4 3

Peru 4 3

Yugoslavia 4 3

Othera 29 18

Total 157 102

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

a“Other” is comprised of 17 countries, 9 of which had only 1 case.

Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.

Page 106 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VIII 

Additional Data on Aliens Who Had a

Credible Fear Interview

Table VIII.9: The Seven Most Common

Countries of Citizenship for Aliens

Who Had a Credible Fear Interview

With the Newark Asylum Office and

Attempted to Enter the United States

Between April 1, 1997, and October 31,

1997

Country of citizenship

Number of

aliens

Percentage

of aliens

Albania 26 19

Sri Lanka 19 14

Nigeria 11 8

China 10 8

Somalia 9 7

Pakistan 6 5

Zaire 6 5

Othera 47 35

Total 134 101

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

a“Other” is comprised of 28 countries, 19 of which had only 1 case.

Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.

Table VIII.10: The Eight Most Common

Countries of Citizenship for Aliens

Who Had a Credible Fear Interview

With the New York Asylum Office and

Attempted to Enter the United States

Between April 1, 1997, and October 31,

1997

Country of citizenship

Number of

aliens

Percentage

of aliens

Sri Lanka 57 22

Albania 25 10

China 20 8

Yugoslavia 19 7

Nigeria 17 7

Somalia 17 7

Ghana 12 5

Pakistan 12 5

Othera 78 30

Total 257 101

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

a“Other” is comprised of 31 countries, 16 of which had only 1 case.

Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.

Page 107 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix VIII 

Additional Data on Aliens Who Had a

Credible Fear Interview

Table VIII.11: The Two Most Common

Countries of Citizenship for Aliens

Who Had a Credible Fear Interview

With the San Francisco Asylum Office

and Attempted to Enter the United

States Between April 1, 1997, and

October 31, 1997

Country of citizenship

Number of

aliens

Percentage

of aliens

China 61 62

Sri Lanka 26 27

Othera 11 11

Total 98 99

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

a“Other” is comprised of 8 countries, 5 of which had only 1 case.

Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.

Page 108 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Appendix IX 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

James M. Blume, Assistant Director

Mary Lane Renninger, Evaluator-in-Charge

Charity J. Goodman, Senior Evaluator

Carolyn S. Ikeda, Senior Evaluator

Barry Jay Seltser, Supervisory Social Science Analyst

Barry L. Reed, Senior Social Science Analyst

Bonita J. Vines, Senior Computer Specialist

Michael H. Little, Communications Analyst

Charlotte A. Moore, Communications Analyst

Ailsa Wei-Tan Chang, Intern

Office of the General

Counsel

Jan B. Montgomery, Assistant General Counsel

Ann H. Finley, Senior Attorney

Los Angeles Field

Office

Janet Fong, Senior Evaluator

Lisa G. Shibata, Evaluator

(183608) Page 109 GAO/GGD-98-81 Process of Denying Aliens Entry
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100