Supplemental Policy Guidance for Additional Improvement of the Migrant Protection 

Protocols (December 7, 2020) 

Background: Since its inception in January 2019, the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) 

remain a critical tool in managing irregular migrant flows at the U.S-Mexico border. Building 

on former Acting Secretary McAleenan’s direction to ensure that MPP is the most effective and 

efficient program possible, Acting Secretary Wolf requested that the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) Components continue to refine processes and implement best practices related to 

MPP. 

Purpose: As a continuation of efforts to improve MPP, several principles have been identified 

that either enshrine developments implemented after MPP’s inception or provide further 

enhancement and clarity for the MPP process. 

Therefore, having secured Acting Secretary Wolf’s approval, and without prejudice to previous 

policy guidance, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and the Office of 

Operations Coordination (OPS), with support from other offices as needed, should take 

necessary action to ensure that MPP operations reflect these principles: 

Access to Information About MPP 

Actions to Provide Program Information 

DHS should continue to make every reasonable effort to ensure that aliens in MPP have access to 

information about the program. This includes, but is not limited to, a plain-language indication 

by CBP personnel of pertinent information in an alien’s service packet in the alien’s preferred 

language (using interpretation resources, as needed) and maintaining the MPP landing page on 

DHS.gov in English and Spanish which consolidates MPP-related information and resources. 

Additionally, as local infrastructure, resources, and processing allow this could also include 

“Know Your Rights” presentations and videos, etc. 

Information Regarding Access to Counsel 

Components should continue to ensure the ability to have retained counsel participate 

telephonically in USCIS’s MPP non-refoulement assessments -- where it does not delay the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

interview, or as required by court order.1 Aliens subject to MPP continue to have a right to be 

represented by counsel in removal proceedings before an immigration judge at no cost to the 

government. 

Regular Release of Statistics 

Next, DHS should make every reasonable effort to regularly release DHS’s MPP-related 

statistics. To that end, DHS and/or its Components should continue to provide publicly-available 

information regarding MPP. 

Appeals 

As is currently the practice, where an immigration judge grants an MPP alien relief or protection 

from removal, but ICE has reserved appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, ICE will take 

custody of the alien and will determine whether to detain or release the alien into the United 

States pending the administrative appeal2. 

Family Units 

Definition of Family Unit 

For the purposes of MPP, DHS defines a family unit as a group of two or more aliens consisting 

of a minor or minors accompanied by his/her/their adult parent(s) or legal guardian(s). Every 

effort should continue to be made to maintain the integrity of family units pending completion of 

removal proceedings, consistent with applicable law and policy. 

Consolidation of Individual Cases of Family Unit Members 

If, for any reason, the individual cases of family unit members processed pursuant to MPP have 

not already been consolidated, DHS entities should work with DOJ, to the extent possible, to 

identify and link cases of these individuals. DHS and DOJ may also consider case 

consolidations in other reasonable instances, such as domestic partnerships, on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Adjudication of Expressions of Fear of Return to Mexico 

If any member of a family unit in MPP expresses a fear of returning to Mexico, then the entire 

family unit will await the adjudication of that claim before any return to Mexico can proceed, so 

long as there is not an independent basis to separate members of a family unit. If any member of 

a family unit establishes that he/she is more likely than not to suffer persecution on account of a 

protected ground or torture in Mexico, the entire family unit must not be processed for MPP or, 

if currently in MPP and in the United States together, must be removed from MPP and 

reprocessed as appropriate. 

1 This policy both updates and supersedes in part section A. Interview of USCIS’ January 28, 2019 Policy 

Memorandum PM-602-0169 which notes, “DHS is currently unable to provide access to counsel during the 

assessments.” 

2 If an immigration judge grants an MPP alien’s application for relief or protection from removal or orders the alien 

removed from the United States, and appeal is not reserved by either party, the alien should be processed in 

accordance with standard procedures applicable to final order cases. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grants of Relief or Protection from Removal 

If any member(s) of a family unit processed under MPP is/are granted relief or protection from 

removal, the family member(s) (regardless of nationality) not granted relief or protection should 

be taken into ICE custody. A determination will be made regarding whether to detain or release 

the alien(s) into the United States pending completion of removal proceedings (including an 

administrative appeal) of all members of the family unit. 

Mixed-Nationality Family Units 

Non-Mexican national or citizen members of mixed-nationality family units may be considered 

for processing through MPP if doing so maintains family unity. This applies even if one or more 

member(s) of the family unit might be of a nationality that is otherwise not generally amenable 

to MPP. 

Mexican Citizen/National Family Member 

In the case of a family member who is a Mexican citizen or national, in order to maintain family 

unity, the Mexican citizen/national would be allowed to voluntarily withdraw his/her application 

for admission through a Form I-275 or be voluntarily returned to Mexico with the rest of the 

non-Mexican citizen/national family unit. 

Mexican Citizen/National Family Member Expressing Fear of Return to Mexico 

If the Mexican citizen/national (or a parent or legal guardian on behalf of a Mexican 

citizen/national child) expresses fear of return to Mexico, that individual must no longer be 

voluntarily returned to Mexico with the rest of the family unit. Any withdrawal or return of such 

an individual to Mexico would not be voluntary given that the individual expressed a fear of 

return to Mexico. In that instance, and because the family unit cannot be separated pursuant to 

MPP, the entire family unit must not be processed for MPP or, if previously processed for MPP, 

the family unit must be removed from MPP and reprocessed as appropriate. 

Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs) 

CBP Processing of UACs 

Any child who arrives at the border and is determined to be a UAC will be processed as such by 

CBP in accordance with existing UAC processing procedures, including transfer to the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and generally processed for removal 

proceedings pursuant to Section 240 of the Immigration and National Act (INA). UACs are not 

amenable to MPP. 

CBP Providing of UAC Information to HHS 

When CBP encounters a UAC who it can confirm was, in fact, previously processed as part of a 

family unit and returned to Mexico under MPP, CBP should provide HHS’s Office of Refugee 

Resettlement (ORR) with all relevant identifying information for the UAC and those previously 

processed into MPP with him/her (e.g. full name(s), alien number(s), and processing location) 

when ORR assumes custody of the UAC. Providing this information will ensure that ORR has 

all options available when considering UAC placement and appearances at hearings. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Known Physical and Mental Health Issues 

In an instance where there is any doubt as to whether an alien should be included in MPP owing 

to a known physical or mental health issue, CBP should err on the side of exclusion. 

Aliens Determined Not Fit to Travel 

Generally, aliens who are determined not to be fit to travel by medical personnel should be 

excluded from MPP. Exemptions from MPP for aliens with known physical or mental health 

issues are decided on a case-by-case basis. DHS officials should carefully evaluate and provide 

appropriate responses for those in special circumstances, which could include exclusion from 

MPP. 

Expressions of Need for Medical Attention 

If at any time an alien expresses a need for medical attention, or if a CBP agent or officer 

observes that medical attention is warranted, that alien will be referred to on-site medical staff. 

The on-site medical staff will both screen the alien and make the determination about his/her 

immediate medical needs and whether emergent care is required. In this situation, CBP is to 

follow the guidance issued in its “Enhanced Medical Support Directive.”3 

Case-by-Case Determination of Exemption from MPP 

Following CBP’s medical evaluation process -- which should consider potential physical and/or 

mental health issues related to an alien’s disclosure of personal history -- determinations as to 

whether an alien is exempt from MPP due to known physical or mental health issues are 

generally to be made on a case-by-case basis at the local level with supervisory review. The Port 

Director or Chief Patrol Agent of each location should use his/her discretion to determine 

amenability on a case-by-case basis considering the totality of the circumstances. Aliens who 

receive medical clearance and are fit for travel, as determined by medical personnel, are 

amenable under MPP guidelines unless the Chief Patrol Agent or Port Director determines 

otherwise. 

Use of Restraints 

Aliens subject to MPP are not a detained population, including during transportation to and from 

immigration court hearings. 

To the extent CBP is required to use restraints during MPP processing, CBP should continue to 

follow the National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention and Search (TEDS). To the extent 

ICE or contract staff is required to use restraints during MPP processing or transportation, ICE or 

contract staff should continue to follow the Performance-Based National Detention Standards 

(PBNDS) 2011 and relevant supplemental guidance, including the ICE Enforcement and 

Removal Operations (ERO) Memorandum on Use of Restraints (ERO 11155.1). 

3 https://www.cbp.gov/document/directives/cbp-enhanced-medical-efforts 
 

 

 

 

Interagency Collaboration 

Collaboration with DOS 

Recognizing that DHS does not have the statutory authority to provide foreign assistance and 

deferring to DOS’s internal regulations and procedures, DHS should, to the greatest extent 

possible, regularly collaborate with DOS to identify programs or other efforts that support MPP 

aliens’ options to access safe shelters and MPP-related information during their time in Mexico. 

Collaboration with DOJ and HHS 

Further, DHS should also regularly collaborate with DOJ and HHS to exchange appropriate caserelated and statistical information tied to the implementation of MPP and related processes. 

Ongoing Improvement 

Notwithstanding the above-mentioned items, DHS should continue to evaluate MPP operations 

and effectiveness and make continued adjustments, as needed, to improve the integrity and 

operation of the MPP program including in areas not specifically articulated in this 

memorandum. 

As further potential improvements are identified by CBP, ICE, USCIS, the Office of Strategy, 

Policy and Plans (PLCY), the Office of Operations Coordination (OPS), the Office of the 

General Counsel (OGC), the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), etc., all 

interested parties, including interagency partners, should collaborate to find the most appropriate 

outcome to reinforce the integrity of MPP. 

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or 

procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its 

departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.