ICE's Compliance With Detention Limits 

for Aliens With a Final Order of Removal 

From the United States 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Office of Inspector General 

OIG-07-28 February 2007

Contents 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 1 

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

Results of Review ......................................................................................................................... 10 

Compliance With Regulations Requires More Attention and Diligence...................................... 10 

Majority of Detainees Are Removed Within 90 Days But More Oversight Is Needed ......... 11 

Inconsistent Use of Available Guidance and Resources by Field Offices Contributes to 

Compliance Issues .................................................................................................................. 14 

Resource Allocation and Management Constrains the POCR Process ........................................ 19 

POCR Compliance Oversight Is Limited ............................................................................... 20 

TDU Support for the POCR Process Is Not Adequate ........................................................... 25 

Making Removals a Priority Requires Additional Resources, Support, and Oversight ............... 27 

Removals of National Interest Cases and Dangerous Aliens Should Be Prioritized.............. 28 

Likelihood of Removal Standard Needs to be Documented and Transparent........................ 31 

Oversight of Aliens Held Longer Than 180 Days Is Insufficient........................................... 33 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................................. 37 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology................................................................................ 44 

Appendix B: Management Response to Draft Report ........................................................................ 46 

Appendix C: Supplementary Management Response......................................................................... 50 

Appendix D: POCR Timeline............................................................................................................. 52 

Appendix E: Detentions Past 360 Days, By Region Of Origin .......................................................... 53 

Appendix F: Special Circumstances Cases......................................................................................... 54 

Appendix G: Substantive Deficiencies in POCR Worksheets............................................................ 56 

Appendix H: Procedural Challenges and Best Practices .................................................................... 57 

Appendix I: Major Contributors to the Report ................................................................................... 60 

Appendix J: Report Distribution......................................................................................................... 61 
ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Abbreviations 

 DACS Deportable Alien Control System 

 DHS Department of Homeland Security 

 DRO Headquarters Office of Detention and Removal Operations 

 ENFORCE Enforcement Case Tracking System 

 GAO Government Accountability Office 

 HQCDU Headquarters Custody Determination Unit 

 ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

 INS Immigration and Naturalization Service 

 POCR Post-Order Custody Review 

 OIG Office of Inspector General 

 TDU Travel Document Unit 
OIG

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

 Page 1 

Executive Summary 

In June 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an alien with a final order of 

removal generally should not be detained longer than six months. To justify 

an alien’s continued detention, current laws, regulations, policies and practices 

require the federal government to either establish that it can obtain a passport 

or other travel document for the alien in the “reasonably foreseeable future,” 

or certify that the alien meets stringent criteria as a danger to society or to the 

national interest. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), within the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for ensuring 

compliance with the Court’s ruling and final order case management. 

We reviewed ICE’s compliance with detention limits for aliens who were 

under a final order of removal from the United States, including the reasons 

for exceptions or noncompliance. ICE has introduced quality assurance and 

tracking measures for case review; however, outdated databases and current 

staffing resources limit the effectiveness of its oversight capabilities. 

Although approximately 80% of aliens with a final order are removed or 

released within 90 days of an order, among the Post-Order Custody Review 

(POCR) files we reviewed, required custody decisions were not made in over 

6% of cases, and were not timely in over 19% of cases. Moreover, some 

aliens have been suspended from the review process without adequately 

documented evidence that the alien is failing to comply with efforts to secure 

removal. In addition, cases are not prioritized to ensure that aliens who are 

dangerous or whose departure is in the national interest are removed, or that 

their release within the United States is adequately supervised. Finally, ICE 

has not provided sufficient guidance on applying the Supreme Court’s 

“reasonably foreseeable future” standard, and does not systematically track 

removal rates — information that is necessary for negotiating returns and for 

determining whether detention space is used effectively. 

The weaknesses and potential vulnerabilities in the POCR process cannot be 

easily addressed with ICE’s current oversight efforts, and ICE is not well 

positioned to oversee the growing detention caseload that will be generated by 

DHS’ planned enhancements to secure the border. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 2 

To address these challenges we are recommending: holding ICE field offices 

more accountable for the quality and timeliness of the POCR process while 

also increasing ICE headquarters assistance in obtaining travel documents; 

prioritizing the removal of aliens who represent a serious threat to society or 

the public interest; developing an objective and transparent methodology for 

evaluating the likelihood of removal for all cases; and intensifying the 

monitoring of long-term detainees. ICE concurred with three of our five 

recommendations, which we consider resolved but open pending our receipt 

of ICE’s proposed actions. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 3 

Background 

The June 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision reversed the former Immigration 

and Naturalization Service’s (INS) practice of indefinitely detaining aliens 

who were difficult to remove but represented a threat to the community or 

would likely abscond if released. Aliens affected by the decision include both 

legal and illegal entrants – those who entered or remained in the United States 

illegally, and those whose legal permanent residency or other legal status was 

revoked because of a criminal conviction. The Supreme Court held that 

indefinite detention of these aliens raised “serious constitutional concerns,” as 

“[f]reedom from imprisonment – from government custody, detention, or 

other forms of restraint – lies at the heart of the liberty” that the constitution 

protects.1 In 2005, the Supreme Court extended the same protection to 

inadmissible aliens, namely aliens apprehended at a port of entry.2 

The INS Office of Detention and Removals (DRO), which was transferred 

into ICE in March 2003 with the creation of DHS, drafted regulations and 

guidance describing the Supreme Court’s decision as explaining that “the 

period of time which can be considered as ‘the reasonably foreseeable future,’ 

becomes increasingly shorter as the length of time the alien has been held in 

post-order INS detention increases. In other words, the longer an alien 

remains in INS custody after being ordered removed, the higher the burden on 

the government to establish that the alien’s removal is going to occur in the 

reasonably foreseeable future.”3 

To justify prolonged detention, current laws, regulations, policies and 

practices require the federal government to either establish that removal can 

be secured in the reasonably foreseeable future, or prove that a detainee meets 

certain stringent criteria outlined below. 

Overview of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

Regulations provide for an initial removal period of 90 days, after which the 

detainee receives a post-order custody review, or POCR. The 90-day POCR 

essentially considers three criteria: 

 

1

 Zadvydas v. Davis 533 U.S. 678, 682, 690 (2001). 2

 Clark v. Martinez 543 U.S. 371 (2005). 3

 INS Detention and Removal Manual, Chapter 17. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 4 

1) Flight Risk – Whether the alien is likely to abscond if released, 

based on the alien’s cooperation with the removal process, and ties to 

the community, such as family and employment prospects. 

2) Danger to Community – Whether the alien poses a danger to the 

general public, based on criminal history, recidivism, and disciplinary 

record while in prison or ICE custody. 

3) Likelihood of Obtaining Travel Documents – Whether travel 

documents appear forthcoming or have already been obtained, and 

removal is therefore imminent. 

If the alien is not released or removed, and is cooperating with the removal 

process and has not obtained a stay of removal from the court, the second 

review in the POCR process is conducted as soon as possible after 180 days 

have elapsed from the final order of removal. The 180-day review considers 

two criteria: 

1) Significant Likelihood of Removal in the Reasonably Foreseeable 

Future – Whether it is reasonable to believe that travel documents can 

be obtained, given the federal government’s efforts, the receiving 

country’s willingness to accept the alien, and other factors for 

consideration. The regulations require the Headquarters Custody 

Determination Unit (HQCDU) to “consider all the facts of the case 

including, but not limited to, the history of the alien’s efforts to 

comply with the order of removal, the history of the Service’s efforts 

to remove aliens to the country in question or to third countries, 

including the ongoing nature of the Service’s efforts to remove this 

alien and the alien’s assistance with those efforts, the reasonably 

foreseeable results of those efforts, and the views of the Department of 

State regarding the prospects for removal of aliens to the country or 

countries in question. Where the Service is continuing its efforts to 

remove the alien, there is no presumptive period of time within which 

the alien’s removal must be accomplished, but the prospects for the 

timeliness of removal must be reasonable under the circumstances.”4

 

2) Special Circumstances – Regulations outline four categories 

permitting detention beyond 180 days even if it is not likely that the 

alien can be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future: (1) aliens 

 

4

 8 CFR § 241.13(f). 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 5 

with a highly contagious disease that is a threat to public safety; 

(2) aliens detained on account of serious adverse foreign policy 

consequences of release; (3) aliens detained on account of security or 

terrorism concerns; and, (4) aliens determined to be specially 

dangerous. Certifying that an alien meets one of these criteria requires 

substantial factual support and the concurrence of senior government 

officials or, for “specially dangerous” aliens, an immigration judge.5

 

Two conditions can extend detention indefinitely, essentially stopping the 

POCR process amid the 180-day removal period: (1) a court-granted stay of 

removal pending judicial review; or (2) an alien’s failure to comply with the 

government’s removal efforts. Aliens with a stay of removal must receive a 

review from ICE DRO at 90 days, and annually thereafter. Aliens who fail to 

comply with the government’s efforts to secure their removal must receive 

regular warnings from ICE DRO of the consequences of their actions, but 

need not receive a review of continued detention. Aliens who fail to comply 

with the requirement to assist with obtaining a travel document can be 

criminally prosecuted.6

 Although some aliens have been convicted for noncompliance, ICE DRO was not able to provide us with an estimate of 

successful prosecutions. However, ICE officials explained that they were in 

the process of establishing a reporting mechanism. 

Previous Post-Order Custody Process Reviews

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Zadvydas, which placed limits on the 

federal government’s authority to detain aliens, and the transfer of INS’ 

responsibility for detained aliens to ICE DRO, there have been a number of 

reports and evaluations of the POCR process: 

• June 2003: The Inspector General for the Department of Justice 

reported that some “September 11 detainees who were held by the INS 

beyond 90 days after their final orders of removal did not receive a 

Post-Order Custody Review (POCR) as required by regulation.”7 

 

5

 8 CFR § 241.14. 

6

 Section 243(a) of Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USC § 1253(a). 7 The September 11 Detainees: A Review of the Treatment of Aliens Held on Immigration Charges in Connection with 

the Investigation of the September 11 Attacks, June 2003, Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, 

Chapter 6. The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General had oversight of the INS until 2003. This 

responsibility transferred to the DHS Office of Inspector General when the INS’ detention programs moved to ICE. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 6 

• May 2004: The General Accounting Office (GAO) determined that 

ICE could not identify detained aliens entitled to a post-order custody 

review, or POCR, in part because its database, the Deportable Alien 

Control System (DACS), is an “outdated, difficult-to-use, inefficient 

case management system.” In addition, ICE did not provide adequate 

guidance to its officers to help them prioritize their workload. The 

GAO reported that while ICE considered its POCR program 

inadequately staffed, ICE needed a methodology to determine staffing 

needs. The GAO concluded from its review of POCR files that there 

was a possibility that ICE was not complying with the regulations.8

 

• April 2006: We determined that DACS “lacks the ability to readily 

provide DRO management with data analysis capabilities to manage 

the detention and removal program in an efficient and effective 

manner.” Resources expended to provide a replacement for DACS 

had not, to date, resulted in measurable progress. We recommended 

that ICE meet a biannual reporting requirement on upgrading DACS to 

a system “capable of meeting its expanding data collection and 

analyses needs.” We also reported that the practice of some countries 

to block or inhibit repatriation of their citizens, coupled with the 

Supreme Court rulings, resulted in release of many POCR cases. We 

listed China, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Jamaica, Laos, and Vietnam 

as countries blocking or inhibiting the repatriation of their citizens.9

 

In addition, in 2005 the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) 

published the results of interviews with immigration attorneys representing 

clients who were in the POCR process nationwide. The report listed 

conditions, such as remote detention facilities, local cooperation, record 

keeping, staffing, and communication as problems contributing to prolonged 

detention. CLINIC concluded that ICE was not uniformly complying with the 

POCR regulations.10 

 

8 Better Data and Controls Are Needed to Assure Consistency with the Supreme Court Decision on Long-Term Alien 

Detention,” GAO-04-434, May 2004. In July 2004, the Government Accounting Office was renamed the Government 

Accountability Office. 

9

 DHS OIG “Detention and Removal of Illegal Aliens: Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” OIG-06-33, April 2006. 10 Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., Systemic Problems Persist In U.S. ICE Custody Reviews for “Indefinite” 

Detainees, Kathleen Glynn, Sarah Bronstein, 2005. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 7 

ICE’s Quality Assurance and Oversight Initiatives

In 2004, DRO’s HQCDU introduced a program to oversee the POCR process, 

and improve the quality and timeliness of POCR decisions in field offices. 

The HQCDU also sought to reduce the number of writ of habeas corpus

petitions filed in federal courts by detainees requesting a review of the 

HQCDU’s justification for continued detention. The primary federal habeas 

corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, confers jurisdiction upon the federal courts 

to hear petitions for review of continued ICE detention. The petitioners in 

both the Zadvydas and Martinez decisions used habeas corpus petitions to 

secure their release from detention. ICE does not have a centralized tracking 

system for habeas corpus petitions. However, a standalone database in DRO 

headquarters, the Detention and Removal Information Management System, 

records habeas corpus petitions in which a field office or United States 

Attorney’s Office requests assistance from headquarters. In the period from 

the Zadvydas decision to March 2006, the Detention and Removal 

Information Management System contained 2,152 habeas corpus petitions, 

958 (46%) of which resulted in release, either from an ICE or United States 

Attorney’s Office decision not to defend continued detention, or by order of a 

federal judge. In addition, in our previous report we said that the number of 

detainees released and removed as a result of the Zadvydas and Martinez

decisions is not known because DRO did not begin tracking these decisions 

until FY 2005, and DACS still does not provide accurate reports on whether 

those no longer in detention were removed or released within the United 

States.11 

The HQCDU developed guidance on the POCR process and standards, 

including sample forms and letters, and posted those items on its internal 

website. The 90-day POCR decision must be reviewed and signed by a Field 

Office Director, Deputy Director, or an individual acting in those capacities. 

The HQCDU provides training to Field Office Directors and staff at the 

annual DRO conference, to new officers during their initial training, and 

during field office visits. The unit also conducts follow-up visits: in FY 2005 

it conducted 22 site visits; 6 site visits were conducted in FY 2006; and 24 are 

planned in FY 2007. At present, these field visits are the only opportunity the 

HQCDU has to review the quality and timeliness of the 90-day detention 

decision unless such cases fall within the HQCDU’s jurisdiction at 180 days, 

 

11 DHS OIG “Detention and Removal of Illegal Aliens: Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” OIG-06-33, April 

2006, page 19. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 8 

and to determine whether field offices are following procedures when aliens 

fail to cooperate with efforts to secure their removal. 

To verify that the 180-day cases are reviewed in compliance with the 

Zadvydas decision, the HQCDU obtains a monthly DACS update of all the 

POCR cases and requires field offices to report on those cases that appear to 

have passed 180 days. However, DACS is not structured to track certain 

exceptions. As a result, the HQCDU cannot determine from the DACS update 

which aliens are eligible for a POCR review, and which do not require a 

review either because the alien has a stay of removal or is failing to comply 

with the government’s removal efforts. The HQCDU therefore relies on 

monthly updates from the field offices to obtain this information. For those 

aliens eligible for a post-order custody review, field offices provide the 

HQCDU with a detailed worksheet, including a recommendation on continued 

detention or release. The HQCDU makes the final decision on continued 

detention, based primarily on the worksheets provided by the field offices. In 

addition, the HQCDU requires that field offices request assistance 

immediately from the headquarters Travel Document Unit (TDU) in cases that 

involve certain countries that are usually slow to provide documentation, and 

for all cases where the field office has not obtained a travel document within 

75 days of the alien’s receiving a final order. A timeline of the POCR process 

is contained in Appendix D: POCR Timeline. 

We evaluated ICE’s compliance with detention time limits for aliens with a 

final order of removal, including the reasons for exceptions or noncompliance. As described in detail in Appendix A, we reviewed 210 files, 

which were selected based upon four categories of POCR aliens: (1) those 

from countries that generally provide travel documents quickly, including El 

Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico; (2) those from countries that 

typically either refuse or delay the issuance of travel documents, including 

Cambodia, China, Cuba, Haiti, India, Laos, Pakistan, and Vietnam; (3) those 

from countries for which obtaining travel documents is less routine because 

there are fewer aliens requiring removal, including African and European 

countries; and, (4) those who had been in detention for an unusually long 

time, generally longer than 12 months. The requested files included only 

aliens who were eligible for a post-order custody review based on the 

Zadvydas and Martinez decisions and identified as such in the DACS 

database. Both male and female aliens were represented, as well as aliens 

with and without an aggravated felony conviction. Of the 20 female aliens 

whose POCR files we requested, only 6 remained in detention, 3 without a 

criminal record, 2 with aggravated felonies, and 1 with a minor criminal 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 9 

charge. Our selection method was intended to identify irregularities in the 

POCR process; generalizations therefore cannot be made from the cases to the 

POCR population as a whole. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 10 

Results of Review 

Compliance With Regulations Requires More Attention and 

Diligence 

Approximately 80% of post-order custody aliens are removed or released 

within 90 days. However, of the 210 alien files we reviewed, 14 (7%) had not 

received a 90-day post-order custody review, and 3 of those aliens had been 

detained longer than 180 days without a review. For those aliens remaining in 

detention, field office compliance with regulatory review requirements was 

inconsistent. In addition, required notification documents were not 

consistently provided and when provided, were not consistently timely. Some 

field offices were using incorrect legal standards and outdated materials, the 

most serious example being the misapplication of the failure to comply 

standard and the resulting suspension of the POCR process. 

The HQCDU has provided comprehensive guidance and procedures for the 

90-day and 180-day POCR decisions. It has also established a manual 

tracking system for the 180-day POCR decisions. However, there are 

weaknesses and potential vulnerabilities in the POCR process that cannot be 

easily addressed with ICE’s current oversight efforts. These deficiencies will 

directly affect ICE’s ability to manage the projected growth in its caseload 

caused by DHS’ planned enhancements to secure the border as envisioned 

with the Secure Border Initiative, the end of “catch and release” practices, and 

an increase in interior enforcement programs.12 Specifically, cases are not 

prioritized to ensure that aliens who are dangerous, or whose departure is in 

the national interest, such as war criminals and supporters of terrorist 

organizations, are removed or that their release within the United States is 

adequately supervised. In addition, there is no measurable standard for 

determining the likelihood that an alien can be removed to his or her country 

of origin. Moreover, procedures for managing post-180 day cases are 

inadequate, particularly when ICE has concluded that there is a significant 

likelihood of removing the alien in the foreseeable future, or that the alien is 

not cooperating. 

 

12 http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0794.xml
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 11 

Majority of Detainees Are Removed Within 90 Days But 

More Oversight Is Needed 

Previous reports and evaluations of the POCR process focused on the ICE 

DRO’s ability to track and manage cases, as the DACS database was not 

designed to perform this function. The HQCDU now obtains a monthly 

update from DACS of all aliens in detention who have a final order of 

removal, information that allows some analysis of the characteristics of the 

POCR caseload. However, the DACS monthly update does not provide 

information on whether aliens no longer listed as detained have been removed 

to a country of origin or released within the United States. 

Of the 8,690 aliens with a final order of removal who were in detention in 

March 2006, only 1,725 (20%) were still detained by June 2006 (see Table 1). 

However, detention rates vary widely by region and country of origin. 

Table 1: Detentions Past 90 Days, By Region Of Origin13

Region of Origin 

Aliens In 

Detention 

March 2006 

Aliens Still 

Detained 

June 2006 

Percent Still 

Detained 

June 2006

Africa 643 304 47% 

Oceania 34 15 44% 

Asia 1,156 485 42% 

Caribbean 1,220 396 32% 

Europe 378 79 21% 

North America 879 114 13% 

South America 640 69 11% 

Central America 3,740 263 7% 

Total 8,690 1,725 20% 

Long-term detention is directly related to the return policies of an alien’s 

country of origin. For example, as depicted in Table 1 and Chart 1, the sharp 

decline in the number of detained North and Central Americans reflects high 

levels of cooperation from those governments in providing travel documents 

and accepting removals. ICE deportation officers informed us that the 

governments of Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, and El Salvador routinely 

provide travel documents for their nationals, and that most are removed from 

the United States before 90 days. In Chart 1, of the 1,323 Hondurans in 

 

13 See DHS statistical yearbooks for countries within each region of origin. 

(http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/2003/2003Yearbook.pdf). 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 12 

detention in March 2006, only 55 (4%) were still detained in June 2006, and 

most had been returned to Honduras. Only 2 of 1,323 Hondurans had been in 

detention more than 360 days. 

Chart 1: Detention Rates By Country Of Origin 

46

India

151 Aliens

China

 246 Aliens

Haiti

366 Aliens

Pakistan

64 Aliens

Removed from or Released

within the United States

124

90

32

19

24 10

30

29

165

172

86

Difficult

Countries

Honduras

1,323 Aliens

1,268 2

53

Guatemala

1,275 Aliens

1,214 10

51

Mexico

851 Aliens

El Salvador

825 Aliens

Cooperative

Countries

Non-Cooperative

Countries

Cuba

203 Aliens

Laos

76 Aliens

20 %

Vietnam

125 Aliens

Cambodia

42 Aliens

Still Detained after 360 Days

Still Detained after 90 Days Detained POCR Aliens

in March 2006

772

52

27

175

2

26

25

8

92

59

17

31

11

733

77

15

Source: DACS, OIG Analysis
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 13 

In contrast, as depicted in Chart 1, the sharp decline in the number of detained 

Cubans, Laotians, Cambodians, and Vietnamese, reflects ICE DRO’s 

recognition that there is usually no significant likelihood that the governments 

of these countries will issue travel documents for their nationals. Therefore, 

most aliens from these counties must eventually be released within the United 

States unless the stringent regulatory standards for special circumstances can 

be met. ICE deportation officers said that most aliens from these countries are 

released within the United States after 90 days. If aliens from these countries 

are a violent threat to the community, but do not meet the stringent standard 

for special circumstances cases, most are released within the United States 

after 180 days. For example, in March 2006 there were 203 Cubans in 

detention, and by June 2006 all but 28 (14%) of this group were no longer in 

detention, most released within the United States. Only 2 of 203 Cubans had 

been in detention more than 360 days. These figures, based on DACS POCR 

reports, do not include Cubans paroled into the United States from the 1980 

Mariel boatlift, as Mariel Cubans are tracked separately in DACS. 

Finally, as depicted in Chart 1, the high detention rates among Indians, 

Haitians, Pakistanis, and Chinese, reflect that removals are possible, but 

difficult, for these nationalities. Deportation officers said that these countries 

either provide travel documents routinely after long delays, or provide them 

sporadically based on internal political circumstances or diplomatic pressure 

from the United States. For example, in March 2006 there were 246 Chinese 

in detention. By June 2006, 156 (63%) were still detained because China had 

agreed during negotiations with the United States to accept a charter flight of 

its nationals, but then delayed the charter several times. Of the 246 Chinese 

nationals detained in March 2006, 32 had been in detention more than 360 

days. During our fieldwork, ICE deportation officers informed us that the 

United States government had reached agreements with the governments of 

China, India, and Haiti to authorize the return of a substantial number of 

nationals from these countries and that some detained aliens had already been 

removed. 

As shown in Appendix E: Detentions Past 360 Days the correlation between 

countries that are slow to produce travel documents and the length of 

detention some aliens experience was most apparent when we examined 

detention rates for the group of 428 aliens who had been detained for more 

than 360 days as of June 2006. Reasons for the longer detention rates among 

the group of 428 vary, and might include the alien’s failure to comply, or a 

court’s grant of a stay of removal. The longer detention rates might also result 

from an expected removal that does not occur or a belief that travel documents 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 14 

will be issued in a reasonable period of time. However, very few of the 428 

aliens were formally certified as special circumstances cases, the four 

categories of cases for which continued detention is justified to protect the 

public or the national interest. For example, only 36 cases were held as 

“specially dangerous.” No cases, however, were certified under the remaining 

three categories, as having a highly contagious disease, or a potentially 

adverse affect on national security, or the national interest if released. See 

Appendix F: Special Circumstances Cases for more information on DHS’ 

certifications. 

Inconsistent Use of Available Guidance and Resources by 

Field Offices Contributes to Compliance Issues

To determine whether the detention of aliens with a final order complies with 

Supreme Court decisions, regulations and ICE guidance, we reviewed a 

sample of alien files at each of the seven DRO offices where we conducted 

site visits. We determined that post-order custody reviews were not 

consistently conducted, and that required notifications and reviews were not 

consistently complete or timely. While the HQCDU has developed and 

posted on its website extensive guidance, not all field offices visited were 

using the materials. The most serious consequence was that some detainees 

were deemed to have failed to comply, and therefore removed from the POCR 

process, without sufficient justification. For more information on field offices 

selected for site visits and our sample of alien files reviewed, see Appendix A. 

Post-Order Custody Reviews Are Not Consistently Conducted

Of the 210 alien files we examined, 82 were eligible for a post-order custody 

review. We determined that 11 of these 82 aliens had not received a 90-day 

post-order custody review, and 3 had not received either a 90-day or 180-day 

review. Case completion rates varied widely by field office as depicted in 

Figure 1 and Table 2, which illustrate the disposition of the sample files. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 15 

Figure 1: Disposition Of Requested POCR Case Files 

Current Post-Order

Custody Case?

23 Removed From US

20 Released Within US

9 Transferred/Detained

8 Miscoded/No Final Order

NO

YES

Post-Order Custody

Review Required?

13 Failure to Comply

27 Stay of Removal

17 POCR Date Miscoded

11 Other Miscodes/Changes

YES

Required Review

Conducted?

NO

NO

210 Files Requested

150 POCR Cases

82 POCR Cases

14 POCRs Not Conducted

68 POCRs Conducted

Source: OIG File Review

YES

Table 2: Sixty-Eight POCR Reviews Conducted 

ICE Field 

Office 

POCR 

Required 

POCR 

Conducted 

POCR 

Deficiency 

Site I 23 14 9 

Site II 17 14 3 

Site III 15 14 1 

Site IV 8 7 1 

Site V 9 9 0 

Site VI 8 8 0 

Site VII 2 2 0 

TOTAL 82 68 14 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 16 

Notifications and Decisions Are Not Consistently Complete or Timely

In addition to conducting the 90- and 180-day reviews required by regulation, 

ICE guidance requires that an alien be notified within the first 30 days of 

detention of the consequences of failing to comply with requests to assist the 

federal government in obtaining travel documents, and of the specific 

information the alien should provide to assist with the custody determination. 

In addition, the regulations and ICE guidance require notification within the 

first 60 days that a POCR will take place on or before 90 days of detention 

after a final order of removal. 

As shown in Figure 2, field offices did not consistently serve the required 

notices, and the notifications and post-order custody reviews that DRO did 

serve were not consistently timely. For example, the 90-day review was 

timely in approximately 81% of the cases; however, the 180-day review was 

only timely in 66% of the cases. While notification documents were provided 

in more than 80% of all cases, only one document was provided on time in 

more than 50% of the cases. Deportation officers listed a variety of reasons 

for delayed or missing documents, including staffing shortages, competing 

priorities among duties, such as fugitive task force operations and escorting 

removals overseas, a preference for more training, difficulty tracking cases, 

and unforeseen delays in removal. 

We counted cases that did not require a particular notification document, such 

as the 60-day notification of POCR file review for an alien who was failing to 

comply or had a stay of removal, as complete and timely. We excluded one 

field office from the count of the 30-day notification forms: as it did not keep 

copies of the forms in the alien’s file, timeliness is calculated from the 122 

cases reviewed for the other six field offices. Interviews with local pro bono

organizations and a review of the files at the detention center confirmed that 

the notifications were being served. To identify only cases that were seriously 

overdue, we counted the 30-day notifications as timely if they occurred within 

the first 45 days, the 60-day notification as timely if it occurred within the first 

75 days, and the post-order custody review as timely if it occurred within 10 

days of the deadline. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 17 

Figure 2: Timeliness of POCR Notifications and Decisions 

Warning on Compliance

(Form I-229)

Deadline Requirement Percent Completed Percent Timely

Instruction Sheet

to Detainee

to Assist in Removal

30

DAYS

60

DAYS

90

DAYS

180

DAYS

Notice to Alien of File

Custody Review

90-Day Review

(POCR Worksheet)

180-Day Review

(POCR Worksheet)

82%

(100 /122)

80%

(98 /122)

81%

(121/150)

91%

(136/150)

94%

(44/47)

49%

(60 /122)

47%

(57 /122)

67%

(100/150)

81%

(121/150)

66%

(31/47)

Source: OIG File Review

Guidance Not Fully Implemented

DRO field offices have not fully incorporated headquarters guidance into their 

operating procedures. At several sites we visited, deportation officers were 

either unaware of the HQCDU website where POCR guidance is available, or 

were aware the site existed but had not used it. As a result, several field 

offices were using outdated or inaccurate forms. One of the field offices 

issued its 90-day denial letter with a misleading statement that, “[w]e will 

conduct another review of your custody status within six months of the date of 

this notice,” while the regulations require a second review 90 days after an 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 18 

initial denial. Four field offices were using a version of the Notice to Alien of 

File Custody Review that used the standard–“clear and convincing evidence 

that [the alien] will not pose a danger to the community and will not be a 

significant flight risk”–drawn from pre-Zadvydas regulations. The ICE Office 

of the Principal Legal Advisor confirmed that the older “clear and 

convincing” language in these Notices was more stringent than the language 

in the Notice posted on the website. While the website Notice predates the 

transfer of detention authority from the Attorney General of the Department of 

Justice to the DHS Secretary, the legal standard–that evidence must be “to the 

satisfaction of the Attorney General” that the detainee “will not pose a danger 

to the community and will not present a flight risk”–is accurate. 

In addition, the HQCDU provides clear 

guidance on the elements that must be 

included in the 90-day denial letter provided 

to aliens; the case history; a criminal history, 

if convicted; an evaluation of the release 

criteria; and a decision specific to the alien’s 

circumstances. However, of the 150 POCR 

case files we reviewed, 44 (29%) did not 

address all of these elements. In addition, of 

the 68 cases for which there was a POCR 

required and completed, 32 (47%) had at least 

one substantive deficiency. As a result, field offices had provided detainees 

notifications with outdated and inappropriate language and standards. See 

Appendix G: Substantive Deficiencies in POCR Worksheets for additional 

details. 

Failure to Comply Standard Needs to be Properly Applied

ICE defines failure to comply with efforts to secure removal as refusing to 

comply with a request for a concrete action, such as signing a travel request 

document or talking to a consular officer. According to HQCDU guidance, 

“[t]he removal period shall be extended and the alien may remain in detention 

during such extended period if the alien fails or refuses to make timely 

application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to facilitate 

the alien’s departure or conspires or acts to prevent the alien’s removal. This 

includes any failure or refusal on the part of the alien to provide information 

or to take any other action necessary to obtain a travel document [See INA 

241(a)(1)(C) of the Act]. Prior to the government suspending the removal 

period, the alien must have (1) Been served with a notice of what he/she is 

Material Deficiencies 

A Pakistani alien was told 

that, “ICE is in possession of a 

travel document to effect your 

removal.” In a series of 

emails eight days later, the 

deportation officer told ICE 

headquarters that the office 

was still working on the travel 

document request.
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 19 

required to do; (2) Been given the opportunity to comply; and 

(3) Subsequently failed to comply.”14 An alien who challenges a final order of 

removal through court processes, including appeals, stays of removal, and 

motions to reopen denial decisions, is not considered failing to comply with 

the removal order. The Office of Principal Legal Advisor told us that the 

misapplication of failure to cooperate standards is one deficiency that makes 

continued detention decisions difficult to defend once an alien files a petition 

of habeas corpus. As depicted in Figure 1: Disposition of Requested POCR 

Case Files, in addition to the 82 cases for which a POCR was required, there 

were 68 cases for which a review was not required. Of the 68 cases, the field 

office had identified 13 as failing to comply 

with requests to assist the government in 

obtaining travel documents. However, we 

observed that in only 8 of the 13 cases did the 

deportation officer provide evidence that the 

alien was actively impeding the process of 

obtaining travel documents, for instance by 

refusing to sign a travel document request or 

misrepresenting nationality. The evidence in 

the remaining five files did not support the 

basis for determining that these aliens were 

failing to comply. In addition, although ICE 

headquarters guidance requires that aliens who 

fail to comply must receive notification 

monthly, and the 13 failure to comply cases had been detained with a final 

order for more than 90 days, only 4 of the 13 cases had the required 

notifications in the alien’s file. 

Resource Allocation and Management Constrains the POCR Process 

According to a 2004 GAO report, Better Data and Controls Are Needed to 

Assure Consistency with the Supreme Court Decision on Long-Term Alien 

Detention, and our 2006 audit report, Detention and Removal of Illegal 

Aliens: Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE DRO does not have 

adequate resources to provide management and oversight for the POCR 

 

14 The INA refers to the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Failure To Comply 

The Nigerian consulate 

refused to supply a travel 

document for one citizen until 

DHS addressed an untreated 

injury sustained a year earlier 

in DHS custody and provided 

a settlement for belongings 

stolen by a DHS officer. (The 

officer was convicted of 

theft.) The detainee was 

denied review as failure to 

comply.
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 20 

caseload.15 The GAO recommended that ICE DRO assess staffing needs and 

use its estimates to support funding and personnel requests.16 Both the GAO 

report and our audit report observe that the DACS database failed to meet 

GAO’s information technology standards, which at a minimum should enable 

the agency to determine whether it is “achieving its compliance requirements 

under various laws and regulations.”17 In our audit report we requested that 

ICE provide us with bi-annual updates on its progress in replacing DACS. 

Because the recommendations made in those reports are still outstanding, this 

report will outline some of the consequences of ICE’s resource limitations, but 

we will not make duplicate recommendations. We do point out, however, that 

ICE could implement more immediate changes to improve the POCR process. 

Closing these gaps should shorten detention time for aliens who could be 

removed. It could also provide the HQCDU with earlier notice to make 

provisions for aliens whose release within the United States would be most 

problematic. 

POCR Compliance Oversight Is Limited 

POCR Program Is Understaffed

Budget constraints during the first years after DHS was created contributed to 

a hiring freeze within ICE, and the ranks of deportation officers were depleted 

by attrition. For most field offices we visited, deportation officers managing 

the POCR caseload had been assigned this responsibility within the last year 

and had not received formal training. These officers were either hired or 

promoted after the budget constraints were resolved. Despite limited 

resources, ICE DRO drafted excellent guidance to field officers on the 90-day 

post-order custody review, adapted the program to comply with the Supreme 

Court’s Martinez decision on inadmissible aliens, and introduced close 

oversight of the 180-day review. ICE DRO reports that it intends to introduce 

additional measures when more staff and resources become available. While 

ICE has not provided a staffing model in response to the GAO 

recommendation, most field offices suggested that a ratio of 75 to 100 

detainees to each deportation officer would be a manageable caseload. At 

 

15 Better Data and Controls Are Needed to Assure Consistency with the Supreme Court Decision on Long-Term Alien 

Detention,” GAO-04-434, May 2004. DHS OIG “Detention and Removal of Illegal Aliens: Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement,” OIG-06-33, April 2006, page 21. 16 GAO-04-434, May 2004, p. 25. 

17 DHS OIG-06-33, April 2006, page 21. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 21 

present, most offices are operating with detainee to officer ratios over 100 and 

some as high as 150 cases per officer. Because the GAO recommendation is 

still outstanding, we are not making a recommendation on developing a 

staffing methodology or on increasing staffing positions for the POCR 

process. However, full implementation of several recommendations in our 

report requires additional ICE deportation officers, and additional support 

staff, contract resources, or a more effective database. 

When discussing HQCDU staffing levels, officials at ICE DRO offices in 

headquarters and in the field, as well as other entities that work closely with 

ICE DRO, such as the Office of Principal Legal Advisor and the Department 

of Health and Human Services’ Public Health Service, considered the 

HQCDU to be understaffed. The HQCDU currently relies on four full-time 

staff and a few deportation officers who have been detailed to manage the 

POCR caseload, which averaged 1,098 post-180 day cases during the period 

of our review, from March 2006 to June 2006. In addition to adjudicating the 

180-day cases forwarded from 22 ICE DRO field offices, HQCDU officers 

are responsible for special circumstances cases and habeas corpus claims, as 

well as for developing guidance and training and conducting oversight and 

training site visits. 

Attorneys from the Office of Principal Legal Advisor who work closely with 

the HQCDU officers assigned to manage national security and terrorism 

cases, and cases involving war criminals and human rights abusers, estimated 

that the HQCDU should have at least one officer working full time on each of 

these caseloads, whereas there is currently one officer working on both in 

addition to that officer’s other duties. One attorney told us that because it has 

insufficient staff, the HQCDU is reactive, focusing on cases nearing the 180-

day deadline. The attorney said that with adequate staffing, the HQCDU 

could take a more proactive approach to monitoring and prioritizing the whole 

caseload, which might secure faster returns and fewer releases. 

In addition to the national security and national interest cases, one HQCDU 

officer works almost exclusively on obtaining closely supervised release or 

certification for mentally ill aliens who are violent. Another HQCDU officer 

manages habeas corpus petitions as a collateral duty. The HQCDU conducted 

six field office trainings in FY 2006, which is also a collateral duty. HQCDU 

staff estimated that the unit has been authorized to hire a few more officers, 

but would require a total of about ten officers and a corresponding level of 

administrative staff to provide adequate oversight and support. We were not 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 22 

able to determine how many support staff or contract resources would be 

required to support additional headquarters and field deportation officers. 

Better Tracking Systems Required for Program Management

Enhancing staffing levels alone will not address the deficiencies we identified 

in the POCR process. With the case disposition from our file review, as 

previously discussed and shown in Figure 1, we illustrate key deficiencies 

with DACS for managing the POCR process. For example, the monthly 

caseload report that the HQCDU obtains is quickly outdated as aliens are 

removed, released, or transferred. DACS cannot distinguish POCR cases that 

are due for a 180-day review from cases where the alien is failing to comply, 

has a stay of removal or is otherwise ineligible for review. Moreover, while 

the monthly DACS report identifies aliens convicted of an aggravated felony, 

DACS cannot identify for HQCDU the most critical cases, such as sexual 

predators, national security risk and national interest cases, and aliens with 

mental health problems that require certification or intensely supervised 

release. As reported in our previous audit report, DRO’s DACS database is 

outdated and cannot meet field office and headquarters case tracking and 

program management needs.18 

The quality of information entered into DACS is also problematic. Alerts for 

approaching deadlines must be manually calculated, entered, and checked; 

therefore, many field officers do not use them. DACS can only track a portion 

of the regulatory POCR requirements, and some data fields are so difficult to 

update that they are often left blank. The completeness of information that is 

easier to update also varies by officer and field office. 

Because of the deficiencies with DACS, both headquarters and field offices 

have developed several parallel tracking systems that require duplicate data 

entry. Each month the HQCDU obtains a report from DACS identifying cases 

that appear to have a final order. The HQCDU sends the list of cases that 

appear to have passed 180 days to each field office, as well as POCR cases in 

earlier stages. The field offices submit a POCR worksheet for the HQCDU to 

adjudicate or provide information on why the case is not eligible for the 180-

day post-order custody review. The HQCDU reviews the information 

provided by the field, and alerts the Field Office Director regarding potential 

case management errors. All of the officials from the field offices we visited 

said that, in addition to DACS and monthly updates for the HQCDU, the field 

 

18 DHS OIG-06-33, April 2006, page 21. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 23 

offices track POCR cases through other locally developed systems, ranging 

from handwritten logs to other databases. 

In addition to the monthly updates from the field offices, the HQCDU enters 

some information on the 180-day cases into the Detention and Removal 

Information Management System, a database developed to provide ICE DRO 

headquarters with case tracking and documentation capabilities that are not 

available in DACS. The HQCDU and Office of Principal Legal Advisor also 

maintain an informal tracking system for habeas corpus cases referred to 

headquarters, and Office of Principal Legal Advisor attorneys involved with 

special circumstances cases might also track the cases in a case management 

system used by DHS attorneys, the General Counsel Electronic Management 

System.19 

The result of having multiple tracking systems is that no one source of 

information at either ICE headquarters or ICE field offices can be relied upon 

as complete. For example, as demonstrated in Figure 3, out of 150 POCR 

files we reviewed, 23 cases involved habeas corpus petitions, but relatively 

few were captured by more than one tracking system. 

Figure 3: Habeas Corpus Petitions 

Sources: File review and headquarters tracking system s

4

1

2

8

3 5

Field O ffice

Paper

A lien File

O ffice of Principal Legal Advisor Tracking List

Detention and

Removal

Inform ation

M anagement

System Database

 

19 Chief, Knowledge Management Division, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Assessment for the Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) General Counsel Electronic Management System, April 25, 2005. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 24 

There are two scheduled upgrades to DACS that should improve the quality of 

information available to the HQCDU and the field offices. The first was 

slated for field-testing in October 2006, and is intended to integrate existing 

DACS functions into ICE’s Enforcement Case Tracking System (ENFORCE). 

ENFORCE is the primary administrative case management system for ICE. It 

provides access to biometric data, information on investigations and on 

national security and intelligence activities. The initial upgrade is primarily 

designed to eliminate the need to enter information into both ENFORCE and 

DACS, and to eliminate the parallel tracking systems that field offices use to 

supplement DACS. 

The second upgrade, the ENFORCE Removals Module, is projected to be 

operational between April 2007 and January 2008. According to GAO, the 

ENFORCE Removals Module “will eventually be able to automatically 

identify which aliens are due for a post order custody review and generate key 

information such as when aliens should be notified of the review and when the 

review is to be done.”20 

Field Offices Are Not Consistently Monitoring Compliance

Due to staffing constraints, the HQCDU must limit its oversight efforts to the 

180-day post-order custody review, habeas corpus cases for which 

headquarters assistance has been requested, special circumstances cases, and 

field training site visits during which trainers review 90-day POCR cases and 

failure to comply cases. Headquarters staff advised us that its monthly 

deficiencies reports on the 180-day cases demonstrate that the quality of the 

180-day submissions is improving. However, headquarters staff also said that 

the quality of information received still varies by field office, and obtaining 

additional information from the field can be a major part of the decisionmaking process for 180-day cases. 

In a February 2006 memorandum to the field, ICE DRO stressed that the Field 

Office Director or Deputy must “thoroughly review POCR worksheets and 

written decisions prior to signing. All POCR case reviews must be completed 

within the timeframes specified in regulations. Information contained in the 

POCR worksheet must be accurate and complete, and all written decisions 

must be legally sufficient and in compliance with current regulations and 

 

20 GAO-04-434, May 2004, page 14. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 25 

policy.”21 Our file review indicated that Field Office Directors are not 

consistently reviewing the quality and timeliness of field notifications and 

decisions. Of the 68 POCR worksheets we reviewed, only 4 had not been 

signed by the Field Office Director, Deputy, or Acting Director. However, 

almost half of the POCR worksheets had material deficiencies, which we 

depict in Appendix G. In addition, as demonstrated in Figure 2, notifications 

and decisions were not consistently completed or timely. Until ENFORCE 

has the capability to track regulatory compliance automatically, increased 

monitoring and case-specific reporting by Field Office Directors represents 

the most practical interim option for verifying compliance. 

TDU Support for the POCR Process Is Not Adequate 

The TDU is responsible for assisting field offices when post-order custody 

cases have passed 75 days without receiving a travel document, and for 

assisting with all cases from countries for which obtaining travel documents is 

particularly difficult. In July 2006, DACS indicated that there were 3,157 

POCR cases over 75 days old, and an additional 1,282 cases from countries 

for which the field must request immediate TDU assistance. The TDU is also 

responsible for non-detained post-order custody cases, which was reported to 

be 749,695 active alien cases in July 2006. In addition to requesting 

individual travel documents for field offices, the TDU is responsible for 

supporting ICE field offices abroad, and for negotiating with foreign 

governments to obtain cooperation on travel document issuance. The TDU’s 

staffing has fluctuated between three and six permanent deportation officers, 

with a few other staff detailed to provide additional support. The TDU has 

been recently authorized to hire 12 full time deportation officers. 

The TDU Chief told us that inadequate staffing and funding meant that the 

TDU has not provided field offices with adequate training and guidance on 

obtaining travel documents. In discussing successful strategies for obtaining 

travel documents, the TDU Chief said that each country has its own 

citizenship laws and procedural requirements and if deportation officers do 

not follow these requirements, the chances of obtaining a travel document 

decrease. During our site visits, we observed that while three of the field 

offices routinely obtained and used some of the travel document applications 

required by the alien’s country of origin, four other field offices were 

 

21 Memorandum from the Acting Director, ICE DRO, to Field Office Directors, “Delegation of Authority for Post-Order 

Custody Review Decisions,” February 22, 2006. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 26 

routinely sending foreign consulates nothing more than passport photographs 

and a DHS Form I-217, Information for Travel Document or Passport. The 

DHS Form I-217 is completed at apprehension or detention with information 

on the alien’s biography and on available identity or travel documents. The 

four offices generally completed travel document request forms required by 

the alien’s country of origin only when asked to do so by the foreign 

consulate. The TDU Chief observed that a website with links to nationality 

laws and a checklist of required forms for each country of origin would 

enhance the quality of travel requests that officers in the field submit to 

consulates on receiving the final order. The TDU Chief said that the TDU 

would need additional staff and funding to conduct or contract out the 

necessary research and website updates. 

The TDU Chief also said that the unit’s 

ability to assist field offices is limited by the 

quality of travel document requests it 

receives. Despite issuing detailed guidance 

to field offices on requirements for 

forwarding travel document requests to the 

TDU, the TDU receives many requests that 

consist of only a partially completed Form I217 and passport photographs.22 For 

example, we observed the TDU Chief 

reviewing several travel document requests; 

the majority of which had only passport photographs and an incomplete Form 

I-217, and a few of which had only the passport photographs and a letter 

requesting assistance. 

The TDU Chief explained that current staffing levels mean that the TDU 

cannot obtain information from the field in order to complete each Form I-217 

before sending it to the consulate, so the TDU must decide whether to send 

the incomplete information to the consulate, or return the package to the field 

office for completion. Moreover, because there is no mechanism in place for 

tracking and prioritizing travel document requests, the TDU cannot easily 

provide field offices with feedback on deficiencies and cannot identify and 

prioritize cases for which release within the United States could have the most 

serious consequences. 

 

22 Memorandum for Field Office Directors, from the Director, Office of Detention and Removal, Subject: “Requests for 

Assistance in Obtaining Travel Documents,” August 21, 2003. 

TDU Assistance 

A British subject with a nonviolent criminal record 

apprehended on the Canadian 

border spent more than six 

months in detention without a 

post-order custody review. 

His protracted 

correspondence with the 

British consulate eventually 

resulted in a travel document.
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 27 

More complete travel document requests submitted by field offices, when they 

assume custody of an alien with a final order of removal, will not address all 

of the issues that cause countries of origin to deny or delay the issuance of 

travel documents. However, providing more complete field office requests is 

prudent and could reduce detention time for some POCR cases. Further, 

additional training, guidance, and oversight on obtaining travel documents by 

the TDU will be more feasible once the TDU receives additional staffing. 

This assistance could also shorten detention time for some POCR cases. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement: 

1. Direct that each Field Office Director report case-specific compliance 

with POCR regulations and guidance to the HQCDU on a quarterly 

basis, and that the HQCDU report these results to the Assistant 

Secretary on a semi-annual basis until such information can be 

obtained through ENFORCE. 

2. Ensure that existing vacancies in the TDU are filled and, as staff or 

funding becomes available, ensure the TDU upgrades its intranet to 

provide country-specific guidance on obtaining travel documents, 

including information on nationality laws and checklists of required 

information, to field deportation officers. 

Making Removals a Priority Requires Additional Resources, Support, 

and Oversight 

We identified weaknesses in the POCR process that cannot be easily resolved 

with current staffing and technological resources. ICE must develop capacity 

building measures that address these weaknesses if it is to manage increasing 

detention numbers. Both the HQCDU and TDU have relied on staff detailed 

from field offices to fill short-term staffing needs. Detailing field officers is 

not just a means of addressing staffing shortages; it offers an opportunity to 

introduce practical and innovative responses to these challenges. During our 

fieldwork, we observed locally developed best practices that improved the 

timeliness, efficiency, and quality of post-order custody reviews. For 

example, one office used a combination of check sheets and weekly file 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 28 

reviews to ensure that all POCR notifications and decisions were timely and 

complete. (See Appendix H: Procedural Challenges and Best Practices for 

additional examples). 

Removals of National Interest Cases and Dangerous Aliens 

Should Be Prioritized 

The Supreme Court decisions in Zadvydas and Martinez require that those 

aliens who cannot be removed be released within the United States, with a few 

stringent exceptions for “special circumstances cases,” which are further 

limited by some federal courts. While the Supreme Court decision and the 

regulations require that the alien demonstrate that removal cannot be effected, 

in practice HQCDU initiates the 180-day review and determines whether there 

is a significant likelihood of removal, and following this review, field 

deportation officers assume responsibility for initiating subsequent reviews. 

Yet ICE had little evidence that it is prioritizing the removal of aliens who are 

violent criminals, have suspected terrorist ties, or have been ordered removed 

as war criminals, and consequently they may be released within the United 

States. 

For example, aliens with a violent criminal 

history–including those with mental health 

problems or convictions for domestic violence 

or sexual assault–were no more likely to have 

received a timely review, been served required 

notices, have accurate language in the denial 

letter, have complete travel document 

information, or have been flagged at an early 

stage to obtain HQCDU assistance with removal 

or supervised release. Because many halfway 

houses and other institutions refuse aliens with 

mental health problems and a history of 

violence or criminal activity, making such arrangements can be a difficult and 

lengthy process. Additionally, ICE does not advise the TDU that these cases 

require expedited processing to hasten the removal of aliens who pose a threat 

to public safety, national security, or the national interest. Figure 4 illustrates 

a range of criminals versus non-criminals among the cases we reviewed, and 

numbers released, detained, or deported. Of the 68 cases we reviewed, 38 

Prioritization 

One Mariel Cuban who had 

been convicted of assault 

and battery on a child, and 

whose release criteria 

specified placement in a 

halfway house with 

supervision, was instead 

released to a first-comefirst-served homeless 

shelter. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 29 

involved aliens who were violent or posed a potential threat to the national 

interest. Of the 38 cases, 11 aliens were released and only 1 was removed. 

Figure 4: File Review of 68 POCR Case Dispositions 

Violent Criminal

(10 Cases)

No Criminal

Record

(20 Cases)

National Interest

(6 Cases) 3 3

Continued in Detention

Released

Removed

15 3 2

8 2

Domestic Violence,

Sexual Assault

(13 Cases)

8 4 1

7 2

Violent Criminal with

Mental Problems

(9 Cases)

4 4 2 Non-Violent Criminal

(10 Cases)

Source: OIG File Review

Even violent criminal aliens who require treatment for mental illness are 

entitled to release after 180 days, unless the federal government demonstrates 

that the violent behavior is due to a mental condition, the alien is likely to 

engage in acts of violence in the future, and no condition of release can ensure 

the safety of the public. Of the cases we reviewed, ten aliens had both mental 

health problems and convictions for violent behavior, but only one had been 

formally certified as “specially dangerous”–a requirement to justify continued 

detention. ICE was not able to obtain travel documents for the remaining 

nine, four of whom were from countries that rarely take back their nationals. 

The remaining five were from countries that issue documents sporadically or 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 30 

have procedural requirements that an alien with mental health problems could 

not easily meet. Deportation officers were therefore responsible for arranging 

suitable release conditions. Five of the nine cases, still unresolved at 180 

days, were referred to ICE headquarters, which then referred them to the 

Public Health Service for placement. One HQCDU official told us that this 

process could take three to six months, even after the Public Health Service 

receives the case. A Public Health Service official commented that ICE field 

officers have neither the social work training nor the contacts with mental 

health facilities to assist in the placement of these aliens. The Public Health 

Service official said that without professional assistance, the placement 

process can be time-consuming and may result in inappropriate placement or 

in the failure to secure any placement. The Public Health Service is generally 

not involved in field level placements and when the cases are referred to ICE 

headquarters at 180 days, the Public Health Service feels pressure from ICE to 

resolve the cases quickly. 

National security and national interest cases do 

not receive more intensive monitoring as they 

move through the POCR process. These cases 

are typically considered for continued 

detention as “special circumstances” cases. 

ICE had identified six aliens in our review as 

potential national security risks or human 

rights violators, all from countries to which 

removal is difficult. For three of the six, 

several federal agencies, including ICE 

Fugitive Operations, had put considerable 

effort into apprehending the aliens and 

securing a final order of removal. Again, field 

office files were not prioritized nor were there 

any heightened efforts to monitor or remove these aliens. The HQCDU kept a 

file on only one of those detained after a final order for more than 90 days but 

less than 180. Only two of the six national security and national interest 

aliens were flagged in DACS to ensure that ICE headquarters was consulted 

before any action was taken. ICE’s Human Rights Law Division provided 

assistance on one of the human rights violator cases, and the HQCDU had 

cleared the denial letter of one national security risk case, but the alien files 

for four of these six cases were among the 32 files we present in Appendix G 

as having material deficiencies. 

National Interest 

A denaturalized Nazi war 

criminal did not receive any 

of the required review 

notices, his post-order 

custody review was late, no 

alert placed on his record in 

DACS, and he was entered 

into the Detention and 

Removal Information 

Management System only as 

a travel document request 

case, not as a POCR case. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 31 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement: 

3. Develop and staff a program to identify and prioritize cases involving 

aliens who represent a violent threat to the public or are national 

security or national interest cases, so that efforts to secure travel 

documents are expedited, and placement procedures are initiated early 

for those who might require eventual release within the United States. 

Likelihood of Removal Standard Needs to be Documented 

and Transparent 

In the Zadvydas decision, the Supreme Court said, “for detention to remain 

reasonable, as the period of prior post-removal confinement grows, what 

counts as the ‘reasonably foreseeable future’ conversely would have to 

shrink.”23 While ICE regulations provide a list of factors for determining 

whether there is a significant likelihood of removal, they do not refer to, or 

provide guidance on, how to apply the Supreme Court’s requirement that the 

decision to detain be subject to greater scrutiny over time.24 Moreover, 

because ICE regulations require that the significant likelihood decision be 

made at headquarters, the HQCDU has not developed written guidance for the 

field beyond the language in the Supreme Court decision and the regulations. 

When we asked the TDU how it defined the significant likelihood of return, 

the TDU said it takes into account five factors: (1) actions by the country of 

origin; (2) the country’s level of interest in cooperating; (3) whether travel 

documents are issued consistently even if documents are issued well after the 

180-day milestone; (4) whether repatriation requirements can be met; and, (5) 

feedback the TDU receives from the consulates. The TDU said that its 

deportation officers rely on their knowledge of documentary requirements, 

and general experience on return rates, when assessing whether there is a 

significant likelihood of removal. However, because ICE does not track 

actual removal rates, it is not developing statistics on the likelihood of 

removal by nationality, or assessing the accuracy of its predictions based on 

these five factors. 

 

23 Zadvydas v. Davis 533 U.S. 678 (2001), at 701. 24 8 CFR § 241.13(f). 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 32 

After reviewing denial letters, POCR worksheets, other documentation in 

alien files, entries in DACS and the headquarters Detention And Removal 

Information Management System, headquarters files on 180-day cases, and 

declarations prepared by TDU officers defending continued detention 

following a habeas corpus decision, we conclude that ICE DRO rarely 

provides specific evidence to explain its significant likelihood determinations. 

Further, ICE rarely provides specific estimates of the time required to obtain 

travel documents, and rarely identifies additional measures it would need to 

take to secure the documents. 

While headquarters ICE DRO staff might 

not need extensive documentation to 

explain 180-day post-order custody 

reviews, field officers responsible for 

managing the cases after the 180-day 

denial, the United States Attorney’s 

Offices, and federal judges who respond 

to petitions of habeas corpus must make 

decisions based on the information 

provided by ICE DRO headquarters. 

Most of the detention decisions reviewed, 

including both the 180-day denials and 

TDU habeas corpus declarations, 

provided only limited statements that return was possible in the alien’s case, 

that ICE could effect returns to the alien’s country of origin, or that there are 

no permanent barriers to return. 

According to the ICE DRO Field Manual, “For All Cases Over 180 Days (90 

Days Beyond the 90-Day Removal Period) HQ[CDU] will hold jurisdiction 

for custody decisions pursuant to 8 CFR § 241.4, § 241.13, and § 241.14. The 

field officer will retain responsibility for docket control, case management, 

completion of future reviews, and will continue appropriate follow up efforts 

to remove the alien. Once HQ[CDU] issues a decision to continue detention 

and the alien has not been removed within a reasonable time frame, the local 

field office is to inform HQ[CDU] by way of a memorandum (which is also to 

include any updates to the POCR package) so that a new custody decision 

under 8 CFR § 241.13 may be made.”25 While headquarters guidance requires 

field officers to notify headquarters when an alien is not removed “within a 

reasonable time frame,” HQCDU 180-day decisions to detain do not provide 

 

25 ICE DRO Field Manual Chapter 17, Section 17.11 (b). 

Likelihood Of Removal 

A non-criminal alien has been 

detained with a final order since 

April 2005. The HQCDU denied 

release, as recommended by the 

Field Office Director, because the 

“government of Ethiopia regularly 

issues travel documents to effect the 

repatriation of its nationals.” 

Although Ethiopia subsequently 

denied the request, the alien remains 

detained pending a removal request 

to Eritrea. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 33 

field officers with an estimate of what is reasonable for a given country of 

origin and an alien’s circumstances. These decisions also provide little basis 

for United States Attorney’s Offices and federal judges to assess habeas 

corpus petitions. The Chief of the TDU told us that when the country of 

origin is accepting some removals, ICE will generally contest the habeas 

corpus petition, but that some detention decisions cannot be defended when a 

petition has been filed. 

There is great value in tracking travel document issuance rates and compiling 

comprehensive statistics. For example, one successful TDU declaration to 

defend continued detention following a habeas corpus petition cited statistics 

compiled by the British government. An objective metric, such as the time 

required to remove 80%, or 90%, of aliens to a given country of origin, could 

assist field deportation officers in making release decisions, support ICE in 

conducting negotiations with countries of origin, and assist ICE and the 

United States Attorney’s Offices in determining whether to defend continued 

detention when a habeas corpus petition is filed. Additional country-specific 

or case-specific information would allow ICE the flexibility to make release 

decisions early in the POCR process, or to continue detention beyond the 

typical travel document issuance date. However, the TDU’s need for 

additional staff and the necessary technological infrastructure extends to its 

inability to track and analyze return rates by country of origin. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement: 

4. Develop an objective and transparent methodology for determining 

whether there is a significant likelihood of removal for all cases, which 

considers: (1) the Supreme Court’s requirement for increasing 

scrutiny over time; (2) the factors outlined in ICE regulations; and, 

(3) comprehensive statistics on actual removal rates for all POCR 

cases forwarded to the TDU. 

Oversight of Aliens Held Longer Than 180 Days Is 

Insufficient 

Although the burden on the federal government increases the longer an alien 

is held in detention, ICE regulations and procedures provide less oversight and 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 34 

review after an alien has been held 180 days. Citing the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Zadvydas, ICE guidance acknowledges, “the longer an alien 

remains in ICE custody with a final order, the higher the government’s burden 

to establish that the alien’s removal will occur in the reasonably foreseeable 

future.”26 Yet some aliens are held for reasons that appear to weaken with 

time. In addition, others cases appear to be at an impasse, with neither the 

alien nor ICE taking steps to resolve the situation. Such cases would benefit 

from a broader range of strategies to ensure regulatory compliance and the 

most effective use of existing resources, such as detention space. 

ICE procedures require field deportation 

officers to monitor the status of aliens who 

have received a 180-day “significant likelihood 

of removal” decision, give non-compliant 

aliens an opportunity to comply every 30 days, 

and update the case in DACS at a minimum of 

every 30 days. Beyond these requirements, the 

guidance requires a file review 90 days after 

the 180-day decision, and the resubmission of 

the POCR worksheet 180 days after the initial 

180-day decision. Yet neither review requires 

additional actions that could facilitate an alien’s removal or release. For 

example, the review does not require a request for a written decision from a 

consulate on travel document requests, an interview with the alien to obtain 

more current information on the alien’s efforts to secure travel documents, or 

a discussion with the alien on possible release options. Nor is there evidence 

in the files that post-180 day reviews are consistently conducted. Of the 150 

POCR cases we reviewed, 64 (43%) had been in detention with a final order 

for more than 180 days and had not received a post-order custody review in 

the last 90 days, and 36 (24%) had not received a review in the last 180 days. 

These figures include cases where the detainee had a stay of removal, was 

removed from the POCR process timeline for failure to comply, or had 

already received a 180-day review, as well as those who should have received 

a 180-day review and did not. 

Continued detention of these aliens is not closely monitored, and the basis for 

headquarters’ decision on the likelihood of securing travel documents may not 

be fully articulated or might not remain relevant. For instance, negotiations 

on returns underway during the 180-day post-order custody review might have 

 

26 ICE DRO Field Manual, Chapter 17, Removal Process: Post Order Custody Reviews (POCR) Section 17.3(b). 

Post 180-Day Oversight

One detained Indian’s travel 

document request was 

submitted in October 2004. 

The last documented review 

of the likelihood of issuance 

of a travel document in the 

reasonably foreseeable future 

took place in April 2005. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 35 

stalled. For aliens detained after a 180-day review, field deportation officers 

continue to manage the case, but in many instances do not have information to 

determine whether a significant likelihood of removal still exists, unless they 

receive an explicit denial from the consulate. Further, aliens do not appear to 

be providing sufficient information to field deportation officers: of the 68 

aliens who received POCR decisions, only 25 (37%) had submitted 

information relevant to the release criteria, either in a prior immigration 

hearing or during the POCR process. 

For those aliens who fail to comply with 

removal efforts, continued detention might not 

be based on the criteria specified in the 

regulations and guidance. For example, failure 

to comply decisions do not consistently follow 

guidance, and are not consistently documented 

in required monthly warnings. In addition, 

deportation officers currently have few options 

when aliens fail to comply. For instance, at 

least five of the removal cases held for more 

than 180 days involved aliens who were 

obscuring their nationality. However, 

deportation officers did not have access to linguistic or cultural experts who 

could have provided assistance in determining the alien’s country of origin. 

While there have been successful prosecutions for failure to comply, most 

United States Attorney’s Offices do not consider such cases a priority. 

Moreover, while some field offices have integrated pro bono organizations 

into the POCR process, field offices that do not might be limiting options for 

resolving impasses and avoiding some habeas corpus releases. Before DHS 

was created, the role of pro bono organizations was more institutionalized in 

immigration processes. These organizations had access to detainees through 

free telephone service and “know your rights” presentations at detention 

facilities. In addition, most field office directors met periodically with pro 

bono organizations to discuss systemic issues. Such coordination was prudent 

as it established a conduit for issue resolution. Issues that could not be 

resolved at the field office level could then be challenged in court. 

When DHS was created, field offices were separated into benefits 

administration and enforcement functions. Some pro bono organization 

representatives we interviewed said that there was no longer a routine 

mechanism for addressing post-order custody review issues with ICE Field 

TDU Assistance 

A Federal Bureau of 

Investigation translator and 

two Iranian consuls 

questioned an alien’s claim 

that he was Iranian, based on 

his dialect and poor 

knowledge of the country. 

Years later he was still 

detained as an Iranian failure 

to comply case. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 36 

Office Directors. The field offices that work closely with pro bono

organizations cited examples of how DHS benefits from such cooperation. 

They said that the pro bono organizations could provide: (1) assistance with 

release of aliens with mental health problems; (2) independent advice to aliens 

who mistakenly believed they are entitled to release at six months even when 

the alien failed to cooperate or filed successive stays of removal; and, 

(3) notification when aliens and their consulates have difficulty 

communicating. For example, we were told by pro bono organizations that 

the telephones in many detention facilities do not allow detainees free access 

to their consulates and pro bono organizations, as required by detention 

facility standards. We confirmed that in only one of the seven facilities we 

visited were all telephones correctly programmed to allow free calls. 

Communication with consulates was further constrained when consulates had 

not taken measures to enable detainee calls to be answered by automated 

systems. 

When avenues for direct communication with ICE officials do not exist, pro 

bono organizations appear to rely on the courts to review compliance with 

post-order custody review regulations. Three pro bono organizations reported 

that they consider the habeas corpus petition the most effective way to obtain 

review after 180 days. Field deportation officers and an Office of Principal 

Legal Advisor said that, while many decisions to detain can be supported 

against a habeas corpus petition, in some cases the United States Attorney’s 

Office is unwilling to defend the decision due to workload priorities. In other 

habeas corpus cases, aliens have been released due to insufficient 

documentation in the file to support continued detention. While not all 

habeas corpus petitions filed are recorded in the Detention and Removal 

Information Management System, the database does document that, between 

January 2005 and April 2006, in 78 of the 185 (42%) habeas corpus petitions 

on file, the alien was released. The database does not provide the reason for 

many of the decisions, does not document whether ICE had already made a 

decision to release at the time the habeas corpus petition was filed, and does 

not document whether the individual was released before a federal judge 

heard the case. The total number of habeas corpus petitions tracked in 

Detention and Removal Information Management System since 2001 is 2,152, 

of which 958 (45%) aliens were released. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 37 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement: 

5. Develop and staff a program to improve oversight of all aliens who 

have been in detention longer than 180 days after a final order of 

removal. Oversight should include periodic field office meetings with 

local pro bono organizations. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

We evaluated ICE DRO’s written comments and have made changes to the 

report where we deemed appropriate. Below is a summary of ICE DRO’s 

written response to the report’s recommendations and our analysis of the 

response. A copy of ICE DRO’s response, in its entirety, is recorded in 

Appendix B. 

Recommendation 1: Direct that each Field Office Director report casespecific compliance with Post-Order Custody Review regulations and 

guidance to the Custody Determination Unit (HQCDU) on a quarterly basis 

and that the HQCDU report these results to the Assistant Secretary on a semiannual basis until such information can be obtained through Enforcement 

Case Tracking System (ENFORCE). 

ICE DRO Response: ICE DRO responded this recommendation has been 

satisfied through its current procedures and recommends it be closed. ICE 

DRO said it has an established case-specific compliance program, where a 

monthly report is generated, which makes establishing quarterly reporting 

redundant. Each month all Field Office Directors provide case-specific 

updates on all final order aliens detained post-180 days. DRO’s HQCDU 

oversees the reports from field offices and reports back to the Field Office 

Directors for action on cases in which deficiencies are noted. Also, the 

HQCDU uses the monthly report, in conjunction with its site visits to field 

offices, to monitor and maintain quality control of the POCR process. After 

each site visit, a detailed report is provided by the HQCDU to the DRO 

Director. 

Moreover, headquarters DRO proposes to begin reporting the monthly 180-

day case review results to the DRO Director, who reports directly to the 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 38 

Assistant Secretary. For the review of 90-day POCR cases, headquarters 

DRO will establish, within the next 90 days, an enhanced review process to 

ensure better compliance with regulations and policies, such as random 

sampling of pre-180 day cases. Also, additional review initiatives will be 

introduced through the case management system that will replace DACS. 

OIG Evaluation: We consider these actions not responsive to the intent of 

the recommendation. The recommendation is unresolved and open. ICE 

DRO proposes short-term quality assurance measures that would not address 

the concerns our report raises. Although the HQCDU site visits can provide 

valuable feedback on substantive issues, ICE needs to verify compliance with 

its regulations and guidance on the service of all: notification documents; 

failure to comply warnings; and conduct of 90-day, 180-day, and post-180 day 

reviews. We recommended each Field Office Director report to the HQCDU 

case-specific compliance with POCR regulations and guidance on a quarterly 

basis and that these results be reported to the Assistant Secretary on a semiannual basis until such information can be obtained through the Enforcement 

Case Tracking System (ENFORCE). We made this recommendation because 

our file review indicated that Field Office Directors are not consistently 

reviewing the quality and timeliness of field notifications and decisions. Of 

the 68 POCR worksheets we reviewed, only 4 had not been signed by the 

Field Office Director, Deputy, or Acting Director. However, almost half of 

the POCR worksheets had material deficiencies, which we depict in Appendix 

G of the report. In addition, as demonstrated in the report’s Figure 2, 

notifications and decisions were not consistently completed or timely. As 

Field Office Directors or their delegates sign most POCR documents, they are 

uniquely positioned to track, monitor, and report compliance. Some field 

offices have already introduced tracking systems and checklists that would 

meet this requirement. 

Further, the Assistant Secretary should have a familiarity with the quality and 

timeliness of decisions Field Office Directors are signing to determine 

whether existing programs and resources for training, monitoring, and 

oversight are sufficient. Reporting requirements are temporary measures until 

ENFORCE can provide such information. 

Recommendation 2: Ensure that existing vacancies in the Travel Document 

Unit (TDU) are filled and, as staff or funding becomes available, ensure that 

TDU upgrades its intranet to provide country-specific guidance on obtaining 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 39 

travel documents, including information on nationality laws and checklists of 

required information to field deportation officers. 

ICE DRO Response: ICE DRO concurred with this recommendation. It said 

that vacancy announcements have been posted and that as the seven vacancies 

are filled, TDU staff will obtain updates on the travel document process in 

specific countries. TDU will update its intranet site with field advisories and 

other information deemed necessary and useful to field offices. 

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

recommendation. This recommendation is resolved, but remains open 

pending receipt of additional action items and documentation. For example, 

we want notification when the vacancies have been filled and when a program 

is in place to introduce and update the intranet to assist field offices with 

country of origin information. 

Recommendation 3: Develop and staff a program to identify and prioritize 

cases involving aliens who represent a violent threat to the public or are 

national security or national interest cases, so that efforts to secure travel 

documents are expedited, and placement procedures are initiated early for 

those who might require eventual release within the United States. 

ICE DRO Response: ICE DRO responded the HQCDU has staff dedicated 

to the case management of aliens deemed to be a national security interest, as 

well as the placement of aliens for whom release is warranted but whose 

mental condition and prior violent tendencies may pose a threat to the 

community. DRO works with other ICE components, as well as other law 

enforcement agencies, to identify cases of special interest and to ensure that 

appropriate action is taken before release or removal. In addition, DRO has 

established a working group with the Department of State to assist in the 

removal of these aliens. As more staff is added, the HQCDU and TDU will 

ensure that additional resources are assigned to the oversight of these cases, as 

their proper handling is a priority for DRO. 

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

recommendation. This recommendation is resolved, but remains open 

pending receipt of additional action items and documentation. For example 

we want notification when vacancies have been filled and when a program is 

in place to identify and prioritize cases. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 40 

Recommendation 4: Develop an objective and transparent methodology for 

determining whether there is a significant likelihood of removal for all cases, 

which considers: (1) the Supreme Court’s requirement for increasing scrutiny 

over time; (2) the factors outlined in ICE regulations; and (3) comprehensive 

statistics on actual removal rates for all POCR cases forwarded to the TDU. 

ICE DRO Response: ICE DRO responded it does not concur with this 

recommendation and recommends it be closed. ICE DRO said any 

methodology must be subject to case-specific circumstances, changes in 

country conditions, and diplomatic relationships. Requiring such a 

methodology is comparable to requiring a methodology that defines “beyond a 

reasonable doubt” in the criminal proceedings context. ICE DRO said it 

believes sufficient guidance is already provided and that it is difficult to 

develop a transparent methodology appropriate to the circumstances of all 

cases. Further, the HQCDU issues all significant likelihood of removal 

decisions. ICE DRO also provided examples of cases in which judicial 

requirements, congressional private bills, consular standards, and diplomatic 

relations could affect the likelihood of removal. 

OIG Evaluation: We consider these actions not responsive to the intent of 

the recommendation. The recommendation is unresolved and open. The 

issues ICE DRO raises do not interfere with its ability to develop an objective 

and transparent methodology, and are not in conflict with its need to establish 

one. 

ICE DRO’s methodology for 90-day decisions, provided through regulations 

and field guidance, demonstrate that an objective and transparent 

methodology is consistent with making decisions based on the facts of each 

case, and can serve as a model for developing written criteria for 180-day and 

post-180 day decisions. 

ICE DRO makes thousands of decisions on POCR cases each year, and many 

should be analyzed to identify the effect on removals for such factors as 

country of origin, consular office and officer, ongoing negotiations or 

sanctions, available documentation, the presence or absence of criminal and 

mental health factors, and the need to identify a third country to accept aliens 

who cannot be removed to a country of origin. Therefore, the overall 

accuracy of HQCDU’s predictions could and ought to be tracked and analyzed 

to inform future decisions on detention, and the equally important negotiations 

with countries of origin. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 41 

Although HQCDU makes all 180-day and post-180-day POCR decisions, 

once the 180-day decision has been made, responsibility for monitoring cases 

and initiating subsequent reviews shifts to deportation officers in the field. 

HQCDU has cited only two circumstances in which field officers would have 

information to initiate a post-180 day review: (1) when the consulate issues 

the field office a formal denial, which ICE officials reported is uncommon, 

and (2) when six months after the 180-day review have elapsed. Relying on 

one of those two events to trigger a post-180 day review is not sufficient to 

meet the Supreme Court’s requirement that scrutiny of a decision to detain be 

increased over time. Absent a written decision from the HQCDU, that 

provides the basis for the 180-day decision and a written projection on when 

necessary actions by the alien, the alien’s government, the United States 

government, or other responsible parties, will have occurred, deportation 

officers do not have necessary information to determine when to initiate a 

review of post-180 day detention. Also, initiation of a review at this stage 

does not automatically compel the HQCDU to release the alien. 

Moreover, the decisions made by the HQCDU could be, and are, challenged 

in court through writ of habeas corpus petitions. While the HQCDU does not 

track all aliens released in response to a habeas corpus challenge, available 

statistics from the HQCDU database suggest that approximately 40% of 

POCR aliens are released after a habeas corpus petition is filed. This release 

rate implies government entities, including the HQCDU, the Office of the 

Principal Legal Advisor, United States Attorney’s Office, and federal court 

judges, are finding the decisions made under the existing system can not be 

supported when challenged. Below we provide an explanation of one possible 

model for developing a methodology, which incorporates specific country, 

event, and case criteria. 
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 42 

OIG Sample Methodology: 

Statistical Measures and Return Rates Compiled by ICE DRO

Deportation Officers’ Knowledge and Experience

Diplomatic Efforts, such as Pilot Programs,

Planned Negotiations, and Potential

Sanctions

Current or Emerging Country Conditions

Consulate

Information

ICE DRO 180-Day Decision Triangle

In this model, ICE DRO considers information from the following sources, from bottom to top,

when making 180-day and “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable

future” decisions. Each level modifies information from the one below. Levels also progress

from providing regularly available information for all cases, such as our recommended

analysis of return rates for all aliens, to country- and case- specific information, such as pilot

programs or a consulate’s decision on a particular detainee.

Detainee

Submissions

DRO considers...

...and makes a decision to

release, remove or detain an

alien under “significant

likelihood of removal in the

reasonably foreseeable

future” guidance.

HQCDU provides the field

office with a written

decision including:

Source: OIG Analysis

U.S. Legal Restrictions - Return rates most

relevant to the alien's

country of origin and

profile (criminal,

mental health)

- Basis of decision to

detain (historic return

rate, event or casespecific decision)

- Assessment of a

reasonable timeframe

needed to effect

removal in this case
 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 43 

Recommendation 5: Develop and staff a program to improve oversight of all 

aliens who have been in detention longer than 180 days after a final order of 

removal. Oversight should include periodic field office meetings with local 

pro bono organizations. 

ICE DRO Response: ICE DRO responded the HQCDU has a program in 

place to monitor aliens who have been in detention longer than 180 days after 

a final order of removal. ICE said the program has succeeded in decreasing 

deficiencies in case management. However, due to limited staffing, the 

HQCDU has prioritized and concentrated its effort on overseeing post-order 

aliens in detention for more than 180 days. Additional funding will allow ICE 

DRO to increase the HQCDU staffing levels and enable the unit to more 

proactively implement the program. Also, ICE DRO plans to conduct annual 

site visits to all field offices, closely monitor post-order detained cases, and 

continue to provide training. ICE DRO concurred that field offices meet with 

pro bono organizations periodically, but does not agree that these meetings 

should be tied to the “oversight” function, because this function is operational 

in nature. 

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

recommendation. This recommendation is resolved, but remains open 

pending receipt of additional action items and documentation. For example, 

we want notification when vacancies have been filled, and when a program is 

in place to improve oversight of aliens who have been in detention longer than 

180 days. For clarification, we are not suggesting pro bono organizations 

would conduct oversight of the program, only that such organizations are a 

source of information on potential compliance issues, can assist in resolving 

post-180 day cases, and can–and do–raise compliance issues in court if they 

are not resolved at the local field office level. Guidance to field offices on 

periodic meetings with pro bono organizations ought to emphasize this 

distinction to avoid confusion. 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 44 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

We reviewed ICE’s compliance with detention time limits for aliens with a 

final order of removal, including the reasons for exceptions or noncompliance. During our review, we focused on three areas: 

• Compliance with the Supreme Court rulings in Zadvydas v. Davis 533 

U.S. 678 (2001) and Clark v. Martinez 543 U.S. 371 (2005), and 

implementing regulations. 

• The quality of guidance provided by the HQCDU. 

• ICE’s management practices, including its ability to track and 

prioritize cases and conduct nationwide quality assurance. 

The review included interviews with ICE headquarters and field staff, analysis 

of monthly reports from the DACS database, site visits to 7 of ICE DRO’s 53 

docket control offices, two each in ICE’s western and central regions, and 

three in its eastern region, and a review of selected alien files. ICE DRO is 

divided into 3 regions, 22 field offices (formerly districts), and 53 docket 

control offices. Two of the sites we visited were in the same field office, but 

under different docket control offices. The review did not address the 

sufficiency of release decisions, the success of alternatives to detention, or 

ongoing negotiations with foreign governments. 

Two of the field sites were chosen because either ICE or pro bono

organizations recommended them as best practices sites. Five were selected 

because ICE, pro bono organizations, or an analysis of data in DACS 

indicated there might be program deficiencies. The review also included 

telephone interviews with supervisors at three ICE field offices identified by 

ICE and pro bono organizations as having best practices. Because site 

selection was not random, the results of our review cannot be considered 

representative of the performance of ICE field offices nationwide. 

Our work at each site consisted of three elements: staff interviews, a tour of a 

local detention center, and POCR case file reviews. We interviewed officials 

throughout DRO as well as attorneys from the Office of Principal Legal 

Advisor. We also spoke with Public Health Service officials who help place 

detainees with mental health problems. Our headquarters and field visits 

included meetings with pro bono organizations that represent detained aliens. 

Our tours of detention facility focused on detainees’ ability to communicate 

with their consulates and legal representatives, their access to legal materials, 

and visitation policies and other services. 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 45 

Our file review covered 210 POCR cases requested from DRO field offices. 

We selected those cases from the following categories: 

1) Mexicans and Central Americans – these countries have historically 

placed a high priority on facilitating return of their nationals as quickly 

as possible, so detentions beyond 90 days required explanation. 

2) Countries refusing or delaying repatriation of nationals – these 

countries historically have either refused to accept their nationals, are 

slow in processing requests, or have unusually stringent standards of 

proof of citizenship (Cambodia, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Haiti, 

India, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Laos, Pakistan, and Vietnam). 

3) Countries whose nationals appear less frequently in the POCR 

caseload, making travel document requests less common – these 

include countries in Africa and Europe. 

4) Detainees with DACS entries that indicated long detention time – 

irrespective of nationality, those aliens who have been detained past 

the 180 days, in some cases for several years. 

Case information was extracted from DACS and from ICE headquarters’ 

monthly 180-day report. We also reviewed a balance of criminal versus noncriminal detainees and removable versus inadmissible aliens. Because males 

were disproportionately represented in all but one site, we generally reviewed 

all female detainee cases. Our file review results cannot be generalized to the 

POCR program as a whole, since the review focused on cases where the 

DACS monthly report suggested anomalies and countries for which 

deportation officers have less experience obtaining travel documents. 

Fieldwork began in April 2006 and was completed in July 2006. This review 

was conducted under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, and according to the Quality Standards for Inspections, issued by 

the President’s Council of Integrity and Efficiency. 

We would like to offer our appreciation for the cooperation and courtesies 

extended by ICE to our staff during this review. 

.
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 46 

Management Response to Draft Report 

Appendix B: Management Response to Draft Report 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 47 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 48 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 49 
Appendix C 

Supplementary Management Response 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 50 

Appendix C: Supplementary Management Response 
Appendix C 

Supplementary Management Response 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 51 
Appendix D 

POCR Timeline 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 52 

POCR Timeline 

Appendix D: POCR Timeline 

Alien Receives a

Final Order

45 Days

Notice of File

Review

75 Days

Travel

Document

Request to HQ

90 Day

POCR Due

POCR Timeline:

From Final Order to 180 Days

DETAIN

[CFR241.4]

Failure to

Cooperate

30 Days

I-229 and

Instruction Sheet

DETAIN

[CFR241.4]

Threat to the

Community or

Flight Risk

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

Post-180 Day

POCR Due DETAIN

[CFR 241.14]

Special

Circumstances

RELEASE

within U.S.

[CFR241.13]

DETAIN

[CFR 241.13]

Significant

Likelihood of

Removal

2

1

3

5

4

6

START

RELEASE

within U.S.

[CFR241.4]
Appendix E 

Detentions Past 360 Days, By Region of Origin 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 53 

Detentions Past 360 Days, By Region of Origin, as of June 13, 2006 

Appendix E: Detentions Past 360 Days, By Region Of Origin 

Region of Origin 

Aliens In 

Detention 

June 2006 

Aliens 

Detained 

Past 360 Days 

Percent 

Detained 

Past 360 Days 

Africa 643 87 14% 

Oceania 34 8 24% 

Asia 1,156 116 10% 

Caribbean 1,220 90 7% 

Europe 378 31 8% 

North America 879 29 3% 

South America 640 28 4% 

Central America 3,740 39 1% 

Total 8,690 428 5% 
Appendix F 

Special Circumstances Cases 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 54 

Special Circumstances Cases 

ICE regulations outline four categories of special circumstances that permit 

detention beyond 180 days even if there is no significant likelihood that travel 

documents can be obtained in the reasonably foreseeable future: (1) aliens 

with a highly contagious disease that poses a threat to public safety; (2) aliens 

detained on account of serious adverse foreign policy consequences of release; 

(3) aliens detained on account of security or terrorism concerns; and, 

(4) aliens determined to be specially dangerous, i.e., criminals whose violent 

behavior is due to a mental condition, who are likely to engage in acts of 

violence in the future, and for whom no condition of release can ensure the 

safety of the public.27 Certifying that an alien meets one of these criteria 

requires substantial factual support and the concurrence of senior government 

officials or, for “specially dangerous” aliens, an immigration judge. 

Appendix F: Special Circumstances Cases 

With the exception of certifying aliens who are specially dangerous, special 

circumstances certifications are rare. Certification that a release would have 

adverse foreign policy consequences has been used twice on high-profile 

persecutors, both of whom were subsequently removed. No alien has yet been 

certified as a national security or terrorist risk, but a small number of cases are 

being monitored for this eventuality. It is unlikely that the fourth certification, 

for highly contagious diseases, will ever be used. 

Highly Contagious Disease

ICE can continue to detain an alien indefinitely if it obtains certification that 

the alien meets one of the four “special circumstances” listed above. For 

certification that an alien has a highly contagious disease, or is specially 

dangerous due to a psychological condition that cannot be treated, ICE 

coordinates with the Public Health Service, a division of the Department of 

Health and Human Services. Among the evidence required to support the 

certification, the regulations require a medical examination and the 

recommendation of the Public Health Service. To date there have been no 

certifications for highly contagious diseases, and ICE officers said that it is 

unlikely there will be one in the future, as most conditions can be treated 

during the first 180 days of detention. 

Specially Dangerous

At the time of our review, there were 36 aliens in detention who have been 

referred to Public Health Service as specially dangerous. Among the evidence 

 

27 8 CFR § 241.14. 
Appendix F 

Special Circumstances Cases 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 55 

required to support the certification, a physician employed or designated by 

the Public Health Service must conduct a full medical and psychiatric 

examination of the alien, and must include recommendations on whether the 

alien is likely to engage in acts of violence based on a mental condition or 

personality disorder. A Public Health Service official told us that while aliens 

who qualify as specially dangerous are rare, the number of aliens with violent 

criminal convictions related to mental health problems, most commonly 

schizophrenia, is much larger. The Public Health Service provides assistance 

in locating alternatives to detention for these aliens if the local field offices 

have not found a suitable program. Public Health Service usually assumes 

responsibility for such cases at 180 days but in some cases they are referred 

earlier in the process. 

Adverse Foreign Policy Consequences

For certification that a release would have adverse foreign policy 

consequences, the HQCDU coordinates with the ICE Human Rights Law 

Division. Among the evidence required to support the certification, the 

Secretary of State must provide evidence of reasonable grounds to believe that 

there would be adverse foreign policy consequences, and must notify 

Congress of the identity of the alien and the reason for the determination. The 

certification for adverse foreign policy consequences has been used twice, in 

each case for an alien who had committed numerous persecutory acts in an 

official capacity in his country of origin. Both have subsequently been 

successfully removed with assistance from the Department of State. At the 

time of our review, the Human Rights Law Division estimated that it was 

assisting the HQCDU to obtain travel document for about five aliens, and 

would, if necessary, enlist the help of the Department of State to locate a third 

country willing to take the alien. There is no formal tracking mechanism for 

these cases, although some are flagged in DACS to alert deportation officers 

in the field not to release or remove without consulting with ICE headquarters. 

Security or Terrorism Concerns

ICE’s National Security Law Division assists the HQCDU in cases where an 

alien is certified as a terrorist or security risk. Among the evidence required 

to support the certification, the government must provide the alien with a 

written description of the factual basis of the claim and respond to the alien’s 

rebuttal. To date, the formal certification process has not been used, but the 

National Security Law Division estimated that they are monitoring about 15 

cases in the POCR caseload. There is also no formal tracking mechanism for 

these cases, although some are flagged in DACS. 
Appendix G 

Substantive Deficiencies in POCR Worksheets 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 56 

Substantive Deficiencies in POCR Worksheets for the 68 Review Cases 

(Cases might be deficient for more than one reason) 

Appendix G: Substantive Deficiencies in POCR Worksheets 

Material inaccuracies in the POCR worksheet

(28 cases)

Reason for denial decision not clearly articulated

(17 cases)

Discrepancies between POCR worksheet and alien submissions

(13 cases)

Overstatement of travel document availability

(10 cases)

Standard for failure to comply does not follow CDU guidance

(7 cases)

Release criteria misapplied

(5 cases)

Special circumstances cases without the relevant special

circumstances worksheet page

(3 cases)

Interpretation of POCR timeline stops and starts unclear

(3 cases)

Flight risk tied to likelihood of removal

(2 cases)

Legal standards misapplied

(2 cases)

CDU or OPLA identified serious procedural errors

(2 cases)

Source: OIG File Review
Appendix H 

Procedural Challenges and Best Practices 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 57 

Operational Challenges and Best Practices 

Appendix H: Procedural Challenges and Best Practices 

ICE’s inability to hire staff, attrition, and turnover, coupled with regulatory 

requirements, inadequate database resources, varying levels of cooperation 

from countries of origin, and difficult alien case histories, make it difficult to 

manage the POCR caseload. During our review, we observed practices 

developed in field offices that could improve the timeliness, efficiency, and 

quality of the POCR process. Each of the sites visited or interviewed by 

telephone contributed at least two of the best practices we cite. 

Division of POCR Cases Among More Staff

In 2001, when POCR processing under the Zadvydas decision began, many 

field offices assigned only one or two deportation officers to the POCR 

process. Each site now assigns POCR cases to all deportation officers 

working on detained cases or to a team of deportation officers to ensure case 

coverage. This expands the field office’s knowledge base, ensures continuity 

during staff turnover, and eliminates the burden on one officer to conduct 

timely and thorough reviews. 

Procedures to Ensure Complete, Timely, and Clear Records

All offices we visited have created tracking systems to lessen the chances that 

cases will be overlooked or reviews delayed due to DACS’ deficiencies. A 

few field offices had developed sophisticated databases, while others relied on 

more basic checklists, calendars, and file cover sheets. 

Several offices had developed checklists for stages in the POCR process, 

including: 

• A timeline for document service and case review deadlines. 

• Check sheets to verify completion of steps in the POCR process. 

• A cover sheet to verify completion of necessary checks before 

removal. 

Several offices served all required notices for all aliens detained with a final 

order, eliminating the need to coordinate notification service with monitoring 

travel document requests. 

Two sites had a hand-written Record of Action sheet in each file, enabling 

quick supervisory review of the case status. 
Appendix H 

Procedural Challenges and Best Practices 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 58 

One office had files that were consistently in chronological order with each 

required POCR document tabbed. 

Nongovernmental Organization Coordination for Placement of Mental 

Health Cases

Three field offices we visited worked closely with local pro bono

organizations and know-your-rights groups to find placements for aliens who 

could not be removed but who had mental health problems and no community 

ties. This practice enabled the offices to place individuals before they reached 

180 days and the Public Health Service could assist in this process. 

Communication Between Deportation Officers and Aliens

Regular contact with detainees helps DRO field offices obtain information for 

travel document requests and post-order custody reviews. It may also help 

address some detainees’ misconception that they will eventually be released if 

they conceal, or obstruct procurement of, travel documents. Unless 

deportation officers are stationed at a detention facility, regular 

communication with aliens in the POCR process can be difficult. The 

deportation officers in one field office conducted telephone interviews with 

the POCR aliens to obtain information on the release criteria. The officers 

also counseled the aliens on behavior and compliance. Another facility, 

where the deportation officers were not stationed at a detention facility, 

arranged for the ICE officers who supervise the physical custody of detained 

aliens to work through a questionnaire with the detainees that included all 

information required for the release decision. One of the field offices 

interviewed by telephone reported that it prepares a roster each week with the 

status of each case, and a deportation officer visits each facility to provide 

updates to detainees. 

Communication Between Aliens, Consulates, and Pro Bono Organizations

The detention standards require that all detainees have free telephone access 

to their consulates and local pro bono organizations. This practice enables 

detainees to actively participate in resolving their cases, whether by securing 

travel documents or obtaining evidence for release or judicial review of their 

immigration status. At only one site we visited were all of the telephones 

programmed as required. One site was in the process of fixing its telephones. 

However, for the sites interviewed by telephone as best practices sites, 

deportation officers reported that they are aware that the existing telephone 

system frequently drops numbers, and consulates change their numbers 
Appendix H 

Procedural Challenges and Best Practices 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 59 

without notifying ICE. They have addressed the problem by going into the 

aliens’ cells periodically to test the telephones. 

Communication Between Field Offices and Consulates

The TDU identified personal relationships with consular officers as a key 

factor in obtaining travel documents. Some field offices located in cities with 

consulates reported that they have better results when they arrange regular 

face-to-face meetings with consular officers. However, many DHS field 

offices operate in areas of the United States where there are no consulates 

nearby, and, therefore, must operate primarily by telephone. One of the 

deportation officers we interviewed by telephone, who worked in a field office 

where there were no consulates nearby, reported that when an alien is dropped 

off for a charter flight in a larger city, the deportation officers make 

appointments to visit several consulates to follow up in person on pending 

travel documents. 
Appendix I 

Major Contributors to the Report 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 60 

Major Contributors to the Report 

Appendix I: Major Contributors to the Report 

Marcia Moxey Hodges, Chief Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, 

Office of Inspections 

Lorraine Eide, Senior Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, Office of 

Inspections 

Melissa Keaster, Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, Office of 

Inspections 

Andrew Schmidt, Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, Office of 

Inspections 
Appendix J 

Report Distribution 

ICE's Compliance with Detention Limits for Aliens with a Final Order of Removal from the United States 

Page 61 

Report Distribution 

Appendix J: Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

General Counsel 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

Executive Secretariat 

Assistant Secretary, Policy 

Assistant Secretary, Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs 

Assistant Secretary, Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Director, Office of Detention and Removal Operations 

Chief Security Officer 

Chief Privacy Officer 

DHS OIG Liaison 

ICE Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS Program Examiner 

Congress

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate 
Additional Information and Copies 

To obtain additional copies of this report, call the Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) at (202) 254-4100, fax your request to (202) 254-4285, or visit the OIG 

web site at www.dhs.gov/oig.

OIG Hotline 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind 

of criminal or noncriminal misconduct relative to department programs or 

operations, call the OIG Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; write to DHS Office of 

Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, Attention: Office of Investigations – 

Hotline, 245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, Washington, DC 20528; fax 

the complaint to (202) 254-4292; or email DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov. The 

OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.