ICE Enforcement and 

Removal Operations Report 

Fiscal Year 2015

December 22, 2015

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
i

Enforcement and Removal Operations

Table of Contents

Overview ............................................................................................................. 1

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

Conclusion........................................................................................................... 9

Appendix A ......................................................................................................... 10

Appendix B ......................................................................................................... 11

Appendix C ......................................................................................................... 12

Appendix D ......................................................................................................... 18
1

I. Overview

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

Operations’ (ERO) Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 removal activities. ICE shares responsibility for enforcing the 

Nation’s 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) the identification and apprehension of criminal aliens and other priority aliens located in the United 

States; and 2) the detention and removal of those individuals apprehended in the interior of the United 

States as well as those apprehended by CBP officers and agents patrolling our nation's borders. ICE is 

committed to smart immigration enforcement, preventing terrorism, and combatting the illegal movement 

of people and goods. 

This report analyzes ICE’s FY 2015 ERO removal statistics to demonstrate how the Department of 

Homeland Security’s (DHS) enforcement priorities positively impact our communities. In executing 

these responsibilities, ICE has prioritized its limited resources on the identification and removal of threats 

to national security, border security, and public safety, as outlined in Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh 

Johnson’s November 20, 2014 memorandum entitled Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and 

Removal of Undocumented Immigrants.

The nature and scope of ICE’s civil immigration enforcement is impacted by a number of factors, 

including: 1) the level of cooperation from state and local law enforcement partners; 2) the level of illegal 

migration;

1 and 3) changing migrant demographics. 

The Department’s clearer and more refined civil immigration enforcement priorities, which ICE began 

implementing in FY 2015, placed increased emphasis and focus on the removal of convicted felons and 

other public safety threats over non-criminals. To further build on the prioritization of convicted 

criminals and enlist the support of the many state and local jurisdictions that were not cooperating with 

ICE, DHS ended Secure Communities and replaced it with the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP).

With the implementation of PEP, which became fully operational in July 2015, ICE has engaged in 

expansive efforts to encourage state and local law enforcement partners to collaborate with ICE to ensure 

the transfer and removal of serious public safety threats. 

Because of the many factors described above, there were fewer removals in FY 2015 than there were in 

FY 2014. More detailed statistics contained in this report also show that an increased percentage of those 

removals involve convicted criminals and other priorities as a result of ICE’s targeted focus on the most 

significant threats to national security, public safety, and border security.

2 Indeed, 98 percent of 

individuals that ICE removed in FY 2015 met ICE’s civil immigration enforcement priorities. As these

new enforcement priorities continue to take hold, and state and local cooperation increases, ICE expects 

continued progress in ensuring its resources are appropriately focused in keeping our Nation safe and 

secure.

 1 As measured by the number of apprehensions by CBP. 2 See Appendix B for key terms and definitions. 
2

Figure 1

II. Discussion

Impact of Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities

FY 2015 marked a major progression period in which ICE implemented revised Department-wide civil 

immigration enforcement priorities, as directed by DHS Secretary Johnson in his November 20, 2014 

Memorandum, Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants,

known as the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities (CIEP).

3 The revised priorities have intensified 

ICE’s focus on removing individuals convicted of serious crimes and public safety and national security 

threats, as well as recent border entrants.

More specifically, DHS’ newly defined priorities established three civil immigration enforcement 

categories, in descending order of priority. These priorities are: 1) national security threats, convicted 

felons or “aggravated felons,” active criminal gang participants, and illegal entrants apprehended at the 

border; 2) individuals convicted of significant or multiple misdemeanors, or individuals apprehended in 

the U.S. interior who unlawfully entered or re-entered this country and have not been continuously 

physically present in the United States since January 1, 2014, or individuals who have significantly 

abused the visa or visa waiver programs; and 3) individuals who have failed to abide by a final order of 

removal issued on or after January 1, 2014. ICE may also continue to remove individuals not falling 

within the aforementioned categories if their removal would serve an important federal interest. Training 

on the revised November 2014 priorities occurred shortly after publication, culminating in 

implementation in January 2015. 

Although these revised enforcement priorities were only in effect for the final three quarters of FY 2015, 

ICE’s FY 2015 removal statistics in Table 1 below, broken out by CIEP Priority Status, demonstrates

strong alignment to these revised priorities. With respect to overall ICE removals in FY 2015, 98 percent 

were individuals that were a CIEP priority and 86 percent were CIEP Priority 1 individuals. 

 3 See Appendix D for a detailed description of priorities and sub-priorities.

369,221 389,834 392,862 396,906 409,849

368,644

315,943

235,413

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015

FY 2008-2015 ICE Removals

Non-Criminal Immigration Violator Convicted Criminal

69% 65%

50% 45% 45% 41% 44%

41%

31% 35% 50% 55% 55%

59%

56%

59%

FY 2015 Removals

96,045 Non-Criminal 

Immigration Violators

139,368 Convicted Criminals
3

Table 1

FY 2015 ICE Removals by CIEP Priority 

Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Federal 

Interest

Total with a CIEP 

Priority

Unknown

Priority Total

202,152 18,536 9,960 67 230,715 4,698 235,413

86% 8% 4% < 1% 98% 2% 100%

Focus on Convicted Criminal Aliens

ICE has continued to increase its focus on identifying, arresting, and removing convicted criminals in

prisons and jails, and also at-large arrests in the interior.

4 In FY 2015, ICE sustained the improved quality 

of its removals by focusing on serious public safety and national security threats. ICE increased the 

percentage of removals of convicted criminal by 3 percent over FY 2014. In FY 2015, ICE removed 

139,368 convicted criminals, which represented 59 percent of total ICE removals.

Table 2

In FY 2015, under the new CIEP 

framework (Table 2), 98 percent of 

all removals of convicted criminals

fell into one of the revised 

enforcement priorities and 81 percent 

of removals of convicted criminals 

were ICE’s highest priority, CIEP 

Priority 1.

5

This strong alignment with the CIEP Priorities, shown in Figure 2, exemplifies ICE’s continued focus on

targeted enforcement. 

 4 Federal court rulings, such as Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013), continued to challenge ICE’s interior 

operations. Rodriguez applies throughout the Ninth Circuit, the federal court jurisdiction with the largest number of 

individuals in removal proceedings. It allows individuals who previously would have been detained without bond, to seek 

release on bonds from immigration judges. Their cases are then transferred from the relatively expedited detained court docket 

to the slower non-detained court docket, thereby decreasing the number of overall removals in a given year. 5 The remaining 2 percent of convicted criminal removals who fell under Unknown Priority cannot be statistically reported 

under the new CIEP priorities. Unknown Priority is a reflection of those cases in which a priority has not been assigned. Most 

of these cases with unknown priority reflect cases that were processed before CIEP was implemented (i.e., Prior to January 

2015); the rest simply did not have the priority data flags or other supporting data to definitively support statistical reporting. 

FY 2015 Convicted Criminal Removals by CIEP Priority

CIEP Priority 

Convicted 

Criminal Removals

% of Total Convicted 

Criminal Removals

Priority 1 113,385 81%

Priority 2 14,869 11%

Priority 3 7,770 6%

Federal Interest 32 0%

Unknown Priority 3,312 2%

Total 139,368 100%
4

In addition to the increase in the percentage of ICE removals that were of convicted criminals, ERO’s 

interior enforcement activities led to an increase in the percentage of ICE’s interior removals (i.e.,

individuals apprehended by ICE officers and agents in the interior) that were of convicted criminals. This 

percentage grew from 82 percent in FY 2013 to 91 percent in FY 2015, as shown in Figure 3. 

Figure 3

Priority 1 

(202,152)

Priority 2 

(18,536)

Priority 3 

(9,960)

Federal Interest (67)

Unknown Priority 

(4,698)

180,000

190,000

200,000

210,000

220,000

230,000

240,000

Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities

FY 2015 Removals

FY 2015 Removals by Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities

82% 85% 91%

45% 43% 46%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2013 2014 2015

Criminal Removal Percentages by Fiscal Year 

(FY2013-2015)

Interior Removals of Convicted Criminals as % of Total Interior Removals

Border Removals of Convicted Criminals as % of Total Border Removals

Figure 2
5

There were 69,478 interior 

removals in FY 2015, with 93

percent of those removals 

falling into one of the CIEP 

priorities, as shown in Figure 4. 

This further demonstrates

ICE’s focus on smarter, public 

safety-oriented enforcement. 

Non-Criminal Removals

Most ICE removals of non-criminal immigration violators were individuals encountered by CBP agents 

and officers at or near the border or ports of entry. For example, 94 percent (90,103) of ICE’s 96,045

removals of non-criminal immigration violators in FY 2015 were individuals apprehended at or near the 

border or ports of entry. Approximately 98 percent of all ICE removals of non-criminal immigration 

violators met one of ICE’s stated enforcement priorities, and 92 percent of all ICE removals of noncriminal immigration violators met CIEP Priority 1.

Level of Cooperation from State and Local Law Enforcement Partners 

The enactment of numerous state statutes and local ordinances reducing and/or preventing cooperation 

with ICE, in addition to federal court decisions which created liability concerns for cooperating law 

enforcement agencies, led an increasing number of jurisdictions to decline to honor immigration detainers

in FY 2015. From January 2014, when ICE began tracking declinations of immigration detainers through 

June 2015 (before the July 2015 implementation of PEP), state and local law enforcement agencies 

declined 16,495 immigration detainers, resulting in convicted criminals being released back into U.S. 

communities with the potential to re-offend, notwithstanding ICE’s request for those individuals. 

Moreover, these releases further constrained ICE’s civil immigration enforcement efforts because it 

required ICE to expend additional resources to locate and arrest convicted criminals who were at-large

rather than transferred directly from jails into ICE custody, drawing resources away from other ICE 

enforcement efforts. 

In July 2015, ICE implemented PEP and began using revised forms, the I-247D detainer form and the I247N, a request for notification form. Each of the 24 ICE field office directors, whose areas of 

responsibility includes at least one location that does not honor detainers, are in ongoing discussions with 

Figure 4

41,516

60%

13,237

19%

9,960

14%

67

0%

4,698

7%

FY 2015 Total Interior Removals of 

by CEIP Priority 

Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Federal Interest Unknown Priority
6

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Monthly Arrests

ICE ERO Arrests and USBP Apprehensions (FY 2013 -

2015) by Month

USBP Apprehensions

ERO Arrests

their law enforcement partners in order to tailor PEP in each location to best meet the communities’ 

needs. 

Additionally, to facilitate state and local cooperation, Secretary Johnson, Deputy Secretary Mayorkas, and 

Director Saldaña have met with elected and law enforcement officials in some of our largest jurisdictions, 

including Los Angeles, New York City, and Florida. DHS and ICE officials also regularly engage with 

senior law enforcement officials from across the nation through various associations and task forces. This 

robust engagement is producing results. Counties like Los Angeles, Alameda, San Diego, Fresno, San 

Mateo, Sonoma, and Monterey in California are now working with ICE through PEP. Today, many law 

enforcement agencies, including previously uncooperative jurisdictions, are now cooperating with ICE 

through PEP.

Decreased Illegal Migration and CBP Apprehensions

ICE supports border security efforts by detaining and removing certain individuals arrested by CBP at the 

border and elsewhere. Historically, a significant amount of ICE’s removals have been based on CBP’s 

significant border apprehensions. However, with the exception of 1 year, apprehensions—a key measure 

of illegal border crossings—along the southwest border are at their lowest level in more than 40 years. In 

FY 2015, the total number of U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions was approximately 337,117, a decrease of

30 percent from FY 2014 as shown in Figure 5. This in turn resulted in a decrease of overall FY 2015 

ICE intakes based upon those CBP apprehensions, falling 26 percent from 263,340 intakes in FY 2014 to

193,951 intakes in FY 2015.

Changing Migrant Demographics

Changing migrant demographics also impacted ICE removal operations, as illegal entries by Mexicans 

continued to decrease while those by Central Americans continued to increase. More time, personnel

resources, and funding are required to complete the removal process for nationals from Central America 

Figure 5
7

and other non-contiguous countries as compared to Mexican nationals apprehended at the border. This is 

because removals of non-Mexican nationals require ICE to use additional detention capacity, more time 

and effort to secure travel documents from the host country, and to arrange air transportation to remove 

the individual to the home country. Additionally, many Central American nationals are asserting claims 

of credible or reasonable fear of persecution. Such cases require a careful adjudication and, therefore, 

take longer to process. 
8

Removals Overview

• ICE conducted 235,413 removals.

• ICE conducted 69,478 removals of individuals apprehended by ICE officers (i.e., interior 

removals) (Figure 5). 

o 63,539 (91 percent) of all interior removals were previously convicted of a crime. 

• ICE conducted 165,935 removals of individuals apprehended at or near the border or ports of 

entry.

6

 

• 59 percent of all ICE removals, or 139,368, were previously convicted of a crime.

o ICE conducted 63,539 interior criminal removals.

o ICE removed 75,829 criminals apprehended at or near the border or ports of entry.

• 98 percent of all ICE FY 2015 removals, or 230,715, met one or more of ICE’s stated civil 

immigration enforcement priorities.7

• Of the 96,045 individuals removed who had no criminal conviction, 94 percent, or 90,106, were 

apprehended at or near the border or ports of entry.

8

• The leading countries of origin for removals were Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. 

• 1,040 individuals removed by ICE were classified as suspected or confirmed gang members.

9

Figure 6

 6 Approximately 94 percent of these individuals were apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol agents and then processed, detained, 

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

7 As defined in the November 20, 2014 ICE memorandum, Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of 

Undocumented Immigrants Memorandum. 8 ICE defines criminality via a recorded criminal conviction obtained by ICE officers and agents from certified criminal history 

repositories. The individuals described above include recent border crossers, fugitives from the immigration courts, and repeat 

immigration violators. 

9 Gang affiliation is documented based upon alert codes entered by a deportation officer.

234,770 237,941 229,235 223,755 180,970 

133,551 102,224 69,478 

134,451 151,893 163,627 173,151 228,879 

235,093 

213,719 

165,935 

369,221 389,834 392,862 396,906 409,849

368,644

315,943

235,413

 -

 50,000

 100,000

 150,000

 200,000

 250,000

 300,000

 350,000

 400,000

 450,000

FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015

FY 2008-2015 ICE Removals

Interior Border
9

Removed Population by Citizenship

In FY 2015, ICE removed individuals to 181 countries, the top 10 of which are provided in Table 3.10 

Mexico continued to be the leading country of origin for those removed, followed by Guatemala, El 

Salvador, and Honduras. As a percentage of total removals, Mexican removals increased from 56 percent

in FY 2014 to 62 percent in FY 2015. El Salvadoran removals remained constant at 9 percent of total 

removals. Guatemalan removals decreased to 14 percent in FY 2015 from 17 percent in FY 2014, and 

Honduran removals decreased to 9 percent from 13 percent. 

FY 2015 Top 10 Countries of Removal by Citizenship

Citizenship Total

Mexico 146,132

Guatemala 33,249

El Salvador 21,920

Honduras 20,309

Dominican Republic 1,946

Ecuador 1,305

Colombia 1,154

Nicaragua 867

Brazil 744

Jamaica 738

Other 7,049

Total 235,413

III. Conclusion

Over the course of FY 2015, ICE has improved its ability to target individuals who threaten public safety 

and national security as demonstrated by the fact that 98 percent of individuals that ICE removed met 

ICE’s civil immigration enforcement priorities. As these revised enforcement priorities continue to take 

hold, and state and local cooperation increases, ICE expects continued progress in ensuring its resources 

are appropriately focused in keeping our nation safe and secure.

 10 Details for all 181 removals are provided in Appendix C. 

Table 3
10

Appendix A: 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 2015: IIDSv1.19 run date 10/04/2015; ENFORCE Integrated Database (EID) as of 10/02/2015

FY 2014: IIDS v1.16 run date 10/05/2014; 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 

Removals data are historical and remain 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 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 years are locked, the removal is recorded in the month the case was closed and reported in 

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

actual departures.

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.

FY 2012 through FY 2013 – Removals include Alien Transfer and Exit Program removals. 

Criminality

Criminality is determined by the existence of a criminal conviction within the Crime Entry Screen for an 

individual. 
11

Appendix B: Key Terms and Definitions

Key Term Definitions

Arrest: An arrest, also called an apprehension, is defined as the “act of detaining an individual by legal 

authority based on an alleged violation of the law.” 

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.

Convicted Criminal: 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.

Intake: An intake is the first book-in into an ICE detention facility associated with a unique detention 

stay. This does not include transfers between ICE facilities.

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 prior 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 re-entry because of the removal.
12

Appendix C: FY 2015 Removals by Citizenship

FY 2015 Removals by Citizenship

Citizenship Total

Mexico 146,132

Guatemala 33,249

El Salvador 21,920

Honduras 20,309

Dominican Republic 1,946

Ecuador 1,305

Colombia 1,154

Nicaragua 867

Brazil 744

Jamaica 738

Peru 482

Haiti 433

Canada 407

China, People’s Republic of 386

India 311

Nigeria 224

Philippines 196

United Kingdom 166

Costa Rica 162

Venezuela 134

Spain 131

Romania 130

Poland 124

Trinidad and Tobago 123

Belize 121

Somalia 120

South Korea 105

Guyana 104

Kenya 104

Italy 89

Panama 87

Saudi Arabia 85
13

FY 2015 Removals by Citizenship

Citizenship Total

Argentina 82

Pakistan 80

Bahamas 78

Russia 77

Ukraine 74

Micronesia, Federated States of 70

Bolivia 67

Israel 66

Jordan 66

Ghana 65

Germany 57

Chile 56

Egypt 56

Bangladesh 55

Turkey 55

France 49

Bosnia-Herzegovina 47

Portugal 47

Indonesia 45

South Korea 43

Netherlands 43

Albania 42

Cuba 42

Ethiopia 37

Hungary 37

Iraq 36

Lebanon 36

Thailand 35

Bulgaria 32

Vietnam 32

Latvia 31

Australia 30

South Africa 30

Japan 29
14

FY 2015 Removals by Citizenship

Citizenship Total

Cameroon 28

Czech Republic 27

Sri Lanka 27

Unknown 26

Uruguay 26

Morocco 25

Tanzania 25

Taiwan 24

Marshall Islands 23

Nepal 23

Armenia 21

Iran 21

Ireland 21

Uzbekistan 21

Lithuania 19

New Zealand 19

Senegal 18

Afghanistan 17

Cambodia 16

Moldova 16

Sweden 16

Tonga 16

Yemen 16

Antigua-Barbuda 15

Dominica 15

St. Kitts-Nevis 15

Tunisia 14

Georgia 13

Mongolia 13

Barbados 12

Burkina Faso 12

Greece 12

Zambia 12

Kazakhstan 11
15

FY 2015 Removals by Citizenship

Citizenship Total

Malaysia 11

Palau 11

Paraguay 11

Uganda 11

Angola 10

Austria 10

Fiji 10

Grenada 10

Hong Kong 10

Kosovo 10

Slovakia 10

Yugoslavia 10

Belgium 9

Guinea 9

Ivory Coast 9

Kyrgyzstan 9

St. Vincent-Grenadines 9

Sudan 9

Zimbabwe 9

Belarus 8

Croatia 8

Dem. Rep. of the Congo 8

Gabon 8

Macedonia 8

Montenegro 8

Niger 8

Serbia 8

St. Lucia 8

Benin 7

Bermuda 7

Cape Verde 7

Denmark 7

Estonia 7

Gambia 7
16

FY 2015 Removals by Citizenship

Citizenship Total

Kuwait 7

Qatar 7

Tajikistan 7

Togo 7

Eritrea 6

Liberia 6

Mali 6

Rwanda 6

Singapore 6

Switzerland 6

Algeria 5

Azerbaijan 5

Burma 5

Congo 5

Suriname 5

Syria 5

Turkmenistan 5

Mauritania 4

Netherlands Antilles 4

Norway 4

Slovenia 4

Czechoslovakia 3

Iceland 3

Laos 3

Libya 3

Sierra Leone 3

United Arab Emirates 3

British Virgin Islands 2

Chad 2

Finland 2

Malawi 2

Malta 2

Samoa 2

Serbia and Montenegro 2
17

FY 2015 Removals by Citizenship

Citizenship Total

Swaziland 2

Turks and Caicos Islands 2

Botswana 1

Burundi 1

Cayman Islands 1

Djibouti 1

Equatorial Guinea 1

French Polynesia 1

Guadeloupe 1

Mauritius 1

Namibia 1

Sao Tome and Principe 1

South Sudan 1

Total 235,413
18

Appendix D: FY 2015 Executive Action Priorities 

• Priorities and Sub-Priorities reflect Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson’s Memorandum on 

November 20, 2014, effective January 5, 2015 titled Polices for the Apprehension, Detention, and 

Removal of Undocumented Immigrants. The priorities are as follows:

Priority 1 (threats to national security, border security, and public safely)

o P1a: aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, or who otherwise pose a danger to 

national security;

o P1b: aliens apprehended at the border or ports of entry while attempting to unlawfully enter the 

United States;

o P1c: aliens convicted of an offense for which an element was active participation in a criminal 

street gang, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 521(a), or aliens not younger than 16 years of age who 

intentionally participated in an organized criminal gang to further the illegal activity of the gang;

o P1d: aliens convicted of an offense classified as a felony in the convicting jurisdiction, other than 

a state or local offense for which an essential element was the alien's immigration status; and

o P1e: aliens convicted of an “aggravated felony,” as that term is defined in section 101(a)(43) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act at the time of the conviction.

Priority 2 (misdemeanants and new immigration violators)

o P2a: aliens convicted of three or more misdemeanor offenses, other than minor traffic offenses or 

state or local offenses for which an essential element was the alien’s immigration status, provided 

the offenses arise out of three separate incidents;

o P2b: aliens convicted of a “significant misdemeanor,” which for these purposes is an offense of 

domestic violence; 1 sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a 

firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or driving under the influence; or if not an offense listed 

above, one for which the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90 days or more (the 

sentence must involve time to be served in custody, and does not include a suspended sentence);

o P2c: aliens apprehended anywhere in the United States after unlawfully entering or re-entering the 

United States and who cannot establish to the satisfaction of an immigration officer that they have 

been physically present in the United States continuously since January 1, 2014;

o P1d: aliens who, in the judgment of an ICE field office director, USCIS district director, or 

USCIS service center director, have significantly abused the visa or visa waiver programs; and

o P2d: aliens who, in the judgment of an ICE field office director, USCIS district director, or 

USCIS service center director, have significantly abused the visa or visa waiver programs.

Priority 3 (other immigration violations)

o P3: aliens are those who have been issued a final order of removal on or after January 1, 2014. 

Aliens described in this priority, which are not also described in Priority 1 or 2, represent the third 

and lowest priority for apprehension and removal.

PB: aliens of Federal Interest (field office director’s approval required).