ICE Faces Barriers in 

Timely Repatriation 

of Detained Aliens 

March 11, 2019 

OIG-19-28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

DHS OIG HIGHLIGHTS

 ICE Faces Barriers in Timely Repatriation

 of Detained Aliens 

March 11, 2019 

Why We 

Did This 

Review 

The Department of 

Homeland Security U.S. 

Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) 

repatriates thousands of 

aliens every year. In this 

review, we sought to 

identify barriers to the 

repatriation of detained 

aliens with final orders of 

removal. 

What We 

Recommend 

We made five 

recommendations to 

improve ICE’s removal 

operations staffing, flight 

reservation system, and 

metrics related to visa 

sanctions. 

For Further Information: 

Contact our Office of Public Affairs at 

(202) 981-6000, or email us at 

DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov 

What We Found 

Our case review of 3,053 aliens not removed within 90 

days of receiving a final order of removal revealed that the 

most significant factors delaying or preventing repatriation 

are external and beyond ICE’s control. Specifically, 

detainees’ legal appeals tend to be lengthy; removals are 

dependent on foreign governments cooperating to arrange 

travel documents and flight schedules; detainees may fail 

to comply with repatriation efforts; and detainees’ physical 

or mental health conditions can further delay removals. 

Internally, ICE’s challenges with staffing and technology 

also diminish the efficiency of the removal process. ICE 

struggles with inadequate staffing, heavy caseloads, and 

frequent officer rotations, causing the quality of case 

management for detainees with final orders of removal to 

suffer. In addition, ICE Air Operations manages complex 

logistical movements for commercial and charter flights 

through a cumbersome and inefficient manual process. 

Finally, even though ICE has developed a tool to track and 

report statistics for removal operations, the metrics are 

incomplete and do not track information needed for factbased decisions on visa sanctions. 

ICE Response 

ICE officials concurred with all five recommendations and 

proposed steps to address staffing, training, web-based 

case management and tracking, and decision-making 

processes. 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-19-28 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov

0DUFK

MEMORANDUM FOR: Ronald D. Vitiello 

Senior Official Performing the Duties of Director 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

FROM: John V. Kelly 

Acting Inspector General 

SUBJECT:	 ICE Faces Barriers in Timely Repatriation of Detained 

Aliens 

Attached for your action is our final report, ICE Faces Barriers in Timely 

Repatriation of Detained Aliens. We incorporated the formal comments provided 

by your office. 

The report contains five recommendations aimed at improving ICE’s removal 

operations. Your office concurred with all five recommendations. Based on 

information provided in your response to the draft report, we consider all five 

recommendations open and resolved. Once your office has fully implemented 

the recommendations, please submit a formal closeout letter to us within 30 

days so that we may close the recommendations. The memorandum should be 

accompanied by evidence of completion of agreed-upon corrective actions. 

Please send your response or closure request to 

OIGInspectionsFollowup@oig.dhs.gov. 

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we will 

provide copies of our report to congressional committees with oversight and 

appropriation responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will 

post the report on our website for public dissemination. 

Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact Jennifer L. 

Costello, Deputy Inspector General, at (202) 981-6000, or Tatyana Martell, 

Chief Inspector, at (202) 981-6117. 

Attachment 
 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



Table of Contents 

Background .................................................................................................... 2 

Results of Review ............................................................................................ 3 

External Barriers Delay or Obstruct the Removal Process ...................... 4 

Internal Challenges with ICE Staffing, Technology, and Accuracy of ICE 

Metrics Limit Efficiency of Removals .................................................... 14 

Recommendations......................................................................................... 20 

Appendixes 

Appendix A: Objective, Scope, and Methodology ................................. 23 

Appendix B: ICE Comments to the Draft Report ................................... 25 

Appendix C: Results of Electronic File Case Review .............................. 28 

Appendix D: Countries’ Cooperation with Repatriation ......................... 29 

Appendix E: Travel Document Requests .............................................. 32 

Appendix F: Office of Special Reviews and Evaluations Major 

Contributors to This Report ................................................................. 33 

Appendix G: Report Distribution .......................................................... 34 

Abbreviations 

ERO Enforcement and Removal Operations 

eTD electronic Travel Document 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

RCI Tool Removal Cooperation Initiative Tool
 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-19-28 
 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Background 

Every year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) repatriates 

thousands of aliens with final orders of removal. In fiscal year 2017, ICE 

removed 226,119 aliens who came from 189 countries.1 ICE Enforcement and 

Removal Operations (ERO) must generally remove detained aliens (detainees) 

within 90 days of receiving a final order of removal from a Department of 

Justice Federal immigration judge or, in limited circumstances, an authorized 

Department of Homeland Security official, for violating immigration laws.2 Two 

exceptions stop the 90-day “clock”: if a detainee appeals the final order3 or if a 

detainee obstructs (fails to comply with) the removal process.4 For aliens with 

final removal orders who remain in custody longer than 6 months, ICE must 

generally release them unless there is a significant likelihood that they will be 

removed within a reasonable time in the future.5 

ICE typically repatriates detainees via commercial flights, charter flights,6 or 

Special High Risk Charters,7 with the exception of Mexican nationals who are 

repatriated across the land border. ICE ERO’s 24 field offices are responsible 

for detainee case management (i.e., the “detained docket”) and for providing 

flight escorts when needed. Within ICE, ICE Air Operations (ICE Air), 

coordinates repatriation flights. Detainees on a direct flight to their country of 

citizenship may leave unescorted on a commercial flight, while ICE deportation 

officers may escort detainees scheduled for removal on commercial flights that 

require transit through a third country, or detainees who present a security 

risk. ICE uses charter flights when there are numerous detainees scheduled for 

removal to the same geographic location, or there are medical or security 

requirements that cannot be managed on a commercial flight. 

1 In FY 2015, ICE removed 235,413 aliens and in FY 2016, ICE removed 240,255 aliens. 

2 8 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1231(a)(1)(A) 

3 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii) 

4 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C) 

5 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001); see also Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 378 

(2005) (extending Zadvydas to inadmissible aliens). See DHS Office of Inspector General’s (OIG)
 

prior report ICE’s Compliance With Detention Limits for Aliens With a Final Order of Removal
 

From the United States, OIG-07-28, for information on the limited exceptions to this release
 

requirement for public health and national security cases. 

6 ICE contracts with a private company to supply flights and flight crew used solely to 

repatriate aliens with final orders of removal. ICE determines which aliens will be placed on the
 

charter flights, and ICE staff accompanies the detainees to their destination. 

7 Special High Risk Charters are charter flights to repatriate detainees who resist removal 

efforts or to return a group of detainees when their government issues multiple travel 

documents at once. ICE may add cooperative detainees to these flights if seats are available.
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-19-28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Repatriation requires cooperation from other stakeholders as foreign 

governments must issue passports or other authorized travel documents, agree 

to transportation arrangements, and issue visas to ICE staff escorting aliens to 

their destination. If foreign governments do not cooperate with ICE, DHS may 

impose visa sanctions, which the State Department administers.8 In 2017, 

DHS and the State Department signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 

which ICE was designated responsible for monitoring the ability and 

willingness of countries to cooperate with repatriation.9 Within ICE, ERO is 

responsible for this oversight. 

This report identifies barriers to repatriating detained aliens with final orders of 

removal. DHS’ case management data systems have limited capability to track, 

report on, and analyze immigration outcomes and decisions.10 Because DHS 

does not have reliable statistics on removal challenges, we took a snapshot of 

all aliens with final orders of removal in ICE detention on December 13, 2017, 

to better understand the delays and barriers. On that date, there were 13,217 

detainees total, 3,053 (23 percent) of whom had not been removed within the 

90-day timeframe. We focused our case review on these 3,053 cases and asked 

ICE to provide us with a case disposition as of March 24, 2018. We then 

assessed whether the delays and barriers we identified prolonged detention or 

prevented removal. Unless otherwise identified, the numbers used in this 

report are from our analysis and do not represent official ICE statistics. 

Appendix A provides more information on our scope and methodology. 

Results of Review 

Our case review of 3,053 aliens not removed within the prescribed 90-day 

timeframe revealed that the most significant factors delaying or preventing 

repatriation are external and beyond ICE’s control. Specifically, detainees’ legal 

appeals tend to be lengthy; removals are dependent on foreign governments 

cooperating to arrange travel documents and flight schedules; detainees may 

fail to comply with repatriation efforts; and detainee physical and mental 

health conditions can further delay removals. 

Internally, ICE’s challenges with staffing and technology also diminish the 

efficiency of the removal process. ICE struggles with inadequate staffing, heavy 

caseloads, and frequent officer rotations, causing the quality of case 

8 8 U.S.C. § 1253(d). Visa sanctions deny visas to enter the United States for the citizens of 

uncooperative countries. For example, the United States might stop issuing tourist visas or 

visas to the families of diplomats. 

9 Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the 

U.S. Department of State Concerning the Removal of Aliens, August 16, 2017, Section VI 

10 DHS OIG, DHS Needs a More Unified Approach to Immigration Enforcement and 

Administration, OIG-18-07, October 30, 2017 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-19-28 
 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

management for detainees with final orders of removal to suffer. In addition, 

ICE Air manages complex logistical movements for commercial and charter 

flights through a cumbersome and inefficient manual process. Finally, even 

though ICE has developed a tool to track and report statistics for removal 

operations, the metrics are incomplete and do not provide information needed 

for fact-based decisions on visa sanctions. 

External Barriers Delay or Obstruct the Removal Process 

Based on our case review, the two predominant factors delaying repatriation 

are legal appeals and obtaining travel documents. Legal appeals are complex 

and the backlog in immigration courts directly impacts the timeliness of the 

appeals, while issuance of travel documents is hindered by some foreign 

governments’ unwillingness or lack of capacity to cooperate with the 

repatriation process. Foreign government cooperation is also necessary for 

coordinating repatriation flights and escort visas. Additional obstructions 

include instances when detainees fail to comply with removal proceedings or 

when their medical conditions negatively impact repatriation. Figure 1 

illustrates the percentage of removals delayed by each factor. 

Figure 1: Delays and External Barriers to Removal11 

55% 31% 

6% 

3% 

3% 1% 1% 

Legal Challenges & Appeals (1,670) 

Travel Document (948) 

Flight Arrangements (201) 

Failure To Comply (93) 

Other (85) 

Escorts (37) 

Medical (19) 

Source: OIG Analysis of Aliens Detained Longer than 90 Days Post Final Order of Removal, 

from ICE ENFORCE Alien Removal Module 

11 Most of the 85 cases in our file review marked “Other” were too complex and varied to 

categorize. Examples include aliens who: 

x alternated between failure to comply, legal appeals, requests to withdraw legal 

appeals, and revised citizenship claims; 

x were not in ICE’s physical custody because they were being prosecuted for, or were 

witnesses in the prosecution of, crimes; or 

x 	 were granted a form of relief from removal to their country of citizenship, but were 

still in ICE custody while ICE determined whether they could be removed to a third 

country. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-19-28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Legal Appeals Delay Removals 

An alien with a final order of removal may challenge the decision at any time 

before removal is achieved. While legal challenges are pending, ICE generally 

cannot repatriate an alien,12 but may continue detention until the appeal or 

other challenge is resolved. Legal appeals ensure aliens receive due process 

rights during the removal process. As shown in figure 2, of the 3,053 aliens 

with final orders of removal detained more than 90 days, 1,670 (55 percent) 

had legal appeals pending. 

Our case review and interviews with ICE 

Legal Appeals: (1,670 Cases) 

Source: OIG

31% 55%

6%

3% 3% 1% 1% 

Figure 2: Legal Appeals officers indicate it can take months for a 

court to hear a detainee’s appeal. One reason 

for such delays is that, according to the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), 

there is a “significant and growing case 

backlog” for immigration judge hearings for 

detainees.13 GAO reported that immigration 

court staffing gaps, current caseload 

prioritization, the growing use of 

continuances, and increased appeals to 

higher courts contribute to the backlog. 

According to GAO, at the start of FY 2015, 

immigration courts had a backlog of about 

437,000 cases pending and the median pending time for those cases was 404 

days. As shown in appendix C, of the 490 detainees in our case review whose 

appeals were denied, 231 (47 percent) were detained longer than 6 months 

before they were repatriated. In addition, of the 96 detainees granted a form of 

relief from repatriation, 43 (45 percent) were detained longer than 6 months 

before they received a decision. 

12 The basis for a detainee’s legal appeal or other challenge, and in what legal jurisdiction the 

detainee files the appeal, determines whether ICE is required to allow the detainee to remain in 

detention until the appeal is decided (stay removal). For example, if the detainee was ordered 

removed in absentia (8 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii)), or requests 

protection under the Violence Against Women Act (8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)), ICE cannot 

remove the detainee until the claim is resolved. A motion to stay and a petition for review, in 

some Circuit Courts, stays removal. Even if a stay of removal is not required, ICE can, at its 

discretion, continue to detain the alien until the appeal is decided (8 U.S.C. § 1231(c)(2)). 

13 GAO, Immigration Courts: Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing 

Management and Operational Challenges, GAO-17-438, June 2017 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-19-28 
 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Examples from our electronic case file review of removals delayed due to legal 

appeals include: 

x 	 A Guatemalan national appealed an immigration judge’s decision to deny 

temporary international protection. The appeal court remanded the case 

to the immigration judge to reconsider. The immigration judge 

rescheduled the hearing several times, then denied the claim. The 

detainee appealed this decision and the appeal was still pending at the 

time of our case review. This detainee has been in custody for more than 

3 years. 

x 	 A Mexican national filed a petition with a Circuit Court for the review of 

a removal decision. After the petition was denied, ICE transferred the 

detainee to a new location, which was also in a new court jurisdiction, in 

preparation for a repatriation flight. While waiting to be repatriated, the 

detainee filed a request to reconsider the decision with the immigration 

court where he had originally been detained. When the request was 

denied, the detainee filed a new petition with the Circuit Court with 

jurisdiction over the area where he had been staged for removal. At the 

time of our review, the petition was still pending and this detainee had 

been in custody for more than 3 years. 

Overall, delays due to legal appeals or challenges may lead to aliens with final 

orders of removal being held in detention for as long as 3 years, as evidenced in 

the previous examples. Although legal appeals are an exception to the 90-day 

clock, the prolonged detention imposes considerable costs on ICE. For example, 

in FY 2017, ICE paid facilities detaining aliens approximately $100 per day, per 

detainee.14 Therefore, detaining an alien for 3 years costs ICE about $109,500. 

Foreign Governments’ Inconsistent Cooperation on Repatriation Travel 

Delays and Prevents Removals 

Foreign governments’ cooperation with the repatriation of their nationals is 

vital for achieving removals. Although repatriations to most countries happen 

without significant delays, more than 30 countries present challenges to obtain 

travel documents. In some instances, foreign governments do not conduct 

timely interviews with detainees or notify ICE when additional information is 

required to facilitate travel, delaying removals. Even though increased 

14 According to GAO, ICE has difficulty estimating the actual cost of detention. ICE estimates a 

rate of $132.59 per day per detainee, but GAO concludes this could be an underestimate. Our 

estimate uses $100 per detainee because the most expensive beds — for families and detainees 

requiring hospitalization — are under-represented in our case review. See GAO, Immigration 

Detention: Opportunities Exist to Improve Cost Estimates, GAO-18-343, April 2018. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-19-28 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

diplomatic engagement has improved cooperation on removals, some foreign 

governments still fail to provide flight approvals or travel documents in time, 

causing removal cancellations or delays. In some cases, countries simply do 

not have the resources or infrastructure to assist ICE with required document 

requests. Despite these factors lying outside of ICE’s control, they do not stop 

the 90-day clock for removals. 

Inability to Obtain Travel Documents from Foreign Governments Obstructs 

Repatriation 

Although a combination of increased diplomatic engagement with 

uncooperative governments and a demonstrated willingness of the United 

States to impose visa sanctions has increased foreign governments’ 

cooperation, some countries remain unwilling to provide travel documents. 

This lack of cooperation, in essence, prohibits ICE removals to such countries. 

Other countries lack bureaucratic infrastructure and resources to make 

citizenship determinations quickly and issue travel documents for repatriation. 

In other cases, the citizenship of detainees cannot even be established.15 These 

barriers to removals result in ICE releasing detainees, which in some cases can 

endanger public safety, as our previous work has shown.16 

As figure 3 indicates, 948 of the 3,053 

Travel Documents: (948 Cases) 

Source: OIG 

31% 55%

6%

3% 3% 1% 1% 

Figure 3: Travel Documents 

detainees (31 percent) in our case review 

could not be removed because their travel 

document requests were still pending. 

With limited exceptions, if ICE is unable 

to obtain a travel document for a detainee 

within 6 months and there is no prospect 

of obtaining one in the near future, the 

15 For example, some detainees, such as Palestinians, were born stateless, and others became 

stateless when countries such as the former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, and Sudan 

fragmented. 

16 A Haitian national, Jean Jacques, previously convicted of attempted murder and subject to a 

final order of removal, was released from ICE custody after repeated attempts to secure a travel 

document from Haiti and killed another individual. See DHS OIG, Release of Jean Jacques from 

ICE Custody, June 16, 2016.

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-19-28 
 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

detainee must be released.17 Our case review indicates that ICE eventually 

released 22 Chinese, 287 Cubans, 34 Eritreans, 21 Laotians, and 10 

Vietnamese — detainees from countries considered uncooperative. 

Foreign governments, with limited exceptions, require a passport or temporary 

travel permit to accept their nationals back into the country.18 Hence, ICE 

needs to obtain such travel documents to repatriate aliens. El Salvador, 

Guatemala, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic, issue travel documents 

through an online ICE data system known as eTD (electronic Travel 

Document), and Mexico does not require travel documents for repatriations on 

the land border. In FY 2017, removals to these five countries accounted for 

205,540 of ICE’s 226,119 removals (91 percent). Other foreign government 

requirements for travel documents vary widely and the travel document 

issuance can be cumbersome. For example, some countries require: 

x an in-person consular interview with the detainee, at the country’s 

consulate in the United States;19 

x identification documents, such as a national identity card or an expired 

passport; or 

x additional checks of paper-based records, such as birth certificates or 

baptismal records, typically buried in immigration files or only available 

at the detainee’s place of birth. 

Because foreign governments do not issue travel documents without confirming 

the identity and citizenship of the alien, ICE works with the detainees to collect 

evidence of their citizenship to prepare a request for a travel document. 

Although we heard that generally detainees disclose who they are, ICE 

deportation officers described some cases when detainees provide numerous 

identities or are unsure of their country of origin. Establishing identities of 

such detainees complicates preparations for their repatriation. Examples from 

our electronic case file review of removals delayed due to travel document 

issues include: 

17 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (holding that an alien with a final removal order 

cannot be detained longer than 6 months unless there is a significant likelihood of removal in 

the reasonably foreseeable future); see also Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 378 (2005) 

(extending Zadvydas to inadmissible aliens). See DHS OIG’s prior report ICE’s Compliance With 

Detention Limits for Aliens With a Final Order of Removal From the United States, OIG-07-28, for 

information on the limited exceptions to this release requirement for public health and national 

security cases. 

18 ICE maintains country-specific guidelines on its intranet, which are based on the laws of 

these governments and any formal and informal agreements between the United States and the 

foreign government. 

19 Some consulates are hours away from detention facilities and require ICE to make long trips 

with detainees to facilitate those interviews. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-19-28 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

x 	 An Eritrean who was a registered sex offender had immigrated as a child 

and did not have Eritrean identity documents or fluency in any language 

spoken in Eritrea which, in some cases, can serve as evidence of 

citizenship. Although the Eritrean government interviewed him, they 

were unable to verify citizenship and ICE released him from detention. 

x 	 A Cambodian was detained for 2 months in Alabama while waiting for a 

consular interview to determine citizenship. During that time, Cambodia 

was not conducting interviews anywhere in the United States. The 

consulate in California agreed to interview him and ICE flew him to 

California. Several months later, the Cambodian government still had not 

made a decision on whether to issue the detainee a travel document. 

Increased Diplomatic Engagement Improves Cooperation on Removals 

International standards require governments to issue travel documents to their 

citizens within 30 days.20 In 2015, the State Department and ICE increased 

diplomatic engagement to improve cooperation on repatriations. The State 

Department prioritized travel document issuance in bilateral relations while 

ICE has centralized the travel document request process at headquarters for 

the most challenging countries.21 Between 2016 and 2018, the State 

Department and DHS also escalated the use of visa sanctions, imposing them 

on seven countries.22 

Most DHS officials we interviewed agreed that the combination of increased 

diplomatic engagement and a demonstrated willingness to impose visa 

sanctions has increased cooperation from most countries.23 Between 2015 and 

2018, the number of both uncooperative and at risk of noncompliance 

countries — countries that do not issue travel documents or accept 

20 International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 9, Chapters 5.26 through 5.29, set timeliness 

standards for governments to repatriate their nationals. However, not all countries have signed 

this Annex.
 21 ICE Removal and International Operations officers at headquarters manage consular 

relations and travel documents requests for Cambodia, Cameroon, Cuba, Dominica, Eritrea, 

Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Kosovo, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, 

Palestine, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Vietnam.
 22 In 2016, DHS imposed sanctions on the Gambia (the sanctions were later lifted). In 2017, 

DHS imposed sanctions on Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, and Sierra Leone. In 2018, DHS 

imposed sanctions on Burma and Laos, and lifted sanctions on Guinea. 

23 Of the four countries sanctioned in FY 2017, Cambodia and Eritrea did not respond to 

sanctions to increase cooperation.
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-19-28 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

repatriation flights — decreased considerably, as shown in table 1. Appendix D 

lists the countries that fall within these categories. 

Table 1: Countries’ Cooperation with Travel Document Issuance 

Time Period Uncooperative 

Countries 

At Risk of 

Noncompliance Countries 

July 2015 23 62 

September 2016 20 55 

September 2017 9 36 

May 2018 9 24 

Source: ICE 

ICE Relies on Diplomatic and Logistical Coordination for Removal Flights 

With the exception of 10 western hemisphere countries that accept routine 

charter flights,24 obtaining foreign government permission for repatriation 

flights can delay removals. Foreign governments may require negotiations 

before accepting charter flights or can limit the number of repatriations allowed 

per month. Some foreign governments do not allow transit through their 

countries, requiring ICE Air to take a more complex route. In other instances, a 

foreign government authorizes a charter flight, but does not issue travel 

documents to the detainees or visas to the ICE Air flight crew in time to board 

the flight. As shown in figure 4, our case 

Flights and Escorts: 201 Cases 

(Flight) and 37 Cases (Escorts) 

Source: OIG 

31% 55%

6%

3% 3% 1% 1% 

Figure 4: Flights and Escorts review indicated that 201 of the 3,053 

detainees (6 percent) had a travel 

document and were waiting for a 

repatriation flight, and the removals of 37 

(1 percent) were delayed because a flight 

escort needed to be arranged for a 

commercial repatriation flight. 

ICE typically repatriates detainees via 

charter flights, Special High Risk 

Charters, or commercial flights, with the 

exception of most Mexican nationals, who 

are repatriated across the land border. 

Although ICE does not publish official 

statistics on the number of repatriations 

24 ICE Air Operations conducts routine repatriation flights to Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, 

Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, and Nicaragua. ICE Air 

shares its flight manifests with the repatriation country and does not have difficulty securing 

landing permission for each flight. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-19-28 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

by air, our analysis of ICE Air data indicated that more than 80,000 detainees 

were repatriated on ICE Air’s routine charter flights in FY 2017. In addition, 

based on our analysis of ICE Air reports, detainee removals included: 

x 1,443 by Special High Risk Charter flights; 

x 6,155 by commercial flights without an ICE escort; and 

x 2,133 by commercial flights with an ICE escort. 

With the exception of the 10 western hemisphere countries that have agreed to 

accept routine charter flights, ICE staff need to seek approval from foreign 

governments for repatriation flights. Specifically, for commercial flights they 

may need to obtain approval of flight itineraries, and for charter flights they 

must coordinate the flight paths. When no direct commercial flights are 

available, ICE works with foreign governments for permission to escort a 

detainee through a transit country. 

Although ICE tries to arrange charter flights within a month of identifying the 

need, some Special High Risk Charters require months to negotiate. In 

addition, if transit or repatriation countries limit the number of detainees who 

can be placed on flights, lower priority detainees may be held in detention 

longer. 

Foreign governments must also issue travel visas for ICE deportation officers 

performing flight escort missions. When a travel visa is required, ICE has a 

limited period in which to obtain one but foreign governments do not always 

issue visas in a timely manner, resulting in delayed removals on occasion. 

Examples from our electronic case file review of removals delayed due to flight 

coordination challenges include: 

x 	 An ICE field office secured a travel document for an Iraqi who was 

hospitalized and required a medical escort for removal. Because the flight 

needed to transit through Turkey, from which it may take several weeks 

to obtain clearance, ICE Air scheduled the flight for 6 weeks later, adding 

to the expense of extended hospitalization. 

x 	 An ICE field office reported that it needed to reschedule flights repeatedly 

through Morocco to Sub-Saharan Africa because Morocco limits the 

number of transit flights, and higher priority removals were scheduled 

first, leaving other aliens eligible for repatriation in detention. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11	 OIG-19-28 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Detainees’ Failure to Comply with ICE Repatriation Efforts Delays 

Removal 

Detainees can delay removal by failing to comply with the removal process.25 

For example, detainees may conceal country of citizenship, refuse to request a 

travel document, or resist boarding a repatriation flight. Such cases typically 

require additional time and effort because ICE deportation officers need to 

obtain evidence of the detainee’s citizenship without his or her cooperation by 

researching the alien’s statement at apprehension, documents in the 

immigration file, border crossing history, and conducting interviews with 

relatives. ICE can also request that the Department of Justice consider 

criminal prosecution.26 

Failure to Comply: (93 Cases) 

Source: OIG 

31% 55%

6%

3% 3% 1% 1% 

Figure 5: Failure to Comply As shown in figure 5, in our case review, 

only 93 of the 3,053 detainees (3 percent) 

failed to comply with repatriation efforts for 

90 days or longer. Detainees cannot obtain 

release from detention solely by failing to 

cooperate with the removal process. By law, 

failure to comply stops the 90-day removal 

clock, and ICE can detain indefinitely, 

though at considerable expense.27 

Examples from our electronic case file 

review include: 

x 	 In 2013, ICE obtained a travel document and scheduled a flight for 

a detainee ordered removed to Pakistan, but the detainee refused 

to board the flight. When Pakistan interviewed the detainee for 

another travel document, the detainee claimed he was Somali. The 

detainee told a third party he planned to renounce both Pakistani 

and Somali citizenship and then request release. The detainee 

renounced his Pakistani citizenship and did not provide ICE 

sufficient information to request a travel document from Somalia. 

In 2017, Pakistan refused to issue a travel document, saying the 

detainee had renounced his citizenship and was Somali. In 2018, 

the detainee agreed to rescind his revocation of citizenship, and the 

25 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C) 

26 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a). Federal prosecutors from a United States Attorney’s Office may charge an 

alien criminally if the alien fails to assist with, or prevents, removal.
 27 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C) 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12	 OIG-19-28 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

request was pending with the Pakistani government. This alien has 

been in custody for more than 4 years. 

x 	 In 2014, an Indian national requested asylum after being 

immediately detained upon arrival in the United States. The 

asylum claim was denied in early 2015, and the detainee was 

scheduled for removal, but he refused to sign a travel document 

request. In case comments, ICE wrote that the detainee said he 

“didn’t mind to remain in custody a long time as he does not want 

to go back to India.” In 2018, ICE received a travel document from 

India without the detainee’s cooperation. The next charter flight to 

India was full, so the detainee was scheduled for a commercial 

flight a month later, but the removal was further delayed. This 

alien has been in custody for more than 3 years.
 

Serious Medical Conditions May Delay the Repatriation Process 

Detainees’ medical and mental health conditions can complicate each stage of 

the removal process including legal appeals, issuance of travel documents, and 

arranging repatriation transport. For example, detainees with serious physical 

illnesses might require continuances on their legal appeals. In addition, some 

foreign governments will not issue travel documents for detainees with medical 

conditions until they can verify that the detainee has access to suitable care, 

for example dialysis. ICE must also complete treatments for any infectious 

diseases, such as tuberculosis, and stabilize any medical conditions, such as 

cardiac rehabilitation, before arranging transportation. It may also be difficult 

for deportation officers to determine the line between failing to cooperate with 

the removal process and being unable to do so. 

Medical: (19 Cases) 

Source: OIG 

31% 55%

6%

3% 3% 1% 1% 

Figure 6: Medical As shown in figure 6, medical conditions 

represented only 19 of the 3,053 detainees 

(less than 1 percent) in our case review. 

However, our case review methodology 

may under-represent the number of 

detainees with medical conditions, as ICE 

or the immigration courts could decide 

well before 90 days that continued 

detention is not optimal. For example, 

detainees with serious mental health 

issues may require legal representation, 

and DHS or an immigration judge may 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13	 OIG-19-28 
 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

determine that continued detention is not in the detainee’s best interest and 

release the detainee on bond.28 

Removing detainees with medical and mental health conditions may be delayed 

because of special requirements. For example, some foreign governments will 

not issue travel documents for detainees with mental health conditions until 

they can verify that the detainee has family and a place to stay. ICE may need 

to arrange for a Special High Risk Charter, or for medical staff to accompany 

ICE Deportation Officers escorting the detainee on a commercial flight. If ICE 

cannot obtain a travel document, or the detainee cannot assist with the 

removal process, the detainee may be released. Examples from our electronic 

case file review include: 

x 	 A Mexican national was referred to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS) for an interview to determine whether the detainee 

required international protection. USCIS reported that the detainee was 

unresponsive to interview questions. A medical screening suggested there 

was an unspecified psychosis. USCIS determined the protection claim 

had merit and referred the case to an immigration judge. After several 

continuances, the immigration judge released the detainee on bond. 

x 	 A Cuban national diagnosed with mental health issues repeatedly 

attacked detention facility staff and other detainees. He was placed in 

segregation on several occasions, and local staff recommended he be 

transferred to a facility that could handle his mental health issues. 

Before a transfer could be effected, ICE released him into the community 

because Cuba did not provide ICE with a travel document for removal. 

Internal Challenges with ICE Staffing, Technology, and 

Accuracy of Metrics Limit Efficiency of Removals 

Although many of the barriers to removal are external, internal ICE challenges 

with staffing and technology also diminish the efficiency of the removal 

process. ICE’s detained docket has high staff turnover, making it difficult to 

maintain the expertise needed to manage complex final order cases effectively 

and accomplish removals. Limited staffing affects the quality of removal 

paperwork ICE submits, causing potential delays in removals. In addition, ICE 

28 An April 2013 ruling in Franco v. Holder, 10-cv-2211 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2013) established 

the right to representation for detainees with serious mental disorders that render them unable 

to represent themselves. The ruling, which applies in California, Arizona, and Washington 

State, also requires a custody redetermination hearing for aliens with a serious mental disorder 

who have been detained longer than 180 days. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14	 OIG-19-28 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Air manages repatriation flights with a cumbersome, labor-intensive manual 

process, which can result in detainees who are eligible for repatriation missing 

flights. Finally, ICE metrics for determining country cooperation lack an 

objective methodology, potentially resulting in visa sanctions on otherwise 

cooperative countries. 

Insufficient ICE ERO Staffing for Detained Docket Causes Delays in Removals 

During our interviews with field office staff, we heard that ICE does not 

adequately staff the detained docket and has difficulty recruiting and retaining 

officers to perform this function. Some field offices’ workloads are so large that 

the staff cannot obtain detainees’ identity information or produce quality travel 

document applications timely, which can delay or prevent removals.29 

The ICE mission of monitoring the status of detainees with final orders of 

removal and managing their repatriation efficiently is very challenging. Yet, ICE 

ERO could not provide any staffing plans recommending optimal workloads for 

the deportation officers working detained dockets; hence, the staffing resources 

24 ICE field offices devote to detained dockets vary considerably. We 

interviewed officials from 12 ICE field offices and most said ICE needs more 

staff dedicated to these tasks. 

Many of the ICE ERO staff we interviewed said it is difficult for a field 

deportation officer to manage a caseload of more than 75 detainees effectively, 

especially when the cases include countries with complex travel document 

requirements. However, of the 12 field offices we engaged during our review, 5 

have deportation officers with heavy caseloads, managing 100 or more cases 

each. 

For example, we encountered 2 field offices where deportation officers have 

more than 120 complex cases30 each. One officer we interviewed maintained 

about 500 cases when he had to step in for another officer while also working 

his own caseload. An ICE headquarters employee we spoke with, who 

conducted a quality assurance review in the field, described finding an 

egregious timeliness issue where it was taking a deportation officer more than 

90 days to prepare a travel document request that should be done within the 

first 7 days. The headquarters employee then noticed that the officer had a 

caseload of 230 detainees, which he opined was unmanageable. 

29 Because ICE’s data system is not designed to track causes for delays, we were unable to 

analyze the extent to which poor quality of documentation delays repatriation. 

30 Complex cases refer to managing removals of detainees who are from countries other than 

those western hemisphere countries which do not require travel documents. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-19-28 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

ICE headquarters and field office staff reported that heavy workloads held by 

some field deportation officers lead to the inconsistent quality of administrative 

paperwork they prepare, resulting in errors that delay removals. Our review 

confirmed that in some instances: 

x 	 Travel document requests were missing required paperwork, such as 

evidence of a final order of removal or criminal convictions. 

x 	 Detainees’ photos were of such poor quality that they could not be 

used and basic biometric information, such as fingerprints or hair 

and eye color, were not included. 

x 	 Detainees have missed repatriation flights because their medical 

paperwork was missing or incomplete and their medications were not 

provided. 

x 	 Consulates have rejected some travel document requests as incomplete 

or inaccurate because initially deportation officers did not thoroughly 

check the detainees’ immigration files for missing information or talk to 

relatives to obtain it. 

ICE ERO has experimented with how it assigns work, attempting to alleviate 

staffing issues and improve removal operations, but there are no easy fixes. 

ICE ERO field offices that allowed officers to rotate from the detained docket 

after 6 months or 1 year observed that such short-term rotations do not give 

the officers sufficient time to become proficient in detained docket case 

management. On the other hand, field offices that keep staff on the detained 

docket long-term or indefinitely reported difficulty recruiting and retaining 

staff, and maintaining morale. ICE ERO field offices’ supervisors and officers 

we interviewed reported that working the detained docket is considered more 

challenging and less satisfying than performing arrests or tracking fugitive 

aliens. 

ICE Officers Performing Arrests Need Training on Removal Process 

Missed opportunities by ICE apprehending officers to locate and secure identity 

documents — such as passports or birth certificates — during initial arrest 

may delay the removal process. ICE deportation officers tasked with removals 

explained that ICE arresting officers do not consistently ask questions, such as 

alien’s place of birth or country of origin, or collect the documents, such as 

passport or identification cards, vital to the removal process. We were told that 

ICE officers tasked with arresting aliens may not have a deep understanding of 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16	 OIG-19-28 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

immigration laws or they may lack experience with removal operations and do 

not always “keep removal in mind.” 

As shown in appendix E, deportation officers who work the detained docket are 

trained to consult as many sources as possible to obtain evidence of a 

detainee’s identity and citizenship. Therefore, ICE must communicate to 

apprehending officers the importance of obtaining documentary and 

testimonial evidence from aliens during arrests as doing so improves the 

likelihood and efficiency of removal. 

ICE Air Needs to Enhance Technology for Efficient Repatriation 

ICE Air currently manages the complex scheduling of repatriation flights using 

manual processes. Without a web-based reservation system, organizing flights 

and determining which aliens can be repatriated is a cumbersome, laborintensive process occasionally resulting in missed flights for detainees who are 

eligible for repatriation. 

In FY 2017, ICE Air coordinated the removal of 8,288 aliens via commercial 

flights and the removal or transfer of 181,317 aliens via charter flights. Despite 

this volume and the complexities of arranging flights, as previously discussed, 

ICE Air uses a Microsoft Access database to create flight manifests, and 

Microsoft Outlook and Excel to track and manage flights. 

ICE Air manually adds and removes detainees from flights based on the highest 

priorities for repatriation, legal appeals which stay removal, medical 

emergencies, and other logistical considerations. ICE Air emails changes to the 

flight manifests to all field offices, sometimes sending two or more email 

updates per day, per flight. The 24 field offices must then manually review each 

revised manifest to identify which of their detainees can be repatriated on the 

next scheduled flight. The field offices have to drive or fly their detainees to 

domestic staging sites where ICE Air collects and prepares them for the 

international flights. Therefore, one international flight may involve multiple 

domestic stops that need to be coordinated as well. In some instances, field 

offices have been notified that their detainee was scheduled for repatriation 

only to find out on a new manifest that the detainee is no longer on the charter 

passenger list, resulting in a missed flight for such detainees. In addition, ICE 

Air officials reported that although Special High Risk Charters can take weeks 

or months to arrange, they are often not full, even when field offices have aliens 

who have valid travel documents and are eligible for removal, causing detainees 

to remain in custody until further flights can be coordinated. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-19-28 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

ICE acknowledges that the lack of a technological infrastructure is a problem, 

but only has plans for a limited upgrade — moving the Access database to a 

secured cloud environment. A web-based flight reservation system could 

reduce the time ICE Air and ICE field offices spend manually creating and 

tracking flight manifests, and could allow field officers to focus more on the 

administrative paperwork for the detained docket. 

ICE Needs to Improve Its Metrics and Methodology Related to Visa Sanctions 

ICE has metrics to track the timeliness of travel document issuance; however, 

they do not account for delays in the removal process that are outside of 

foreign governments’ control. Although not completely reliable, ICE uses these 

imprecise metrics to inform significant diplomatic decisions, such as 

recommending visa sanctions. 

In the 2017 Memorandum of Understanding, DHS and the State Department 

agreed on six measures of cooperation tied to travel document issuance, 

acceptance of repatriation flights, and timeliness of responses to requests for 

travel documents and flights.31 However, ICE’s data system lacks the capacity 

to track compliance with these measures. Specifically, ICE’s metrics do not 

account for travel document applications returned to ICE by consulates 

because they are inaccurate or incomplete, nor do they capture logistical flight 

delays. Also, the metrics do not identify the date of a travel document request 

or the date a travel document was issued or denied. 

In an effort to establish an objective measure of countries’ cooperation, ICE 

introduced the Removal Cooperation Initiative (RCI) Tool. The RCI Tool 

identifies countries as cooperative, at risk of noncompliance, or uncooperative 

based on: 

x how long it takes on average to remove aliens; 

x how many aliens must be released because they cannot be removed; 

x the country’s willingness to conduct interviews; and 

x the country’s willingness to accept charter flights. 

Nonetheless, current metrics do not provide an accurate assessment of a 

country’s cooperation status, failing to account for significant steps in the 

removal process outside the control of foreign governments and ICE. For 

example, the timeliness metric used to identify how long it takes to remove 

aliens does not exclude the time for legal appeals or failure to comply with 

31 Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the 

U.S. Department of State Concerning the Removal of Aliens, August 16, 2017, Section IV 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-19-28 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

removal, which, as described earlier, can cause significant delays. ICE 

manually removes such outliers as delays for legal appeals, resulting in 

potentially incorrect assessments of country cooperation. Despite these 

limitations, ICE currently uses the statistics from the RCI Tool to assess 

countries’ cooperation to make decisions on visa sanctions. 

In addition to using imprecise statistics in its assessments, ICE’s conclusions 

for determining which countries to sanction and when to lift sanctions are not 

clear. We did not find a methodology explaining what circumstances prompt 

ICE to disregard or “override” the RCI Tool score for some countries, in essence 

modifying their status on cooperation. For example, we heard that some 

countries may have been scored as at risk of noncompliance in the RCI Tool, 

yet were sanctioned without first being categorized as uncooperative. 

Conversely, countries categorized as cooperative have not had sanctions 

lifted.32 Finally, ICE does not share its rationale for imposing and lifting 

sanctions with the DHS Office of Policy and the State Department, although 

both agencies are involved in diplomatic engagements. 

There are valid reasons to use sanctions selectively as the United States has 

complex geopolitical relations with some countries. In addition, some countries 

lack the institutional capacity to issue travel documents quickly or consistently 

and sanctions might not have the desired effect of improved cooperation. 

However, a methodology for determining which countries are sanctioned and 

what conditions must be met to lift sanctions, as well as better information 

sharing with ICE’s partners, could help both DHS and the State Department 

engage foreign governments more effectively. 

ICE Needs to Improve the eTD Module for Monitoring Country Cooperation 

The ICE data system known as ENFORCE Alien Removal Module contains the 

eTD module,33 which can be used to monitor the time it takes for countries to 

issue travel documents. ICE has improved the eTD module’s ability to generate 

real-time reports from field offices on the status of travel document requests 

from any country as well as numbers of travel documents issued and the 

issuance rates by country and consulate. However, ICE does not generate 

official statistics from the eTD module. 

32 In 2017, Guinea and Sierra Leone were sanctioned even though they were just categorized as 

at risk of noncompliance. These countries are now listed as cooperative, but continue to be
 

under sanctions. Meanwhile countries that are consistently categorized as uncooperative, 

including Vietnam, Cuba, China, and Iran, have not been sanctioned. 

33 ENFORCE is not an acronym. The eTD module refers to the electronic travel document 

module.
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-19-28 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

In 2008, eTD was upgraded specifically to process and track the status of all 

travel document requests from all countries, with the exception of Canada and 

Mexico. ICE internal guidance from 2008 requires that all new travel document 

requests for aliens must be put through the eTD system. For all countries, with 

the exception of Mexico, ICE officers should enter the dates of travel document 

issuance into eTD; only a few countries can currently approve travel 

documents through eTD. Travel document issuance is a key element in 

determining countries’ cooperation, but ICE is not using eTD to monitor 

whether countries routinely issue travel documents within the 30-day 

requirement. The information in the eTD module could enable ICE to more 

accurately distinguish delays caused by foreign governments’ lack of 

cooperation from the delays outside other countries’ control. 

Recommendations 

We recommend the Executive Associate Director for Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations: 

Recommendation 1: Develop a staffing model that assigns sufficient 

deportation officers to the detained docket to actively manage post-order 

custody cases. 

Recommendation 2: Develop training for all Enforcement and Removal 

Operations staff assigned to alien apprehensions, highlighting the importance 

of obtaining identity documents and complete and accurate information at 

apprehension, and how such documents and information affect the removal 

process. 

We recommend the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director: 

Recommendation 3: Develop a web-based flight management and tracking 

system to support the domestic air transfer and international removal air travel 

operational demands of Enforcement and Removal Operations. 

Recommendation 4: Develop written documentation of recommendations and 

justifications for imposing, retaining, and lifting visa sanctions. 

Recommendation 5: Implement the use of an electronic system comparable 

to, or more accurate than, eTD as a source for official statistics, to improve the 

measures of cooperation with travel document requests. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-19-28 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

OIG Analysis of Management Comments 

We have included a copy of ICE’s Management Response in its entirety in 

appendix B. We also received technical comments from ICE and incorporated 

them in the report where appropriate. We consider all of the recommendations 

to be resolved and open. A summary of ICE’s responses and our analysis 

follows. ICE concurred with all five recommendations. 

ICE Response to Recommendation 1: ICE concurred with the 

recommendation. ICE officials stated that ICE would review the workload of its 

deportation officers, and determine an ideal staffing level to manage post-order 

custody cases. ICE officials noted that the staffing model would need to evolve 

with operational trends, and that even the best staffing model may not achieve 

the goals outlined in this report. ICE anticipates completing these actions by 

October 30, 2019. 

OIG Analysis: We consider these actions responsive to the recommendation, 

which is resolved and open. We will close this recommendation when we 

receive documentation that ICE has developed a staffing model for managing 

its post-order custody cases. We recognize that the staffing model will continue 

to evolve with operational trends, and that factors external to the staffing 

model, such as budget and position vacancies, may affect staffing. 

ICE Response to Recommendation 2: ICE concurred with the 

recommendation. ICE officials stated that ICE conducts an annual training at 

every field office. Although the training is open to all officers, typically only 

detained-docket officers attend. ICE officials said they would ensure that all 

future trainings are attended by all officers, with an increased emphasis on 

attendance of those responsible for conducting alien apprehensions and nondetained case management. ICE anticipates completing these actions by April 

30, 2019. 

OIG Analysis: We consider these actions responsive to the recommendation, 

which is resolved and open. We will close this recommendation when we 

receive documentation that ICE has instructed officers who do not work on 

detained cases that they should attend the annual training. 

ICE Response to Recommendation 3: ICE concurred with the 

recommendation. ICE officials stated that ICE plans to develop a transportation 

management system that will be integrated into ICE’s case and removal 

management systems. ICE officials noted that the focus of the system would be 

on travel management, but that the system would also support financial 

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-19-28 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

management and enable ICE to quantify its workload. ICE officials stated that 

the first milestone would be to submit a funding request in the February 2019 

budget development cycle. ICE anticipates completing these actions by 

December 31, 2020. 

OIG Analysis: We consider these actions responsive to the recommendation, 

which is resolved and open. We will close this recommendation when we 

receive documentation that ICE has received a final decision on its request to 

fund the transportation management system. 

ICE Response to Recommendation 4: ICE concurred with the 

recommendation. ICE officials stated that ICE has the authority to impose visa 

sanctions for any incident of lack of cooperation. ICE noted that it conducts 

monthly meetings with the Department of States and the Department of 

Homeland Security Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans regarding cooperation. 

ICE officials also stated that statistics are one of many factors considered in 

the visa sanction process. ICE stated that going forward, following each 

monthly meeting, it would send meeting notes — documenting the next steps 

to take for each country — to the Department of State and the Office of 

Strategy, Policy, and Plans. ICE anticipated completing these actions by 

February 28, 2019. 

OIG Analysis: We consider these actions responsive to the recommendation, 

which is resolved and open. We will close this recommendation when we 

receive documentation that ICE has submitted to the Department of State and 

the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans meeting notes documenting the next 

steps to take for each country for four consecutive months. 

ICE Response to Recommendation 5: ICE concurred with the 

recommendation. ICE officials stated that ICE will prioritize the development 

and deployment of an electronic system as a source for official statistics 

regarding travel document decisions. The initial requirements process is 

scheduled to be completed by June 30, 2019, and the initial rollout by June 

30, 2020. ICE anticipates completing these actions by October 31, 2020. 

OIG Analysis: We consider these actions responsive to the recommendation, 

which is resolved and open. We will close this recommendation when we 

receive documentation that ICE has begun publishing official statistics 

regarding travel document decisions from its electronic system. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-19-28 
 

A 

A 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Appendix A 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107ï296) by 

amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978. 

Our objective for this review was to identify barriers to repatriation of detained 

aliens with final orders of removal. To achieve our objective, we reviewed ICE’s 

policies, procedures, and guidance for removing detained aliens with final 

orders of removal. We also reviewed available information from ICE’s data 

systems, including data used in the RCI Tool, and data used for ICE’s official 

statistics on removals. We assessed ICE’s quality assurance and oversight 

programs, including memorandums reporting results of field site visits, ICE Air 

feedback on common errors seen in travel packets, and ICE’s training and 

guidance materials. 

Using ICE data, we selected one staging facility and three field offices to visit 

and observe the work performed on flight operations and the detained docket, 

based on a range of factors including facility type and complexity of removals. 

We also conducted in person or telephonic interviews with personnel from ICE 

Air Operations, ICE Headquarters Removal and International Operations, 

supervisory deportation officers and deportation officers at numerous field 

offices throughout the United States. We also interviewed officials from 

Department of State, DHS Office of Policy, ICE Law Enforcement Systems and 

Analysis Unit, ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, and ICE Office of Chief 

Information Officer. 

To better understand what challenges removal operations of detained aliens 

face, we took a snapshot of all aliens with final orders of removal in ICE 

detention on December 13, 2017. We chose to review those cases where 

detainees were held longer than 90 days for a total of 3,053 records. The ICE 

deportation officer case comments were reviewed for the 3,053 records to 

identify possible barriers that prohibited timely removal. We shared the alien 

numbers of detainees from the snapshot with the ICE Law Enforcement 

Systems and Analysis Unit to obtain the case disposition of those cases as of 

March 24, 2018. The information in this report on case dispositions is based 

on the information provided by ICE. 

We conducted this review between March 2018 and July 2018 pursuant to the 

authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to 

www.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-19-28 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the Council of the Inspectors 

General on Integrity and Efficiency. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our 

objectives. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-19-28 
 

B 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

www.oig.dhs.gov 25 OIG-19-28 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

www.oig.dhs.gov 26 OIG-19-28 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

www.oig.dhs.gov 27 OIG-19-28 
 

C 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Appendix C 

Results of Electronic File Case Review 

We took a snapshot of all aliens with final orders of removal in ICE detention 

on December 13, 2017. We asked ICE to provide us a case disposition for each 

of the cases where the alien was held longer than 90 days as of March 24, 

2018. Table 2 reflects our identification of delays or barriers to removal, and 

ICE’s information on the status of each case. 

Table 2: Snapshot Case Dispositions 

Post Order Detention Barrier to Removal Case Disposition as of March 24, 2018 

Removed Detained Released Other Total 

91–180 Days 

181+ Days 

Total 

91–180 Days 

181+ Days 

Total 

91–180 Days 

181+ Days 

Total 

91–180 Days 

181+ Days 

Total 

91–180 Days 

181+ Days 

Total 

91–180 Days 

181+ Days 

Total 

91–180 Days 

181+ Days 

Total 

91+ Days 

Legal Appeals 

Legal Appeals 

Legal Appeals 

Travel Document 

Travel Document 

Travel Document 

Flight 

Flight 

Flight 

Failure to Comply 

Failure to Comply 

Failure to Comply 

Other 

Other 

Other 

Escort 

Escort 

Escort 

Medical 

Medical 

Medical 

Total 

259 387 132 34 

231 468 131 28 

490 855 263 62 

126 151 260 10 

100 126 157 18 

226 277 417 28 

82 37 0 2 

55 23 0 2 

137 60 0 4 

14 14 0 1 

15 46 2 1 

29 60 2 2 

20 12 7 16 

8 11 2 9 

28 23 9 25 

21 0 0 2 

13 1 0 0 

34 1 0 2 

3 3 2 0 

4 5 2 0 

7 8 4 0 

951 1,284 695 123 

812 

858 

1,670 

547 

401 

948 

121 

80 

201 

29 

64 

93 

55 

30 

85 

23 

14 

37 

8 

11 

19 

3,053 

Source: OIG Analysis of Aliens Detained Longer than 90 Days Post Final Order of Removal, 

from ICE ENFORCE Alien Removal Module, ICE Law Enforcement Systems and Analysis case 

disposition information as of March 24, 2018 

www.oig.dhs.gov 28 OIG-19-28 
 

D 

 

Uncooperative Uncooperative 

ARON Other 

Uncooperative Uncooperative 

ARON Other 

ARON 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Appendix D 

Countries’ Cooperation with Repatriation 

July September September May 

Country 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Afghanistan Other Other 

Albania Other Other 

Algeria Uncooperative Uncooperative Other ARON 

Angola Other ARON Other Other 

Antigua Barbuda ARON ARON Other Other 

Armenia ARON Other Other ARON 

Azerbaijan Other ARON Other Other 

Bahamas Other ARON Other Other 

Bangladesh ARON ARON Other Other 

Barbados ARON Other ARON Other 

Belarus ARON ARON Other Other 

Bermuda ARON Other ARON Other 

Bhutan Other Other Other ARON 

Bolivia ARON Other Other Other 

Bosnia And Herzegovina ARON ARON Other Other 

Brazil ARON ARON ARON ARON 

British Virgin Islands Other ARON Other Other 

Bulgaria 

Uncooperative 

Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative 

Uncooperative 

Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative 

Other ARON Other Other 

Burkina Faso Other ARON ARON 

Burma ARON 

Burundi ARON ARON ARON 

Cambodia ARON 

Cameroon ARON Other Other Other 

Cape Verde Uncooperative Other Other Other 

Chad ARON ARON Other Other 

China 

Comoros ARON Other Other Other 

Cuba 

Czech Republic ARON Other Other Other 

Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative 

Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative 

Democratic Republic Of The 

Congo ARON Other Other Other 

Dominica ARON ARON ARON ARON 

Egypt 

Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative 

Other ARON ARON ARON 

Eritrea 

Estonia Other ARON Other Other 

Ethiopia Other ARON ARON ARON 

Fiji ARON Other Other Other 

Gambia Other Other 

Georgia Other Other 

Ghana Uncooperative ARON ARON 

Greece ARON Other Other Other 

Grenada Other ARON Other Other 

Guinea Uncooperative Uncooperative ARON Other 

www.oig.dhs.gov 29 OIG-19-28 
 

Uncooperative Uncooperative 

ARON Other 

ARON 

ARON ARON 

ARON Uncooperative 

ARON Other 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Guinea Bissau ARON Other Other Other 

Haiti ARON Other Other Other 

Hong Kong ARON Other Uncooperative Uncooperative 

India Uncooperative Other Other Other 

Indonesia ARON Other Other Other 

Iran Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative 

Iraq Uncooperative Uncooperative ARON ARON 

Israel Other Other ARON ARON 

Ivory Coast Uncooperative ARON ARON ARON 

Jordan ARON ARON Other Other 

Kazakhstan ARON Other Other Other 

Kenya ARON ARON ARON ARON 

Kosovo ARON Other Other Other 

Kyrgyzstan ARON Other Other Other 

Laos Other Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative 

Lebanon ARON ARON Other ARON 

Lesotho Other ARON Other Other 

Liberia Uncooperative ARON Other Other 

Libya Uncooperative ARON ARON Other 

Lithuania ARON ARON Other Other 

Macedonia Other ARON Other Other 

Mali ARON Other 

Martinique Other Other 

Mauritania Uncooperative ARON Other 

Moldova ARON Other Other Other 

Mongolia ARON Other Other Other 

Montserrat Other ARON ARON Other 

Morocco Uncooperative Uncooperative ARON Other 

Namibia Other Other ARON ARON 

Nepal ARON ARON Other Other 

Niger Other ARON ARON Other 

Nigeria Other Other ARON ARON 

Norway Other ARON Other Other 

Pakistan ARON ARON ARON ARON 

Panama Other ARON Other Other 

Papua New Guinea ARON Other Other Other 

Paraguay ARON ARON Other Other 

Qatar Other ARON Other Other 

Republic Of Congo ARON ARON ARON Other 

Romania Other ARON Other Other 

Russia ARON Other Other Other 

Rwanda Other ARON Other Other 

Samoa ARON Other 

Senegal ARON ARON 

Serbia Other Other 

Sierra Leone Uncooperative Uncooperative ARON Other 

Slovakia Other ARON Other Other 

Slovenia ARON Other Other Other 

Somalia Uncooperative Uncooperative Other Other 

South Sudan Uncooperative Uncooperative ARON Other 

Sri Lanka ARON Other Other Other 

www.oig.dhs.gov 30 OIG-19-28 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

St. Kitts Nevis ARON Other Other Other 

St. Lucia ARON ARON Other Other 

Sudan Other ARON ARON ARON 

Suriname Other ARON Other Other 

Sweden ARON Other Other Other 

Syria ARON Other Other Other 

Tajikistan ARON ARON Other Other 

Tanzania ARON ARON ARON Other 

Thailand ARON ARON ARON ARON 

Togo ARON ARON ARON ARON 

Tonga ARON ARON Other Other 

Tunisia ARON ARON ARON Other 

Turkey ARON Other Other Other 

Turkmenistan Other ARON Other Other 

Uganda Other ARON ARON ARON 

Ukraine ARON Other Other Other 

United Kingdom Other ARON Other Other 

Uzbekistan ARON Other Other Other 

Venezuela Other ARON ARON ARON 

Vietnam ARON 

Yemen ARON Other Other Other 

Zambia Other ARON Other Other 

Zimbabwe 

Uncooperative Uncooperative Uncooperative 

Uncooperative Other ARON Other 

Legend: ʄ Uncooperative ʄ ARON (At Risk of Noncompliance) ʄ Other 

Source: ICE 

www.oig.dhs.gov 31 OIG-19-28 
 

E 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Appendix E 

Travel Document Requests 

Prior to submitting the travel document request to the embassy or consular 

office, ICE staff interviews the alien to complete the Form I-217, Information for 

Travel Document or Passport. The Form I-217 is the source document for 

information necessary to complete the travel document request. It needs to be 

thoroughly completed to avoid delays in the issuance of the travel document. 

Complete travel document requests include but are not limited to: 

x I-217 – Information for Travel Document or Passport 

x Any available identity documents 

x Charging Document 

x Final Order of Removal 

x I-205 – Warrant of Removal 

x I-294 – Warning to Alien Ordered Removed or Deported 

x I-296 – Notice to Alien Ordered Removed / Departure Verification 

x Photograph(s) 

Prior to submitting the travel packet, deportation officers must review the 

country-specific Removal Guidelines posted on the ICE website (Removal and 

International Operations Guidelines) to ascertain requirements for travel 

document requests. Following are examples of different requirements countries 

might have for travel documents: 

x Travel itinerary 

x Return of expired passport 

x Number of photographs 

x Processing fee 

x Required consular interview 

x Evidence the alien has been ordered removed 

x Foreign government travel document application 

x Miscellaneous document requirements 

x Special requirements 

Once the travel document request packet is submitted to the embassy or 

consular office, ICE has to follow up with the embassy or consular office every 

few weeks until the travel document has been issued or the case closed. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 32 OIG-19-28 
 

F 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Appendix F 

Office of Special Reviews and Evaluations Major 

Contributors to This Report 

Tatyana Martell, Chief Inspector 

Lorraine Eide, Team Lead 

Donna Ruth, Senior Inspector 

Adam Robinson, Inspector 

Jason Wahl, Independent Referencer 

www.oig.dhs.gov 33 OIG-19-28 
 

G 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Appendix G 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

ICE Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees 

www.oig.dhs.gov 34 OIG-19-28 
Additional Information and Copies 

To view this and any of our other reports, please visit our website at: 

www.oig.dhs.gov. 

For further information or questions, please contact Office of Inspector General 

Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. 

Follow us on Twitter at: @dhsoig. 

OIG Hotline 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov and click 

on the red "Hotline" tab. If you cannot access our website, call our hotline at 

(800) 323-8603, fax our hotline at (202) 254-4297, or write to us at: 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305 

Attention: Hotline 

245 Murray Drive, SW 

Washington, DC 20528-0305