Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Immigration, Border Security, and 

Claims, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

October 2004 IMMIGRATION 

ENFORCEMENT 

DHS Has Incorporated 

Immigration 

Enforcement 

Objectives and Is 

Addressing Future 

Planning 

Requirements 

GAO-05-66 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-66.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Rich Stana at 

(202) 512-8816 or stanar@gao.gov.. 

Highlights of GAO-05-66, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Border Security, and Claims, Committee 

on the Judiciary, House of 

Representatives 

October 2004

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

DHS Has Incorporated Immigration 

Enforcement Objectives and Is 

Addressing Future Planning 

Requirements 

Though ICE does not have a formal, distinct interior enforcement strategy, 

all of the objectives contained in the legacy INS interior enforcement 

strategy have been incorporated within a broader mission aimed at 

strengthening homeland security through joint customs and immigration 

investigations. Two ICE offices—the Office of Investigations (OI) and the 

Office of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO)—have responsibility for 

addressing these objectives. Through six enforcement units in four operating 

divisions, OI is primarily responsible for addressing the following legacy INS 

objectives: deterring, dismantling, and diminishing the smuggling and 

trafficking of aliens; responding to community complaints about illegal 

immigration; minimizing immigration benefit fraud; and removing employers’

access to undocumented workers. DRO is primarily responsible for 

identifying and removing criminal aliens, with some assistance from OI. 

DRO has begun to align its strategic goals with its budget requests and 

workforce plans in order to determine what resources it needs in fiscal year 

2005 and beyond. DRO is also developing performance measures to help 

identify future workforce plans and budget requests. For example, DRO is 

measuring the percentage of the fugitive alien population that is 

apprehended annually to determine whether resource levels are adequate. 

DRO officials said that until performance measures have been developed for 

all activities, it will be difficult to determine which efforts are most effective. 

To develop its budget request and workforce plans for fiscal year 2007 and 

beyond, OI field offices conducted baseline threat assessments to identify 

risks—such as the presence of a business that transports biological 

materials and may employ terrorists—on a regional basis. Related 

performance measures have been developed, but are not in use, therefore, 

they will not be used for workforce planning in ICE’s fiscal year 2006 budget 

request. OI’s fiscal year 2005 budget request was based on other 

considerations, such as the need to monitor foreign visa holders. 

The Department of Homeland Security reviewed a draft of this report and 

had no official comments. 

ICE Organization in the Department of Homeland Security 

Department of Homeland Security

Border and Transportation Security

(Directorate)

Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (Bureau)

Office of 

Investigations

Office of 

Intelligence

Air and Marine 

Operations

Detention and 

Removal 

Operations

Federal 

Protective 

Service

Federal Air 

Marshal 

Service

Source: Department of Homeland Security.

The former Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) had 

five interior (non-border-related) 

immigration enforcement 

objectives to address federal 

immigration law violations: identify 

and remove criminal aliens from 

the United States; deter and 

dismantle alien trafficking and 

smuggling; respond to community 

reports and complaints about 

illegal immigration; minimize 

immigration benefit fraud; and 

block employers’ access to 

undocumented workers. After the 

terrorist attacks of September 11, 

2001, the INS and other federal 

agencies began merging their law 

enforcement functions into the U.S. 

Bureau of Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) within 

the Department of Homeland 

Security. The subcommittee sought 

information on how the newly 

formed ICE was addressing legacy 

INS’s immigration enforcement 

objectives. 

GAO addressed the following 

questions: (1) What is the status of 

ICE’s efforts to incorporate legacy 

INS’s interior immigration 

enforcement objectives? (2) How is 

ICE developing budget needs, 

workforce plans, and performance 

measures for immigration-related 

objectives? 
Page i GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 

Background 4 

ICE Has Incorporated All Legacy INS Interior Enforcement 

Objectives 6 

ICE Immigration-Related Units Are Beginning to Align Budget and 

Workforce Plans with Related Performance Measures 14 

Concluding Observations 18 

Agency Comments 18 

Table 

Table 1: Legacy INS Interior Enforcement Strategy and Objectives 4 

Figures 

Figure 1: DHS/ICE Organization Chart 6 

Figure 2: Transition of the Legacy INS Interior Enforcement 

Strategy Objectives into ICE 8 

Figure 3: ICE OI Workforce Staffing Cycle 17 

Abbreviations 

BFU benefit fraud unit 

CBP Customs and Border Protection 

CIS (U.S.) Citizenship and Immigration Services 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DRO (Office of) Detention and Removal Operations 

OI Office of Investigations 

SAC special agent in charge 

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service 

Contents 

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

October 8, 2004 

The Honorable John N. Hostettler 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

In January 1999, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) formally 

implemented a strategy to focus resources on law enforcement activities 

the agency believed would have the greatest impact on reducing the size 

and growth of the illegal alien population in the United States. INS’s 

interior enforcement strategy—so called because its enforcement 

activities focus on the interior of the United States, not the borders—had 

five objectives: (1) identify and remove criminal aliens from the United 

States and minimize recidivism; (2) deter, dismantle, and diminish the 

smuggling and trafficking of aliens; (3) respond to community reports and 

complaints about illegal immigration; (4) minimize immigration benefit 

fraud and other document abuse; and (5) block and remove employers’ 

access to undocumented workers. 

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the national debate on 

how best to address immigration-related crimes shifted. In particular, the 

need to identify and remove from the United States aliens who pose 

threats to homeland security—not just those who violated immigration 

laws—took on greater urgency. In response, in March 2003, three federal 

agencies—INS, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Federal Protective 

Service—began merging their law enforcement functions, expertise, and 

resources into the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) within the newly formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS).1

ICE’s mission, in part, is to move beyond the immigration-related offenses 

investigated by legacy INS in order to more broadly prevent terrorist and 

criminal activity by targeting the people, money, and materials that 

support terrorist-related organizations and activities. To this end, ICE 

 1

On November 25, 2003, the Federal Air Marshal Service was also transferred to ICE. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

brings together approximately 20,000 employees from various agencies in 

six operational units. 

You expressed interest in learning how ICE has integrated the objectives 

of the former INS interior enforcement strategy into its operations and 

whether ICE has determined what resources it needs to enforce federal 

immigration laws in the context of its broader objectives. In this report, we 

address the following questions: (1) What is the status of ICE’s efforts to 

incorporate legacy INS’s interior enforcement objectives? (2) How is ICE 

developing budget needs, workforce plans, and performance measures for 

immigration-related objectives? 

To determine how the legacy INS immigration objectives have been 

incorporated into ICE, we reviewed the DHS Strategic Plan and the 

mission descriptions and draft strategic plans that were available for the 

offices ICE officials identified as having immigration enforcement 

missions. We interviewed ICE directors, deputy assistant division 

directors, and unit chiefs about unit missions and strategies related to 

immigration enforcement. To determine how ICE is developing budget and 

workforce requirements for its immigration-related objectives, we 

interviewed relevant ICE officials, reviewed ICE budget submissions, and 

reviewed documents related to their case management system and 

operating guidance for the various ICE units performing immigrationrelated enforcement activities. 

We have work under way that will examine in more detail several interior 

enforcement objectives, including alien smuggling and related financial 

issues, immigration benefit fraud, and preventing employers from hiring 

undocumented workers. We will also be reporting on the transfer of 

selected legacy INS functions and activities into DHS. 

We conducted this review between March and September 2004 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Though ICE does not have a formal distinct interior enforcement strategy, 

all of the objectives contained in the legacy INS interior enforcement 

strategy have been incorporated within a broader mission aimed at 

strengthening homeland security through joint customs and immigration 

investigations. Two ICE offices—the Office of Investigations (OI) and the 

Office of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO)—now have 

responsibility for addressing these objectives. Through six enforcement 

units in four operating divisions, OI is primarily responsible for addressing 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

the following legacy INS objectives: deterring, dismantling, and 

diminishing the smuggling and trafficking of aliens; responding to 

community reports and complaints about illegal immigration; minimizing 

immigration benefit fraud; and removing employers’ access to 

undocumented workers. DRO is primarily responsible for one objective: 

identifying and removing criminal aliens, with some assistance from OI. 

DRO has begun to align its strategic goals with its budget requests and 

workforce plans in order to determine what resources it needs in fiscal 

year 2005 and beyond. For example, DRO’s draft strategic plan includes a 

goal to use fugitive operations teams to help locate and apprehend 

criminal aliens. In its fiscal year 2005 budget request, DRO sought 

$50 million to augment the fugitive operations teams for this purpose. DRO 

is also developing performance measures to help identify future workforce 

plans and budget requests. For example, DRO is measuring the percentage 

of the fugitive alien population that is apprehended annually to determine 

whether resource levels are adequate. DRO’s performance measures will 

generally be based on six discrete budget categories within ICE that the 

House Committee on Appropriations has proposed creating for detention 

and removal operations. DRO officials acknowledged that until 

performance measures have been developed for all activities, it will be 

difficult to determine which efforts are most effective and where future 

resources should be allocated. While DRO will begin to use performance 

measure data to guide its fiscal year 2006 budget request, officials said 

these measures will be used more extensively for fiscal year 2007. 

As a first step toward developing budget requests and workforce plans for 

fiscal year 2007 and beyond, OI field offices conducted baseline threat 

assessments to identify risks—such as the presence of a business that 

transports biological materials and which may employ terrorists—on a 

regional basis. At the time of our review, ICE officials were reviewing 

action plans based on threat assessments submitted by the field offices. 

Related performance measures have been developed to assess how well a 

particular threat has been addressed. However, these measures are not in 

use because OI’s director has not yet approved them. They will not be used 

for workforce planning in ICE’s fiscal year 2006 budget request. OI’s fiscal 

year 2005 budget request was not based on threat assessments, but on 

other considerations, such as the need to monitor foreign-student visa 

holders. 

The Department of Homeland Security reviewed a draft of this report and 

had no official comments. 
Page 4 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

Legacy INS’s interior enforcement strategy was tied to five objectives, with 

resources allocated to these objectives. Table 1 summarizes each strategy 

and its objectives. 

Table 1: Legacy INS Interior Enforcement Strategy and Objectives 

Interior enforcement strategy 

(in priority order) Scope and objectives 

1. Identify and remove criminal aliens 

 from the United States and minimize 

 their recidivism. 

Identify and remove criminal aliens as they 

come out of the federal and state prison 

systems and remove those convicted of 

aggravated felonies currently in probation 

and parole status. 

2. Deter, dismantle, and diminish 

 (organizations) smuggling or trafficking

 in aliens. 

Disrupt and dismantle the criminal 

infrastructure that encouraged and benefited 

from illegal immigration; begin in source and 

transit countries and continue inside the 

United States, focusing on smugglers, 

counterfeit document producers, 

transporters, and employers who exploit and 

benefit from illegal immigration. 

3. Respond to community reports and 

 complaints about illegal immigration. 

Respond to local law enforcement issues and 

needs, with emphasis on working with local 

communities to identify and address 

problems that arise from the impact of illegal 

immigration, based on local threat 

assessments. 

4. Minimize immigration benefit fraud 

 and other document abuse. 

Investigate and prosecute benefit fraud and 

document abuse, such as use of fraudulent 

marriage licenses, to promote integrity of the 

legal immigration system. 

5. Block and remove employers’ access 

 to undocumented workers. 

Deny employers access to unauthorized 

workers by checking their compliance with 

the employment verification requirements in 

the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 

1986. This was to be coupled with efforts to 

control smuggling activity. 

Source: GAO. 

In 2003, we testified that on the basis of our previous work, INS faced 

numerous challenges to implementing its interior enforcement strategy.2

 2

GAO, Homeland Security: Challenges to Implementing the Immigration Interior 

Enforcement Strategy, GAO-03-660T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 10, 2003). 

Background 

Legacy INS Interior 

Enforcement Strategy 
Page 5 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

For example, the potential pool of aliens that had committed crimes that 

made them removable from the United States (termed criminal aliens) and 

fugitives (those aliens not in compliance with immigration status, orders, 

or laws) was in the hundreds of thousands. The number of individuals 

smuggled into the United States had increased dramatically, and alien 

smuggling had become more sophisticated, complex, organized, and 

flexible. Tens of thousands of aliens annually illegally seek immigration 

benefits, such as work authorization and change of visa status (e.g., from 

student to nonstudent), and some of these aliens use these benefits to 

enable them to conduct criminal activities. Hundreds of thousands of 

aliens unauthorized to work in the United States used fraudulent 

documents to circumvent the process designed to prevent employers from 

hiring them. In many instances, employers have been complicit in this 

activity. By assuming responsibility for the former INS strategy, ICE will 

face these same challenges. 

We also testified that fundamental management challenges existed in 

several of the interior enforcement programs and that addressing them 

would require the high-level attention and concerted efforts of ICE.3

 For 

example, INS lacked reliable data to determine staff needs, clear and 

consistent guidelines and procedures for working-level staff, and 

appropriate performance measures to help assess program results. We 

stated that as ICE assumed responsibility for strategy implementation, ICE 

should consider how to address these challenges by improving resource 

allocation, program guidance, and performance measurement. 

Generally, ICE’s mission is intended to reflect DHS’s 2004 Strategic Plan, 

which states that immigration enforcement should be viewed as part of a 

comprehensive homeland security strategy that unifies and coordinates 

law enforcement operations across formerly separate agencies, such as 

Customs and INS. ICE is now the second largest investigative bureau in 

the federal government, with approximately 20,000 people. ICE’s Office of 

Investigations is responsible for enforcing immigration and customs laws. 

OI has about 6,000 agents in 27 field offices (headed by a special agent in 

charge, or SAC) throughout the United States. ICE’s Office of Detention 

and Removal Operations is responsible for processing, detaining, and 

removing aliens illegally in the United States. DRO has 21 field offices 

throughout the United States and it operates eight secure detention 

 3

GAO-03-660T. 

ICE Mission and 

Organization 
Page 6 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

facilities known as service processing centers and augments these centers 

with seven contract detention facilities. Figure 1 shows how ICE fits 

within the DHS organization. 

Figure 1: DHS/ICE Organization Chart 

Field office staff of two ICE offices, OI and DRO, have incorporated the 

five legacy INS interior enforcement objectives. While ICE officials told us 

that a formal distinct interior enforcement strategy no longer exists, OI has 

established enforcement units within divisions that primarily address four 

of the objectives: 

• The legacy INS objective of deterring, dismantling, and diminishing 

smuggling or trafficking in aliens is now addressed by the human 

trafficking unit in the Smuggling and Public Safety Investigations 

Division. 

• The legacy INS objective of responding to community reports and 

complaints about illegal immigration is now addressed by two OI units: 

human trafficking and human rights within the Smuggling and Public 

Safety Investigations Division. 

• The legacy INS objective of minimizing immigration benefit fraud and 

other document abuse (e.g., fraudulent marriage licenses) is now 

ICE Has Incorporated 

All Legacy INS 

Interior Enforcement 

Objectives 

Department of 

Homeland Security

Border and 

Transportation Security

(Directorate)

Immigration and 

Customs 

Enforcement (Bureau)

Office of 

Investigations

Office of 

Intelligence

Air and 

Marine 

Operations

Detention 

and Removal 

Operations

Federal 

Protective 

Service

Federal Air 

Marshal 

Service

Source: DHS.
Page 7 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

addressed by the identity and benefits fraud unit in the Smuggling and 

Public Safety Investigations Division, and the visa security unit in the 

International Affairs Division. 

• The legacy INS objective of blocking and removing employers’ access 

to undocumented workers—particularly with respect to the nation’s 

critical infrastructure, including airports, military installations, and 

defense contractors—is now addressed by the critical infrastructure 

protection unit in the National Security Investigations Division. 

In addition, an OI official said they are pursuing money laundering charges 

through the Financial Investigations Division as part of human trafficking 

and benefit fraud investigations. This capability did not exist in the legacy 

INS. 

DRO will be responsible for one legacy INS objective: identifying and 

removing criminal aliens and minimizing recidivism. The DRO divisions 

responsible for this objective include criminal alien and compliance 

enforcement. OI also has a role here. Its compliance enforcement unit 

within the National Security Investigations Division identifies certain 

aliens who are deemed a risk to national security. Figure 2 depicts where 

the five INS interior enforcement strategy objectives have been 

incorporated within ICE. Note that the figure does not show all ICE 

offices, divisions, or units that perform immigration-related work. Only 

those discussed in the report are shown. 
Page 8 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

Figure 2: Transition of the Legacy INS Interior Enforcement Strategy Objectives into ICE 

Smuggling/public 

safety

2

4 3

Office of 

Investigations

Deter, dismantle, 

and diminish the 

smuggling and 

trafficking of

aliens

Minimize 

immigration benefit 

fraud and other 

document abuse

National security 

investigations

Financial 

investigations

Smuggling and public 

safety investigations

Critical infrastructure 

protection

Human rights

Money laundering 

coordination center

International Affairs

Objectives under

Legacy INS

ICE

1 2

3

4

5

1

5

2

2

4

4

3

Visa security

Source: GAO analysis of ICE information.

1

5

2

3 4

4

Block and

remove employers’ 

access to 

undocumented 

workers

Identify and 

remove 

criminal aliens 

and minimize 

recidivism

Compliance 

enforcement

Criminal alien

Institutional 

removal program

Fugitive 

operations

Compliance 

enforcement

 Identity and 

benefits fraud

Human 

trafficking

Respond to 

community reports 

and complaints 

about illegal 

immigration

Alternatives to 

detention

Detention and 

Removal Operations

1

Office

Division

Headquarters units
Page 9 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

The following discusses how OI and then DRO are addressing, or plan to 

address, each of the objectives in the legacy INS’s interior enforcement 

strategy. 

In 2000, we reported that INS’s ability to implement its antismuggling 

strategy was impeded by several factors.4 Under INS, two separate 

enforcement entities, the Border Patrol and the Investigations Program, 

conducted alien smuggling investigations. We concluded that due to a lack 

of program coordination in several border areas, there were multiple antismuggling enforcement units that overlapped in their jurisdictions, 

operated autonomously, and reported to different INS officials. According 

to INS’s Investigations Program officials, the autonomy of the individual 

anti-smuggling field units and the lack of a single chain of command were 

major obstacles to a more effective antismuggling program. 

Within DHS, OI’s Smuggling and Public Safety Investigations Division is 

primarily responsible for addressing human smuggling through its human 

trafficking unit. Some of the program coordination issues we identified in 

our prior report may be resolved. For example, according to an OI official, 

the Border Patrol will only have a minor role in human smuggling 

investigations and will be required to coordinate with OI before initiating 

an antismuggling investigation. In addition, ICE believes that it has 

instituted a single-chain-of-command structure, with its 27 SACs reporting 

directly to OI headquarters. 

OI officials said they believe that the merging of INS and legacy Customs 

investigators into OI could lead to enhanced alien-smuggling 

investigations. For example, OI officials said human smuggling and 

trafficking cases in INS would have been handled locally, for the most 

part, and the charges pursued would be primarily limited to immigration 

violations. INS needed to seek outside assistance if it wished to pursue 

additional charges, such as money laundering. With the merger of legacy 

Customs and the ensuing ability to investigate financial violations such as 

money laundering, additional charges can be pursued without the need for 

outside assistance. We have ongoing work reviewing ICE efforts to 

address alien smuggling, including the pursuit of associated financial 

issues. 

 4

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

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

Deterring, Dismantling, and 

Diminishing Smuggling or 

Trafficking in Aliens 
Page 10 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

OI officials told us that they have both ongoing and planned efforts to 

respond to community complaints about illegal immigration through two 

units in the Smuggling and Public Safety Division: human rights and 

human trafficking. According to ICE officials, operation ICE Storm is an 

example of how ICE has responded to community complaints arising from 

illegal immigration. ICE Storm is an ICE-directed task force formed in 

Phoenix, Arizona, created in response to a surge in violent crime in the 

Phoenix area related to alien smuggling. ICE Storm is a joint federal, state, 

and local effort to identify and then dismantle the financial infrastructure 

of these smuggling operations by seizing the assets used to transport or 

house the illegal aliens, or the financial proceeds generated by these 

crimes. The ICE Storm task force included all six ICE offices working in 

various capacities (see fig. 1); the U.S., state, and county attorney’s offices; 

the Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives; the Arizona Department of Public Safety; and the local police 

department and sheriff’s office. In congressional testimony in May 2004, 

ICE stated that the Phoenix Police Department credited ICE Storm with a 

17 percent decline in homicides and an 82 percent decline in migrantrelated kidnappings in the final 3 months of 2003. In addition, OI has 

established a human rights unit responsible for public safety and 

transnational crimes that OI officials say will, among other things, address 

gang activities in communities and target gang members who are criminal 

aliens. 

In 2002, we reported that immigration benefit fraud—the practice of 

obtaining permission to enter, stay, or work in the United States through 

fraudulent means, such as false representation of marriage—and other 

types of document abuse, such as counterfeiting birth certificates or other 

documents, posed a serious problem that threatened the integrity of the 

legal immigration system.5

 Some INS officials believed that some aliens 

were using the benefit application process to enable them to carry out 

illegal activities, such as crimes of violence, narcotics trafficking, and 

terrorism. Although this was a serious problem, INS did not have a 

comprehensive plan for coordinating its benefit fraud investigations and 

had not established guidance for opening and prioritizing investigations. 

With the creation of DHS, two separate organizations are now responsible 

for combating immigration benefit fraud: The U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (CIS)—a DHS component outside of ICE—is 

 5

GAO, Immigration Benefit Fraud: Focused Approach Is Needed to Address Problems, 

GAO-02-66 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002). 

Responding to community 

reports and complaints about 

illegal immigration 

Minimizing immigration benefit 

fraud and other document 

abuse 
Page 11 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

responsible for adjudicating immigration benefit applications and for 

referring suspected fraudulent applications to OI. OI, for its part, is then 

responsible for investigating possible criminal violations related to 

persons applying for immigration benefits. 

ICE has taken steps to address some of the immigration benefit fraud 

problems we identified in our report. For example, ICE has created benefit 

fraud units (BFU)—field-based units under the headquarters identity and 

benefits fraud unit—that are to work with CIS service center officials in 

pursuing acts of suspected document and benefit fraud. To guide BFU 

field operations with regard to conducting immigration benefit fraud 

investigations, ICE is developing an immigration benefit fraud strategy. In 

its instructions to all SACs, ICE OI said BFUs are to pursue leads based on 

their urgency, with the highest priority reserved for those cases that pose 

an imminent threat to public safety and national security. BFUs are also 

expected to support the SACs in their field investigations of benefit fraud. 

ICE and CIS are in the process of developing a memorandum of 

understanding that is to describe each organization’s roles and 

responsibilities and how the organizations will coordinate benefit fraud 

investigations. We have ongoing work on how well CIS and ICE are 

working together to combat immigration benefit fraud. 

To address other types of immigration-related document abuse, ICE 

created the visa security unit within ICE’s International Affairs Division. 

This unit reviews applications for visas to detect travelers posing a threat 

to national security as well as fraudulent activities that may arise in the 

visa application process. 

Hundreds of thousands of aliens have used fraudulent documents to 

circumvent the process designed to prevent employers from hiring them. 

In many instances, employers are complicit in this activity. According to 

ICE officials, legacy INS pursued this objective through sanctions against 

any employer known or suspected of hiring undocumented workers and 

those with ties to human smuggling or suspected of worker exploitation. 

Following the events of September 11, 2001, legacy INS shifted its focus to 

businesses related to the nation’s critical infrastructure, which include 

private or government entities such as airports and nuclear power plants. 

If these businesses were to be compromised by terrorists, this would pose 

a serious threat to domestic security. In April 2003, we testified that given 

ICE’s limited resources, it needs to ensure that it targets those industries 

Blocking and removing 

employers’ access to 

undocumented workers 
Page 12 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

where employment of illegal aliens poses the greatest potential risk to 

national security.6

ICE is pursuing this objective, now called critical infrastructure 

protection, by concentrating its enforcement resources on those industries 

where employment of illegal aliens poses the greatest potential threat to 

national security. ICE officials said they are continuing legacy INS’s 

strategy of focusing particularly on the employment of undocumented 

workers at critical infrastructure facilities such as airports, military 

installations, defense contractors, and federal buildings. An example of 

critical infrastructure protection is Operation Tarmac, an ongoing national 

multiagency initiative focused on screening employees working in secure 

areas of U.S. airports. As of April 2004, Operation Tarmac had investigated 

almost 200 airports and audited nearly 6,000 businesses. These 

investigations resulted in the identification of nearly 5,000 unauthorized 

workers. ICE said that in addition to identifying and removing 

undocumented workers at these types of facilities, its objective is to work 

with these industries—and the federal agencies with oversight 

responsibility for these industries, such as the Federal Aviation 

Administration—to reduce the possibility of undocumented workers 

obtaining employment in the future. We have ongoing work related to 

ICE’s investigations into the hiring practices of employers and the 

employment verification process designed to help prevent employers from 

hiring undocumented workers. 

Our prior work found that although INS was to identify and remove 

criminal aliens as they came out of federal and state prison systems, INS 

had failed to identify all removable imprisoned criminal aliens.7

 As a result, 

some who were released from prison were convicted of new felonies—and 

as such, were recidivists. DRO continues to face a significant challenge in 

identifying and removing criminal aliens and minimizing recidivism—that 

is, reducing the number of criminal aliens who are reincarcerated. Many 

aliens, including criminal aliens, are released from custody pending a final 

decision on their removal from the United States. DRO officials estimate 

that only 40 percent of aliens released from custody report for their 

deportation hearings. DRO also estimated that as of August 2004, there 

 6

GAO, Homeland Security: Challenges to Implementing the Immigration Interior 

Enforcement Strategy, GAO-03-660T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 10, 2003). 

7

GAO, Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and Remove Imprisoned Aliens Continue 

to Need Improvement, GAO/T-GGD-99-47 (Washington, D.C.: February 25, 1999). 

Identifying and removing 

criminal aliens and minimizing 

their recidivism 
Page 13 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

were approximately 350,000 to 480,000 aliens who had been ordered to 

leave the United States, but DRO cannot verify that they have actually 

departed—and thus these individuals may still be residing in the United 

States as fugitives. 

DRO officials said they are taking three steps to address the objective of 

ensuring the departure of all removable aliens, in accordance with DRO’s 

June 2003 draft strategic plan: (1) locate and remove the criminal aliens 

whose departure from the country can not be confirmed; (2) improve 

identification of criminal aliens as early as possible in the judicial process, 

including those already in custody in federal, state, and local facilities; and 

(3) more efficiently use DRO’s existing prison bed space for the criminal 

aliens DRO places in custody. To carry out the first step of apprehending 

fugitive aliens who have received orders to leave the United States but 

have not done so, DRO established 16 fugitive operations teams, consisting 

of about 10 officers per team. DRO has requested funding for 30 more 

teams in fiscal year 2005. Officials said DRO is taking steps to address the 

second and third steps through a series of pilot projects to identify 

efficiency improvements in identifying and removing criminal aliens. For 

example, to better ensure criminal aliens are identified, DRO is exploring 

the feasibility of identifying individuals at the time of prosecution rather 

than while they are in prison. To ensure that aliens who are not detained 

while in immigration proceedings do not flee, DRO is exploring using 

alternatives to detention such as the use of ankle bracelets, home visits, 

and telephone reporting. 

OI’s compliance enforcement unit also plays a role in identifying criminal 

aliens. This unit analyzes data contained in various systems, such as the 

Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, which contains 

information on international students and exchange visitors, to identify 

those who may have violated their terms of entry or who might otherwise 

pose a threat to national security. 
Page 14 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

Using fiscal year 2005 as a baseline, DRO has begun to align its strategic 

goals for fugitive operations and alien removal efforts, among others, with 

its workforce plans and budget requests. In addition, DRO is developing 

outcome-based performance measures to help determine how effectively it 

is performing its immigration-related functions overall. These performance 

measures are based on six discrete budget categories within ICE that the 

House Committee on Appropriations has proposed creating for detention 

and removal operations. To guide development of budget and workforce 

requirements for fiscal year 2007 and beyond, OI is conducting baseline 

threat assessments through its regional offices. OI’s fiscal year 2005 

budget request is based on other considerations, including a congressional 

mandate. 

DRO has begun to align its strategic goals with its workforce plans and 

budget requests in order to determine what resources it needs in fiscal 

year 2005 and beyond. For example, DRO’s draft strategic plan includes a 

goal to use its fugitive operations teams to help locate and apprehend 

criminal aliens. DRO currently has 16 fugitive operations teams. In its 

fiscal year 2005 budget request, DRO sought $50 million and 236 positions 

to staff 30 additional operations teams (bringing the total to 46 teams). 

DRO’s strategic plan also includes a goal to hire other new staff (apart 

from fugitive operations teams) to assist in the removal of criminal aliens 

from federal, state, and local correctional institutions. To this end, DRO 

sought $30 million in its fiscal year 2005 request. The request, if approved, 

will enable DRO to hire 249 officers to perform this alien removal work, 

which is now done by OI. 

For future budget submissions, DRO is attempting to measure its 

workload in some areas in order to develop workforce plans and related 

budget requests. For example, to determine the resources that DRO will 

need to identify and remove criminal aliens in the future, DRO has 

contracted for a study to determine the current and projected number of 

removable aliens incarcerated in state prisons and local jails. DRO will 

also use the results of its pilot programs (e.g, electronic monitoring and 

home visits of nondetained aliens) to determine which efforts intended to 

prevent nondetained aliens from fleeing while in immigration proceedings, 

may merit additional funding. 

DRO is also developing performance measures, which are needed to help 

develop workforce plans and budget requests. For example, in fugitive 

operations, DRO is measuring the percentage of the fugitive alien 

population that is apprehended annually. DRO is developing its 

ICE ImmigrationRelated Units Are 

Beginning to Align 

Budget and 

Workforce Plans with 

Related Performance 

Measures 

DRO Is Developing 

Performance Measures 

That It Plans to Tie to 

Budgeting, Workforce 

Planning, and Strategic 

Goals for Fiscal Year 2005 

and Beyond 
Page 15 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

performance measures based on six discrete budget categories within ICE 

that the House Committee on Appropriations has proposed creating for 

detention and removal operations.8

 The categories pertain to specific DRO 

functions in custody management, case management, fugitive operations, 

institutional alien removal, alternatives to detention, and alien 

transportation and removal. According to the House Committee on 

Appropriations report, the purpose of creating these categories is to 

improve the way budget information is presented and tracked so as to 

bring additional detail and clarity to the budget process. On the basis of 

this report, DRO has chosen to align new performance measures with the 

categories, using fiscal year 2005 as a baseline. In past testimony on legacy 

INS’s interior enforcement strategy, we said that INS lacked management 

information, such as performance measures, that were needed to 

determine how many staff were required to meet program goals and 

allocate human capital resources.9

DRO officials acknowledge that they face challenges as they continue to 

develop performance measures. DRO officials indicated, for example, that 

until they develop performance measures for all activities—and then use 

those measures to assess how well DRO is performing—it will be difficult 

to determine which of its efforts are most effective and where future 

resources should be allocated. For instance, DRO is not certain of the 

relative value of deploying fugitive operation teams in removing criminal 

aliens—for which it has performance measures—compared with other 

efforts where new performance measures are not yet fully developed, such 

as identifying removable aliens earlier in the judicial process. While DRO 

will begin to use performance measure data to guide its fiscal year 2006 

budget request, officials said these measures will be used more extensively 

for fiscal year 2007. 

DRO’s ability to project staff needs is also challenged by the operations of 

other DHS components involved in immigration enforcement. DRO’s draft 

strategic plan states, and DRO officials confirm, that they will need 

additional information on how ICE and non-ICE immigration enforcement 

entities, such as Customs and Border Protection (CBP), plan to address 

 8

The six measures DRO is using are based on the funding categories recommended in the 

House Report 108-541, accompanying the Department of Homeland Security 

Appropriations Bill, 2005, H.R. 4567. The legislation was passed by the House on June 18, 

2004. DRO officials said they are attempting to realign these six categories into five. 

9

GAO-03-660T. 
Page 16 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

apprehending illegal aliens. The demand for DRO’s services is in part 

driven by how CBP, and others, perform. For example, the demand for 

DRO bed space in facilities that house criminal aliens is driven both by 

CBP’s enforcement efforts and OI’s success in investigating cases 

involving immigration violations. DRO must integrate the goals of these 

organizations with regard to their needs for detention space in order to 

estimate its staff requirements. 

As a first step toward developing budget requests and workforce plans for 

fiscal year 2007 and beyond, OI field offices have conducted baseline 

threat-level assessments. According to officials, these threat assessments 

will help ICE to identify risks on a regional basis. For example, an ICE 

region might contain a business that transports biological materials. 

Terrorists may attempt to obtain employment at such a business in order 

to obtain such materials. As each field office completes its threat 

assessments, which are to be updated on a recurring basis, an action plan 

is developed to address the threats. For instance, OI could use its authority 

for critical infrastructure protection—as it has in Operation Tarmac—to 

develop a plan that checks the identities of persons who work at a 

business that transports biological materials, and help the business 

establish security policies. At the time of our review, ICE officials were 

reviewing action plans based on threat assessments submitted by the field 

offices. 

Once a plan for addressing a particular threat is in place, SACs will 

measure how well a particular threat has been addressed. Specifically, 

they intend to measure the impact of OI’s investigative activities on 

deterring threats or decreasing vulnerabilities to national security. An OI 

official said new performance measures have been developed for this 

purpose but are not being used because OI’s director has not yet approved 

them. These measures will not be used for workforce planning in ICE’s 

fiscal year 2006 budget request. In accordance with the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993, OI told us it plans to base its new 

performance measures on outcomes, which assess results relative to 

goals. These measures will be used in place of traditional output measures, 

such as the number of cases initiated, work hours expended, arrests, and 

seizures. 

OI will use its performance measures to determine whether it should 

reallocate its existing staff or request additional staff to better address the 

threats identified in the threat-assessment process (see fig. 3). ICE officials 

OI Will Develop Budget 

and Workforce Plans Using 

Performance Measures 

Guided by Threat 

Assessments 
Page 17 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

said linking threat assessments with workforce planning will become part 

of OI’s staffing requirement methodology for future budget requests. 

Figure 3: ICE OI Workforce Staffing Cycle 

OI’s fiscal year 2005 budget request was not based on the threatassessment approach because required performance measures had not 

been developed. The 2005 budget request was based on estimates of 

separate and unrelated needs, such as OI’s anticipated workforce levels to 

carry out its compliance enforcement mission; and the creation of a visa 

security unit to work with the State Department in reviewing visa 

applications from other countries, including reviewing all visa requests 

from Saudi Arabia as mandated by Congress.10 For fiscal year 2005, for 

example, OI seeks an additional $16 million to add 130 compliance 

enforcement agents dedicated to monitoring foreign students and other 

visitors with visas who may pose a threat to national security. ICE officials 

said this request was based on workload estimates generated by the 

number of investigative leads created by the systems used to track aliens 

visiting the United States with visas. If funded, this would bring the 

proposed total to 165 agents in the field offices by the end of fiscal year 

2005. 

 10Section 428 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub.L.107-296 (2002)) provides the 

Secretary of DHS with the authority to establish a visa security unit. On October 31, 2003, 

DHS assigned responsibility for creating this unit to ICE’s Office of International Affairs, 

within OI. 

Field threat 

assessments 

conducted

SAC and OI measure 

performance against 

the threat

SAC action

plan created 

with existing 

staff to

address threat

Staffing 

requirements 

revised to better 

address 

existing threats

Source: GAO analysis of ICE information.

1.

3.

4. 2.
Page 18 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

OI also seeks for fiscal year 2005 an additional $23 million to add 

200 agents to deter employers from hiring undocumented workers. OI 

estimates that with these additional resources it will complete 50 percent 

more investigations and present 50 percent more employer cases for 

prosecution, in fiscal year 2005 than in fiscal year 2004. Priority in this area 

will be given to investigation of critical infrastructure facilities and 

prosecution of employers suspected of human trafficking or smuggling 

offenses, criminal violations, or other forms of worker exploitation. 

Finally, OI officials said there are plans for deploying agents who may 

become available if DRO’s budget request to assume the institutional 

removal program is included in DHS’s budget appropriations for DRO for 

fiscal year 2005. In that case, OI anticipates using the 249 agents who 

would be freed up by this request to pursue criminal aliens on probation or 

parole and address alien involvement in street gangs. This activity is 

consistent with OI’s responsibility for addressing local concerns about 

immigration violations and the identification and removal of criminal 

aliens. 

Since September 11, 2001, the federal government has engaged in 

sweeping efforts to strengthen and enhance our nation’s capacity to 

identify, assess, and respond to potential terrorist and terrorist-related 

organizations that threaten homeland security. In the 19 months since ICE 

was formed within DHS, ICE has begun to develop an organizational 

structure designed, among other things, to prevent terrorist activities tied 

to immigration violations and to remove criminal aliens who pose a threat 

to the United States. ICE is moving in the right direction by developing 

outcome-based performance measures and threat assessments for 

determining future budget and staffing requirements. If successful, this 

approach should help ICE measure its effectiveness in achieving its 

immigration-related goals and objectives and better ensure that limited 

resources are used effectively. 

The Department of Homeland Security reviewed a draft of this report and 

had no official comments. 

As agreed with your office, unless you announce its contents earlier, we 

plan no further distribution of the report until 30 days after its issue date. 

At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Homeland Security 

and appropriate congressional committees. We will also make copies 

Concluding 

Observations 

Agency Comments 
Page 19 GAO-05-66 Immigration Enforcement 

available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at 

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

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please 

contact Michael Dino at (213) 830-1150 or me at (202) 512-8777. Other 

individuals who made key contributions to this report are Amy Bernstein, 

Anthony DeFrank, Kathleen Ebert, Ann H. Finley, and Carolyn Ikeda. 

Sincerely yours, 

Richard M. Stana 

Director, Homeland Security 

 and Justice Issues 

(440291) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov(202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER