U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement’s 

Criminal Alien Program 

Faces Challenges 

February 18, 2020 

OIG-20-13 
 

 

DHS OIG HIGHLIGHTS
 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s

Criminal Alien Program Faces Challenges 

February 18, 2020 

Why We Did 

This Audit 

In fiscal year 2019, 

ICE arrested aliens 

charged with or 

convicted of 489,100 

crimes. ICE uses CAP to 

identify and apprehend 

such aliens. We audited 

CAP to determine 

whether ICE 

successfully identified 

and detained criminal 

aliens, eliminated 

research duplication, 

and ensured officers 

documented their 

actions. 

What We 

Recommend 

We made four 

recommendations to ICE 

focused on improving 

CAP. 

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 

Through its Criminal Alien Program (CAP), U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can successfully identify 

aliens charged with or convicted of crimes. However, because 

ICE relies on cooperation from other law enforcement 

agencies, ICE sometimes faces challenges apprehending aliens 

in uncooperative jurisdictions. ICE’s inability to detain aliens 

identified through CAP contributes to increased risk those 

aliens will commit more crimes. Furthermore, having to arrest 

“at-large” aliens may put officer, detainee, and public safety at 

risk and strains ICE’s staffing resources. 

We also identified opportunities to streamline CAP processes 

to achieve greater efficiencies. ICE field offices task 160 

officers with administrative Pacific Enforcement Response 

Center functions, such as conducting research and issuing 

detainers, rather than arresting criminal aliens. 

Finally, ICE did not consistently document all CAP-related 

actions because its electronic systems lack required fields and 

full information sharing. ICE does not require officers to 

complete certain necessary fields or track cases of lawful 

permanent residents charged with, but not convicted of, 

crimes. These deficiencies may harm ICE’s credibility with law 

enforcement partners and impede effective performance of the 

CAP mission. 

ICE Response 

ICE concurred with all four recommendations and initiated 

corrective actions to address the findings. 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-20-13 
February 18, 2020
	
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

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

copies of our report to congressional committees with oversight and 

appropriation responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We 

also post the report on our website for public dissemination. 

Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact Assistant 

Inspector General for Audits Sondra McCauley, or Deputy Assistant Inspector 

General for Audits Don Bumgardner at (202) 981-6000. 

Attachment 

www.oig.dhs.gov 

2 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table of Contents 

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

Results of Audit .............................................................................................. 6 

CAP Effectively Identifies Removable Aliens but Has Challenges Taking 

Them into Custody in Uncooperative Jurisdictions................................. 7 

ICE Duplicates CAP Research and Detainer Issuance ........................... 10 

ICE Did Not Adequately Document CAP Actions ................................... 11 

ICE Inconsistently Tracks Legal Permanent Aliens with Pending

Charges ............................................................................................... 12 

Recommendations ............................................................................... 13 

Appendixes 

Appendix A: Objective, Scope, and Methodology ................................. 16 

Appendix B: ICE Comments to the Draft Report ................................... 19 

Appendix C: FY 2019 Data on ICE Arrests by Violation Category for 

Aliens either Charged or Convicted .................................. 24 

Appendix D: Office of Audits Major Contributors to This Report ........... 25 

Appendix E:Report Distribution .......................................................... 26 

Abbreviations 

ACRIMe Alien Criminal Response Information Management System 

AOR area of responsibility 

CAP Criminal Alien Program 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EAGLE Enforcement Integrated Database Arrest Guide for Law 

Enforcement 

EARM ENFORCE Alien Removal Module 

EO Executive Order 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

IAR Immigration Alien Response 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

LESC Law Enforcement Support Center 

LPR lawful permanent resident 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

PERC Pacific Enforcement Response Center 

U.S.C. United States Code 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-20-13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                      

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Background 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for administering 

the lawful migration of thousands of immigrants each year. DHS also prevents 

unlawful entry into the country and apprehends and removes aliens — people 

who are not U.S. citizens or nationals — who violate immigration laws. Within 

DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection share 

responsibility for administering and enforcing the Immigration and Nationality 

Act of 1952. 

ICE's mission involves protecting the United States from cross-border crime 

and illegal immigration that threaten national security and public safety. ICE 

enforces more than 400 Federal statutes related to immigration, preventing 

terrorism, and combating the illegal movement of people and goods.1 The 

number of removable aliens in the United States is unknown. However, in 

2015, DHS estimated that number to be 12 million, and a slightly more recent 

academic study estimated it to be 22.1 million.2 

Removable aliens are persons who enter the United States illegally or entered 

legally and violated the terms of their immigration status. ICE is responsible 

for identifying, detaining, and deporting removable aliens. Criminal aliens are 

those convicted of crimes. ICE uses the Criminal Alien Program (CAP) to 

identify and arrest aliens charged with or convicted of crimes who are 

incarcerated in Federal, state, and local prisons and jails, as well as at-large 

criminal aliens who have avoided identification.3 

ICE refers to state and local law enforcement agencies, prisons, or jails that do 

not fully cooperate with ICE detainers as “uncooperative jurisdictions.” 

In fiscal year 2019, ICE arrested 143,1004 aliens who were either charged with 

or convicted of 489,100 various crimes. Appendix C details the categories of 

arrests by violation. 

1 Immigration and Nationality Act section 287(a)(2) authorizes immigration officers to make 

warrantless arrests based on a reasonable belief an alien is in the United States in violation of 

any immigration law. 8 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1357(a); 8 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) § 287.5(c). 

2 2018 Yale-Massachusetts Institute of Technology: The Number of Undocumented Immigrants in 

the United States: Estimates based on Demographic Modeling with Data from 1990 to 2016. 

3 According to DHS and Department of Justice Alien Incarceration Report, Fiscal Year 2018, 

Quarter 2 (April 16, 2019), about 60,000, or 33 percent, of all inmates in Federal custody are 

known or suspected aliens. About 90 percent of incarcerated people in the United States are in 

state prisons and local jails, but statistics about their immigration status are unknown. 4 Figures in the report are rounded to the nearest hundred. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-20-13 
 

 

                                                       

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

The CAP process begins when law enforcement officers arrest and gather 

information about a person for incarceration. Law enforcement agencies 

usually fingerprint the person and submit fingerprints (biometric) and 

personally identifiable (biographic)5 information to Federal and state databases 

to check criminal and immigration history. Matches occur when an arrestee’s 

fingerprints or personally identifiable information correspond to an existing 

immigration record. In such cases, ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center 

(LESC) in Williston, Vermont, is notified, which then alerts either the Pacific 

Enforcement Response Center (PERC) in Laguna Niguel, California, or the 

pertinent ICE office. 

PERC operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and standardizes alien 

research and detainer issuance. When a match occurs, PERC or the ICE office 

issues a detainer to the jail. Along with the detainer, ICE also issues an 

administrative warrant, containing a determination of probable cause for 

removability or an order of deportation. A legally authorized immigration 

officer signs the warrant. Figure 1 shows the identification and notification 

process. 

Figure 1: CAP Identification and Notification Process 

1. Federal, state, or 2. The agencies 3. The agencies submit 

local law gather the biometric/biographic data 

enforcement arrestee’s to Federal and state 

agencies arrest a biometric and databases to check the 

person for biographic arrestee’s criminal and 

violation of information. immigration history. If a 

Federal, state, or match occurs, ICE’s LESC 

local laws. is notified. 

5 Biographic information includes name, alias, and date of birth. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-20-13 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Law Enforcement Pacific Enforcement 

Support Center Response Center 

6. ICE officers contact and go 

to the Federal, state, or 4. LESC researches local jail to take custody of the case in ACRIMe, the detained criminal 

which notifies PERC alien. ICE processes the or the local ICE 5. PERC or the alien for removal and 

office of cases for local ICE office coordinates with the 

law enforcement issues a Department of Justice for action. detainer, when prosecution, as 

appropriate. appropriate. 

Source: DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) analysis of the identification and notification 

process 

ICE uses the following databases to research and process aliens: 

(1) Alien Criminal Response Information Management System (ACRIMe): 

is an information system used to receive and respond to immigration 

status inquiries. ICE uses it, with other data sources, to determine 

whether to issue a detainer. 

(2) Enforcement Integrated Database Arrest Guide for Law Enforcement 

(EAGLE): is the primary system officers use to document encounters 

with aliens. 

(3) ENFORCE Alien Removal Module (EARM): is the central location for 

information about each alien undergoing removal proceedings, 

providing a consolidated view of all ICE encounters with each alien. 

ICE received about 4.6 million biometric or biographic matches from law 

enforcement agencies from FY 2016 through FY 2018. Of these, about 54 

percent were based on biometric matches and 46 percent were based on 

biographic information. Because ICE officers cannot conclusively identify or 

apprehend aliens based solely on biographic information, they must interview 

the individuals to determine immigration status before taking enforcement 

action. 

ICE operates CAP in 24 geographic areas of responsibility (AOR) across the 

United States. ICE issues a detainer to notify a law enforcement agency it 

intends to assume custody and requests the agency hold the alien for up to 48 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-20-13 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

hours. Between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2019, ICE issued 732,100 

detainers. Figure 2 shows the number of detainers ICE issued from FY 2014 

through FY 2019 by state. 

Figure 2: FYs 2014 – 2019 Number of Detainers ICE Issued by State 

Source: OIG map based on ICE FYs 2014-2019 data 

In January 2017, the President issued Executive Order (EO) 13768, Enhancing 

Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, which set forth the 

administration’s immigration enforcement and removal priorities. In February 

2017, DHS issued a memorandum, Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to 

Serve the National Interest, to implement the EO. Under EO 13768, ICE is to 

employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution of the immigration 

laws of the United States against all removable aliens. According to ICE, it 

employed about 6,100 officers for its overall mission in FY 2018. Between FYs 

2014 and 2018, Congress appropriated $1.6 billion for CAP. 

Prior Audits 

In 2011, DHS OIG assessed the strengths and weaknesses of CAP. We 

determined in FY 2009, CAP successfully screened and identified 99 percent of 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-20-13 
 

 

 

                                                      

 of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Secure 

Communities [OIG-12-64, April 2012 (Revised)]

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

the criminal aliens in Federal custody who were eligible for removal.6 Also, in 

2011, we audited ICE’s decision-making process to detain or release aliens.7 In 

these reports, we concluded, although ICE took appropriate actions, it 

occasionally released criminal aliens it could not deport. For example, some 

countries would not issue travel documents when ICE tried to repatriate aliens 

to their home countries. 

Our 2012 audit report about ICE’s Secure Communities disclosed ICE 

effectively identified criminal aliens, and in most cases, ICE officers took 

enforcement actions according to its enforcement policy. We also found ICE’s 

field offices duplicated research associated with detention of criminal aliens 

and recommended ICE eliminate research duplication.8 In response to this 

recommendation, ICE modernized ACRIMe to consolidate its research of aliens. 

For this FY 2018 to 2019 audit, our objective was to determine whether ICE 

successfully identified and gained custody of criminal aliens, eliminated 

research duplication, and ensured officers documented their actions. 

Results of Audit 

Through CAP, ICE can successfully identify aliens charged with or convicted of 

crimes. However, because ICE relies on cooperation from other law 

enforcement agencies, it faces challenges apprehending aliens in uncooperative 

jurisdictions. ICE’s inability to detain aliens identified through CAP who are 

located in uncooperative jurisdictions, results in increased risk those aliens will 

commit more crimes. Furthermore, having to arrest “at-large” aliens may put 

officer, detainee, and public safety at risk and strains ICE’s staffing resources. 

We also identified opportunities to streamline CAP processes to achieve greater 

efficiencies. ICE field offices task 160 officers with administrative PERC 

functions, such as conducting research and issuing detainers, rather than 

being assigned to enforcement activities and arresting criminal aliens. 

Finally, ICE did not consistently document all CAP-related actions because its 

electronic systems lack required fields and full information sharing. ICE does 

not require officers to complete certain necessary fields or to track cases of 

lawful permanent residents (LPR) charged with, but not convicted of, crimes. 

6 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Identification of Criminal Aliens in Federal and 

State Custody Eligible for Removal from the United States (OIG-11-26, January 2011). 

7 Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk (OIG-11-81, December 2011, Revised). 

8 Operations of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Secure Communities (OIG12-64, April 2012, Revised). 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-20-13 
 

 

                                                      

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

These deficiencies may harm ICE’s credibility with law enforcement partners 

and impede effective performance of the CAP officer mission. 

CAP Effectively Identifies Removable Aliens but Has More 

Challenges Taking Them into Custody in Uncooperative 

Jurisdictions 

We determined, through information sharing, ICE successfully identifies 

criminal aliens whose fingerprints are on record, which means the alien had 

prior immigration contact. ICE leverages the existing information-sharing 

network between state and local law enforcement agencies and the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to identify in-custody aliens with criminal history 

and outstanding warrants. The FBI automatically sends the data to DHS to 

compare with its immigration databases. If the fingerprint for an arrestee 

matches existing immigration records, ICE determines the alien’s immigration 

and criminal history, and if enforcement action is required, issues a detainer 

and an administrative warrant to the relevant prison or jail to request the 

criminal alien be detained rather than released from the custody of the local 

law enforcement agency. 

Fully cooperative jurisdictions honor detainers for up to 48 hours, as requested 

by ICE, and also provide: 

 inmate information, 

 timely notices of release, 

 ICE officer access to jails to interview suspected aliens, and 

 safe places to transfer aliens into ICE custody, such as inside the jail. 

When CAP works as intended — that is, when agencies share information and 

jurisdictions cooperate — ICE can identify criminal aliens while they are in 

custody. We watched ICE successfully identify criminal aliens at 35 locations 

in 19 ICE AORs. We also observed ICE operations at 24 jails in those areas. 

Responses to a September 2018 OIG survey9 corroborated our observations, 

showing 95 percent of responding ICE officers believe CAP effectively identifies 

criminal aliens. 

Federal and most state jails across the nation honor detainers and allow ICE 

access to inmate rosters to screen aliens and begin the deportation process. 

According to ICE data, it arrested 195,500 criminal alien inmates from Federal 

and state prisons between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2019. 

9 During our review, we distributed an anonymous survey questionnaire to 6,127 ICE CAP 

officers nationwide to obtain an understanding of CAP and obtain officers’ views. We achieved 

a 27.2 percent response rate. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-20-13 
 

 

 

                                                      

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Similarly, many local jails cooperate with ICE, which arrested 321,400 aliens 

from local jails in the same time period. According to ICE data for the same 

period, 516,900, or 79 percent of its 651,000 total arrests10 were based on incustody transfers from the criminal-justice system. 

However, challenges exist in some areas where jurisdictions do not fully 

cooperate with ICE. Specifically, in 11 of the 19 AORs we observed, state and 

local jurisdictions restricted local law enforcement agencies’ cooperation with 

ICE. Typically, uncooperative jurisdictions are large, metropolitan areas.11 

Various Federal and state court decisions, state laws, and local policies limit 

ICE’s ability to gain custody of aliens through use of detainers. These 

jurisdictions will honor ICE detainers if certain conditions are met. For 

example, after some courts ruled detainers issued without a warrant for arrest 

or an order of removal exceeded ICE’s statutory authority to make warrantless 

arrests under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), ICE began issuing administrative warrants 

with detainers that included statements of probable cause to hold the alien. 

Since that time, other courts ruled ICE’s probable cause statements are 

sufficient to support an alien’s 48-hour detention for civil immigration 

violations without violating the Fourth Amendment. 

In addition, some states passed laws or issued state-wide directives hindering 

information sharing with ICE. For example, one state offers civil and criminal 

immunity to local law enforcement agencies and officers in connection with 

releasing aliens. Another state’s directive prohibits information sharing with 

ICE that is not pursuant to a court order and when the sole purpose of the 

information sharing is to enforce Federal civil immigration law. This prevents 

local law enforcement from providing non-public personally identifiable 

information to ICE and from granting ICE’s requests for access to inmates for 

interviews in space not available to the general public. 

Officials in some jurisdictions gave several reasons for limiting their 

cooperation with ICE regarding the CAP program. According to some, when 

aliens are victims of, or witnesses to, crimes jurisdictions do not want to 

discourage the victims and witnesses from reporting the incidents. Officials 

asserted aliens are less likely to come forward if they believe state and local law 

10 We obtained arrest data from the ICE Enforcement Integrated Database System.
 11 In its May 31, 2016 memorandum, the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General 

described its review of several state and local laws and policies that limit or restrict cooperation 

with ICE. See Department of Justice Referral of Allegations of Potential Violations of 8 U.S.C. §
 

1373 by Grant Recipients (https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/1607.pdf). Three years later, 

our site visits, interviews, and analyses revealed many similar findings. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-20-13 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

enforcement agencies will turn them over to ICE. Officials of other jurisdictions 

cited fear of litigation for wrongful detention or erroneous detainers. 

Restrictions on these jurisdictions’ cooperation with ICE limit CAP’s 

effectiveness and increase the risk criminal aliens are released, rather than 

deported, and potentially commit additional, preventable crimes. The resulting 

degradation in CAP’s effectiveness can be significant, as evidenced by the 

following examples from jurisdictions that do not routinely cooperate with ICE, 

did not honor ICE-issued detainers, and released criminal aliens. 

	 In December 2016, an alien was released. The alien was rearrested in 

July 2017 for multiple felonies, including rape, sodomy, kidnapping, 

assault, and robbery. In December 2017, the alien pled guilty and was 

sentenced to 35 years in prison. 

	 In February 2018, an alien was released. In November 2018, the alien 

was rearrested and charged with murdering three people, and multiple 

other felonies. 

	 In March 2018, an alien was released. In October 2018, the alien was 

rearrested and charged with murdering his wife. 

ICE-issued detainers Figure 3: Declined Detainers by Fiscal Year 

increased from 137,000 in 

FY 2014 to 165,500 in FY 18,000 2019 — an increase of 20 

16,000 percent. In the same time 

14,000 period, the number of 

12,000 detainers law enforcement 

agencies declined to honor 10,000

also increased from 8,665 8,000

to 16,400, or an 89 6,000

percent increase. Figure 3 4,000

shows the number of 2,000

declined detainers from FY -

2014 through FY 2019. In FY FY FY FY FY FY 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 total, jurisdictions 

declined 58,900 detainers 

during these 6 years. Source: OIG analysis of ICE detainer data 8,665 7,170 3,6867,565  15,451

16,396 

When state and local jurisdictions decline to honor ICE detainers and an alien 

is released, ICE officers must endeavor to make at-large arrests requiring more 

effort. In such cases, ICE officers must investigate to determine each alien’s 

location and then make arrests in communities rather than in more secure and 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-20-13 
 

 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

safe environments such as in jails or prisons. Moving arrests from secure, 

controlled locations (jails) to unknown environments (homes, workplaces, or 

the public) places heavy demand on ICE personnel and increases safety risks 

for officers, arrestees, and local communities. Arresting violent offenders atlarge requires even more resources to ensure officer safety. For example, ICE 

reported sending more than 20 officers to arrest three MS-13 gang members in 

a major metropolitan city. 

ICE does not have sufficient resources to arrest all at-large aliens, especially in 

uncooperative jurisdictions that often do not honor detainers and release 

criminal aliens. Therefore, it must selectively target these aliens. Of the 

58,900 declined detainers between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2019, 

ICE arrested about 70 percent of those aliens. As of September 30, 2019, the 

remaining 17,700 remained at-large. CAP has adapted to uncooperative 

jurisdictions by forming at-large teams to seek released criminal aliens. In 

addition to our observations, data analysis, and interviews reflecting ICE 

at-large operations becoming common practice in uncooperative areas, our 

survey of CAP officers showed 60 percent of field offices established at-large 

CAP teams. 

ICE Duplicates CAP Research and Detainer Issuance 

ICE conducts redundant CAP research to determine an alien’s criminal history, 

immigration status, and issue a detainer. ICE established PERC to research 

and confirm an alien’s biographic information, criminal history, and 

immigration status; whether the individual remains in custody; and whether 

the crime qualifies the alien for removal. If appropriate, PERC issues a 

detainer and an administrative warrant. However, some ICE field offices use 

their own local research centers to perform these same functions. Although we 

reported concerns about duplication in 2012, which led ICE to modernize 

ACRIMe, duplication persists.12 

According to the Government Accountability Office Fragmentation, Overlap, and 

Duplication Guide, April 2015, “Duplication occurs when two or more agencies 

or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to 

the same beneficiaries.” The guide is a framework for identifying duplicative 

programs and suggests consolidating duplicate programs to improve overall 

efficiency. 

The CAP research process duplication occurred because ICE did not designate 

PERC as the centralized authority to research alien cases and issue detainers 

12 Operations of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Secure Communities 

(OIG-12-64, April 2012, Revised). 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-20-13 
 

 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

for all AORs. Some ICE field officers performed their own research because 

they wanted to validate their own enforcement actions. Twenty ICE field offices 

established their own local research centers and tasked 160 officers with 

administrative PERC functions rather than performing law enforcement 

functions and arresting aliens. During certain hours, these research centers 

duplicate PERC research. 

In FY 2018, PERC evaluated staffing levels and concluded, with additional 

staff, it could research aliens and issue detainers nationwide. However, we 

observed peak weekend operations with periods of downtime, which led us to 

conclude, even at FY 2019 staffing levels, PERC could handle more volume. 

We also analyzed a 6-month period of detainer data and found PERC issued 

30 percent of ICE detainers nationwide. We found PERC streamlined the 

research and the detainer creation and approval process, which reduced risk 

and increased efficiency. We concluded ICE could benefit from economies of 

scale resulting from a consistent, nationwide research and detainer process. In 

addition, ICE could reduce the risk of inconsistent research and detainers 

while increasing its efficiency and credibility. Until ICE determines its staffing 

needs and consolidates its operations, officers in the field may duplicate some 

duties, rather than focus on law enforcement activities. 

ICE Did Not Adequately Document CAP Actions 

According to ICE policy, its officers must document their encounters and arrest 

actions and the aliens’ biographical information in EARM.13 However, the 

system did not ensure ICE officers sufficiently documented this detail in the 

case narrative as required, thus creating additional work for other ICE officers 

who may encounter the same aliens in the future. 

Immigration officers rely on information from multiple systems, including 

ACRIMe, EAGLE, and EARM to determine aliens’ immigration status and 

document their actions. During onsite visits, we observed officers processing 

67 cases. We reviewed those 67 cases through ICE systems and found officers 

sufficiently documented their actions in 44 cases (66 percent). However, for 

the remaining 23 cases, there was inconsistent case narrative across systems 

in 11 cases (16 percent) and officers did not fully document their actions in 12 

cases (18 percent). 

ICE system limitations prevented the transmission of case information from 

one system to another, resulting in insufficient case documentation. For 

13 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations, policy 

11152.1, Enforcement and Removal Encounters, of July 29, 2011. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-20-13 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

instance, ACRIMe is not fully integrated with the other systems and system 

settings prevent narrative information in EAGLE from displaying in EARM. 

Additionally, ICE did not require officers to complete necessary data fields in 

the systems. EAGLE contains only 10 required fields although ICE requires 25 

fields to document an arrest. Also, when officers close a case in EARM, the 

system does not require them to record the reason for not enforcing a detainer 

in its case disposition field. 

These system limitations and insufficient documentation unnecessarily burden 

officers to rework cases for aliens they previously encountered. For example, 

when an officer’s research, information, and actions do not appear in the 

system, the subsequent officer must research again for the same alien’s 

information. 

ICE Inconsistently Tracks Legal Permanent Residents with 

Pending Charges 

Although ICE’s systems are capable, ICE does not require its officers to track 

cases of LPRs charged with, but not convicted of, crimes. CAP identifies these 

aliens when they are arrested and they could be removable if convicted of 

crimes resulting in incarceration of one year or more. Pending charges against 

LPRs must result in convictions before ICE is permitted to take action to 

remove these aliens. However, it can take months or years to resolve pending 

charges through the judicial process. Requiring ICE officers to track LPR cases 

with pending charges would enable ICE to determine whether the charges 

resulted in convictions and thus, render the LPRs removable. 

Some AORs do not track LPRs charged with crimes, and others track LPR cases 

outside ICE’s systems. Our site visit observations, analysis, and survey 

indicated nearly half of ICE officers track LPR cases outside ICE’s systems. For 

example, in one AOR, officers use Microsoft Outlook reminders to notify them 

of LPR court dates, while in another AOR, officers use spreadsheets to track 

LPR cases. 

Inconsistent LPR tracking occurred because ICE does not require officers to 

track these cases in its systems. As a result, ICE risks losing track of LPRs 

who would be removable if convicted. ICE may not encounter these aliens 

again unless they commit additional crimes. Additionally, these deficiencies 

may harm ICE’s credibility with law enforcement partners and impede effective 

performance of the CAP mission. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-20-13 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Conclusion 

CAP is used to identify and arrest criminal aliens from the jail system. When 

agencies share information and jurisdictions cooperate, ICE successfully 

identifies and arrests criminal aliens. Arresting aliens in law enforcement 

custody is more efficient and safer for ICE officers, detainees, and the public 

than apprehending them in homes, workplaces, or in public. However, state 

and local jurisdictions across the United States vary significantly on how they 

cooperate with ICE in performance of the CAP mission. The number of 

uncooperative jurisdictions is growing, which challenges the CAP mission. 

Addressing challenges in researching criminal aliens, issuing detainers, and 

documenting and sharing case data in ICE automated systems would also 

increase CAP effectiveness. 

Recommendations 

Recommendation 1: We recommend the Acting Director, U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement, develop and implement a plan to better align officer 

resources to take safely into custody at-large aliens released from 

uncooperative jurisdictions. 

Recommendation 2: We recommend the Acting Director, U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement, conduct an independent workforce analysis to 

determine whether centralizing research of aliens and issuing detainers at the 

Pacific Enforcement Response Center would be more efficient than performing 

these tasks there as well as at local research centers. 

Recommendation 3: We recommend the Acting Director, U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement, develop policy, procedures, and enhancements to 

automated systems, including: 

 identifying and establishing mandatory fields in each system, such as 

final case dispositions, and 

 modifying systems to ensure information sharing between ACRIMe, 

EAGLE, and EARM. 

Recommendation 4: We recommend the Acting Director, U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement evaluate how to consistently track lawful 

permanent residents with pending convictions. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-20-13 
 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

ICE concurred with our four recommendations and is taking steps or has 

implemented actions to address them. Appendix B contains ICE management 

comments in their entirety. We also received technical comments to the draft 

report and revised the report as appropriate. We consider two 

recommendations resolved and open and two recommendations unresolved 

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

ICE Comments to Recommendation 1: Concur. In 2015, ICE created mobile 

criminal alien teams to strategically align officers in uncooperative 

jurisdictions. ICE is also leveraging state and local law enforcement officers to 

assist ICE when serving and executing administrative warrants and arrests. 

ICE requests the OIG close the recommendation based on previous corrective 

actions. 

OIG Analysis of ICE Comments: 

ICE actions do not fully address our recommendation. ICE could do more to 

institute a resource allocation plan. For example, ICE could utilize the officers 

working at local command centers that duplicate the PERC research to further 

supplement at-large operations. In addition, ICE could perform an 

organizational study to ensure ICE efficiently allocates the resources. Until 

ICE submits evidence it has developed and implemented a resource allocation 

plan and provides an estimated date for completing its corrective actions, the 

recommendation will remain unresolved and open. 

ICE Comments to Recommendation 2: Concur. ICE took steps to reduce 

duplication. Specifically, ICE analyzed its immigration alien response and 

detainer processing and began efforts to consolidate these efforts at PERC. 

Litigation regarding these processes is ongoing. However, ICE plans to 

reassess centralizing the immigration alien response and detainer processes 

once the court resolves these cases. ICE estimates a completion date of 

June 30, 2021. 

OIG Analysis of ICE Comments: 

Given that ICE faces litigation related to its operations at PERC, it would 

benefit from pursuing a centralized Immigration Alien Response (IAR) research 

and detainer issuance center. This would improve efficiency, effectiveness, and 

accuracy of the process. Until ICE conducts its assessment to centralize IAR 

and detainer processing and eliminate duplication at local command centers, 

we consider the recommendation resolved and open. 

ICE Comments to Recommendation 3: Concur. ICE incrementally updates 

case management systems when it identifies specific needs. ICE will conduct a 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-20-13 
 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

full review of the data collected through the immigration enforcement lifecycle 

and determine whether additional fields are necessary. ICE’s expected 

completion date to satisfy the recommendation is September 30, 2020. ICE did 

not comment on our recommendation to modify systems to ensure information 

sharing among ACRIMe, EAGLE, and EARM. 

OIG Analysis of ICE Comments: 

We acknowledge ICE policy to document enforcement and removal encounters. 

However, we emphasize ICE needs to implement system controls to enforce 

these policies. For example, ICE should require officers to input enough 

information into the system during an encounter to properly document their 

actions. In addition, ICE system controls should require complete information 

when entering and lifting a detainer. Having additional required fields will help 

improve the completeness and reliability of CAP data. 

ICE did not address modifying the systems to ensure information sharing 

among ACRIMe, EAGLE, and EARM. Having consistent data among the ICE 

systems will allow users to efficiently utilize the data and further improve 

completeness and reliability of CAP data. 

Until ICE fully addresses both parts of our recommendation, we consider the 

recommendation unresolved and open. 

ICE Comments to Recommendation 4: Concur. ICE analyzed best practices 

and system changes needed to track LPRs with pending convictions. ICE plans 

to begin developing the tracking capability by September 30, 2020, with an 

estimated completion date of June 30, 2021. 

OIG Analysis of ICE Comments: ICE actions satisfy the intent of this 

recommendation. We consider this recommendation resolved, but it will 

remain open until ICE submits evidence to fully support completion of the 

corrective action. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-20-13 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107−296) by 

amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978. 

We initiated this audit to determine the extent to which the ICE Criminal Alien 

Program (CAP) successfully identified criminal aliens, enabled ICE to prioritize 

and gain custody of these aliens, eliminated immigration and law enforcement 

research duplication through information sharing, and ensured officers fully 

documented their actions. 

To answer our audit objectives, we: 

	 Interviewed personnel at ICE Headquarters, Law Enforcement Systems 

and Analysis Division, and the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, in 

Washington, D.C., to gain an understanding of CAP and obtain program 

statistics and cost information; 

	 Distributed an anonymous survey questionnaire to 6,127 ICE-CAP 

officers nationwide to obtain an understanding of the CAP and their 

views of the program. We achieved a 27.2 percent participation rate. We 

used this survey to help confirm our conclusions, site visit observations, 

interviews, and our case and data analyses; 

	 Visited ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) in Burlington, 

Vermont, and the National Criminal Analysis and Targeting Center in 

Williston, Vermont, to observe the research process; 

	 Visited ICE’s Pacific Enforcement Response Center (PERC) in Laguna 

Niguel, California, to observe ICE Officers researching and issuing 

detainers; 

	 Visited 35 ICE locations to gain an understanding of those areas of 

responsibility. We observed CAP operations in jails, prisons, and 

detention facilities; interviewed officers; and determined the level of 

cooperation from state and local law enforcement agencies. We selected 

the following ICE locations based on the number of personnel, 

encounters, detainers, arrests, charges, convictions, and extraneous 

information: 

o	 Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona 

o	 Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Camarillo, San Bernardino, 

Santa Ana, and Santa Maria, California 

o	 Denver, Alamosa, Craig, Florence, Frederick, and Grand Junction, 

Colorado 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16	 OIG-20-13 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

o	 Hartford, Connecticut 

o	 Miami, Florida 

o	 Atlanta, Georgia 

o	 Chicago, Illinois 

o	 New Orleans, Louisiana 

o	 Boston, Massachusetts 

o	 Portland, Maine 

o	 Saint Paul, Minnesota 

o	 Manchester, New Hampshire 

o	 Newark, New Jersey 

o	 New York, New York 

o	 Portland, Oregon 

o	 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

o	 Providence, Rhode Island 

o	 Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio, Texas 

o	 Fairfax, Virginia 

o	 Washington, D.C. 

o	 Seattle, Washington 

	 Interviewed members of the National Sheriff’s Association and Sheriffs in 

Colorado, Oregon, and Washington state to gain an understanding of 

their jurisdictions and role in CAP; 

	 Reviewed CAP cases for those which we observed officers processing 

during our site visits and generated the case documents from the ICE 

Alien Criminal Response Information Management System (ACRIMe) and 

ENFORCE Alien Removal Module (EARM) to examine information sharing 

and officer documentation; 

	 Obtained and analyzed the universe of ICE detainers and arrests 

between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2019; 

 Obtained and analyzed FY 2018 ICE case statistics; 

 Corroborated our observations, case documents, data, and photographs 

with testimony from interviews and surveys; 

	 Analyzed and used the Government Accountability Office’s Fragmentation, 

Overlap, and Duplication Guide (GAO 15-49SP) to determine whether 

duplication exists in alien research; and 

	 Interviewed Department of Justice Office of Inspector General staff. 

We further assessed the reliability of ICE’s detainer and arrest data and case 

information in its systems. We interviewed and coordinated with ICE’s Law 

Enforcement Systems and Analysis Division throughout our data reliability 

assessment. We traced data from source documents through ACRIMe, 

Enforcement Integrated Database Arrest Guide for Law Enforcement (EAGLE), 

and EARM to assess the reliability of case data and systems controls. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17	 OIG-20-13 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

In addition, we compared ICE detainer data inputs into systems using physical 

observations and interviews at the 24 jails we visited. We traced a sample of 

detainer and arrest records in EARM and concluded the information matched 

supporting documentation. We tested 67 alien cases to determine whether 

officers adequately documented their actions in EARM. We assessed the data 

in accordance with guidance in Assessing the Reliability of Computer-Processed 

Data, issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO-09-680G, July 

2009). Except for issues we noted with officer documentation, we found 

system data sufficiently reliable for the purpose of our audit. 

We conducted this performance audit between February 2018 and April 2019 

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

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require 

that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

support our findings and conclusions based upon our audit objectives. We 

believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based upon our audit objectives. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-20-13 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix B 

ICE Comments to the Draft Report 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-20-13 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-20-13 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-20-13 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-20-13 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-20-13 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

FY 2019 Data on ICE Arrests by Violation Category for Aliens 

either Charged or Convicted 

Violation Category 

Traffic Offenses - DUI 

Traffic Offenses 

Dangerous Drugs 

Immigration

Assault

Obstructing Judiciary, Etc. 

General Crimes 

Larceny

Obstructing the Police 

Fraudulent Activities 

Burglary 

Weapon Offenses 

Public Peace 

Sex Offenses 

Invasion of Privacy 

Family Offenses 

Stolen Vehicle 

Sexual Assault 

Robbery 

Forgery

Damaged Property 

Liquor 

Stolen Property 

Flight / Escape 

Homicide

Kidnapping

Health / Safety 

Commercialized Sex Offenses 

Threats 

Other Crimes 

TOTAL 

Charges Convictions 

25,417 49,106 

28,519 39,717 

20,277 47,453 

 10,769 46,888 

 19,648 26,156 

10,442 10,287 

8,114 9,891 

4,599 12,456 

5,641 8,776 

4,145 7,875 

2,565 7,757 

3,281 6,997 

3,605 5,838 

1,992 4,658 

2,078 4,233 

2,296 3,139 

1,568 3,686 

1,654 3,407 

1,155 3,581 

1,549 2,979 

1,653 2,245 

1,991 1,799 

1,181 2,562 

1,171 2,012 

 374 1,549 

 723 1,110 

481 1,012 

605 743 

534 658 

876 1,590 

168,903 320,160 

Total 

Offenses 

74,523 

68,236 

67,730 

57,657 

45,804 

20,729 

18,005 

17,055 

14,417 

12,020 

10,322 

10,278 

9,443 

6,650 

6,311 

5,435 

5,254 

5,061 

4,736 

4,528 

3,898 

3,790 

3,743 

3,183 

1,923 

1,833 

1,493 

1,348 

1,192 

2,466 

489,063 

Source: Fiscal Year 2019 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report 

www.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-20-13 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

Office of Audits Major Contributors to This Report 

Sean Pettersen, Director 

Robert Greene, Director 

Karen Sheen, Audit Manager 

Priscilla Cast, Auditor-in-Charge 

Melissa Brown, Program Analyst 

Jason Connor, Program Analyst 

Levino Johnson, Program Analyst 

Joshua Simon, Program Analyst 

Christopher Yablonski, Auditor 

Kevin Dolloson, Communications Analyst 

Katherine McCall, Independent Reference Reviewer 

Christopher Byerly, Independent Reference Reviewer 

www.oig.dhs.gov 25 OIG-20-13 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix E 

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 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

DHS 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 26 OIG-20-13 
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