ICE Enforcement and 

Removal Operations Report

Fiscal Year 2014

December 19, 2014

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement .
Enforcement and Removal Operations

Table of Contents

Background...................................................................................................................... 1

Discussion........................................................................................................................ 2

Appendix A...................................................................................................................... 12

Appendix B...................................................................................................................... 18

i
I. Background

This report summarizes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2014 civil immigration enforcement and removal operations. ICE shares 

responsibility for enforcing the Nation’s civil immigration laws with U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). In 

executing its enforcement duties, ICE focuses on two core missions: (1) identifying and 

apprehending public safety threats—including criminal aliens and national security 

targets—and other removable individuals within the United States; and (2) detaining and 

removing individuals apprehended by ICE and CBP officers and agents patrolling our 

Nation’s borders. 

Each year, ICE immigration enforcement is impacted by operational factors, including 

the size of the removable population found in the interior and encountered at the border 

by CBP, appropriated resources, fluctuating migration patterns, and the legal authorities 

that govern ICE’s activities. In 2014, each of these factors affected ICE operations and 

contributed to the number of ICE’s FY 2014 removals, which was 315,943, down from 

368,644 in FY 2013. This report sets forth and analyzes ICE’s FY 2014 immigration 

enforcement statistics.

1
II. Discussion

Shifting Migration Patterns and Demographics

In FY 2014, the surge of illegal border crossings in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) in 

South Texas and significant increase in Central American migrants presented unique 

challenges to ICE’s immigration enforcement efforts. 

The Surge in the Rio Grande Valley

In 2014, the United States experienced an unprecedented surge of illegal border 

crossings in the RGV, particularly by unaccompanied children and family units from 

Central America. CBP apprehensions in the RGV—a sector containing just 320 

miles of our 2,000 mile border with Mexico—accounted for 72.8 percent of the 

unaccompanied children and 76.2 percent of the family units apprehended in FY 

2014. In FY 2013, the Border Patrol apprehended a total of 21,553 unaccompanied 

children and 7,265 family units in the RGV. In 2014 those numbers were 49,959 

and 52,326, respectively. In June alone, at the height of the surge, the Border Patrol 

apprehended 8,730 unaccompanied children and 13,370 family units in the RGV, 

which placed significant strain on a number of DHS resources and operations, 

including ICE. 

2
As part of DHS’s response to this unprecedented migration, and to stem the tide, in 

FY 2014, ICE devoted significant resources, both transportation assets and ICE 

Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers, to transfer 56,029 

unaccompanied children apprehended at the southwest border to the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), as the law requires. While these 

unaccompanied children did not occupy ICE detention space, they required ICE to 

reallocate resources, including officer time, to support DHS’s response to this urgent 

humanitarian situation. For example, approximately 800 ERO officers and support 

personnel (over 10 percent of ERO’s entire workforce) were detailed to support 

southwest border operations. 

The significant increase in illegal migration of unaccompanied children and family 

units also contributed to operational challenges for ICE. ICE does not detain 

unaccompanied children. Under the law, ICE is required to transfer unaccompanied 

children to HHS, generally within 72 hours. HHS then becomes responsible for 

their care and is required by law to place unaccompanied minors in the least 

restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child, which generally results in 

placement with a family member. Unlike adults apprehended at the border who are 

placed into expedited removal, the law requires that unaccompanied children be 

placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge (as opposed to 

expedited removal). These cases are placed on the non-detained immigration court 

docket, and due to a number of factors, generally take significantly longer to be 

adjudicated than those of adults. 

Like single adults, family units apprehended at the border may be placed into 

expedited removal proceedings and detained. However, this process requires ICE to 

maintain an increased level of family detention space, which historically has been 

limited to fewer than 100 beds nationwide. ICE cannot detain family units, 

including children, in adult detention facilities. As a result, in the summer ICE 

sought substantial resources and authority to build additional detention capacity to 

detain and remove family units, and since then ICE has opened three additional 

facilities for this purpose. All of these efforts required ERO officer time, support 

personnel, and significant funding.

At the height of the surge, in order to sustain ICE and CBP response efforts, the 

President submitted an emergency supplemental funding request to Congress to help 

address these unique and urgent challenges, including significantly increased ICE 

detention capacity for family units and ICE transportation resources for 

unaccompanied children. That request was not acted upon, and as a result DHS was 

required to reprogram funds from other key homeland security priorities. In doing 

so, and coupled with a broader public messaging campaign and sustained foreign 

counterpart engagement, DHS efforts helped contribute to dramatically reducing 

migration in the RGV, down to 1,491 unaccompanied children and 1,704 family 

units apprehended in September, the last month of the fiscal year. However, ICE 

3
and DHS components remain vigilant and will continue to work with Congress and 

our interagency and foreign counterparts to sustain our progress. 

The Spike of Central Americans 

In addition to the surge of unaccompanied children and family units, between FY 

2013 and FY 2014, ICE experienced another key demographic shift in the 

population of the individuals it detained and removed. Specifically, ICE removals of 

Mexican nationals decreased from 66 to 56 percent of total ICE removals during this 

period. At the same time, the number of aliens removed to El Salvador, Guatemala, 

and Honduras increased by 15 percent due to the increased share of apprehensions 

involving such nationals at the border. Removals of individuals at the border from 

countries other than Mexico increased 26 percent. 

Removal of nationals to non-contiguous countries are far more costly, take 

significantly more time, and require added officer resources as compared to 

removals of Mexican nationals. Instead of quickly returning Mexican nationals 

apprehended at the border, ICE must take custody of Central Americans and other 

individuals from non-contiguous countries, detain them, obtain travel documents 

from the host country, and expend transportation and flight resources. 

FY 2014 Demographic Shift for ICE Removals

COUNTRY FY 2013 FY 2014

El Salvador 21,602 27,180

Guatemala 47,749 54,423

Honduras 37,049 40,695

Mexico 241,493 176,968

Increasing Jurisdictions Declining to Honor ICE Detainers

In the interior, ICE successfully focused its enforcement actions on criminals; 85 

percent of interior enforcement removals were of convicted criminals. ICE’s efforts 

in the interior, however, were impacted by an increasing number of state and local 

jurisdictions that are declining to honor ICE detainers.1

 As a result, instead of state 

and local jails transferring criminal aliens in their custody to ICE for removal, such 

1 On November 20, 2014, Secretary Johnson issued a memorandum directing ICE to discontinue the Secure 

Communities program and replace it with the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) to more effectively identify and 

facilitate the removal of criminal aliens in the custody of state and local law enforcement agencies. PEP will 

continue to rely on fingerprint-based biometric data submitted during bookings by state and local law enforcement 

agencies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for criminal background checks. But ICE will only seek the transfer 

of an alien in the custody of such agencies when the alien has been convicted of certain offenses that pose the 

greatest threat to public safety. See Secure Communities Memorandum dated November 20, 2014. See also

Policies for Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants Memorandum dated November 

20, 2014.

4

 
aliens were released by state and local authorities. Since January 2014, state and 

local law enforcement authorities declined to honor 10,182 detainers.2 This required 

ICE to expend additional resources attempting to locate, apprehend, and remove 

criminal aliens who were released into the community, rather than transferred 

directly into custody. These changes further contributed to decreased ICE removals. 

Refined Focus on Convicted Criminals

In recent years, ICE has increased its focus on identifying, locating, apprehending, 

and removing convicted criminal aliens who are at-large, requiring significantly 

more officers, time, money, and other resources as compared to those individuals 

who are in a custodial setting. In FY 2014, while total criminal removals declined 

from last year, a significant percentage of ICE’s interior removals—85 percent—

remained focused on criminal aliens. The substantial share of convicted criminals 

removed from the interior represents a steady and significant increase from 2008, 

when that figure was just 38 percent and 2011 when it was 67 percent.3

 ICE’s focus 

on criminal removals in the interior is also reflected in the total number of criminal 

removals: in FY 2007 and FY 2008, ICE removed 102,024 and 114,415 convicted 

criminals, respectively, as compared to 216,810 in FY 2013 and 177,960 in 2014. In 

addition, ICE removed 2,802 individuals in FY 2014 who were classified as 

suspected or confirmed gang members. As a result, while overall removals declined 

in FY 2014, ICE has sustained the improved quality of its removals by focusing on 

the most serious public safety and national security threats.

Reduced Use of the Alien Transfer Exit Program 

Key operational changes to the Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP) impacted ICE’s 

operations and the removal of Mexican nationals. ATEP is a joint effort between 

ICE ERO and CBP Border Patrol in which Mexican nationals apprehended in one 

sector of the southwest border are transported for removal through a different sector 

in order to disrupt the smuggling cycle by separating migrants from their smugglers. 

In 2013, ICE began reallocating limited resources away from ATEP to focus on the 

increasing number of Central American migrants and other priorities. In FY 2014, 

ICE continued to scale back ATEP and re-tasked ATEP-dedicated transportation 

resources to effectively manage the influx of family units and unaccompanied 

children apprehended in the RGV. As a result, in FY 2014, the number of ATEP 

ICE removals dramatically decreased as compared to the 52,965 Mexican nationals 

removed through ATEP in FY 2013. This contributed to a reduction in total ICE 

removals in FY 2014. However, the Border Patrol supported ICE’s reduction in 

ATEP transportation resources by removing or voluntarily returning those 

individuals who would have met the criteria for ATEP.

2 ICE began collecting information on declined detainers beginning January 2014. 3 Because ICE’s crime entry screen did not exist in its systems prior to 2011, the ability to electronically capture and 

report criminal conviction information prior to 2011 was limited.

5

 
Legal Requirements

ICE’s interior operations were also challenged by federal court decisions, including 

the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Rodriguez v.

Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013). Under Rodriguez, individuals who are 

detained while in removal proceedings, including those subject to mandatory 

detention, must be granted individual bond hearings within 180 days of the 

commencement of immigration detention, regardless of ICE’s custody 

determination. Rodriguez applies throughout the Ninth Circuit, the largest federal 

jurisdiction. As a result, a greater number of individuals have been released on 

immigration judge-determined bonds and transferred from the detained docket to the 

non-detained docket. This has directly impacted removals in the short term because 

cases on the non-detained docket take longer to adjudicate, and require additional 

ICE resources.

In addition, ICE relies on the cooperation of foreign governments to effectuate 

removal of their nationals. ICE often cannot repatriate individuals within the legally 

prescribed time limits because their countries of origin or nationality fail to issue 

required travel documents in a timely manner. This occurs despite ICE and 

Department of State efforts to work with these countries to procure necessary 

documents. In these cases, ICE is generally required by law to release individuals 

from custody. Individuals may be released on bond or an order of supervision and 

may be enrolled in the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program, which may include 

GPS monitoring and telephonic reporting. While ICE continues to engage countries 

that do not cooperate in the timely repatriation of their nationals, their failure to 

cooperate poses a significant challenge to removals. 

6
In FY 2014:

• ICE conducted 315,943 removals.

• ICE conducted 102,224 removals

of individuals apprehended in the 

interior of the United States. 

o 86,923 (85 percent) of all 

interior removals involved 

individuals previously 

convicted of a crime. 

• ICE conducted 213,719 removals 

of individuals apprehended while 

attempting to unlawfully enter the 

United States.4

 

• 56 percent of all ICE removals, or 

177,960, involved individuals who 

were previously convicted of a 

crime.

o ICE apprehended and 

removed 86,923 criminals 

from the interior of the U.S. 

o ICE removed 91,037 

criminals apprehended 

while attempting to 

unlawfully enter the United 

States. 

• 98 percent of all ICE FY 2014 

removals, or 309,477, clearly met 

one or more of ICE’s stated civil 

immigration enforcement 

priorities.5

• Of the 137,983 individuals 

removed who had no criminal 

conviction, 89 percent, or 122,682, 

were apprehended at or near the 

border while attempting to 

unlawfully enter the country.6

4 Approximately 96 percent of these individuals were apprehended by CBP Border Patrol agents and then processed, 

detained, and removed by ICE. The remaining individuals were apprehended by CBP officers at ports of entry. 

5 As defined in the March 2011 ICE Memorandum: Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension, 

Detention, and Removal of Aliens. 6 ICE defines criminality via a recorded criminal conviction obtained by ICE officers and agents from certified 

criminal history repositories. These individuals include recent border crossers, immigration fugitives, and repeat 

immigration violators. 

Key Term Definitions

Border Removal: An individual removed by ICE who is 

apprehended by a CBP officer or agent while attempting to 

illicitly enter the United States at or between the ports of 

entry. These individuals are also referred to as recent border 

crossers.

Criminal Offender: An individual convicted in the United 

States for one or more criminal offenses. This does not 

include civil traffic offenses. 

Immigration Fugitives: An individual who has failed to 

leave the United States based on a final order of removal, 

deportation, or exclusion, or has failed to report to ICE after 

receiving notice to do so.

Interior Removal: An individual removed by ICE who is 

identified or apprehended in the United States by an ICE 

officer or agent. This category excludes those apprehended at 

the immediate border while attempting to unlawfully enter 

the United States. 

Other Removable Alien: An individual who is not a 

confirmed convicted criminal, recent border crosser, or other 

ICE civil enforcement priority category. This category may 

include individuals removed on national security grounds or 

for general immigration violations.

Previously Removed Alien: An individual previously 

removed or returned who has re-entered the country illegally.

Reinstatement of Final Removal Order: The removal of an 

alien based on the reinstatement of a prior removal order, 

where the alien departed the United States under an order of 

removal and illegally reentered the United States (INA § 

241(a)(5)). The alien may be removed without a hearing 

before an immigration court.

Removal: The compulsory and confirmed movement of an 

inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States 

based on an order of removal. An individual who is removed 

may have administrative or criminal consequences placed on 

subsequent reentry because of the removal. ICE removals 

also include voluntary returns, voluntary departures, and 

withdrawals of admission for cases managed by ICE officers 

and agents. 

7

 
• The leading countries of origin for removals were Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, 

and El Salvador. 

• 2,802 individuals removed by ICE were classified as suspected or confirmed gang 

members.7

Border Removals

In FY 2014, ICE continued to prioritize border security, partnering with CBP to process 

and remove individuals apprehended while attempting to unlawfully enter the United 

States. 

In FY 2014, ICE conducted 213,179 removals of recent border crossers. Many of those 

apprehended along the border had prior criminal or civil immigration violations in the 

United States. Of these recent border crosser removals, 91,037 involved individuals with 

at least one criminal conviction. 

FY 2014 ICE Border Removals by 

Apprehending Program and Priority

Apprehending

CBP Office Level/Priority Removals

Office of 

Border Patrol 

(OBP)

Convicted 

Criminal

Level 1 17,772

Level 2 19,733

Level 3 49,948

Immigration Fugitives 1,776

Repeat Immigration 

Violators 54,115

Other Border Removals 61,714

Total OBP 205,058

Office of Field 

Operations

(OFO)

Convicted 

Criminal

Level 1 1,490

Level 2 866

Level 3 1,228

Immigration Fugitives 56

Repeat Immigration 

Violators 995

Other Border Removals 4,026

Total OFO 8,661

7 Gang affiliation is documented as part of the intake process in the Risk Classification Assessment (RCA).

8

 
Changing Border Apprehension Demographics

In FY 2014, ICE carried out 110,021 border removals of individuals from countries other 

than Mexico, a 26 percent increase over the 90,461 such individuals removed by ICE in 

FY 2013. Given this shift in border apprehension demographics, ICE was required in FY 

2014 to use more of its detention and removal resources for recent border crossers from 

countries other than Mexico and Canada—as CBP must rely on ICE to effectuate the 

removal of individuals from countries that are not contiguous with the United States. 

In FY 2014, Mexico continued to be the leading country of origin for individuals 

removed, followed by Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

FY 2014 Top 10 Countries of 

ICE Removal by Citizenship

Citizenship Total

Mexico 176,968

Guatemala 54,423

Honduras 40,695

El Salvador 27,180

Dominican Republic 2,130

Ecuador 1,565

Nicaragua 1,266

Colombia 1,181

Jamaica 938

Brazil 850

Total 307,196

Interior Apprehensions and Removals

In FY 2014, ICE conducted 102,224 removals of individuals apprehended in the interior 

of the United States. ICE focused interior enforcement operations on individuals with 

criminal convictions, emphasizing those convicted of the most serious crimes. Notably, 

85 percent of all removals from the interior of the United States involved individuals who 

were previously convicted of a criminal offense, while 76 percent of the convicted 

criminals removed from the interior were convicted of an ICE Level 1 or Level 2 offense.

Level 1 offenders are aliens convicted of (1) an “aggravated felony,” as defined in § 

101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or (2) two or more crimes each 

punishable by more than one year, commonly referred to as “felonies.” Level 2 offenders 

are aliens convicted of any other felony or three or more crimes each punishable by less 

9
than one year, commonly referred to as “misdemeanors.” Level 3 offenders are aliens 

convicted of “misdemeanor” crime(s) punishable by less than one year. 

FY 2014 ICE Interior Criminal 

Removals by Level

Level 1 43,897 50.5 percent

Level 2 22,191 25.5 percent

Level 3 20,835 24 percent

Total 86,923 100 percent

Almost two thirds of individuals with criminal convictions who were removed from the 

interior of the United States also fell into other ICE priority categories. For example, 62 

percent of ICE’s interior criminal alien removals were previously removed from the 

United States or were immigration fugitives, and 65 percent of all interior Level 3 

removals had been previously removed or were immigration fugitives. 

FY 2014 ICE Interior Removals by 

Priority

Threat Level/Priority Removals

Convicted 

Criminal

Level 1 43,897

Level 2 22,191

Level 3 20,835

Immigration Fugitives 1,629

Repeat Immigration 

Violators 7,206

Other Removals 6,466

Total 102,224

10
Criminal Alien Removals

In FY 2014, approximately 56 percent (177,960) of all ICE removals involved 

individuals with criminal convictions. Overall, in FY 2014, 63,159 of the convicted 

criminal removals were Level 1 offenders, 42,790 were Level 2 offenders, and 72,011 

were Level 3 offenders. 

The majority of Level 1 and Level 2 offenders—62 percent—were apprehended in the 

interior of the United States. Conversely, 71 percent of all Level 3 offenders were 

apprehended at or near the border. 

Non-Criminal Removals

The vast majority of ICE non-criminal removals in FY 2014 involved individuals 

encountered by CBP agents and officers while trying to unlawfully enter the United 

States. Specifically, 89 percent (122,682) of ICE’s 137,983 non-criminal removals 

involved individuals attempting to unlawfully enter the United States. A full 95 percent 

of ICE’s non-criminal removals involved recent border crossers, repeat immigration 

violators, or immigration court fugitives.

11
III. Appendix A: FY 2014 Removals by Citizenship

FY 2014 ICE Removals by Citizenship

Citizenship Total

Mexico 176,968

Guatemala 54,423

Honduras 40,695

El Salvador 27,180

Dominican Republic 2,130

Ecuador 1,565

Nicaragua 1,266

Colombia 1,181

Jamaica 938

Brazil 850

Peru 678

China 534

Canada 457

Haiti 382

India 359

Philippines 302

Nigeria 261

Costa Rica 245

United Kingdom 213

Poland 159

Trinidad and Tobago 158

South Korea 154

Venezuela 153

Romania 143

Guyana 136

Belize 123

Spain 121

Kenya 113

Russia 112

Bahamas 110

Saudi Arabia 105

Argentina 101

Pakistan 98

Ukraine 96

12
FY 2014 ICE Removals by Citizenship

Citizenship Total

Ghana 91

Italy 91

France 87

Bolivia 85

Israel 83

Korea 83

Jordan 80

Germany 77

Cambodia 75

Panama 73

Indonesia 71

Chile 69

Bangladesh 66

Somalia 65

Portugal 64

Micronesia 63

Egypt 62

Hungary 60

Turkey 60

Bosnia-Herzegovina 53

Lebanon 53

Thailand 52

Albania 50

Vietnam 48

Uruguay 45

Nepal 44

Morocco 43

South Africa 42

Australia 41

Netherlands 39

Uzbekistan 39

Czech Republic 34

Japan 34

Bulgaria 33

Ireland 33

Latvia 32

Ethiopia 31

13
FY 2014 ICE Removals by Citizenship

Citizenship Total

Lithuania 31

Marshall Islands 31

Sri Lanka 31

Tanzania 31

Armenia 30

Cameroon 30

Greece 30

Iraq 29

Taiwan 29

Tonga 29

Moldova 26

Cuba 24

Iran 23

Kazakhstan 23

Mongolia 23

Afghanistan 22

Georgia 22

Uganda 22

Malaysia 21

Kyrgyzstan 20

St. Vincent Grenadines 19

Belarus 18

Fiji 18

New Zealand 18

Senegal 18

Liberia 17

St. Kitts-Nevis 17

Sweden 17

Barbados 16

Dominica 16

Mali 16

Slovakia 16

Unknown 16

Antigua-Barbuda 15

Hong Kong 15

Palau 15

Yemen 15

14
FY 2014 ICE Removals by Citizenship

Citizenship Total

Sudan 14

Angola 13

Guinea 13

Grenada 12

Macedonia 12

Paraguay 12

Serbia 12

Sierra Leone 12

Singapore 12

St. Lucia 12

Tunisia 12

Ivory Coast 11

Libya 11

Congo 10

Kosovo 10

Niger 10

Zambia 10

Zimbabwe 10

Azerbaijan 9

Belgium 9

Cape Verde 9

Czechoslovakia 9

Samoa 9

South Sudan 9

Syria 9

Estonia 8

British Virgin Islands 7

Gambia 7

Mauritania 7

Montenegro 7

Norway 7

Tajikistan 7

Bermuda 6

Burkina Faso 6

Dem Rep of the Congo 6

Denmark 6

Kuwait 6

15
FY 2014 ICE Removals by Citizenship

Citizenship Total

Switzerland 6

Togo 6

Benin 5

Burma 5

Croatia 5

Slovenia 5

Suriname 5

Yugoslavia 5

Algeria 4

Austria 4

Burundi 4

Equatorial Guinea 4

Gabon 4

Malawi 4

Oman 4

Botswana 3

Cayman Islands 3

Finland 3

Iceland 3

Laos 3

Namibia 3

Netherlands Antilles 3

Turkmenistan 3

Turks and Caicos Islands 3

Chad 2

Cyprus 2

Mauritius 2

Rwanda 2

United Arab Emirates 2

USSR8 2

Andorra 1

Bahrain 1

Comoros 1

Eritrea 1

8 Denotes aliens subject to removal who are nationals of countries that were member states of the Union of Soviet 

Socialist Republics (USSR), but who did not become citizens of the Russian Federation after the dissolution of the 

USSR.

16

 
FY 2014 ICE Removals by Citizenship

Citizenship Total

French Guiana 1

Guadeloupe 1

Guinea-Bissau 1

Macau 1

Madagascar 1

Malta 1

Monaco 1

Montserrat 1

Papua New Guinea 1

San Marino 1

Total 315,943

17
Appendix B: Methodology

Data Source:

Data used to report ICE statistics are obtained through the ICE Integrated Decision 

Support (IIDS) system data warehouse.

Data Run Dates

FY 2014: IIDS v1.16 run date 10/05/2014; ENFORCE Integrated Database (EID) as of 

10/03/2014

FY 2013: IIDS v1.14 run date 10/06/2013; EID as of 10/04/2013

FY 2012: IIDS v1.12 run date 10/07/2012; EID as of 10/05/2012

FY 2011: IIDS run date 10/07/2011; EID as of 10/05/2011

FY 2010: IIDS run date 10/05/2010; EID as of 10/03/2010

FY 2009: Removals and Returns are an adjusted historical number of an IIDS run date of 

8/16/2010 (EID as of 8/14/10) and will remain static. 

Removals 

Removal data is historical and remains static. Removals include Returns. Returns include 

Voluntary Returns, Voluntary Departures, and Withdrawals Under Docket Control.

In FY 2009, ICE began to “lock” removal statistics on October 5 at the end of each fiscal 

year, and counted only aliens whose removal or return was already confirmed. Aliens 

removed or returned in that fiscal year but not confirmed until after October 5 were 

excluded from the locked data, and thus from ICE statistics. To ensure an accurate and 

complete representation of all removals and returns, ICE will count removals and returns 

confirmed after October 5 toward the next fiscal year. FY 2012 removals, excluding FY 

2011 “lag,” were 402,919. FY 2013 removals, excluding FY 2012 “lag,” were 363,144. 

FY 2014 removals, excluding FY 2013 “lag,” were 311,111.

Fiscal Year Data Lag/Case Closure Lag is defined as the physical removal of an alien 

occurring in a given month; however, the case is not closed in EARM until the fiscal year 

after the data is locked. Since data from the previous fiscal year are locked, the removal is 

recorded in the month the case was closed and reported in subsequent fiscal year 

removals. This will result in a higher number of recorded removals in a fiscal year than 

actual departures.

18
Any voluntary return on or after June 1, 2013 without an ICE intake case will not be 

recorded as an ICE removal.

ERO Removals include aliens processed for Expedited Removal (ER) and turned over to 

ERO for detention. Aliens processed for ER and not detained by ERO are primarily 

processed by Border Patrol. CBP should be contacted for those statistics.

Gang affiliation is documented as part of the intake process in the Risk Classification 

Assessment (RCA).

FY 2012 – FY 2013 Removals include ATEP removals. 

Criminality

ICE Levels reflect priorities outlined in the June 2010 memorandum entitled “ICE Civil 

Immigration Enforcement Priorities effective October 1, 2010.” Since FY 2011, ICE has 

defined criminality as a recorded criminal conviction from certified criminal history 

repositories. To prioritize the removal of convicted criminal aliens, ICE personnel refer to 

the following offense levels: Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 offenders. Level 1 offenders 

are aliens convicted of “aggravated felonies,” as defined in § 101(a)(43) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or more crimes, each punishable by more than 

one year, commonly referred to as “felonies.” Level 2 offenders are aliens convicted of 

any other felony or three or more crimes, each punishable by less than one year, 

commonly referred to as “misdemeanors.” Level 3 offenders are aliens convicted of 

“misdemeanor” crime(s) punishable by less than one year. Prior to FY 2011, ICE used 

Secure Communities (SC) Levels 1, 2, and 3 for prioritization purposes.

19