CBP Has Taken Steps 

to Limit Processing 

of Undocumented Aliens 

at Ports of Entry 

October 27, 2020 

OIG-21-02 
 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

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

October 27, 2020 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Mark A. Morgan 

Senior Official Performing the Duties of the 

Commissioner 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

FROM: Joseph V. Cuffari, Ph.D. Digitally signed by JOSEPH JOSEPH V V CUFFARI Inspector General Date: 2020.10.27 14:48:03 CUFFARI -04'00' 

SUBJECT: CBP Has Taken Steps to Limit Processing of 

Undocumented Aliens at Ports of Entry 

For your action is our final report, CBP Has Taken Steps to Limit Processing 

of Undocumented Aliens at Ports of Entry. We incorporated the formal 

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

The report contains three recommendations aimed at bringing CBP operations 

in line with long-established practices and promoting the efficient processing of 

undocumented aliens. CBP concurred with two of the three recommendations. 

Based on information provided in the response to the draft report, we consider 

one recommendation unresolved and open and two recommendations resolved 

and open. Once your office has fully implemented the recommendations, 

please submit a formal closeout letter to us within 30 days so that we may 

close the recommendations. The memorandum should be accompanied by 

evidence of completion of agreed-upon corrective actions. Please send your 

response or closure request to 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 Thomas Kait, 

Assistant Inspector General for Special Reviews and Evaluations, 

at (202) 981-6000. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 
 

 

 

 

DHS OIG HIGHLIGHTS 

CBP Has Taken Steps to Limit Processing

of Undocumented Aliens at Ports of Entry 

October 27, 2020 

Why We 

Did This 

Review 

We conducted this 

review to determine 

whether U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection 

(CBP) was turning away 

asylum seekers at the 

Southwest Border ports 

of entry. 

What We 

Recommend 

We made three 

recommendations aimed 

at bringing CBP 

operations in line with 

long-established 

practices and promoting 

the efficient processing 

of undocumented aliens. 

For Further Information: 

Contact our Office of Public Affairs 

at (202) 981-6000, or email us at 

DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov 

www.oig.dhs.gov

What We Found 

In May 2018, DHS and CBP leaders anticipated an increase in 

undocumented aliens seeking entry at the southern border. 

In response, the leaders urged undocumented aliens seeking 

protection under U.S. asylum laws (“asylum seekers”) to enter 

the United States legally at ports of entry rather than illegally 

between ports. At the same time, the leaders asked CBP for 

“the number of [undocumented aliens] that would likely be 

turned away” if all ports conducted “Queue Management,” a 

practice that posts CBP officers at or near the U.S.-Mexico 

border to control the number of undocumented aliens 

entering U.S. ports of entry. After learning that 650 aliens 

would be prevented from entering ports every day, in June 

2018, then-DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen authorized the 

practice. Nielsen also informed CBP ports that while 

processing undocumented aliens is a component of its 

mission, they should focus on other priorities, including 

detection and apprehension of narcotics and currency 

smugglers. 

We found CBP took several additional actions to limit the 

number of undocumented aliens processed each day at 

Southwest Border land ports of entry. For instance, without 

prior public notice, seven ports of entry stopped processing 

virtually all undocumented aliens, including asylum seekers. 

Instead, CBP redirected them to other port locations. This 

redirection contravenes CBP’s longstanding practice to 

process all aliens at a “Class A” port of entry or reclassify the 

port of entry. Moreover, although asylum seekers legally 

must be processed once physically within the United States, 

we found CBP staff turned away asylum seekers at four ports 

after they had already entered the United States. After 

waiting in Queue Management lines or being redirected to 

other ports, some asylum seekers and other undocumented 

aliens crossed the border illegally between ports of entry. 

CBP Response

CBP concurred with all recommendations, except one. 

OIG-21-02 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 



Table of Contents 

Introduction.................................................................................................... 3 

Background .................................................................................................... 3 

Results of Review ............................................................................................ 6 

DHS Urged Asylum Seekers to Come to Ports of Entry, But Reassigned 

Staff away from Asylum Processing ....................................................... 7 

Without Notice to the Public, CBP Stopped Routine Processing of Most 

Undocumented Aliens, Including Asylum Seekers, at Seven Ports and 

Redirected Them to Other Ports .......................................................... 10 

CBP Returned to Mexico Asylum Seekers Who Had Already Entered the 

United States ...................................................................................... 15 

CBP Did Not Use All Available Detention Space.................................... 16 

Conclusion.................................................................................................... 18 

Recommendations......................................................................................... 19 

Appendixes 

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

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

Appendix C: Timeline of Asylum Processing Significant 

 Events in 2018 ................................................................ 31 

Appendix D: Office of Special Reviews and Evaluations Major 

Contributors to This Report ............................................. 32 

Appendix E:Report Distribution .......................................................... 33 

Abbreviations 

AUSA Assistant United States Attorney 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

INA Immigration and Nationality Act 

MPP Migrant Protection Protocol 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-21-02 
 

   

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

NTA Notice to Appear 

OFO Office of Field Operations 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

POE Port of Entry 

TEDS CBP National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, 

and Search 

U.S.C. United States Code 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-21-02 
 

 

 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Introduction 

From May through June 2018, in response to a surge of undocumented aliens 

attempting to enter the United States DHS senior leaders publicly urged those 

seeking asylum to lawfully present themselves at U.S. ports of entry, where 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Field Operations (OFO) 

officers would process them. However, DHS and CBP leadership did not take 

steps to maximize CBP’s processing capability at ports of entry. Instead, they 

instituted policies and took actions that limited the number of undocumented 

aliens, including asylum seekers, processed at the ports. 

Background 

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows individuals who have fled their 

home countries because of persecution on account of their race, religion, 

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion to 

apply for asylum or other humanitarian protections in the United States.1 

These individuals may express fear of persecution or torture, a fear of return to 

their country, or an intent to seek asylum to the CBP OFO officers they 

encounter when they arrive at U.S. ports of entry, or to U.S. Border Patrol 

agents if these individuals are apprehended after crossing illegally between 

ports. 

CBP Processing of Asylum Seekers at Southwest Border Ports of Entry 

CBP refers to aliens who are not in possession of documents allowing them 

entry into the United States — e.g., a travel visa — as “undocumented aliens.” 

This category of aliens includes asylum seekers,2 who generally arrive without 

visas or other legal documentation that authorize entry to the United States.3 

When an undocumented alien arrives at a land port of entry and is processed 

for expedited removal, CBP OFO officers ask specific questions during 

processing4 to determine whether the alien has a fear of persecution or torture 

in his or her home country or intends to seek asylum, such that the individual 

1 See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(A) & note. 

2 Throughout this report, we refer to undocumented aliens who express a fear of returning to 

their home country or intention to apply for asylum in the United States as asylum seekers. 

3 Other undocumented aliens could potentially include individuals who seek temporary 

humanitarian entry to attend a funeral or obtain medical care. 4 CBP’s processing includes verifying the alien’s identity, checking databases for outstanding 

warrants or criminal history, searching the alien for drugs or contraband, taking statements 

from the alien, and requesting follow-on placement with U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement. CBP also refers asylum seekers to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for 

further processing of their asylum claims. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-21-02 
 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

should be placed in the asylum adjudication process. In fiscal year 2018, CBP 

Southwest Border ports processed 38,269 undocumented aliens seeking 

asylum, representing approximately one-third of the nearly 125,000 

undocumented aliens who arrived at U.S. ports of entry that year. 

After processing, CBP OFO holds asylum seekers and other undocumented 

aliens at the port of entry until U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) takes custody of the aliens and determines whether to place them in 

immigration detention or release them. ICE maintains detention centers for 

single adults and families, but transfers unaccompanied or separated alien 

children to the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee 

Resettlement, for placement pending adjudication of the asylum claim. 

From 2014 through 2018, surges, or “caravans,” of undocumented aliens 

sought to enter the United States through the Southwest Border. For example, 

CBP experienced a surge of unaccompanied alien children in 2014, and a surge 

of Haitian migrants in 2016. Some came through the ports, while others 

entered illegally, between the ports of entry.5 In 2018, the caravans consisted 

of more families and unaccompanied alien children, and a greater number of 

asylum seekers, than in the past. 

At times, these surges created overcrowded conditions at CBP port of entry 

holding facilities, which presented health and safety concerns to both officers 

and aliens. The increase in families and unaccompanied children posed 

additional challenges for ports of entry because CBP national standards require 

holding vulnerable populations, such as families and children, separately and 

generally for no longer than 72 hours.6 Most ports were designed before the 

standards were established and before CBP OFO experienced surges of asylum 

seekers, especially families. As a result, many ports do not have enough room 

to hold vulnerable populations separately.7 Similarly, ICE has limited 

detention bed space available to hold families. 

5 CBP’s U.S. Border Patrol is responsible for processing aliens who have crossed into the 

United States illegally, between the ports of entry, including those who express an intent to 

seek asylum. 

6 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and 

Search (TEDS), October 2015. For example, TEDS, 5.0, requires CBP to hold families, 

unaccompanied children, single adults, and transgender individuals in separate spaces. 

TEDS, 4.1, also provides that “[d]etainees should generally not be held for longer than 72 hours 

in CBP hold rooms or holding facilities. Every effort must be made to hold detainees for the 

least amount of time required for their processing, transfer, release, or repatriation as 

appropriate and as operationally feasible.” 

7 As reported in Results of Unannounced Inspections of Conditions for Unaccompanied Alien 

Children in CBP Custody, OIG-18-87, in the past, some CBP ports converted offices and 

conference rooms to hold rooms to accommodate more people in the processing areas. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-21-02 
 

 

 

                                                      

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

In 2016, during the surge of Haitian asylum seekers, CBP’s San Ysidro port of 

entry in California, in cooperation with the Mexican government, developed a 

new approach for preventing overcrowding and health and safety concerns. 

CBP officers and Mexican government officials began stopping asylum seekers 

and other undocumented aliens from crossing the international boundary into 

the U.S. port of entry. Instead, those aliens were required to put their names 

on a waiting list until CBP had space and staff to process them. The asylum 

seekers and other undocumented aliens waited in Mexico until CBP notified the 

Mexican government of the number of aliens CBP could take, and the Mexican 

government then delivered that number to the port. This practice became 

known as “Queue Management,” though it is also referred to as “metering” or 

establishing a “limit line.”8 

Since 2016, CBP has used Queue Management at various times to control the 

flow of undocumented aliens into ports of entry. Most recently, in 2018, as 

migrant caravans arrived to the Southwest Border and the number of 

undocumented aliens seeking to enter the United States increased, CBP again 

began assigning officers to the limit line in an effort to control the number of 

aliens entering the ports. Since July 2018, Queue Management has become 

standard practice, with all Southwest Border ports implementing limit lines. 

We initiated this review in response to two congressional requests and 

significant public interest in how CBP processes asylum seekers at ports of 

entry. Additionally, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel forwarded a 

whistleblower complaint related to similar issues at one port of entry. In 2018, 

we conducted unannounced site visits to 12 of the 24 land ports of entry 

across the four CBP field offices along the Southwest Border, where we 

interviewed CBP staff and observed port operations.9 We also evaluated CBP’s 

policies and procedures for processing asylum seekers and other 

undocumented aliens.10 

8 At the time of our fieldwork, CBP OFO was piloting another initiative. On January 28, 2019, 

the San Diego Field Office started the Migrant Protection Protocol (MPP). Under the MPP, 

certain undocumented aliens arriving from Mexico are required to stay in Mexico to await 

future immigration proceedings in the United States (e.g., hearing before a U.S. immigration 

court). 

9 CBP operates 24 land ports of entry along the Southwest Border comprising 46 crossing 

points; some ports have multiple crossing points or gates, e.g., the Nogales port of entry has 

three crossing points: DeConcini, Mariposa, and Morley Gate. Four field offices oversee the 

ports: San Diego in California; Tucson in Arizona; and El Paso and Laredo in Texas. 

10 Some laws and policies apply specifically to asylum seekers, while others apply to the 

broader category of undocumented aliens, which includes both asylum seekers and other 

aliens attempting to enter the country without valid documents. Throughout this report, we 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-21-02 
 

 

 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Some of the issues we discuss in this report are similar to or the same as 

issues raised in lawsuits filed by a non-governmental organization and state 

governments. Specifically, the legality of CBP’s Queue Management practice — 

i.e., the practice of CBP officers standing at a “limit line” position at or near the 

U.S.-Mexico border to control the number of undocumented aliens entering 

U.S. ports of entry — currently is being litigated in the court system. See Al 

Otro Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen, 17-cv-2366 (S.D. Cal. 2017).11 

Accordingly, DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) does not take a position on 

the legality of this practice, and will await a final determination by the courts. 

Results of Review 

In May 2018, DHS and CBP leaders anticipated an increase in undocumented 

aliens seeking entry at the southern border. In response, the leaders urged 

asylum seekers to present their claims at ports of entry rather than presenting 

the claims after the individuals crossed the border illegally. However, a few 

weeks later, then-Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen asked CBP for the estimated 

“number of [undocumented aliens] that would likely be turned away” if all ports 

conducted “Queue Management.” After learning that CBP could turn away 650 

undocumented aliens every day, - the Secretary instructed ports to implement 

Queue Management. This involved CBP officers standing at a “limit line” 

position at or near the U.S.-Mexico border to control the flow of undocumented 

aliens entering CBP ports for processing. Further, the Secretary told the ports 

that processing inadmissible aliens (who include asylum seekers) was not one 

of CBP’s main priorities, and they should consider re-assigning staff away from 

processing such aliens to focus instead on detection and apprehension of 

narcotics and currency smugglers.12 

In addition, we found CBP took several actions to limit the number of 

undocumented aliens who could be processed each day at the Southwest 

Border land ports of entry. Seven ports effectively stopped processing 

undocumented aliens, despite being designated as Class A ports, which are 

“Port[s] of Entry for all aliens,” not just those with documents, according to 8 

refer to asylum seekers and undocumented aliens, both together and separately as 

appropriate. 

11 The plaintiffs allege violations of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1225, 1229; 8 C.F.R. Parts 208, 235; U.S. 

Const. Amend. V; the 1951 Convention on the Rights of Refugees; and section 706 of the 

Administrative Procedure Act. 

12 June 5, 2018 Memorandum from Secretary Nielsen, “Prioritization-Based Queue 

Management.” 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-21-02 
 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

C.F.R. § 100.4. CBP broke with a longstanding practice by changing the 

categories of aliens it would process at these seven ports without changing the 

ports’ classification. When asylum seekers and other undocumented aliens 

appeared at these seven ports, CBP officers redirected them to other ports, 

some of which were more than 30 miles away. We observed CBP officers telling 

aliens the port was at capacity and did not have the capability to process them, 

regardless of actual capacity and capability at the time. Further, four CBP 

ports turned away asylum seekers who had already stepped into the United 

States, telling them to return to Mexico. Also, at two other ports we visited, 

CBP had stopped using blocks of available holding cells, allowing those cells to 

sit empty while asylum seekers and other undocumented aliens waited in the 

Queue Management lines in Mexico. As the lines grew longer, some asylum 

seekers and other undocumented aliens may have crossed the border illegally, 

between ports of entry, where U.S. Border Patrol is responsible for 

apprehending and holding them. 

DHS Urged Asylum Seekers to Come to Ports of Entry, But 

Reassigned Staff away from Asylum Processing 

Following the April 2018 announcement of the Zero Tolerance Policy, DHS and 

CBP began urging asylum seekers in May 2018 to come to ports of entry rather 

than attempt to enter the United States illegally between ports of entry. At the 

same time, DHS and CBP directed ports to assign staff away from processing 

undocumented aliens, including asylum seekers, to other duties at the ports. 

Appendix C provides a brief timeline of significant events from April to August 

2018 related to CBP’s asylum processing. 

On April 6, 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “Zero 

Tolerance Policy,”13 which, as implemented by DHS, required CBP to refer for 

prosecution every adult who entered the United States illegally, including those 

13 In an April 6, 2018 memo, the Attorney General directed United States Attorney’s Offices 

along the Southwest Border, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, to 

adopt a Zero Tolerance Policy for all Improper Entry by Alien offenses, and refer them for 

prosecution under 8 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1325(a). In a press release announcing the 

“Zero Tolerance Policy,” the Department of Justice said, “The implementation of the Attorney 

General’s zero-tolerance policy comes as the Department of Homeland Security reported a 203 

percent increase in illegal border crossings from March 2017 to March 2018, and a 37 percent 

increase from February 2018 to March 2018—the largest month-to-month increase since 

2011.” https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policycriminal-illegal-entry. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-21-02 
 

 

                                                      

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

traveling with their children. As a result, parents who entered illegally were 

separated from their children upon referral for prosecution.14 

After implementation of the Zero Tolerance Policy, then-DHS Secretary Nielsen 

and OFO Executive Assistant Commissioner Todd Owen made several public 

statements urging asylum seekers to come to the ports of entry instead of 

crossing illegally and risking separation from family members. For instance, 

on May 8, 2018, Secretary Nielsen testified before Congress, “Help me message: 

If you are fleeing and coming to the United States please come to the ports of 

entry. [We] will process your claim there.”15 On June 18, 2018, at a White 

House Press Briefing, Secretary Nielsen also told reporters, “As I said before, if 

you’re seeking asylum, go to a port of entry. You do not need to break the law 

of the United States to seek asylum.”16 When reporters noted media accounts 

of families turned away at ports of entry, the Secretary described that reporting 

as “incorrect.” Further, on July 9, 2018, OFO Executive Assistant 

Commissioner Owen said during a press conference: 

The lawful way is to claim asylum, present yourself for 

inspection at the port of entry. We will keep the family unit 

together, again, absent concerns for the well-being of the 

child, absent criminal history for the adult. 

However, despite encouraging asylum seekers to enter the United States 

through the ports of entry, DHS and CBP took actions that limited the number 

of undocumented aliens, including asylum seekers, CBP could process each 

day at the Southwest Border land ports of entry.17 

On April 27, 2018, OFO Executive Assistant Commissioner Owen emailed a 

memorandum authorizing Southwest Border land ports of entry to establish 

Queue Management lines18 when appropriate to facilitate “safe and orderly 

14 We assessed CBP’s implementation of the policy in our report, Special Review – Initial 

Observations Regarding Family Separation Issues Under the Zero Tolerance Policy, OIG-18-84, 

September 27, 2018. 15 Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen on Fiscal Year 2019 Budget. Testimony before the 

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, May 8, 2018. 

16 White House Press Conference, June 18, 2018, “DHS Secretary Nielsen’s Remarks on the 

Illegal Immigration Crisis.” See transcript at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/06/18/dhssecretary-nielsens-remarks-illegal-immigration-crisis. 

17 Numerous factors affect CBP’s ability to process undocumented aliens at ports of entry. The 

exact number of asylum seekers who were unable to enter the United States because of CBP’s 

Queue Management actions could not be stated with certainty. 

18 The memorandum specified ports “may not create a line specifically for asylum seekers,” but 

could create lines “based on legitimate operational needs, such as lines for those with 

appropriate travel documents and those without such documents.” 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-21-02 
 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

processing of travelers” based on the ports’ processing capacity. Shortly 

thereafter, on May 24, 2018, DHS Chief of Staff Chad Wolf, on behalf of 

Secretary Nielsen’s Office, asked CBP officials to determine “the number of 

[undocumented aliens] that would likely be turned away” every day if ports ran 

Queue Management operations full-time. Then-CBP Commissioner Kevin 

McAleenan instructed OFO Executive Assistant Commissioner Owen to report 

to the Secretary that if CBP assigned 200 officers to work limit lines, they 

would turn away approximately 650 undocumented aliens per day. 

On June 5, 2018, Secretary Nielsen signed a memorandum authorizing port 

directors to establish Queue Management lines at all the Southwest Border 

ports.19 The memorandum also informed port directors that processing 

inadmissible arriving aliens20 (which may include asylum seekers) was not a 

priority,21 and authorized port directors to reassign staff away from processing 

inadmissible arriving aliens, stating: 

CBP personnel and resources that would otherwise be 

deployed to process inadmissible arriving aliens can focus on 

the detection and apprehension of narcotics and currency 

smugglers. 

Following this directive, the number of undocumented aliens waiting in Mexico 

to enter U.S. ports increased from 942 on June 20, 2018, to more than 2,000 

on October 1, 2018.22 In an October 5, 2018 email addressing the surge of 

aliens seeking asylum at the ports, then-DHS Deputy Secretary Claire Grady 

told senior CBP staff, “Business as usual, no matter how outstanding your 

officers are[,] isn’t going to be a match for what we are facing.” Nevertheless, 

CBP officials did not allocate additional resources to increase processing 

19 We made multiple requests to CBP for policies and guidance related to the “Queue 

Management” program. Despite the memorandum’s title, “Prioritization-Based Queue 

Management,” and the Secretary’s initiation of an accompanying pilot program, CBP did not 

provide the document in response to our requests and none of the CBP staff we interviewed 

informed us of the memorandum’s existence. DHS OIG only learned about the document 

through forensic email analysis. 

20 Documents we reviewed such as the “Prioritization-Based Queue Management” 

memorandum and CBP staff with whom we spoke use the term “inadmissible aliens” 

interchangeably with “undocumented aliens.” 

21 The memorandum reiterated four superseding missions for the ports: 1) National security; 2) 

Counter-narcotics operations; 3) Economic security; and 4) Trade and travel facilitation. 

22 We derived this number from CBP daily Queue Management reports, which list the number 

of aliens awaiting processing on the Mexican side of the border. During OIG site visits and 

interviews, we learned CBP officials obtain these numbers from sources such as Mexican 

government officials, non-governmental organizations, and CBP officers’ estimates of aliens in 

line. CBP does not track the number of aliens arriving at ports who are redirected to another 

port or told to place their names on a waiting list in Mexico. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-21-02 
 

                                                      

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

capability at ports of entry. For instance, in response to an October 18, 2018 

email suggesting ways for CBP to mitigate the growing surge of undocumented 

aliens, a CBP executive told his staff that expanding the operating hours of 

ports was “too resource intensive just to help the migrants.” In the same email, 

the executive wrote: 

We might consider adding officers when the port is closed to 

help secure against breeches [sic], but don’t want to add 

extra hours to process more migrants. 

In other emails, the executive declined to consider establishing temporary 

detention facilities for undocumented aliens, or increasing the number of aliens 

released with Notices to Appear (NTA).23 In a March 2019 DHS OIG interview 

with a senior CBP official on the Southwest Border, the official summarized 

CBP’s response to the surge of undocumented aliens by stating, “We are hoping 

this thing just goes away.” 

Thus, while DHS leadership urged asylum seekers to present themselves at 

ports of entry, the agency took deliberate steps to limit the number of 

undocumented aliens who could be processed each day at Southwest Border 

land ports of entry. By October 30, 2018, the number of undocumented aliens 

waiting outside the ports to be processed grew to more than 3,000. 

Without Notice to the Public, CBP Stopped Routine Processing 

of Most Undocumented Aliens, Including Asylum Seekers, at 

Seven Ports and Redirected Them to Other Ports 

During our fieldwork, we learned CBP had stopped the routine processing of 

most undocumented aliens24 — including asylum seekers — at 7 of the 24 

Southwest Border land ports of entry.25 At these seven ports, CBP staff at the 

limit line do not simply control the flow of undocumented aliens into the port 

23 A Notice to Appear (NTA) is a legal document placing an alien in removal proceedings before 

the U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review. Typically, ICE 

determines whether to release an individual from DHS custody with an NTA. Although CBP 

OFO also has authority to issue NTAs, according to CBP officials, CBP OFO does not exercise 

that authority routinely. 

24 CBP officials said they make exceptions for some vulnerable populations, such as 

unaccompanied alien children or pregnant asylum seekers. This exception does not appear to 

be documented in CBP policy, and OIG did not independently corroborate CBP’s claim. 

25 The seven ports are Otay Mesa, Tecate, Calexico East, and Andrade, which fall under the 

San Diego field office; and Roma, Rio Grande City, and Progreso, which fall under the Laredo 

field office. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-21-02 
 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

facility; rather, they “redirect”26 undocumented aliens who approach the limit 

line to different ports, telling the aliens the other port can process them more 

quickly. “Redirected” aliens must then travel through Mexico to another port 

and take their place behind others already waiting in the Queue Management 

line at that port. 

The seven ports are designated as Class A ports, “Port[s] of Entry for all aliens,” 

according to 8 C.F.R. § 100.4.27 CBP has authority to change a port’s 

classification28 and has done so in the past to restrict, expand, open and close 

specific ports.29 Designation of a port of entry is a formal DHS action.30 When 

changing a port’s classification, CBP has published a final rule in the Federal 

Register.31 In a break from these longstanding practices, CBP has redirected 

undocumented aliens appearing at the seven ports yet has not redesignated 

those ports from Class A to another classification. 

As discussed previously, DHS leadership made public pronouncements 

encouraging undocumented aliens to arrive at ports of entry, but never notified 

the public of its decision to stop processing aliens at the seven ports of entry. 

When DHS OIG asked a senior CBP official at one of the field offices about the 

lack of notification to the public, the official expressed concern about the 

legality of the redirection practice. At the Tecate port of entry in California, 

several officers also questioned the legality of the redirecting practice and said 

26 In this report, “redirect” means the practice of intercepting asylum seekers at a port’s limit 

line position and instructing them to go to another port to apply for asylum. 

27 8 C.F.R. § 100.4 regulates the type of individuals and cargo that ports process: “Class A 

means that the port is a designated Port-of-Entry for all aliens.” The regulation also designates 

other classes of ports that do not process most undocumented aliens. For example, Class B 

ports process only certain aliens who are exempt from specific document requirements, in 

lawful possession of Lawful Permanent Resident cards, or who meet other eligibility 

requirements. 

28 The Regulation provides, “The designation of such a Port–of–Entry may be withdrawn 

whenever, in the judgment of the Commissioner, such action is warranted.” 

29 See, e.g., CBP, Closing the Jamieson Line, New York Border Crossing, 79 Fed. Reg. 42,449-

01 (July 22, 2014); see also INS, DOJ, Freedom of Information Act, 32 Fed. Reg. 9,616, 9,618 

(July 4, 1967) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 100.4 that Class A ports are “for all aliens” and that 

designation may be withdrawn by Commissioner whenever warranted). CBP has added a Class 

B port and terminated one, after providing the public with notice and a period for commenting 

on the proposed changes. 

30 United States v. Nunez-Soberanis, 406 F. Supp. 3d. 835, 841 (S.D. Cal. 2019). 

31 Statement of Organization; Ports of Entry for Aliens Arriving by Vessel or by Land 

Transportation, and by Aircraft, 54 Fed. Reg. 47,673 (Nov. 16, 1989) (redesignating St. Aurelie, 

Maine, from a “Class A” port of entry to “Class B”); Statement of Organization; Ports of Entry 

for Aliens Arriving by Vessel or by Land Transportation, 49 Fed. Reg. 31,054 (Aug. 3, 1984) 

(redesignating Fort Hancock, Texas from a “Class B” port of entry to “Class A”); Statement of 

Organization; Field Service Realignment, 49 Fed. Reg. 30,057-01 (July 26, 1984) (redesignating 

Richford, Vermont station to a substation). 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-21-02 
 

 

                                                      

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

they were unwilling to work the limit line position. These officers addressed 

their concerns with port management and their union representatives, which in 

turn led to a modification in the redirecting practice — i.e., port management 

instituted a protocol allowing limit line officers to contact a supervisor to come 

to the line and assume responsibility for redirecting aliens. Although Tecate 

now has this protocol in place, the union representative is still unclear whether 

the practice is legal. 

At these seven ports, which fall within the Laredo and San Diego field offices, 

CBP routinely told undocumented aliens at the limit line that the port currently 

lacked the capacity (holding space) or capability (staffing and resources) to 

process them, regardless of the port’s actual capacity and capability.32 For 

instance, CBP’s daily Queue Management reports indicated that from June 20, 

2018, until November 8, 2018, all seven ports redirected undocumented aliens 

to other ports every day for which data was available, even though these 

records also show the ports did not detain a single undocumented alien in their 

available hold rooms on 80 percent of those days.33 

Meanwhile, the ports to which CBP staff redirected the undocumented aliens 

range from a few miles to more than 30 miles away. Often, this required 

traversing difficult desert terrain and potentially placed undocumented aliens 

at risk of encountering criminals who may exploit them, as areas in Mexico 

along the border with the United States are known to be controlled by criminal 

cartels. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the distance redirected undocumented 

aliens had to travel to a port that might process them. 

32 Reports emailed to CBP headquarters indicate the policy of redirecting was known at least to 

the level of then-CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan. 

33 We obtained this data from CBP’s daily Queue Management reports, which track how many 

ports engage in redirecting and how many aliens each port has in its hold rooms. CBP did not 

provide this data to OIG despite multiple requests, necessitating a forensic analysis of key CBP 

staff members’ emails. CBP OFO did not always generate a daily Queue Management report; 

however, we were able to obtain and analyze reports for 95 of the 141 days that fall between 

June 20, 2018, the date of the first report we obtained, and November 8, 2018, the date of the 

last report we obtained. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-21-02 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Figure 1. San Diego Field Office Redirecting Ports 

Source: OIG depiction of CBP data 

Figure 2. Laredo Field Office Redirecting Ports 

Source: OIG depiction of CBP data 

Moreover, because CBP officers at the limit line do not generally ask migrants 

where they are from before redirecting them to another port, Mexican nationals 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-21-02 
 

 

 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

seeking asylum may be redirected along with asylum seekers from other 

countries. Redirected Mexican nationals must therefore remain in and travel 

through the very country in which they claim they are subject to persecution. 

Our fieldwork indicated other destination ports have long lines of 

undocumented aliens already waiting to be processed. Accordingly, those who 

are redirected from one port must then go to the end of the Queue Management 

line at another port. For example, the Otay Mesa and Tecate ports of entry 

routinely redirected undocumented aliens to the San Ysidro port of entry. 

Once there, the aliens must enter the Queue Management line by putting their 

names on a list that often contains thousands of names, meaning they will wait 

in Mexico for weeks, if not months, before being granted access to the port to 

be processed by CBP.34 

As shown in the following examples, creating barriers to entry at ports of entry 

may incentivize undocumented aliens to attempt to cross into the United States 

illegally, between ports of entry. For example, we interviewed 17 aliens who 

either were in detention or were recently released, 5 of whom said after growing 

frustrated with Queue Management and redirection practices at ports of entry, 

they decided to enter the United States illegally. We interviewed 

representatives from several non-profit and non-governmental organizations 

who stated they had similar concerns. We also learned of one case in which an 

asylum seeker crossed the border illegally after waiting in a Queue 

Management line for 2 days. When U.S. Border Patrol referred the asylum 

seeker’s case to an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) for prosecution, 

the AUSA refused to prosecute given the long wait to which the asylum seeker 

was subjected.35 

While temporarily holding aliens at ports of entry, CBP must directly supervise 

detained aliens and provide access to appropriate medical care, as detailed in 

TEDS.36 CBP OFO leadership stated they implemented the redirecting 

procedure at these seven ports because they are remote ports with few staff 

and outdated facilities. For example, they said these ports closed at night and 

are far from medical care. Before implementing the redirecting procedure, CBP 

staff drove undocumented aliens to other ports for overnight holds and to 

medical facilities when necessary. We found four of the seven redirecting ports 

close at night, and one is more than 50 minutes away from medical care. Most 

34 CBP officials said they do not have direct access to the list, which is maintained in Mexico. 

In order to obtain the number of aliens waiting outside each port, CBP port officials and 

Mexican government officials communicate regularly to identify and schedule waiting aliens for 

entry and processing. 

35 We learned about this incident during our forensic email analysis. 

36 See TEDS, 4.6; TEDS, 4.10. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-21-02 
 

 

 

 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

of the ports’ holding capacity is less than 20, but Tecate and Otay Mesa have 

capacity for 35 and 31, respectively. Table 1 shows the capacity, distance from 

a medical center, and hours of operation for each redirecting port. 

Table 1. Redirecting Ports of Entry Capacity, Distance to Medical 

Facilities, and Hours of Operation 

Port Capacity Drive Time to Nearest Hospital Port Hours of Operation 

Tecate 35 Sharp Grossmont Hospital (53 min) 5:00 am–11:00 pm, Daily 

Calexico 

East 

10 El Centro Medical Center (25 min) 6:00 am–8:00 pm, Mon–Fri 

10:00 am–6:00 pm, Sat 

Andrade 10 Yuma Regional Medical Center (21 min) 6:00 am–10:00 pm Daily 

Otay Mesa 31 Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center (20 min) 24 hours/7 days a week 

Roma 16 Star County Memorial Hospital (15 min) 24 hours/7 days a week 

Rio Grande 10 Star County Memorial Hospital (10 min) 7:00 am–12:00 am, Daily 

Progreso 17 Knapp Medical Center (15 min) 24 hours/7 days a week 

Source: OIG analysis of information CBP provided and information we identified from CBP.gov 

CBP Returned to Mexico Asylum Seekers Who Had Already 

Entered the United States 

Despite provisions in the INA, CBP guidance, and statements from CBP senior 

leaders requiring CBP staff to process asylum seekers once they have 

physically entered the United States, at least four CBP ports returned to 

Mexico some asylum seekers who had crossed the international border and 

entered the United States. 

The INA states any alien who is physically in the United States may apply for 

asylum.37 Consistent with this provision, CBP’s April 27, 2018 Queue 

Management guidance states that once a traveler has entered the United 

States, he or she must be fully processed by CBP. DHS also communicated its 

position on this matter to the public when, on June 18, 2018, it posted on its 

website: 

Myth: DHS is turning away asylum seekers at ports of entry; 

FACT: CBP processes all aliens arriving at all ports of entry 

without documents as expeditiously as possible....38 

37 8 U.S.C. § 1225 requires CBP to inspect aliens who are seeking admission to the United 

States and 8 U.S.C. § 1158 states that any alien who is physically present or arrives in the 

United States may apply for asylum. 

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

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-21-02 
 

                                                      

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Similarly, on July 9, 2018, OFO Executive Assistant Commissioner Owen said 

in a press conference, “...despite what you may have heard, we never turn 

away individuals seeking asylum at port[s] of entry.” 

However, we found that, at four ports of entry — Otay Mesa, San Ysidro, 

Tecate, and Nogales’ Morley Gate — CBP did not process asylum seekers who 

had entered the United States, returning them to Mexico instead. For instance, 

our fieldwork indicated, CBP officers at San Ysidro and Tecate ports returned 

to Mexico asylum seekers who had not only crossed over the international 

boundary into the United States, but also had entered the ports’ buildings. 

In addition, all four ports established their limit lines inside the boundary line 

on the U.S. side of the international border. As a result, asylum seekers and 

other undocumented aliens stepped into the United States to reach the Queue 

Management line, where they were instructed either to go to another port, or to 

return to Mexico to wait in line.39 Two of the ports, San Ysidro and Otay Mesa, 

eventually moved their limit lines to the border, but as of August 2019, the 

Tecate and Nogales’ Morley Gate limit lines had not moved, and remained 

inside the United States. Asylum seekers and other undocumented aliens who 

approach those limit lines are physically present in the United States at the 

time CBP turns them away by redirecting them to another port. 

CBP Did Not Use All Available Detention Space 

We found two ports had stopped using available detention space, even though 

undocumented alien families were waiting in Queue Management lines. 

Management at those ports said staffing was insufficient to monitor the rooms. 

However, other staff we interviewed disagreed with that assessment. Although 

CBP is short-staffed at Southwest Border ports, fiscal year 2018 staffing had 

improved from FY 2016, when larger numbers of aliens were processed. 

On June 18, 2018, field offices began sending daily summaries from the ports 

of entry to CBP headquarters, detailing the number of aliens in custody, the 

number waiting to be processed, and available holding capacity.40 The reports 

39 CBP officers at the San Ysidro Pedestrian East entry would tell asylum seekers they had to 

put their names on the Queue Management list and wait for their turn to be processed. 

40 Available holding capacity does not always reflect the ability of a port to accommodate 

additional detainees. CBP detention standards mandate aliens be segregated by gender and 

age, and other factors to protect at risk detainees. For example, if a port has only 2 cells, each 

able to hold 10 detainees, and CBP encounters 10 adult male aliens and 1 unaccompanied 

alien child, the adult males will all be placed in one cell, while the unaccompanied alien child 

will be placed in the other cell. The port is then unable to process more adult male aliens, 

despite being at only 55 percent capacity. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-21-02 
 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

show increasing numbers of aliens waiting to be processed on the Mexican side 

of the border, yet they also indicate the ports were not using all available 

detention capacity. 

For example, we observed this scenario during our visit to the San Luis port of 

entry in Arizona. At the San Luis port, which has the capacity to hold 48 

detainees, we found at the time of our visit in October 2018 that CBP was 

detaining only 5 undocumented aliens while a line of at least 30 more waited 

along the international border.41 Yet, we observed several empty holding cells 

and an empty trailer fully equipped to hold undocumented families, even 

though there was a line of waiting aliens. We later learned from CBP’s daily 

Queue Management Report that 105 aliens were in the queue to enter the port 

that day. 

When interviewed by DHS OIG, staff at the San Luis port said they could 

process more asylum seekers than they were processing.42 When we asked 

why the San Luis port elected not to process the undocumented aliens waiting 

at the Queue Management line, we received a range of answers. The senior 

port official said the undocumented aliens waiting outside were not real asylum 

seekers, but rather came to seek economic opportunity. However, this 

assumption on the part of the official is not an appropriate basis for CBP to 

refuse to process the individuals, as CBP officials do not have the authority to 

evaluate the credibility of asylum claims and must process all claiming to seek 

asylum, regardless of the officials’ opinions about the strength of their claims. 

Alternatively, two staff members at the San Luis port of entry said management 

“above” the port sets limits on the numbers of undocumented aliens the port 

should process. One of these officers told us, “I know from what came down 

from HQ, we are trying to process the least amount of people.” 

During our visit in November 2018, we observed a similar situation at the 

Nogales port of entry, which consists of three separate crossing points close to 

each other geographically: the Mariposa facility, DeConcini crossing, and 

Morley Gate. CBP added family unit holding cells to the Mariposa facility when 

it renovated the port in 2014, but CBP was not using those cells during our 

fieldwork. We observed at least six hold rooms and office space that were 

either empty or used for storage. A port official said the staff had used these 

hold rooms during the 2016 surge of Haitian migrants, but did not recall the 

last time they were used since then. 

41 CBP provided us with internal reports stating the port’s capacity is 48 aliens. However, in 

an interview, a senior port official told us the port’s capacity was 35 aliens. 

42 We visited the San Luis port of entry on October 30, 2018 to observe operations, including 

the Queue Management line, and to interview CBP employees familiar with processing 

undocumented aliens. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-21-02 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

According to the official, the port does not use the hold rooms because it does 

not have enough staff to monitor aliens in the rooms, and the facility closes at 

night. The official told us when his staff encounter undocumented aliens, they 

drive them a short distance to the DeConcini crossing. However, on the day of 

our visit, the DeConcini crossing’s hold rooms were full. As a result, the 20 or 

more aliens waiting outside the DeConcini facility would not be processed until 

the DeConcini crossing’s hold rooms became available. In the meantime, the 

hold rooms in the Mariposa facility, 3 miles away, were empty. 

It is unclear why officials at the Nogales port assigned staff to transport 

undocumented aliens to other CBP facilities rather than assigning the officers 

to monitor these aliens at the Nogales port. Additionally, by assigning staff to 

operate the limit line, the port reduced its capability to process undocumented 

aliens. 

Although CBP has been attempting to hire more officers to fill vacant positions, 

many ports of entry are not at full staffing. According to CBP OFO’s port of 

entry staffing data, shown in Table 2, overall staffing rates at four field offices’ 

ports have improved since FY 2016, when three of four CBP field offices 

processed more undocumented aliens than in FYs 2017 and 2018. 

Table 2. Southwest Border Land Port of Entry CBP OFO Staffing Levels 

and Numbers of Undocumented Aliens Processed in FYs 2016 – 2018 

Field 

Office 

FY 16 

Staff % 

Aliens 

Processed 

in FY 2016 

FY 17 

Staff % 

Aliens 

Processed 

in FY 2017 

FY 18 

Staff % 

Aliens 

Processed 

in FY 2018 

El Paso 98.4% 23,787 101.2% 17,308 99.7% 23,509 

Laredo 90.0% 68,957 94.5% 48,524 99.2% 48,059 

San Diego 83.1% 49,075 86.5% 31,252 90.3% 35,288 

Tucson 73.9% 12,105 71.9% 13,885 78.7% 17,303 

All 

Southwest 

Border 87.1% 153,924 90.0% 110,969 93.6% 124,159 

Source: CBP 

Conclusion 

In 2018, as surges of undocumented aliens sought asylum in the United 

States, the DHS Secretary and CBP leadership urged asylum seekers to come 

to ports of entry to be processed. However, DHS and CBP took actions to 

reduce the number of asylum seekers CBP processed daily. Under the INA, the 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-21-02 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

U.S. Government must process all those who are physically in the United 

States and express fear of persecution in their home country or an intention to 

seek asylum. The law does not set limits as to the number of asylum seekers 

the Government can or must process. Nevertheless, the Secretary and CBP 

have effectively limited access for undocumented aliens wishing to claim 

asylum in the United States, sometimes without notice to the public. As a 

result, the numbers of asylum seekers in Queue Management lines grew. As 

the lines grew and asylum seekers were redirected to other ports, some 

undocumented aliens attempted to enter the United States illegally, 

exacerbating the very problem DHS sought to solve. 

Recommendations 

We recommend the CBP Acting Commissioner: 

Recommendation 1: Resume processing undocumented aliens at the seven 

ports of entry currently redirecting them to other ports, or formally redesignate 

the ports to exclude undocumented aliens. 

Recommendation 2: Provide written guidance and training to CBP personnel 

at ports of entry relating to the proper handling of aliens who are physically 

present in the United States and indicate an intention to apply for asylum. 

Recommendation 3: Evaluate whether CBP can more efficiently use available 

holding spaces to process undocumented aliens, including asylum seekers. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

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

Appendix B. We also received technical comments from CBP and incorporated 

them into the report where appropriate. CBP did not concur with 

Recommendation 1, but concurred with Recommendations 2 and 3. We 

consider Recommendation 1 unresolved and open. Recommendations 2 and 3 

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

follows. 

In its response to our report, CBP expressed concerns that the report 

“demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Office of Field Operations 

(OFO) holding capacity holding capacity [sic] compared to its operational 

capacity.” CBP said its capacity to detain individuals in its short-term facilities 

depends on many factors, including: 

 Demographics of the individual in custody; 

 Medical or other needs of individuals in custody; 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-21-02 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

 Ability of ICE ERO or HHS to transfer individuals out of CBP custody; 

 OFO’s available resources to process and hold individuals; 

 Competing priority missions; and 

 Availability of staff, room, and resources. 

In our report, we acknowledge the difference between holding and operational 

capacity, though we use the terms capacity and capability. The report explains 

that capacity (holding space) and capability (staffing and resources) were the 

reasons for CBP’s stated limitations to process undocumented aliens. 

However, our evidence also indicates that CBP OFO used these reasons 

regardless of the port’s actual capacity and capability, as detailed on page 10 of 

the report. 

Moreover, throughout the report, we address the confluence of factors that 

affect the capability/operational capacity of a given port. For example, we 

explain in footnote 40, 

Available holding capacity does not always reflect the ability of a 

port to accommodate additional detainees. CBP detention 

standards mandate aliens be segregated by gender and age. For 

example, if a port has only 2 cells, each able to hold 10 detainees, 

and CBP encounters 10 adult male aliens and 1 unaccompanied 

alien child, the adult males will all be placed in one cell, while the 

unaccompanied alien child will be placed in another cell. The port 

is then unable to process more adult male aliens, despite being at 

only 55 percent capacity. 

The report also recognizes the constraints facing CBP. As described on page 

12, we detail that while temporarily holding aliens at ports of entry, CBP must 

directly supervise detained aliens and provide access to appropriate medical 

care. The report explains how and why CBP OFO leadership implemented the 

redirecting procedure at some ports. Finally, the report’s background provides 

historical context for how challenging it has been for CBP to manage the surges 

of undocumented aliens in its facilities given CBP OFO’s complex mission. 

As the report describes, DHS leadership directed ports to focus resources and 

staff on all other OFO missions other than processing inadmissible aliens 

despite improved levels of staffing in every field office since 2016 and available 

holding capacity. The 2018 queue management reports showed that the 

redirecting ports rarely reported anyone in custody. Finally, the report details 

that staff at the ports we visited received instructions to redirect all asylum 

seekers, and port staff were not checking the port’s capability or capacity 

before doing so. These findings were further corroborated by the OIG’s 

www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-21-02 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

previous review, Investigation of Alleged Violations of Immigration Laws at the 

Tecate, California, Port of Entry by U.S. Customs and Border Protection Personnel 

(OSC File No. DI-18-5034). 

In its response, CBP also raised concerns about OIG’s analysis and conclusions 

regarding 8 CFR § 100.4., stating “...it is not within OIG’s mission or authority 

to provide legal advice to the Department.” We note that the IG is duty-bound 

to promote efficiency and prevent and detect abuse within agency programs 

and operations. 

Recommendation 1: Resume processing undocumented aliens at the seven 

ports of entry currently redirecting them to other ports, or formally redesignate 

the ports to exclude undocumented aliens. 

CBP Response: CBP did not concur with the recommendation. CBP officials 

said their decision to redirect the processing of undocumented aliens at the 

seven ports of entry to other ports depended on operational capacity and the 

resources available to execute its primary mission of securing the border. 

Additionally, CBP stated that specific dynamics at each port of entry affect the 

port’s capacity to process and hold aliens without documents and each port 

director must maintain a discretionary balance between processing aliens and 

facilitating trade, travel, and counter-narcotics missions. CBP requested that 

OIG consider this recommendation resolved and closed. 

OIG Response: We consider this recommendation unresolved and open. The 

intent of the recommendation is for CBP to address the “discretionary balance” 

of missions at the seven redirecting ports. We understand that port directors 

consider many factors when prioritizing port resources and missions, however, 

these seven ports have effectively ceased processing aliens without regard to 

other missions. The recommendation will remain unresolved and open until 

CBP can show it is processing undocumented aliens at the seven ports of entry 

currently redirecting them to other ports, or CBP has formally reclassified 

those ports consistent with long-established procedures. 

Recommendation 2: Provide written guidance and training to CBP personnel 

at ports of entry relating to the proper handling of aliens who are physically 

present in the United States and indicate an intention to apply for asylum. 

CBP Response: CBP concurred with the recommendation. In its response, 

CBP said it has issued the following guidance to its employees: 

1. Processing of Expedited Removal Cases, October 2, 2014 

2. Metering Guidance, April 27, 2018 

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-21-02 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

3. Metering Guidance, April 30, 2020 

CBP requested that OIG consider this recommendation resolved and closed as 

implemented. 

OIG Analysis: We consider these actions responsive to the intent of the 

recommendation, which is resolved and open. CBP issued two of the three 

documents before we initiated our fieldwork, and based on our findings, those 

documents alone may be insufficient for training. CBP’s April 30, 2020 

“Metering Guidance” memorandum restates CBP policy on metering to 

Directors of Field Offices, however, it does not address officer training or 

provide any indication the guidance was disseminated to the OFO’s line 

officers. We will close this recommendation when we receive documentation 

showing that CBP employees have received training on how to follow the 

metering guidance. 

Recommendation 3: Evaluate whether CBP can more efficiently use available 

holding spaces to process undocumented aliens, including asylum seekers. 

CBP Response: CBP concurred with the recommendation. CBP said its port 

directors use discretion in balancing mission requirements with respect to 

activities occurring at the port as well as available resources when evaluating 

the operational capacity to ensure the most efficient use of resources. CBP 

requested that OIG consider this recommendation resolved and closed as 

implemented. 

OIG Analysis: We consider this action responsive to our recommendation, 

which is resolved and open. However, the intent of the recommendation is for 

CBP to assess the use of each port’s available holding spaces to identify areas 

where port directors could address capacity and capability issues to enable 

more flexibility in balancing mission needs. CBP did not provide any 

documentation showing that it conducted an evaluation of available holding 

spaces. We will close this recommendation when we receive documentation 

that CBP has performed such an evaluation of more efficient use of available 

holding spaces to process undocumented aliens. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-21-02 
 

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 review in response to 2 congressional requests signed by 53 

members that our office received in June 2018, with the following objectives, to 

determine whether CBP’s OFO is: (1) turning away those who present 

themselves for asylum at ports of entry; and (2) separating family units seeking 

asylum and documenting this practice appropriately. We have split discussion 

of our findings into two separate reports. This report addresses the first 

objective, whether CBP’s ports of entry are turning away asylum-seeking 

aliens. We are issuing a second report, which addresses the second objective, 

separation of family units at CBP OFO ports of entry. 

To answer our objectives, we conducted unannounced site visits to 12 land 

ports of entry across 4 field offices along the Southwest Border, listed below, 

where we interviewed CBP staff and observed port operations. We also 

interviewed officials in CBP headquarters, Washington D.C. 

Laredo, Texas, Field Office and ports of entry: 

1. Brownsville 

a. Brownsville and Matamoros Bridge 

b. Gateway International Bridge 

2. Hidalgo 

El Paso, Texas, Field Office and ports of entry: 

3. Paso Del Norte Bridge 

Tucson, Arizona, Field Office and ports of entry: 

4. Nogales 

a. DeConcini crossing 

b. Mariposa facility 

c. Morley Gate 

5. Douglas 

6. Lukeville 

7. Naco 

8. San Luis 

San Diego, California, Field Office and ports of entry: 

9. Calexico 

www.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-21-02 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

10. Otay Mesa 

11. San Ysidro 

12. Tecate 

To obtain a different perspective of the issues, we spoke with representatives of 

six non-governmental organizations. 

We used forensic means to gather and search CBP emails because we had not 

received complete and accurate information from CBP during our fieldwork. 

Early in the review, we asked CBP for policies, procedures, and training related 

to CBP’s asylum processing at the ports of entry, and received few, marginally 

related documents in response. We did not receive any policies or procedures 

for conducting Queue Management lines or redirecting undocumented aliens. 

During our interviews in the field, we heard conflicting accounts of CBP policies 

and procedures, and learned of policies CBP had not provided to us, despite 

their relevance to our work. As a result, we requested the email accounts of 49 

senior OFO officials at Headquarters, Field Offices, and ports of entry from 

April 2018 through November 8, 2018. CBP provided the emails and because 

of this search, we identified the Secretary’s June 5, 2018 announcement of the 

Prioritization-based Queue Management pilot program, preparations for it, and 

subsequent actions at the ports, such as Queue Management lines and 

redirecting procedures. 

We conducted the preliminary research for this review between June and 

October 2018, and conducted fieldwork between November 2018 and April 

2019, 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. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-21-02 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix B 

CBP Comments to the Draft Report 

www.oig.dhs.gov 25 OIG-21-02 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 26 OIG-21-02 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 27 OIG-21-02 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 28 OIG-21-02 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 29 OIG-21-02 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 30 OIG-21-02 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

Timeline of Asylum Processing Significant Events in 2018 

www.oig.dhs.gov 31 OIG-21-02 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

Office of Special Reviews and Evaluations Major Contributors 

to This Report 

Tatyana Martell, Chief Inspector 

Elizabeth Kingma, Team Lead 

Adam Brown, Senior Inspector 

Stephen Farrell, Senior Inspector 

Paul Lewandowski, Senior Inspector 

Jason Wahl, Senior Inspector 

Jon Goodrich, Investigative Counsel 

Gregory Flatow, Program Analyst 

Michael Brooks, Independent Reference Reviewer 

www.oig.dhs.gov 32 OIG-21-02 
 

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 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 33 OIG-21-02 
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