CBP Separated More 

Asylum-Seeking Families 

at Ports of Entry Than 

Reported and for Reasons 

Other Than Those 

Outlined in Public 

Statements 

May 29, 2020 

OIG-20-35 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

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

May 29, 2020 

MEMORANDUM FOR: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 	 CBP Separated More Asylum-Seeking Families at Ports 

ofEntry Than Reported and for Reasons Other Than 

Those Outlined in Public Statements 

For your action is our final report, CBP Separated More Asylum-Seeking 

Families at Ports ofEntry Than Reported and for Reasons Other Than Those 

Outlined in Public Statements. We incorporated the formal comments provided 

by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

The report contains one recommendation aimed at improving CBP data 

collection. CBP concurred with the recommendation. Based on information 

provided in your response to the draft report, we consider the recommendation 

open and resolved. Once your office has fully implemented the 

recommendation, please submit a formal closeout letter to us within 30 days so 

that we may close the recommendation. The memorandum should be 

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

Please send your response or closure request to OIGSREFollowup@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 Jackson Eaton, 

Acting Assistant Inspector General for Special Reviews and Evaluations, at 

(202) 981-6000. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 	 OIG-20-35 
 

 

 

 

DHS OIG HIGHLIGHTS 

CBP Separated More Asylum-Seeking Families

at Ports of Entry Than Reported and for Reasons

 Other Than Those Outlined in Public Statements 

May 29, 2020 

Why We 

Did This Review 

In response to 

congressional requests, we 

conducted this review to 

determine the extent to 

which U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) 

Office of Field Operations 

(OFO) personnel at CBP 

ports of entry were 

separating families seeking 

asylum, the justifications 

for such separations, and 

whether the separations 

were documented 

appropriately. 

What We 

Recommend 

We made one 

recommendation that CBP 

complete its data 

assessment to identify all 

families separated since FY 

2016. 

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 

Despite CBP OFO’s claim it had only separated 7 

asylum-seeking parents from their children at ports of 

entry between May 6 and July 9, 2018, we identified 

at least 60 asylum-seeking families CBP OFO 

separated at 11 ports of entry between May and June 

2018. We further determined more than half of those 

separations were based solely on the asylum-seeking 

parents’ prior non-violent immigration violations. 

Although CBP guidance for family separations at the 

time was broadly written, separating parents from 

children based solely on a parent’s prior immigration 

violation(s) was inconsistent with official DHS public 

messages about the limited circumstances warranting 

family separation at ports of entry. On June 27, 2018, 

after a Federal court injunction, CBP issued guidance 

with more specific instructions, and OFO separated 

fewer families in the months that followed. 

Despite these steps to provide clarity regarding the 

circumstances for separating asylum-seeking families 

at ports of entry, we continue to have concerns about 

DHS’ ability to accurately identify and address all 

family separations due to data reliability issues. 

Although CBP’s system for tracking aliens at the ports 

of entry included a data field that could be used for 

separated children, CBP officials said staff did not use 

the data field consistently. As a result, OFO may have 

separated more families before June 2018 than those 

we could identify. 

CBP Response 

CBP concurred with our recommendation. 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-20-35 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



Introduction 

In April 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions directed all Federal 

prosecutors along the Southwest Border to work with the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security “to adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy” requiring 

that all improper entry offenses1 be referred for criminal prosecution “to the 

extent practicable.” From May to June 2018, DHS and U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) officials publicly emphasized aliens seeking asylum 

could avoid criminal prosecution under the Zero Tolerance Policy by entering 

the United States legally through ports of entry. Specifically with respect to 

asylum-seeking family units,2 these officials repeatedly said that — barring the 

parents’ referral for prosecution or circumstances threatening a child’s welfare 

— CBP would not separate asylum-seeking parents from their children if a 

family lawfully presented for inspection at a port of entry.3 

Shortly after the termination of the Zero Tolerance Policy on June 20, 2018,4 

the Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations (OFO), Todd 

Owen, asserted, “We have had seven cases, seven cases of family separations 

across the entire Southwest Border since May 6th.” In fact, CBP separated at 

least 60 asylum-seeking families at ports of entry between May and June of 

2018, 35 of which were for reasons other than the parent’s prosecution or the 

child’s welfare. Some of the separated children were as young as 5 months old, 

and at least one was still separated as of July 2019. Furthermore, CBP 

 1 Improper entry offenses include (1) entering or attempting to enter the United States at any 

time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, (2) eluding examination or 

inspection by immigration officers, and (3) attempting to enter or obtaining entry to the United 

States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material 

fact. 8 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 1325. 

2 CBP’s National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search (TEDS) define a family 

unit as, “A group of detainees that includes one or more non-United States citizen juvenile(s) 

accompanied by his/her/their parent(s) or legal guardian(s), whom the agency will evaluate for 

safety purposes to protect juveniles from sexual abuse and violence.”
 3 Secretary Nielsen: 1) Senate Testimony, 05/08/2018, https://www.cspan.org/video/?445189-1/homeland-security-secretary-nielsen-testifies-fiscal-year-2019-

budget; 2) Press briefing with Sarah Sanders, June 18, 2018, 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefingpress-secretary-sarahsanders-department-homeland-security-secretary-kirstjen-nielsen061818/; 3) tweets, 

07/17/2018, https://twitter.com/secnielsen/status/1008467318744240128?lang=en; 

Transcript of Todd Owen’s meeting with members of the media, 07/09/2018.
 4 Executive Order 13841 mandated that families be detained together during the pendency of
 

any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings, effectively ending the Zero Tolerance 

Policy for family units, but maintaining it for others.
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-20-35 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



acknowledged its data on family separations may be incomplete due to 

inconsistent reporting by staff, suggesting more asylum-seeking families may 

have been separated at ports of entry than those identified in our review. 

Background 

CBP OFO manages the ports of entry through which people and goods enter 

and exit the United States.5 CBP OFO officers perform immigration and 

customs functions, only allowing entry to people who have valid entry 

documents, such as visas, permanent resident cards, or U.S. passports, and 

goods permitted under customs and other laws. In the course of this work, 

OFO officers may encounter aliens without valid documents who arrive at ports 

of entry intent on requesting asylum.6 

CBP processes and holds these asylum-seeking aliens in short-term detention 

space at ports of entry before transferring them into U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) custody pending the asylum 

process.7 CBP’s processing includes verifying an alien’s identity and familial 

relationships, checking databases for outstanding warrants or criminal history, 

searching the alien for drugs or contraband, and requesting follow-on placement. 

In May 2018, DHS determined the Zero Tolerance Policy would cover all alien 

adults who crossed into the United States illegally (e.g., between ports of entry 

or by running past CBP through a port of entry), including those crossing with 

minor children. Because minor children cannot be held in criminal custody 

with an adult, alien adults who entered the United States illegally were 

separated from any accompanying minor children when the adults were 

referred for criminal prosecution.8 

In contrast, DHS stated that it would allow an alien who legally entered at a 

port of entry to present an asylum request and not face criminal 

 5 CBP’s Border Patrol detects and prevents the illegal entry of aliens into the United States 

between ports of entry. 

6 The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows any alien physically present in the United 

States or who arrives in the United States, irrespective of their status, to apply for asylum in 

accordance with Section 208 (8 U.S.C. § 1158) or 235(b) (8 U.S.C. § 1225) of the INA. 

7 ICE takes custody of single adult aliens and family units for long-term detention or for release 

with an order to appear in court. Unaccompanied alien children are transferred to HHS ORR 

for long-term custodial care and placement pending their immigration proceedings. 

8 More information on this issue is available in Initial Observations Regarding Family Separation 

Issues Under the Zero Tolerance Policy, OIG-18-84, September 2018. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-20-35 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



prosecution and family separation. Accordingly, except in limited 

circumstances, the Zero Tolerance Policy should not have applied to 

asylum-seeking families at ports of entry. This was reiterated in public 

statements made at the time by DHS senior leaders. For example, during a 

June 18, 2018 White House press briefing, then-Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen 

said: 

And finally, DHS is not separating families legitimately seeking 

asylum at ports of entry. If an adult enters at a port of entry and 

claims asylum, they will not face prosecution for illegal entry. They 

have not committed a crime by coming to the port of entry. As I 

mentioned, DHS does have a responsibility to protect minors. And 

in that case, as well, we will only separate the family if we cannot 

determine there is a familial relationship, if the child may be at risk 

with the parent or legal guardian, or if the parent or legal guardian 

is referred for prosecution.9
 

However, several media outlets reported CBP was separating families who 

requested asylum at ports of entry in circumstances other than the limited 

conditions outlined in the Department’s public statements.10 As a result, 

Congress asked us to review whether CBP OFO separated asylum-seeking 

families inappropriately. Between July 2018 and April 2019, we visited 12 land 

ports of entry where we interviewed OFO staff and observed operations. We 

also interviewed field office and headquarters officials and obtained 

documentary evidence, such as policies and procedures related to family 

separation, as well as data from CBP systems and immigration forms. 

Results of Review 

During the period the Zero Tolerance Policy was in place (May and June 2018), 

CBP’s guidance generally stated OFO should maintain family unity except 

when the child’s safety and well-being is threatened, or the parent has active 

warrants or other legal requirements which require separation. In the absence 

 9 Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, June 

18, 2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefingpress-secretarysarah-sanders-department-homeland-security-secretary-kirstjen-nielsen061818/. 10 “The Trump administration says it’s a ‘myth’ that families that ask for asylum at ports of 

entry are separated. It happens frequently, records show,” LA Times, July 1, 2018. “Border 

Patrol Agents May Have Separated Families at Legal Ports of Entry Despite Promises Not To,” 

Willamette Week, June 19, 2018. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-20-35 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



of more specific guidance, OFO port officials were left to interpret what 

circumstances necessitated separation, resulting in inconsistent outcomes. We 

identified 60 asylum-seeking families OFO separated at 11 ports of entry 

between May and June 2018, with 35 of those families separated solely 

because of the parents’ prior non-violent immigration violations.11 Although 

CBP’s guidance at the time was broadly written, the justifications for these 35 

family separations were inconsistent with DHS public messages articulating 

when asylum-seeking families may be separated. On June 27, 2018, after a 

Federal court issued a preliminary injunction requiring DHS to stop separating 

families except in limited circumstances,12 CBP issued guidance detailing 

specific situations that constituted a threat to the child’s safety or a legal 

concern justifying separation. Following the release of that guidance, OFO 

ports of entry separated fewer families. 

Despite the steps CBP has taken to provide clarity regarding the circumstances 

for family separation, we continue to have concerns about OFO’s ability to 

accurately identify and address all family separations prior to June 2018. 

Since 2015, CBP’s system for tracking aliens at the ports of entry included a 

data field that could be used for separated children, but CBP officials said staff 

did not use the data field consistently. In late June 2018, CBP modified this 

tracking system to capture family separation data more consistently, but could 

not provide a reliable number of families separated before June 2018. 

Lacking Clear Guidance, CBP Personnel at Ports of Entry 

Separated Asylum-Seeking Families for Reasons Other Than 

Those Communicated to the Public 

Between May and June 2018, OFO staff, operating without clear guidance, 

separated at least 35 asylum-seeking families at ports of entry for reasons 

other than the children’s welfare or a “legal requirement,” such as criminal 

warrants. Instead, OFO separated these families based on the parents’ prior 

 11 The phrase “non-violent immigration violations” or “immigration violations” as used in the 

report signifies prior removal orders, prior illegal entries, or illegal re-entries following removal 

orders, some of which can be criminal and civil offenses. According to OFO’s records reviewed 

by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), none of the 35 parents who were separated from their 

children had criminal histories other than their immigration records of illegal entries or reentries following removals. 

12 On June 26, 2018, the U.S. District Court in Southern California issued an injunction in the 

Ms. L v. ICE case, which also directed DHS and HHS to reunite separated families and facilitate 

regular communication pending reunification, among other things. Ms. L. v. ICE, 310 F. Supp. 

3d 1133 (S.D. Cal. 2018). 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-20-35 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



immigration violations, such as previously entering the United States without a 

visa. After the issuance of a court’s injunction on June 26, 2018, CBP revised 

its guidance and separated fewer families, and improved its electronic tracking 

system to better record and track separated families. 

Prior to June 2018, CBP Followed Vague Guidance about Circumstances 

Necessitating Family Separation 

In May 2018, DHS determined the Zero Tolerance Policy would cover all alien 

adults who crossed into the United States illegally, including those crossing 

with minor children. At the time CBP ports of entry were relying on CBP 

guidance published in 2015 and 2016 to make determinations on family 

separations: CBP’s 2015 National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, 

and Search (TEDS)13 and an August 2016 email restating the TEDS policy. 

Both documents are written in general terms and indicate family separations 

should be rare, and should occur only when necessary for the safety or wellbeing of the child, or due to a legal requirement necessitating separation. 

Specifically, TEDS states: 

CBP will maintain family unity to the greatest extent operationally 

feasible, absent a legal requirement or an articulable safety or 

security concern that requires separation.14 

Similarly, the August 2016 email instructed port directors that: “Separation of 

child from parent or legal guardian should be a rare occurrence, e.g., safety 

and well-being of child, active warrant or similar circumstance.” Neither 

document gives examples or additional instruction about the types of 

circumstances that would pose a threat to a child’s safety and well-being, or 

the types of legal requirements — other than an outstanding warrant — that 

would necessitate separation. As a result, port officials were left to interpret 

those circumstances themselves, resulting in inconsistent outcomes. 

CBP Ports of Entry Separated 35 Families for Reasons That Appeared 

Inconsistent with CBP Policy and Official DHS Public Messages 

On July 9, 2018, CBP’s Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field 

Operations, Todd Owen, publicly claimed, “[W]e have had seven cases, seven 

 13 TEDS sets the standards for care CBP must provide to all individuals in CBP custody. 14 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and 

Search (TEDS), October 2015, paragraph 1.9 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-20-35 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



cases of family separations across the entire Southwest Border since May 6th.” 

In fact, of the 5,844 asylum-seeking families who presented at Southwest 

Border ports of entry between May and June 2018, OFO separated at least 60 

asylum-seeking families. The separations of 25 of those families appeared to 

be consistent with CBP policy and public information at the time, as they were 

based on a parent’s referral for prosecution after attempting to elude inspection 

at the ports, criminal history, or cartel involvement. However, the other 35 

asylum-seeking families were separated solely due to the parents’ prior 

immigration violations,15 such as a prior charge for improper entry. Of the 35 

families separated, 34 were separated at six ports of entry overseen by OFO’s 

Laredo field office, and 1 family was separated at a port of entry under the 

Tucson field office.16 These reasons for the separations appeared to be 

inconsistent with CBP policy and DHS public messages regarding family 

separations at that time. Figure 1 shows the 60 asylum-seeking families we 

identified as having been separated at ports of entry, grouped by reason for 

separation. 

Figure 1. Reasons for CBP’s Separations of Asylum-seeking Families at 

Ports of Entry, May to June 2018 

Immigration 

Criminal History History

Cartel 

Involvement 

Referred for 

Prosecution 

35 

10 

2 

13 

Source: OIG analysis of alien immigration files 

 15 8 U.S.C. § 1325, Improper Entry by Alien 

16 CBP OFO has four field offices along the Southwest Border, with each overseeing multiple 

ports of entry. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-20-35 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



The immigration violations used as a basis for separating 35 asylum-seeking 

families ranged from prior immigration history for entering the United States 

without a visa, to a parent having a prior expedited removal17 from the United 

States.

These 35 families included 40 children whom OFO separated from their 

asylum-seeking parents; the youngest of those children was 5 months old, and 

the oldest was 17. All of these children were separated from parents for at 

least 4 weeks, with one remaining separated more than a year later.18 Table 1 

displays the numbers of children in each group and the range of days the 

children in each group were separated from their parents, as of July 8, 2019. 

Table 1. Data for Children Separated from Parents, as of July 8, 2019 

Children’s Ages Number of Children Days Separated from Parent 

5 months – 5 years old 10 28 – 50 days 

6 – 12 years old 22 29 – 233 days 

13 – 17 years old 8 45 – 401 days 

Source: CBP Secure Integrated Government Mainframe Access (SIGMA) and EARM data19 

In one specific case, on May 21, 2018, OFO separated a 26-year old 

Guatemalan mother and her four children, aged 12 years, 8 years, 5 years, and 

5 months, who were requesting asylum at a port of entry. CBP’s database 

checks revealed the mother had been apprehended twice by Border Patrol for 

illegal entry, once in 2009 and again in 2014. She had been deported each 

time as a result. The CBP officer noted in her file she “was processed for 

[credible fear] and separated from her children due to having two previous 

removals from the United States.” In June 2018, we interviewed the mother in 

an ICE detention center, and she said she would no longer be able to nurse her 

youngest child due to the length of the separation. On July 10, 2018, the 

family was released and reunited, after 7 weeks apart. 

 17 Expedited removal is a process wherein aliens are removed from the United States 

administratively by DHS (i.e., without appearing before an immigration judge). 8 U.S.C. §1225 

(b). Expedited Removal of Aliens-a Legal Framework, U.S. Congressional Research Service, 

R45314, 10/8/2019. 

18 As of July 5, 2019, DHS records indicate all but two families have been reunified: one child 

turned 18 in custody and was no longer tracked as an unaccompanied alien child, and another 

was released to an unrelated adult and the parent was deported. 

19 SIGMA is an electronic tracking system in which CBP ports of entry enter information about 

CBP’s encounters with aliens who enter the port. EARM is an electronic system ICE uses to 

track aliens in ICE custody, among other things. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-20-35 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



Although CBP’s guidance at the time was vague, separations such as the one 

just described were inconsistent with DHS public messages while the Zero 

Tolerance Policy was in place. According to these statements, CBP would not 

refer for prosecution adults properly presenting for inspection at a port of entry 

and, thus, would only separate families in limited circumstances. For example, 

a June 18, 2018, DHS press release, “Myth vs. Fact: DHS Zero-Tolerance 

Policy,” read: 

If an adult enters at a port of entry and claims asylum, they will not 

face prosecution for illegal entry. DHS does have a responsibility to 

protect minors we apprehend and will separate in three 

circumstances: 1) when DHS is unable to determine the familial 

relationship, 2) when DHS determines that a child may be at risk 

with the parent or legal guardian, or 3) when the parent or legal 

guardian is referred for criminal prosecution.20 

Prior immigration violations do not fall under one of these three circumstances 

necessitating family separation. The majority of CBP ports of entry appeared to 

understand this, as only seven ports of entry in the Laredo and Tucson field 

offices separated families on this basis. Further, when CBP headquarters 

officials learned about these separations, a headquarters official orally 

instructed the Laredo field office to stop separating families based solely on the 

parent’s prior non-violent immigration violations. 

After Receiving a Federal Court Injunction, CBP Issued Revised 

Guidance in June 2018 and the Ports of Entry Separated Fewer 

Families 

On June 26, 2018, a Federal district court issued a preliminary injunction 

requiring CBP and others to stop separating certain alien families in DHS 

custody, except when the parents are unfit, pose a danger to the children, or 

voluntarily decline to be detained with their children. Plaintiffs in the class 

action suit alleged that in separating families, DHS and HHS violated the 

families’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to family unity, and asked the 

court to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent DHS from separating 

additional families and to reunite the families that had been separated. The 

court found that although the President had issued an Executive Order to stop 

 20 https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/06/18/myth-vs-fact-dhs-zero-tolerance-policy 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-20-35 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



the separations21 and DHS had issued a “Fact Sheet” assuring reunification of 

families, neither document overcame a need for the injunction. 

Like CBP’s TEDS policy and August 2016 guidance memo, the Federal district 

court’s preliminary injunction did not provide specific circumstances that 

would render a parent “unfit” or constitute “a danger” to a child. However, on 

June 29, 2018, CBP issued detailed guidance detailing the five specific 

circumstances in which family separations would be appropriate: 

1. Adult member is not the parent or legal guardian of the child or the 

relationship cannot be established. 

2. Parent/legal guardian has been accepted for felony criminal prosecution. 

3. Parent/legal guardian has a prior criminal history for felonies or violent 

misdemeanors. 

4. Parent/legal guardian has a communicable disease. 

5. There is an immediate child safety concern and separation is warranted 

for the welfare of the child. 

This guidance generally comports with DHS public messages regarding the 

circumstances warranting family separation and provided needed clarity to 

CBP field offices. 

In the following months, the number of asylum-seeking families separated at 

the Southwest Border ports of entry significantly decreased, even as the 

number of asylum-seeking families presenting at ports increased. After 

separating at least 60 families during the 2-month period of May through June 

2018, OFO separated only seven families in the following 5 months, as shown 

in figure 2. Of those seven, six of the parents had violent criminal histories 

and one was medically incapacitated. 

 21 On June 20, 2018, President Trump signed an Executive Order halting the prosecution of 

families who crossed the border between ports of entry. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-20-35 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



Figure 2. Asylum-seeking Families Separated, April – November 2018 

Unreliable Data Impedes Identification and Reunification of All 

Children Separated from Parents Prior to June 2018 

Although the Department clarified the circumstances warranting family 

separation, we encountered data reliability issues calling into question DHS’ 

ability to accurately identify and address all family separations prior to June 

2018. Before then, OFO’s system for tracking aliens at the ports of entry 

included a data field that could be used to indicate a child was held separately 

from his or her parent. However, OFO officials said staff did not use the data 

field consistently, and as a result, OFO could not provide a reliable number of 

families separated before June 2018. At that time, CBP modified the ports of 

entry tracking system to capture family separation data more consistently. 

OFO uses an electronic records system, SIGMA, to document and store 

information about individuals collected during processing at ports of entry. 

Before June 2018, SIGMA had a data field for “juveniles held separately,” 

which could be selected to indicate the separation of parents and children. 

However, according to OFO officials, staff at ports of entry did not use that data 

field consistently. As a result, OFO was unable to provide the definitive 

number of asylum-seeking families at ports of entry who were separated before 

June 2018. Because CBP staff underused this data field, which resulted in 

incomplete data, the agency likely separated more asylum-seeking families at 

ports of entry during this period than the 60 families that were reflected in the 

SIGMA system. 

On June 28, 2018, after the Federal court’s injunction, CBP modified SIGMA to 

include additional data fields that document family separations with greater 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-20-35 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



accuracy. CBP also issued guidance to the field for recording information 

about families in SIGMA, including reasons for separation. 

Because of concerns over CBP data reliability, we cannot be certain our 

analysis of separations occurring between May and June 2018 captures all 

family separations during that period, and it is even less certain that we have a 

clear picture of the separations occurring before 2018. In addition to our 

analysis of OFO’s family separation data, DHS OIG also reviewed CBP’s Border 

Patrol data in a recent audit to determine the effectiveness of DHS’ information 

technology systems in tracking detainees and supporting efforts to reunify 

unaccompanied alien children with separated families.22 As part of this audit, 

DHS OIG’s Data Analytics team conducted an independent analysis of DHS’ 

apprehension data, revealing hundreds of possible family relationships that 

CBP had not recorded in its systems. 

The information requested in the following recommendation would assist DHS 

and DHS OIG in determining whether, and how many, additional separations 

actually took place, the basis for those separations, and whether reunification 

has occurred. 

Recommendation 

Recommendation: We recommend the CBP Executive Assistant 

Commissioner, Office of Field Operations complete the evaluation of SIGMA 

data dating back to fiscal year 2016 to identify all separated families, and 

provide DHS OIG with the following data elements for all separated family 

members: 

A. alien number; 

B. family relationship, e.g., mother/father/son/daughter; 

C. date of birth; 

D. reason(s) for separation; 

E. port of entry at which separated; 

F. date of separation; 

G. date of reunification, if applicable; and 

H. for families not reunified, the reasons why they are still separated. 

 22 DHS Lacked Technology Needed to Successfully Account for Separated Migrant Families, OIG20-06, November 25, 2019. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-20-35 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

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

appendix A. We also received technical comments from CBP and incorporated 

them in the report where appropriate. We consider the recommendation to be 

resolved and open. A summary of CBP’s responses and our analysis follows. 

In its response, CBP concurred with the recommendation and reiterated the 

many changes the agency has implemented since 2018. For example, CBP 

stated it has implemented a new secondary processing system that addresses 

documentation issues, and released policies to comply with court orders from 

the “Ms. L v. ICE” litigation that specify how family units at ports of entry 

should be handled. CBP stated it has also implemented procedures that aim to 

improve supervisory and headquarters oversight of family separations.

CBP Response to Recommendation: CBP concurred with the 

recommendation. OFO will provide OIG with the data researched and 

submitted to the “Ms. L v. ICE” court in response to the court’s order. CBP 

believes the data required by the court will be sufficient for meeting the goals of 

our recommendation. CBP anticipates completing these actions by July 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 (1) showing that CBP has completed its review and 

identified all separated family units from 2016 through 2018, and (2) providing 

the requested data elements for the identified family units, including the 

reason(s) for their separation. 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General was established 

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

the Inspector General Act of 1978. 

While the Zero Tolerance Policy was in place, DHS OIG received several requests 

from multiple members of Congress relating to DHS’ implementation of the Zero 

Tolerance Policy, treatment of asylum-seekers, and separation of families. This 

review answers key questions from three congressional requests received on 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-20-35 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



June 26, June 29, and September 26, 2018. Our office is addressing 

remaining requests in subsequent projects. 

Our objective was to determine whether CBP staff at ports of entry were 

separating families seeking asylum and, if so, whether they were documenting 

the separations appropriately. Between July 2018 and April 2019, we visited 

12 land ports of entry where we interviewed CBP staff and observed operations. 

We also interviewed field office and headquarters officials to learn about CBP 

policy and guidance for separations, as well as numbers of asylum-seeking 

families separated at the ports of entry. 

We also obtained documentary evidence, such as policies and procedures 

related to family separation, as well as data from SIGMA. We corroborated the 

SIGMA data with separate immigration documents CBP officers produced at 

the ports of entry and analyzed the I-213 forms (Record of 

Deportable/Inadmissible Alien)23 for all asylum-seeking families CBP separated 

at ports of entry between April and November 2018 to identify the reasons for 

separation. We also reviewed the complete alien files for two separated families 

whose I-213 forms were unclear. 

We conducted this review under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 

1978, as amended, and according to the Quality Standards for Inspection and 

Evaluation issued by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and 

Efficiency. 

The Office of Special Reviews and Evaluations’ major contributors to this report 

are Tatyana Martell, Elizabeth Kingma, Adam Brown, Stephen Farrell, Paul 

Lewandowski, Jason Wahl, Jon Goodrich, and Donna Ruth. 

 23 A Form I-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, is an immigration form CBP 

generates when processing an alien. It contains demographic data as well as details and 

narratives of CBP’s interactions with an alien. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-20-35 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



Appendix A 

CBP Comments to the Draft Report 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-20-35 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-20-35 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-20-35 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-20-35 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security



Appendix B 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chiefs of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Under Secretary for Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Commissioner, CBP 

CBP Component Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-20-35 
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