Department of Homeland Security

Office of Inspector General

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate 

with Risk 

OIG-11-81 May 2011 (Revised)
~o\

Anne L. Richards 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

Office ofInspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

Homeland 

Security 

MAY 1 O· 2011 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office ofInspector General (OIG) was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the Inspector General Act of1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. 

This report addresses the effectiveness of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's 

decisionmaking process on whether to detain aliens in an Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement facility or place them in supervised release. It is based on interviews with 

employees and officials ofrelevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, and a 

review of applicable documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our 

office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We 

trust this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We 

express our appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

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


Background..........................................................................................................................2
 
 

Results of Audit ...................................................................................................................4 
 


Screening of Aliens Prior to Release .......................................................................4
 
 

Decisions to Detain or Release Aliens .....................................................................6 
 


Conclusion .............................................................................................................12 
 


Recommendations..............................................................................................................12
 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................................13
 
 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology ........................................................14 
 


Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ........................................15
 
 

Appendix C: Allocation of ERO Resources ...............................................................17
 
 

Appendix D: Specially Designated Countries ............................................................18
 
 

Appendix E: Secure Communities Crime Levels .......................................................19
 
 

Appendix F: Uncooperative Countries .......................................................................20
 
 

Appendix G: Major Contributors to this Report .........................................................21
 
 

Appendix H: Report Distribution................................................................................22 
 


Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ATD Alternatives to Detention 
 


CAP Criminal Alien Program
 
 

CBP Customs and Border Protection
 
 

DHS Department of Homelan d Security 
 


DQ&I Data Quality and Integrity Unit
 


EARM ENFORCEAlien Removal Module 
 


ENFORCE Enforcement Case Tracking System
 
 

ERO Enforcement and Remo val Operations 
 


FY fiscal year 
 


ICE Immigration and C ustoms Enforcement 
 


INA Immigration and Nationality Act
 
 

NCIC National Crime Information Center 
 


SC Secure Communities 
 


SDC Specially designated country 
 


TAC Third Agency Check 
 

OIG
 
 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s mission is to protect the 

security of the American people by enforcing the nation’s 

immigration and customs laws. This includes the identification, 

apprehension, detention, and removal of deport able aliens from the 

United States. Aliens undergoing removal pr oceedings are either 

held in an Immigration and Customs Enforceme nt detention facility 

or placed in one of five supervised release options. On September 

30, 2009, 31,306 aliens were in detention facilities, an esti mated 

153,000 were incarcerated in federal prisons or state and local jails, 

and 1.5 million were released through a variety of supervision 

options. Our audit objective was to assess the ef fectiveness of 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s de cisionmaking process 

on whether to detain aliens in an Immigration an d Customs 

Enforcement facility or place them in supe rvised release. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement generally has an 

effectively designed decisionmaking proces s for determining 

whether to detain or release aliens. In most of the cases we 

assessed, officers made reasonable decisions a nd complied with 

requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Supreme 

Court decisions, and prescribed policies and pr ocedures. However, 

personnel could not always provide evidence that all aliens were 

screened against the Terrorist Watchlist; curren t policy for 

screening aliens from specially designated coun tries is not 

effective; and personnel did not always maintain accurate and upto-date information in the case management system. The agency 

has taken action to correct deficiencies in its data quality. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials concurred with 

two of our three recommendations. Appendix B contains written 

responses to the recommendations from Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement. 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 


Page 1
 
 
Background 

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Enforcement 

and Removal Operations (ERO) is responsible for the detention 

and removal of deportable aliens from the United States. Aliens 

enter the United States legally or illegally, for leisure or temporary 

work, or to seek lawful permanent residence. ERO has 24 field 

offices and 186 subfield offices, as well as the Deport Center in 

Chicago, Illinois.1 ERO’s operating budget for fiscal year (FY) 

2009 was approximately $2.5 billion. (See Appendix C for the 

allocation of ERO’s budget by program.) 

ERO identifies and apprehends aliens through a variety of 

programs and offices. The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) focuses 

on identifying criminal aliens incarcerate d in federal, state, and 

local facilities and places a detainer2

 on criminalaliens to process 

them for removal before the termination of thei r sentences. The 

National Fugitive Operations Program apprehe nds aliens who fail 

to surrender for removal or comply with a remo val order. 

Like CAP, ICE’s Secure Communities (SC) I nitiative identifies 

aliens serving sentences in jails. SC uses fingerprint and biometric 

identification technologies to identify incarc erated aliens. SC 

categorizes crimes into three levels accordin g to severity (see 

Appendix E for a list of crimes by level). ICE’s Office of 

Investigations identifies aliens while investigati ng issues such as 

immigration crime, human rights violations, an d human and other 

types of smuggling. In addition, Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) apprehends aliens at and between ports of entry and along 

the nation’s borders. When CBP cannot secure immediate return 

of an alien, it turns custody of the alien over to ERO. 

Once ICE takes custody of an alien, processing agents conduct 

research to determine if the alien has a criminalor immigration 

history that would require ICE to detain the alien, and to determine 

if the alien is on the Terrorist Watchlist or w anted by another law 

enforcement agency. 

The Enforcement Case Tracking System (ENFORCE), which 

includes the ENFORCE Alien Removal Mo dule (EARM), is 

1

 The ICE Deport Center processes deportation dispositions resulting from the Bureau of Prisons, the 
 


Indiana and Illinois Departments of Corrections, and jails in the Chicago metropolitan area. 


2

 A detainer is a document ERO uses to request that a correctional facility contact ERO prior to releasing an 
 


alien so that ERO may assume custody and begin a removal proceeding.
 
 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 

Page 2
 
ERO’s primary administrative case management system. EARM 

contains information such as the alien identification number, 

country of origin, criminal history, status of adjudication 

proceedings, and type of supervision. On September 30, 2009, 

ERO reported that it had 1,671,879 active alien cases classified as 

either detained or nondetained. Detained aliens are those held in 

ICE detention facilities, while nondetained aliens are criminal 

aliens incarcerated in federal, state, or local jails and aliens 

released on a form of ERO supervision. Every case, whether 

detained or nondetained, remains part of ER O’s caseload, and 

ERO processes and monitors cases as theymove through 

immigration court proceedings to conclusion . 

According to EARM, ERO released the m ajority of these aliens to 

one of five supervision options: (1) Alternatives to Detention 

program (ATD); (2) order of supervision; (3) pa role; (4) bond; or 

(5) order of recognizance. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of 

ERO’s alien population. 

Figure 1: Distribution of ERO’s Alien Population* 

As of September 30, 2009 

Released Under Supervision 

1,487,796 (89%) 

Incarcerated Detained 

152,777 (9%) 31,306 ( 2%) 

* ERO provided this information; we did not verify its accuracy. 

ERO’s operating procedures require levels of su pervision based on 

an alien’s stage in the removal process, flight risk, or danger to the 

public. According to ERO, aliens in immigration proceedings but 

not subject to a final order of removal generally require less 

supervision than aliens who are subject to a final order of removal 

and are awaiting their actual removal. The strictest forms of 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 

Page 3
 
�

�

�

�

�

released supervision are ICE’s ATD programs, which use 

electronic devices to monitor aliens, and orders of supervision, 

which require aliens to report periodically to ERO. ICE may 

choose to release aliens who pose a minimal risk to the community 

or risk of fleeing on parole, bond, or order of recognizance. 

The primary law governing detention or rele ase of aliens is the 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1965,as amended. The 

INA grants aliens the right to a removal proceeding before an 

immigration judge and mandates that ICE de tain certain aliens 

while the removal proceedings are in progress. The INA also 

defines which aliens are subject to mandatory detention during 

immigration proceedings. Aliens who are subject to mandatory 

detention include those convicted of crimes s uch as the following: 

Terrorism 

Aggravated felonies 

Human t rafficking 

Controlled substance violations 

Money laundering 

We assessed the effectiveness of ERO’s decisi onmaking process 

on whether to detain aliens in an ERO facility or place them in 

supervised release. 

Results of Audit 

ICE generally has an effectively designed decisionmaking proc ess for determining 

whether to detain or release aliens. In most of the cases we asses sed, ICE officers 

made reasonable decisions and complied with requirements of th e INA, Supreme 

Court decisions, and prescribed policies and procedures. However, personnel could 

not always provide evidence that all aliens were screene d against the Terrorist 

Watchlist; current policy for scree ning aliens from designated countries is not 

effective; and personnel did not al ways maintain accurate and up-to-date 

information in the case manageme nt system. 

Screening of Aliens Prior to Release 

Terrorist Watchlist 

In 2005, ICE issued a policy memorandum requiring officers to 

conduct a search of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) 

database immediately upon taking custody of any alien to 

determine whether the alien is a known or suspected terrorist. ICE 

officers perform a “wants and warrants” search through the NCIC 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 

Page 4
 
 

database to identify aliens who are wanted by another law 

enforcement agency and aliens who are on the Terrorist Watchlist. 

We reviewed 59 case files for aliens whom ICE released from 

custody to determine whether ICE screen ed them against the NCIC 

database for terrorist ties. According to NCIC records and ERO 

case files, ICE did not perform an NCIC check for 2 (3%) of the 59 

aliens. We contacted NCIC and obtained recordsconfirming that 

the aliens were not known or suspected terrorists . 

Although we found only two cases in which ICE officers did not 

properly screen aliens, releasing a single known or suspected 

terrorist could have serious ramifications. 

Screening Aliens From Specially Designated Countries 

In addition to the Terrorist Watchlist scre ening, ICE uses a Third 

Agency Check (TAC) to screen aliens from spe cially designated 

countries (SDCs) that have shown a tendency to promote, produce, 

or protect terrorist organizations or their member s (see appendix D 

for a list of SDCs). The purpose of the additiona l screening is to 

determine whether other agencies have an inter est in the alien. 

ICE’s policy requires officers to conduct TAC screenings only for 

aliens from SDCs if the aliens are in ICE custody . As a result, ICE 

does not perform a TAC for the majority of its population of 

aliens, which includes those incarcerated or released under 

supervision. Figure 2 shows the portion of aliens from SDCs who 

ICE held in detention. 

Figure 2: Popula tion of Aliens From SDCs3 

As of September 30, 2 009 

Nondetained Aliens – 105,359 (not subject to TAC) 

Detained Aliens – 1,521 (subject to TAC) 

3

 As of September 30, 2009, ICE’s database contained records for 105,359 nondetained aliens from SDCs. 

ICE performed a TAC screening for some of these aliens because they were in ICE custody before that 

date. Other Department of Homeland Security components may have screened other nondetained aliens. 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 


Page 5
 
 
We reviewed 116 case files of aliens from SDCs to determine 

whether ICE performed the TAC in all instances where ICE policy 

requires it. ICE officers did not always adhere to the TAC policy 

for screening detained aliens from SDCs. ICE should have 

performed a TAC prior to the alien’s release in 56 (48%) of these 

cases. ICE did not screen 4 of the 56 aliens requiring a TAC. 

ICE does not have an effective policy in place t o ensure that all 

detained aliens from SDCs undergo a TAC scr eening. ICE did not 

screen the remaining 60 (52%) aliens in our sample because ICE 

did not detain the aliens in custody (51), because the Department 

of Justice granted the aliens relief from removal proceedings (7), 

or because ICE apprehended them before the d ate the policy went 

into effect (2). ICE risks releasing an alien wit h ties to terrorist 

organizations if officers do not perform a TAC on all detained and 

nondetained aliens from SDCs. 

Decisions to Detain or Release Aliens 

The INA grants ERO the authority to detain or release and monitor aliens 

who are not subject to mandatory detention. Once ERO encounters an 

alien, officers should screen the alien to evaluate the alien’s criminal and 

prior immigration history and to determine if the alien is on the Terrorist 

Watchlist. Officers also evaluate humanitarian factors a nd have the option 

to release aliens for extenuating circumstances. For example, ICE may 

release aliens who are nursing mothers, sole providers, young or elderly, 

or have medical conditions affecting the alien or the al ien’s family. ERO 

supervisors review and approve all decisions to detain or release aliens. 

In addition to the 175 cases we reviewed to assess ERO’s screening 

process, we assessed officer custody decisions in 732 active alien cases. 

We selected cases where ERO released criminal aliens o r detained aliens 

who had no criminal convictions or convictions fo r minor crimes. In 

addition, we selected cases where ERO either detained or released fugitive 

aliens and suspected gang members. We determined w hether ERO 

officers detained aliens who were subject to mandatory detention, posed a 

threat to the public, or were likely to abscond; or released aliens with 

supervision that was commensurate with the risk they posed (see detailed 

audit methodology in Appendix A). 

Criminal Aliens Not in ERO Custody 

According to ERO records, on September 30, 2009, the 

nondetained alien population included 168,204 aliens convicted of 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 

Page 6
 
SC Level 1, 2, or 3 crimes. Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of 
 


crime levels for released or incarcerated aliens in ERO’s database. 
 


Figure 3: Distribution of Secure Communities Crime Levels 

As of September 30, 2009 

53,121 60,000 

37,404 

59,952 

17,727 

0 

10,000 

20,000 

30,000 

40,000 

50,000 

70,000 

Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 or 2* Level 3 

* The length of a sentence determines whether the offense is a Level 1 or 

Level 2 crime. We did not determine the lengths of sentences in these cases. 

ERO uses the SC crime levels to prioritize enforcem ent actions and 

focuses immigration enforcement on the most da ngerous criminal 

aliens. The most dangerous criminal aliens are t hose charged with 

or convicted of a Level 1 offense, including homicide, kidnapping, 

and sexual assault (see Appendix E for a list of c rimes by level). 

According to ERO records, 8,278 aliens had homicide convictions, 

8,146 had sexual assault convictions, and 2,124 had kidnapping 

convictions. The INA mandates that ERO detain aliens convicted 

of these crimes during the removal process. 

We reviewed 284 cases involving aliens convicted of Level 1 

crimes to determine why ERO did not de tain them. We also 

determined whether ERO provided a level of s upervision 

commensurate with the risk the alien posed to the public. 

According to our analysis, 217 (76%) criminal a liens were not in 

ERO’s custody but were in federal prisons or state or local jails 

serving sentences for their crimes. For example , ICE encountered 

an alien serving a 25-year sentence in an Arizona prison for 

multiple convictions, including murder, attempted murder, and 

weapons violations. ICE placed a detainer on the alien, requesting 

the prison to notify ICE before releasing the alien.4 

4 While we did not assess whether ERO placed detainers on all incarcerated aliens eligible for removal, our 

office issued an audit report that addresses the effectiveness of ICE’s identification process, which includes 

determining whether the alien is removable and placing a detainer when applicable. See U.S. Immigration 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 


Page 7
 
 
ICE released 53 (19%) criminal aliens under supervision because 

their countries of origin did not issue the necessary travel 

documents, such as a passport, within the 90-day statutory initial 

removal period. Although the INA mandates that ERO detain 

these criminal aliens during the removal proces s, ICE cannot 

detain aliens indefinitely. According to the 2001 Supreme Court 

decision Zadvydas v. Davis, ICE generally can only detain an alien 

beyond the initial removal period if it determ ines that the alien is 

likely to abscond if released, poses a danger to the public, or is 

likely to obtain travel documents in the near futu re. Even then, 

ICE may not normally detain an alien for more than 180 days if 

there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonable 

foreseeable future5

. 

The governments of Cambodia, Cuba, Iran, Laos, Pakistan, and 

Vietnam are generally uncooperative and willnot issue travel 

documents when ERO tries to repatriate alien s to these countries 

(see Appendix F for a list of uncooperative cou ntries). Since it is 

unlikely that aliens from these countries will ob tain travel 

documents, ERO must eventually release m ost of them. For 

example, ERO encountered a Cambodian w ho had multiple 

convictions for child abuse and sexual assault. ERO detained the 

alien in 1999 after he completed his prison sentence and an 

immigration judge ordered his removal. However, because 

Cambodia did not issue the necessary travel documents, ERO 

released the alien into an ATD program in 2001. 

The remaining 14 (5%) of the 284 cases were not in ICE’s custody 

or under its supervision at the time of our review . For example, 

ICE removed an alien from the United States in J uly 2008, but the 

case was still active in ICE’s case management system . ICE 

officers did not update information in EARM to show that the alien 

was deported. 

Noncriminal Aliens Held in Detention 

ERO has limited detention resources and prioritizes cases to detain 

aliens subject to mandatory detention before other aliens. ERO has 

the discretion to release aliens who are not subject to mandatory 

detention into other, less restrictive methods of supervision, such 

and Custom’s Identification of Criminal Aliens in Federal and State Custody Eligible for Removal from the 
 


United States (OIG-11-26), January 2011.
 
 5

 The INA contains a provision permitting extended detention for “terrorist aliens.” 8 U.S.C § 1226a. 
 


Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 

Page 8 
as the ATD program or bond. According to ERO records, on 

September 30, 2009, 15,908 noncriminal aliens were held in 

detention facilities. We defined noncriminal aliens as those who 

did not have an NCIC6

 code associated with their cases. An NCIC 

code indicates that the alien was convicted of, or charged with, a 

crime. We reviewed 280 cases involving a liens who, according to 

ICE data, did not have criminal convictions. For each case, we 

determined the reasons why ERO detained the a lien. 

According to our analysis, ERO officers exercised discretion and 

detained 72 (26%) noncriminal alien s in accordance with the INA, 

agency priorities, and prescribed policy and procedures. For 

example, ERO detained an alien because the alie n would not 

comply with ICE officers and was a threat to the community. In 

addition, 36 (13%) detainees were unaccom panied juvenile aliens. 

During removal proceedings, ERO turns custody of these aliens 

over to the Department of Health and Human Se rvices, which 

detains unaccompanied juvenile aliens in app roved facilities and 

tries to reunite them with their parents or legal guardians. 

Of the 280 cases, 170 (61%) aliens actually had crim inal histories 

that required detention. The data that ERO prov ided did not 

contain the NCIC code indicating that these aliens were criminals. 

In some cases, there was a delay from the time o f our data request 

to when officers entered the criminal history. In other cases, 

officers documented the criminal history in phy sical case files but 

not in EARM. For example, an alien had mu ltiple convictions 

dating back to 1978. The convictions included homicide, a 

weapons offense, larceny, and burglary. ERO apprehended and 

deported the alien on six separate occasions since 1986. However, 

ERO did not record the criminal histo ry until May 2010, when an 

officer entered 13 convictions or charges into EARM. 

The remaining two cases were not in ICE custo dy at the time of 

our review. For example, ICE released an alien on bond in March 

2009, but the alien still appeared in I CE’s detained population on 

September 30, 2009. 

Actions ICE Has Taken to Improve Data Quality 

ICE has taken several steps to improve thequality of the data in 

EARM. ICE established a Data Quality and Integrity Unit (DQ&I) 

6

 The National Crime Information Center maintains a law enforcement database that defines codes 

representing types of crimes. 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 

Page 9
 
 

in 2008. The purpose of the DQ&I is to ensure that data in EARM 

are accurate, reliable, and timely. The DQ&I initiated efforts to 

identify and correct errors in EARM, and developed a guide for 

officers to use when processing aliens. In addition, ICE made data 

quality a priority by including it in performance evaluations for 

field office directors. 

Low-Level Criminal Aliens Held in Detention 

According to ERO records, on September 30, 2009, ERO was 

detaining 1,504 aliens convicted of SC Level 3 crimes. These 

include crimes such as immigration violations, property damage, 

commercialized sex offenses, and extortion (see Appendix E for a 

full list of SC Level 3 crimes). Although thesecrimes are not as 

egregious as Level 1 or 2 crimes, the INA requi res detention for 

some Level 3 crimes, such as commercialized sex offenses. 

We analyzed 57 Level 3 criminal alien cases. For each case, we 

determined the reasons why ERO detained Lev el 3 criminals. 

According to our analysis, 45 (79%) aliens w ere subject to 

mandatory detention pursuant to requirem ents in the INA. 

For the remaining 12 (21%) cases, the aliens w ere not mandatory 

detainees; however, officers decided to detain the aliens on the 

basis of risk, and in accordance with INA requ irements, ICE 

priorities, and prescribed policies and procedure s. For example, 

ICE detained a suspected gang member because he posed a risk to 

the public. According to EARM, the alien’s only convictions were 

violation of immigration lawand falsifying documents. Neither 

conviction required mandatory detention. 

National Fugitive Operations Program 

The National Fugitive Operations Program’s primary mission is to 

locate and apprehend fugitive aliens within the U nited States. 

Fugitive aliens are those who have failed to leav e after receiving a 

final order of removal, deportation, or exclusio n; or who have failed 

toreport to ERO after receiving a notice to appear. Arresting and 

removing fugitive aliens is one of ICE’s priorities. The number of 

arrests increased from FYs 2003 through 2009, as illustrated in 

Figure 4. 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 


Page 10
 
 
0 

Figure 4: Increase in Fugitive Alien Arrests 

FYs 2003–2009 

40,000 

35,000 

30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

34,759 34,155 

30,407 

15,462 

7,959 

6,584 

1,900 

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 

We reviewed 59 fugitive alien arrests made during FY 2009. For 

each case, we determined whether ICE detained fugitive aliens 

pursuant to requirements of the INA. ICE detained 47 (80%) 

fugitive aliens apprehended in FY 2009 and released the remaining 

12 (20%). Officers exercised their discretion and released the 

aliens for humanitarian reasons. The following examples illustrate 

cases where officers exercised discretion and rele ased fugitive 

aliens on an order of supervision. 

�	 

�	 

�	 

A mother who was the sole provider for t wo minor children 

A 71-year-old alien 

A criminal alien who suffered a broken neck in a car 

accident 

ICE’s Office of Investigations—Operation Community Shield 

ICE’s Office of Investigations arrested 1,785 g ang members and 

associates, criminals, and other aliens during it s 2009 Gang Surge 

Operation. The operation was part of the larger, nationwide 

Operation Community Shield, which targe ted transnational street 

gangs involved in human smuggling and traffick ing, narcotics 

smuggling and distribution, weapons smuggling and arms 

trafficking, and other crimes . According to ICE’s Office of 

Investigations, violent transnational criminal street gangs represent 

a threat to public safety in neighborhoods across the United States. 

ICE’s Office of Investigations generally recommends that ERO 

detain gang members to protect the public. 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 

Page 11
 
We reviewed 52 gang member arrests during the Gang Surge 

Operation in 2009. Upon arrest, ICE turned the alien gang members 

over to ERO custody for removal. For each case, we determined 

whether ERO overturned ICE’s initial custody recommendations 

and released the aliens. Of the 52 arrests, 4 7 (90%) aliens were 

subject to mandatory detention or ICE detained th em because they 

posed a danger to the public. ICE’s Office of I nvestigations 

recommended that ERO release three (6%) aliens because they were 

juveniles (two) or participating in an ongoing IC E investigation 

(one). The remaining two (4%) aliens wer e incarcerated in federal 

prisons or local jails. We did not identify cases w here ERO 

overturned ICE’s initial custody recommendations. However, we 

determined that immigration judges later release d six of the aliens 

from detention, and ERO released one into an A TD program. 

Conclusion 

In most of the cases we assessed, ICE officers made reasonable decisions 

regarding the appropriate levels of supervision and complied with 

requirements of the INA, Supreme Court decision s, and prescribed 

policies and procedures. ICE’s process and procedures to screen aliens to 

determine the appropriate levels of supervision are gen erally well 

designed and being followed. ICE needs to enforce t he requirement to 

screen aliens against the Terrorist Watchlist and impro ve its policies and 

procedures regarding screening aliens from SDCs and updating the 

information in its case managem ent system. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the ICE ERO Director: 

Recommendation #1: Enforce current policy and procedures for 

screening aliens against the NCIC prior to release, and develop 

procedures to ensure that personnel comply wit h the policy. 

Recommendation #2: Revise ICE’s current policy to require 

officers to conduct TAC screenings for all aliens from SDCs, not 

just those held in ICE detention facilities. 

Recommendation #3: Develop procedures to ensure that officers 

comply with requirements to maintain accurate and up-to-date 

information in EARM. 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 

Page 12
 
Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

We obtained written comments on the draft report from ICE’s 

Chief Financial Officer. We included a copy of the management 

comments in their entirety in Appendix B. The following is an 

evaluation of ICE’s official response. 

Management Response on Recommendation #1 

ICE concurred with this recommendation, and will disseminate a 

broadcast message on April 15, 201 1, to the Field Office Directors 

and Deputy Field Office Directors reinforcing the importance of 

conducting NCIC checks prior to release or removal of aliens. 

OIG Analysis: We consider ICE’s proposed action responsive to 

the recommendation and consider the recommendation resolved, 

but it will remain open until ICE releases this m essage. 

Management Response on Recommendation #2 

ICE did not concur with this recommendation, indicating that the 

agency does not have sufficient resources to scre en all aliens from 

SDCs. 

OIG Analysis: ICE’s current TAC policy is ineffective because 

ICE does not perform a TAC for 99% of the po pulation of aliens 

from SDCs. Conducting TACs is additional m easure that can 

assist ICE in identifying individuals who ma y pose a threat to the 

United States. According to ICE, TACs have resulted in highprofile prosecutions of suspected terrorists. We consider this 

recommendation unresolved and op en. 

Management Response on Recommendation #3 

ICE concurred with this recommendation and im plemented two 

initiatives that should improve the accuracy o f information in 

EARM. ICE updated the Alien Booking Module of the ENFORCE 

system to improve ICE’s capability capture and track an alien’s 

criminal history. Additionally, the ERO DQ&I implemented 

ongoing processes to monitor and validate data in EARM. 

OIG Analysis: We consider ICE’s proposed action responsive to 

the recommendation and consider this recommendation closed and 

resolved. 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 

Page 13
 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

This report provides the results of our work to determine the 

effectiveness of ICE’s decisionmaking process on whether to 

detain aliens in a detention facility or place them in supervised 

release. To achieve our objectives, we conducted fieldwork at six 

ICE field offices (Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Miami, and 

Phoenix); reviewed 907 cases; interviewed ICE headquarters 

officials, deportation officers, and Office of Investigations agents 

regarding decisions to detain or release aliens; reviewed relevant 

laws, regulations, standard operating procedures, and policy; 

identified all active cases in ICE’s EARM datab ase on September 

30, 2009; reviewed prior audit reports regarding the release or 

detention of aliens and ICE’s decisionmaking p rocess; assessed the 

reliability and validity of data provided by ICE by comparing ERO 

Field Office documentation with data maintained in ICE’s EARM; 

and identified and analyzed active cases where ICE— 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

Screened aliens against the Terrorist Watchlist; 

Screened aliens from specially designated countries; 

Released aliens convicted of aggravated felonies; 

Detained aliens who did not have criminal convictions; 

Detained aliens convicted of lesser crimes; 

Arrested and detained or released fu gitive aliens; and 

Arrested and detained or released aliens who were 
 


suspected gang m embers. 
 


We conducted our audit between March and December 2010 under 

the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 

and according to generally accepted governme nt auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusion s based on our 

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions. 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 

Page 14
 
 
' .,..,""f_-..

, .....- "',1"..... ,,~...._.. "'-."""",

u.s. Immigr"-tion

"-lId Custom,

Enforc~m~m

.,t ~, R"""""" 10 OIG r>r.>fl. "Sup'''';'Jo« '!IAn""

C ""'" .'u. RIJl- • FOR OFFICIAl, uS!: ONLY

WOliO) _OIG I'",j«t N~: 11i-Q91_.WI~/CE, <ilion! jon....,. 7.

!nll

L,S 1m"';...,,,,,, on<I eu"om, Enl~=rn"'"on)'J'Pf<""''' the oppon,,;\y l<I """"""" ""

,0< d",n "'J""'l. "'uthod i' 0" ""P""'" "'...,., =~..ion.

RI'<'O....... .."'" II: En"""< ""''"''l' ,um," poli,)" l1l<I ~<dIu> for !OCr«\'l;n, .Iion."II""",""

."eM:: ~or '0 ",1"'0, III>d pro<e;l,.., "' ........'" ,.... "......,...,.. <OIl"4'1)" ;th LIlt poli,)".

ICE R..p".... ICE t<In<""- ICE',En_"""", <no! R<m<>,a1 Op<r.>'ioM (ERO)

Il<:o<Iq<Urtm ri,., Opo,."""" Do,';''''' ~'Hl .,"""".."._OIl m<"J"'S' '0 ,0< ",1<1

011"><:, Di""t"" <no! O<:pyIy l'i,1<I om« ,tI<d. 0''''''''''

or

",;nfon:Ln; "ror, "" ;,"pon'o« ofOUt '""'0'

polk)" r<ionlillll .'<CIC <"",.." distrioo,«I ;1~ to< btoOOCti' """"I/<. prior '" ,.....,... r<"",,',I, "f!he ""I")".;U h<

S.i><" ,""", O<I"'i.... """ Oq><>n""'" otr"....,,11

1>< '<'p<o""OI' fo< <I'L.""nH Lhol SCM:: ch«l< '''' «wn~""n! 11<_ ,II< .~",.' <d.... or

""",,,,I. Til< """I'll< ....II "" """ to th< ""d no I..", ~_ ....prli I~. lOll.

In ""1"<10 'h" r<rommOfidoliooo "" ,onsi<I<ml .-..01,'00 0<\<1 """" 1"00;01 ""':de "f!h< .,.....k... ,,,...,,, """,i['«1 .00,',.

R...om"",n~.n..n O!: R",i", ICE', <tIfT<Tl' policy to "'i";'" ..m,,,, ""'J-'0 rondoc1 Thill!

~y Cb<ek' for ,II :01""" lrom ,!""ioll)""""JPU'n! ,ouoonea. ,1>0« lleId io ICE

""""'.... f><;I~'"

ICE..,.. "'" <00"" ..ilh ,,", "",,,,",,,,,,..u,;o, ..... "'1"""" ;, be '0"";<1<=1 do><d. A, ICE

;mp!<m"," it> Imm,¥">,i",, ",f""..,-n"" in;, ...;,."., " .."" po-iorilll< Lh" "'" of;" limi","

""",,,,«l "'''''''''''", Whit" ",,~ook, «nJuo';nl Thr~ AIl<T"Y Cl>ock, nAC.) 00 ~" ''''''''''' ratP"l'ul"io, ~f,",," Ihon 1<r.l,"lO ,Ii"" Ii""" I\um Sr>«i,lly llailf"lO.! Co,"","" (SOC,I

"'0"'" "" ;...,W«I in of 01"" .,,"'_d.m""'" I'l",",,. '0 """''"'" ICE polKy, , TAC

-

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 


Page 15
 
 
Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 


Page 16
 
 

,lIe<k "';11 be compleled "" ll>e5< lb<n< prio< to"""""'. In oddl,;o", I. ''''''''' ICE pollo<y

to cond"" T"'C ch«b .. oppropriOl< "" .1I.lim. comi... InIO ICE ,uo.lO<Iy, ICE"';11 condUCI

periodlo< "'vi.... 10 ..........1""oUlOh'y .. beio...fot«ol.-

Ro<ommeodolk>o _): De-etop fII'X«l""" to mOW'< 111" omun comply "ill1 "'Guinmenlo

to moio..in """'1"" one! "1'"-informolion in ["'RM,

ICE 11;........" ICE """""'. 10' ""en< to 'f>< Eol'w<c "'Iico lIoold~ Mo,hlc (EAIIM~ • Crime Eoory _ ... been ilT'4'lomemed. Tho mondotoryKfftII 01-. off"'en

in .... ("'kilO ...............bjOd'. aiminolily""" I,meof .~""- In"" tq>O<l. OIG

,1«<Ion """P" -..b= on alim bod m,klp" ,,,,,.0<Ii0na, 1",ludi.I' homitlo., dotlol \tock to

1971. ICE deponed .....lien ai, Ii.... ""'" 19M, II<.< If>< criminaJ IliOlory W..__

inlO lbe EtIfore< "'liM R""""",I Modul. jE"'RM) ...1I May :>OlD. Tho Crime Enory

S<r-. (CES) r..ill..... orime """_'" and boo been a<kk:>d to bo<h [.fore< "'lien

Bookiol Mod,., and 'f>< t""""" EolO "'lion R<movoI Mod,,, 10 ""'k cri uon<iated "';'11

OIl .liM .. 'bey n>ove en"""""",,, and ",,""v.1 pm< on- ..", 1I<1da"';1I

1"0""' 1r.;.--."lly oftq>O<li"1 and c1arily ofior.;.--.""ion "',,>s, ICE _iona1 om'"

fbi, CES copabilily ,,,0:} 0110", tho ...... '" "".. cri.... "tho Ii"" of_.lb..

.....li"1 ICE", • wbjOd" "'",I..II,y """"sMon II>< _Eopm<'" mel """I'inl 1ft

"'""'.-_io..

ICE', [RO Dou Quali'y &. I_pity (DQ&.I) Ti~' T"""' ... .,.;"I"i _h fi.ld off",. will1

,I>< ,UAhII_ or!o<.1 I)Q&:I "-' Tho ERa DQ&.i !<am, on;" ..-.l P"O''''' II>< fi,1d

DQ&1l<amo ,,',111 .... ed","ionaI reooor<.. an<I tooll no<csoary '" """"lOr Iheir 0.......... _

to p«venl and ro=, "'""- Oi"" Eotly s.:.... on;";"i I,. I'*" 0(1111, .fJo<t.

ICE;' lakl.~ """" mo..""" "' ....... t!IaI £ARM .... c""""' .. _ihl<. 10 O«ober 201a.

ERa DQ&I bqp>la '""" <m<t-""II_ qll<o)'. ERO DQ& I ..... pm< _Iyq""'Y

.r.u """"""' '''''' , ........ non-<nml..10 In EARM OP;M NCICfNLHS "-'

"""Iib"'.:onvi<:tion iooit..",. io Iheir NCIC aiml".1 re<:onI. [RO DQ.t.1 tbe .-1" or

.... q&J<ty to .... arr""ed !l<Id. officoa an<I «qUi_ """" '" update ""h , 1ft EARM. Thi,

......011""''''' """"" ,... II>< crimi..1_ """""Iy ",nooled 10 EARM wi"'io "'" ...... ore... molUlion,

ICE bc1l..01100:>< '''''' 1nm..1... "';1I kave a major I"""", on mai"'ai","1 """","" ar>d _

_ iof...,,,,i.. will1io EARM, ICE """i..... "' ..... inon""'i" ..... <OIl-<1Toctive ...... to

prom",. O«<ltXy willm E.ARM.

ICE ""1"""-' thi. r«ommer-.lOlioo ... """,id<red """i.ed ..... c1o>od.

S!loolcl J"'" hove ..yq_'" «J<l<OOIlI. pi....""""'" MiclIool Moy. OIG PoRfol"

M....... "' 12001 7)2-6263. or by .."",il .. MkcbKl Moy@;lhil!5lv.

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 
Appendix C 

Allocation of ERO Resources Dollars in Thousands 

$2,000,000 

$1,800,000 

$1,600,000 

$1,400,000 

$1,200,000 

$1,000,000 

$800,000 

$600,000 

$400,000 

$200,000 

$0 

Allocation of ERO Resources for FY 2009 
 

$1,774,696 

$255,773 $207,879 $188,286 

$62,722 

Custody Transport & Fugitive Criminal Alien Alternatives to 

Operations Removal Operations Program Detention 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 

Page 17
 
 
Appendix D 

Specially Designated Countries

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 

Page 18 

ICE provided this list of specially designated countries. ICE 

policy requires officers to perform a TAC for detained aliens from 

these countries. 

•

•

•

Afghanistan 

Algeria 

Bahrain 

•

•

Territories of Gaza West 

Bank 

Oman 

•

•

•

•

Bangladesh 

Djibouti 

Egypt 

Eritrea 

•

•

•

•

Pakistan 

Philippines 

Qatar 

Saudi Arabia 

• Indonesia • Somalia 

• Iran • Sudan 

•

•

•

Iraq 

Jordan 

Kazakhstan 

•

•

•

Syria 

Tajikistan 

Thailand 

• Kuwait • Tunisia 

•

•

•

•

Lebanon 

Libya 

Malaysia 

Mauritania 

•

•

•

•

Turkey 

Turkmenistan 

United Arab Emirates 

Uzbekistan 

• Morocco • Yemen 

 
Level 1 Crimes Level 2 Crimes Level 3 Crimes 

Homicide Arson Sovereignty 

Kidnapping Burglary Military 

Sexual Assault Larceny Immigration 

Robbery Stolen Vehicles Extortion 

Assault Forgery Damage Property

Threats Fraud Family Offenses

Extortion – Threat to Injure Embezzlement Gambling 

Person 

Sex Offenses Stolen Property Commercialized Sex 

Offenses 

Cruelty Toward Child, Wife Damage Property Liquor 

w/Explosive 

Resisting an Officer Traffic Offenses Obstructing the Police 

Weapon Smuggling Bribery 

Hit and Run Money Laundering Health and Safety 

Drugs (Sentence > 1 year) Property Crime s Civil Rights 

Drugs (Sentence < 1 year) Invasion of Privacy 

 Elections Laws

Conservation

Public Order Crimes 

Appendix E 

Secure Communities Crime Levels 

ICE uses the Secure Communities crime levels to prioritize 

enforcement actions and focuses immigration enforcement on the 

most dangerous criminal aliens. The most dangerous criminal 

aliens are those convicted of or charged with a Level 1 offense, 

including homicide, kidnapping, and sexual assault. 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 


Page 19
 
 
�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�
 

Appendix F 

Uncooperative Countries 

ICE provided the following list of the top 15 countries that generally 

will not issue travel documents when ERO tries to repatriate aliens 

to these countries. This list is not all-encompassing because there 

are other countries that pose obstacles in repatriating aliens. 

Bangladesh 

Cambodia 

Caribbean combined (Jamaica, St. Lucia, Dom inica, 

St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Kitts and Nevis, 

Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and Barbuda) 

China 

Cuba 

India 

Iran 

Laos 

Liberia 

Pakistan 

Republic of Congo 

Sierra Leone 

Somalia 
 

Vietnam 
 

Zimbabwe 
 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 

Page 20
 
 
Appendix G 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Jewel Butler, Director 

Maryann Pereira, Desk Officer 

Sean Pettersen, Audit Manager 

Holly Snow, Auditor-in-Charge 

Sharon Trodden, Auditor 

Andrew Herman, A uditor 

Marisa Coccaro, Program Analyst 

Gary Crownover, Program Analyst 

Lindsay Kirchoffner, Program Analyst 

Elizabeth Clark, Program Analyst 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 


Page 21
 
 
Appendix H 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Immigration and Customs Enforce ment 

Assistant Secretary, ICE 

Director, Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations 

ICE Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk 
 


Page 22
 
 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, 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 our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.