Special Review - Initial 

Observations Regarding 

Family Separation 

Issues Under the Zero 

Tolerance Policy 

September 27, 2018 

OIG-18-84 
 

 

DHS OIG HIGHLIGHTS

 Initial Observations Regarding

Family Separation Issues Under

the Zero Tolerance Policy



September 27, 2018 

Why We Did This 

Special Review 

In light of the heightened public 

and congressional interest in 

the Department of Homeland 

Security’s separation of families 

at the southern border 

pursuant to the Government’s 

Zero Tolerance Policy, the DHS 

Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) conducted unannounced 

site visits to U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection and U.S. 

Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement facilities in and 

around El Paso and McAllen, 

Texas on June 26–28, 2018. 

The following report describes 

OIG’s observations in the field 

and its analysis of family 

separation data provided by the 

Department. 

What We 

Recommend 

This report is observational and 

contains no recommendations. 

For Further Information: 

Contact our Office of Public Affairs at 

(202) 981-6000, or email us at 

DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. 

What We Observed 

DHS was not fully prepared to implement 

the Administration’s Zero Tolerance Policy 

or to deal with some of its after-effects. 

Faced with resource limitations and other 

challenges, DHS regulated the number of 

asylum-seekers entering the country 

through ports of entry at the same time that 

it encouraged asylum-seekers to come to 

the ports. During Zero Tolerance, CBP also 

held alien children separated from their 

parents for extended periods in facilities 

intended solely for short-term detention. 

DHS also struggled to identify, track, and 

reunify families separated under Zero 

Tolerance due to limitations with its 

information technology systems, including 

a lack of integration between systems. 

Finally, DHS provided inconsistent 

information to aliens who arrived with 

children during Zero Tolerance, which 

resulted in some parents not 

understanding that they would be 

separated from their children, and being 

unable to communicate with their children 

after separation. 

DHS’ Response 

Appendix B provides DHS’ management 

response in its entirety. 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-18-84 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov 

September 27, 2018 

MEMORANDUM FOR: The Honorable Kevin K. McAleenan 

Commissioner 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Ronald D. Vitiello 

Senior Official Performing the Duties of 

the Director 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

FROM: John V. Kelly 

Senior Official Performing the Duties of the 

Inspector General 

SUBJECT: Special Report – Initial Observations Regarding Family 

Separation Issues Under the Zero Tolerance Policy 

For your action is the final special report Initial Observations Regarding Family 

Separation Issues Under the Zero Tolerance Policy. This special report reflects 

work undertaken pursuant to our authorities and obligations under Section 2 

of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. Specifically, the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General performed this work for 

the purpose of promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the 

administration of, and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse in, DHS’ programs 

and operations. This final special report addresses the technical comments and 

incorporates the management response provided by your offices. This report is 

observational and contains no recommendations. 

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, we will provide copies of our report to Congress and will post it on 

our website for public dissemination. 

Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact Jennifer Costello, 

Chief Operating Officer, at (202) 981-6000. 

Attachment 

www.oig.dhs.gov 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Background 

On April 6, 2018, President Trump directed several Federal agencies, including 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to report on their efforts to end a 

practice developed under prior administrations of releasing certain individuals 

suspected of violating immigration law into the United States pending 

resolution of their administrative or criminal cases — a practice sometimes 

referred to as “catch and release.”1 The same day, Attorney General Jeff 

Sessions directed all Federal prosecutors along the Southwest Border to work 

with DHS “to adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy” requiring that all 

improper entry offenses be referred for criminal prosecution “to the extent 

practicable” (referred to throughout this report as the Zero Tolerance Policy).2 

Within DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) played critical roles in implementing the 

Administration’s Zero Tolerance Policy. CBP’s Office of Field Operations (OFO) 

inspects all foreign visitors and goods entering at established ports of entry, 

while U.S. Border Patrol is responsible for apprehending individuals who enter 

the United States illegally between ports of entry. CBP transfers aliens in its 

custody to ICE, which is responsible for, among other duties, detaining certain 

aliens with pending immigration proceedings and deporting all aliens who 

receive final removal orders. 

Before implementation of the Zero Tolerance Policy, when CBP apprehended an 

alien family unit attempting to enter the United States illegally, it usually 

placed the adult in civil immigration proceedings without referring him or her 

for criminal prosecution. CBP only separated apprehended parents from 

children in limited circumstances — e.g., if the adult had a criminal history or 

outstanding warrant, or if CBP could not determine whether the adult was the 

child’s parent or legal guardian. Accordingly, in most instances, family units 

either remained together in family detention centers operated by ICE while 

their civil immigration cases were pending,3 or they were released into the 

United States with an order to appear in immigration court at a later date. 

 1 Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney 

General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, 

April 6, 2018. 

2 Dept. of Justice, Memorandum for Federal Prosecutors Along the Southwest Border, April 6, 

2018. Entering the United States without inspection and approval is a civil offense and may 

also result in criminal charges. See 8 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 1227 (civil grounds for 

removal), 1325 (crime of improper entry), 1326 (crime of reentry). The Department of Justice 

has the authority to decide whether and to what extent to prosecute Federal crimes. 

3 A Federal court has interpreted the Flores Agreement — a 1997 settlement that establishes 

minimum conditions for the detention, release, and treatment of children — to generally limit 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-18-84 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

The Zero Tolerance Policy, however, fundamentally changed DHS’ approach to 

immigration enforcement. In early May 2018, DHS determined that the policy 

would cover alien adults arriving illegally in the United States with minor 

children. Because minor children cannot be held in criminal custody with an 

adult, alien adults who entered the United States illegally would have to be 

separated from any accompanying minor children when the adults were 

referred for criminal prosecution. The children, who DHS then deemed to be 

unaccompanied alien children,4 were held in DHS custody until they could be 

transferred to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office 

of Refugee Resettlement, which is responsible for the long-term custodial care 

and placement of unaccompanied alien children.5 

The Administration’s Zero Tolerance Policy and the resulting family separations 

sparked intense public debate. On June 20, 2018, President Trump issued 

Executive Order 13,841, halting the practice of family separation. On June 26, 

2018, a Federal court ordered the Government to reunify separated children 

and parents within 30 days.6 On September 20, 2018, the Government 

reported to the court that it had reunified or otherwise released 2,167 of the 

2,551 children over 5 years of age who were separated from a parent and 

deemed eligible for reunification by the Government.7 The Government also 



the time children can stay at such family centers to 20 days. Flores v. Lynch, 212 F. Supp. 3d 

907, 914 (C.D. Cal. 2015). In July 2018, that Federal court denied the Government’s request to 

modify the Flores Agreement to allow it to detain families for longer. Flores v. Sessions, 85-cv4544 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2018). However, in August 2018, another Federal court permitted 

families to remain in Government facilities together longer than 20 days if the adult waives the 

child’s rights under the Flores Agreement. Ms. L. v. ICE, 18-cv-428 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2018). 

DHS and HHS recently proposed regulations that, if implemented, would terminate the Flores 

Agreement. 83 Fed. Reg. 45,486 (Sept. 7, 2018). 

4 An unaccompanied alien child is a child under 18 years of age with no lawful immigration 

status in the United States who has neither a parent nor legal guardian in the United States 

nor a parent nor legal guardian in the United States “available” to provide care and physical 

custody for him or her. 6 U.S.C. § 279(g)(2). As such, children traveling with a related adult 

other than a parent or legal guardian — such as a grandparent or sibling — are still deemed 

unaccompanied alien children. 

5 DHS must transfer unaccompanied alien children to HHS within 72 hours unless there are 

“exceptional circumstances.” 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(3). There are special requirements for 

unaccompanied alien children from Mexico and Canada that may permit a different process, 8 

U.S.C. § 1232(a)(2)(A), but if those requirements are not met, CBP must follow the same 

process established for unaccompanied alien children from other countries. 8 U.S.C. § 

1232(a)(3). 

6 Ms. L. v. ICE, 18-cv-428 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018). The order required the Government to 

reunite children under the age of 5 with their families within 14 days, and children 5 years old 

and older within 30 days. 

7 The Government can also release a child to another family member or sponsor, or if the child 

turns 18. Ms. L. v. ICE, 18-cv-428 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2018). According to the Government, the 

remaining 402 children involved in the lawsuit that are still in HHS’ care include 182 children 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-18-84 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

reported that it had reunited 84 of the 103 children under 5 years of age who 

were separated and initially deemed eligible for reunification. 

In response to significant congressional and public interest related to the Zero 

Tolerance Policy, a multi-disciplinary team of DHS Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) attorneys, inspectors, and criminal investigators deployed to areas in and 

around El Paso and McAllen, Texas, to conduct unannounced visits at CBP 

and ICE facilities between June 26 and June 28, 2018.8 This report describes 

the OIG team’s observations in the field, as well as the team’s review of family 

separation data provided by the Department. This report does not evaluate the 

merits of the Zero Tolerance Policy or family separations. Further, the report 

does not evaluate the Department’s efforts to reunify separated families 

because those efforts took place after the OIG team’s field visits. Observations 

from specific locations in the field are not necessarily generalizable. Appendix A 

provides more information on the scope and methodology of the review. 

Results of Review 

The OIG’s observations indicate that DHS was not fully prepared to implement 

the Zero Tolerance Policy, or to deal with certain effects of the policy following 

implementation. For instance, while the Government encouraged all asylumseekers to come to ports of entry to make their asylum claims, CBP managed 

the flow of people who could enter at those ports of entry through metering, 

which may have led to additional illegal border crossings. Additionally, CBP 

held alien children separated under the policy for long periods in facilities 

intended solely for short-term detention.9 The OIG team also observed that a 

lack of a fully integrated Federal immigration information technology system 

made it difficult for DHS to reliably track separated parents and children, 



where the adult associated with the child is not eligible for reunification or is not currently 

available for discharge, and 220 children where the Government has determined the parent is 

not entitled to reunification under the lawsuit. In 134 of those 220 cases, the adult is no longer 

in the United States and has indicated an intent not to reunify with his or her child. Ms. L. v. 

ICE, 18-cv-428 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2018). 

8 In the Rio Grande Valley sector, which encompasses McAllen, the OIG team went to facilities 

operated by Border Patrol (McAllen Station and Ursula Central Processing Center), CBP OFO 

(Gateway International Bridge, Brownsville and Matamoros International Bridge, and Hidalgo 

ports of entry), and ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) (Port Isabel Detention 

Center). In the El Paso sector, the team went to facilities operated by Border Patrol (Clint 

Station, Paso Del Norte Processing Center, and El Paso Station), CBP OFO (Paso del Norte 

International Bridge port of entry), and ICE ERO (El Paso Processing Center and Tornillo 

Processing Center). 

9 Notwithstanding this observation, OIG observed that the DHS facilities it visited appeared to 

be operating in substantial compliance with applicable standards for holding children. The 

detailed results of OIG’s unannounced inspections of these facilities are described in a separate 

OIG report titled Results of Unannounced Inspections of Conditions for Unaccompanied Alien 

Children in CBP Custody. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-18-84 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

raising questions about the Government’s ability to accurately report on 

separations and subsequent reunifications. Finally, inconsistencies in the 

information provided to alien parents resulted in some parents not 

understanding that their children would be separated from them, and made 

communicating with their children after separation difficult. 

Although this report does not make formal recommendations for corrective 

action, it highlights issues with DHS’ handling of alien families that warrant 

the Department’s attention. OIG anticipates undertaking a more in-depth 

review of some of these issues in future work. 

CBP Faced Resource and Other Challenges in Responding to the 

Effects of the Zero Tolerance Policy 

Under the Zero Tolerance Policy, the Government encouraged asylum-seekers 

to come to U.S. ports of entry. At the same time, CBP reported that 

overcrowding at the ports of entry caused them to limit the flow of people that 

could enter. This may have led asylum-seekers at ports of entry to attempt 

illegal border crossings instead. Additionally, CBP officials said that because of 

limited processing capacity at HHS facilities and other factors, CBP held 

unaccompanied alien children for long periods in facilities intended for shortterm detention. 

CBP Regulated the Number of Asylum-Seekers Entering at Ports of Entry, 

Which May Have Resulted in Additional Illegal Border Crossings 

While the Zero Tolerance Policy was in effect, Government officials — including 

the DHS Secretary and the Attorney General — publicly encouraged asylumseeking adults to enter the United States legally through a port of entry to 

avoid prosecution and separation from their accompanying children.10 

However, at the same time, CBP was regulating the flow of asylum-seekers at 

ports of entry through “metering,” a practice CBP has utilized at least as far 

 10 See, e.g., Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and DHS Secretary Kirstjen 

Nielsen, June 18, 2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefingpress-secretary-sarah-sanders-department-homeland-security-secretary-kirstjen-nielsen061818/ (“And finally, DHS is not separating families legitimately seeking asylum at ports of 

entry. If an adult enters at a port of entry and claims asylum, they will not face prosecution for 

illegal entry. They have not committed a crime by coming to the port of entry.”); Dept. of 

Justice, Attorney General Sessions Addresses Recent Criticisms of Zero Tolerance By Church 

Leaders, June 14, 2018, https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessionsaddresses-recent-criticisms-zero-tolerance-church-leaders (“[I]f the adults go to one of our 

many ports of entry to claim asylum, they are not prosecuted and the family stays intact 

pending the legal process.”). 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-18-84 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

back as 2016 to regulate the flow of individuals at ports of entry.11 Although 

DHS asserts that the Zero Tolerance Policy and metering at ports of entry are 

distinct issues, a CBP official reported that the backlogs created by these 

competing directives likely resulted in additional illegal border crossings. 

At the ports of entry the OIG team visited, pedestrian footbridges link the 

United States and Mexico, with the international line dividing the two countries 

running across the middle of the bridges. CBP’s processing facilities are 

stationed on the U.S. side at the north ends of the bridges. To reach these 

facilities, an alien must cross the international line and walk a short distance 

across U.S. soil. When an asylum-seeker arrives at the processing facility, CBP 

officers examine the individual’s identification and travel documents, conduct 

an initial interview, obtain fingerprints and photographs, and then seek 

placement of the individual with ICE, or HHS if an unaccompanied alien child 

is involved. 

When metering, CBP officers stand at the international line out in the middle of 

the footbridges. Before an alien without proper travel documents (most of 

whom are asylum-seekers) can cross the international line onto U.S. soil,12 

those CBP officers radio the ports of entry to check for available space to hold 

the individual while being processed. According to CBP, the officers only allow 

the asylum-seeker to cross the line if space is available.13 When the ports of 

entry are full, CBP guidance states that officers should inform individuals that 

the port is currently at capacity and that they will be permitted to enter once 

there is sufficient space and resources to process them. The guidance further 

states officers may not discourage individuals from waiting to be processed. 

 11 CBP officials informed the OIG team that CBP instituted metering to address safety and 

health hazards that resulted from overcrowding at ports of entry. Whether this practice is 

permissible under Federal and/or international law is currently being litigated and OIG 

expresses no opinion here on the legality or propriety of the practice. See, e.g., Washington v. 

United States, 18-cv-939 (W.D. Wash. 2018); Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen, 17-cv-2366 (S.D. Cal. 

2017). 

12 By law, once an individual is physically present in the United States, he or she must 

generally be allowed to apply for asylum, regardless of immigration status. Immigration and
 

Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). Federal law also generally prohibits the return of an alien 

to a country where he or she may face torture or persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); 

8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16-.17.
 13 The head of a nongovernmental organization who is familiar with the flow of asylum-seekers 

suggested to the OIG team that CBP meters individuals even when there is available space.
 

Although OIG observed asylum-seekers being turned away at some of the ports of entry we
 

visited, CBP claimed that the processing facilities were full at those times. During our visits, 

OIG did not observe CBP turning away asylum-seekers while there was available space.
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-18-84 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

However, some officers in El Paso informed the OIG team that they advise 

individuals to return later.14 

Although the OIG team did not observe severe overcrowding at the ports of 

entry it visited, the team did observe that the space designated for holding 

asylum-seekers during processing is limited. Additionally, CBP policies limit 

how and whether certain classes of aliens can be detained in the same hold 

room, which further constrains the available space. For instance, mothers and 

their young children must be held separately from unaccompanied minors, 

who must be held separately from adult men. Depending on who is being held 

on a given day and the configuration of the hold rooms, the facility can reach 

capacity relatively quickly. At one port of entry the OIG team visited, CBP staff 

attempted to increase their capacity by converting former offices into makeshift 

hold rooms. 

While the stated intentions behind metering may be reasonable, the practice 

may have unintended consequences. For instance, OIG saw evidence that 

limiting the volume of asylum-seekers entering at ports of entry leads some 

aliens who would otherwise seek legal entry into the United States to cross the 

border illegally. According to one Border Patrol supervisor, the Border Patrol 

sees an increase in illegal entries when aliens are metered at ports of entry. 

Two aliens recently apprehended by the Border Patrol corroborated this 

observation, reporting to the OIG team that they crossed the border illegally 

after initially being turned away at ports of entry. One woman said she had 

been turned away three times by an officer on the bridge before deciding to 

take her chances on illegal entry.15 

CBP Detained Unaccompanied Alien Children for Extended Periods in Facilities 

Intended for Short-Term Detention 

Absent “exceptional circumstances,” the law generally permits CBP to hold 

unaccompanied alien children in its custody for up to 72 hours before 

transferring them to the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement pending resolution 

of their immigration proceedings.16 Moreover, CBP policy dictates, “[e]very effort 

must be made to hold detainees for the least amount of time” possible.17 As a 

result, CBP facilities are not designed to hold people for long periods of time. 

 14 Some media reports alleged that CBP was threatening asylum-seekers and giving them false
 

information while metering. The OIG team was unable to confirm these allegations. 

15 The fact that both aliens and the Border Patrol reported that metering leads to increased 

illegal border crossings strongly suggests a relationship between the two. Based on the limited 

scope of this review, the OIG team could not corroborate these anecdotal observations with 

data or evaluate the effects in other sectors it did not visit. 

16 See 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(3). 

17 CBP, National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search § 4.1 (October 2015).
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-18-84 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

The OIG team determined that CBP exceeded the 72-hour period in many 

instances. Data provided by CBP to OIG indicates that, during the week of the 

OIG’s fieldwork (June 25 to June 29, 2018), 9 out of the 21 unaccompanied 

alien children (42 percent) who approached the ports of entry visited by OIG 

were held for more than 72 hours. The data further indicates that 237 out of 

855 unaccompanied alien children (28 percent) apprehended by Border Patrol 

between ports of entry were detained for more than 72 hours at the facilities 

the OIG team visited. Although the average length of time unaccompanied alien 

children spent in custody during this period was 65 hours, one unaccompanied 

alien child remained in custody for 12 days (over 280 hours). 

OIG also obtained a broader data set from CBP showing how long separated 

children were held in Border Patrol custody during the entire period the Zero 

Tolerance Policy was in effect (May 5 to June 20, 2018). As discussed further in 

the following section, OIG has concerns about the quality and reliability of this 

data set. Notwithstanding these concerns, the Border Patrol’s data shows that 

the Rio Grande Valley sector exceeded the 72-hour time period for at least 564 

children (44 percent of children detained during this time). This sector also 

held a child for 25 days, nearly three times longer than any other Southwest 

Border Patrol sector. The El Paso sector exceeded the 72-hour period for 297 

children (nearly 40 percent of children detained in the sector during this time). 

All other sectors exceeded that period 13 percent of the time.18 

Figure 1: Length of Custody of Separated Unaccompanied Alien Children 

in Border Patrol Custody during Zero Tolerance Policy (May 5 – June 20, 

2018) 

0–3 Days 4 Days 5+ Days Max. Days 

in Custody 

Rio Grande Valley, TX 56.0% 16.9% 27.1% 25 

El Paso, TX 60.2% 16.9% 22.9% 9 

All Other Southwest 

Border Sectors 

86.8% 9.6% 3.6% 8 

Total – All Sectors 67.1% 14.5% 18.4% 25 

Source: OIG-generated figures based on data obtained from Border Patrol 

According to many Border Patrol officials with whom the OIG team met, HHS’ 

inability to accept placement of unaccompanied alien children promptly 

 18 The number of children held for more than 72 hours may be even higher than these figures, 

as the data received shows the dates — not the specific hours — that a child was apprehended 

and transferred from Border Patrol. A child held for 3 days could actually have been held for 

more than 72 hours depending on the time that he/she was apprehended and transferred. For 

example, if an unaccompanied alien child was booked in at 8:00 a.m. on June 1 and booked 

out at 9:00 a.m. on June 4, the unaccompanied alien child was in CBP custody for 73 hours, 

but would be identified in the data provided as having been in custody for just 3 days. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-18-84 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

resulted in unaccompanied alien children remaining in CBP custody for 

extended periods. CBP officials also cited other possible reasons for extended 

detention, including the need to provide an unaccompanied alien child with 

medical care or delays in transportation arrangements provided by ICE. 

However, other evidence indicates that CBP officials may have inadvertently 

omitted critical information from unaccompanied alien children placement 

requests submitted to HHS, which could have also contributed to delays. For 

instance, one CBP juvenile coordinator in the Rio Grande Valley sector, who is 

responsible for assisting with the placement of unaccompanied alien children 

with HHS, recalled HHS contacting him several times per day for necessary 

information CBP failed to provide when initially submitting particular 

placement requests. Another CBP juvenile coordinator in El Paso recalled a 

similar experience. One Border Patrol official stated it would have been useful 

to have an HHS employee on site to assist with the care and placement of 

unaccompanied alien children. 

Senior Border Patrol and OFO officials also reported that detaining 

unaccompanied alien children for extended periods resulted in some CBP 

employees being less able to focus on their primary mission. For instance, 

instead of patrolling and securing the border, officers had to supervise and take 

care of children. 

Information Technology and Data Issues Make It Difficult for 

DHS to Identify, Track, and Reunify Separated Families 

The United States does not have a fully integrated Federal immigration 

information technology system. As a result, Federal agencies involved in the 

immigration process often utilize separate information technology systems to 

facilitate their work. The OIG team learned that the lack of integration between 

CBP’s, ICE’s, and HHS’ respective information technology systems hindered 

efforts to identify, track, and reunify parents and children separated under the 

Zero Tolerance Policy. As a result, DHS has struggled to provide accurate, 

complete, reliable data on family separations and reunifications, raising 

concerns about the accuracy of its reporting. 

Lack of Integration between Critical Information Technology Systems 

Undermines the Government’s Ability to Efficiently ReuniteFamilies 

ICE officers reported that when the Zero Tolerance Policy went into effect, ICE’s 

system did not display data from CBP’s systems that would have indicated 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-18-84 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

whether a detainee had been separated from a child.19 They explained that 

although CBP enters this family separation data into certain fields within its 

own system, those particular fields are not visible in ICE’s system.20 As a 

result, ICE officers at the Port Isabel Detention Center stated that when 

processing detainees for removal, officials initially treated separated adults the 

same as other detainees and made no additional effort to identify and reunite 

families prior to removal. Eventually, in early June 2018, Port Isabel officials 

began taking manual steps — such as interviewing detainees — to identify 

adults separated from their children. 

Further compounding this problem, DHS’ systems are not fully integrated with 

HHS’ systems. For instance, while the Border Patrol’s system can automatically 

send certain information to HHS regarding unaccompanied alien children who 

are apprehended after illegally crossing the border, OFO’s system cannot.21 

Instead, for unaccompanied alien children who arrive at ports of entry, OFO 

officers must manually enter information into a Microsoft Word document, 

which they then send to HHS as an email attachment. Each step of this 

manual process is vulnerable to human error, increasing the risk that a child 

could become lost in the system. 

On June 23, 2018, DHS announced that DHS and HHS had “a central 

database” containing location information for separated parents and minors 

that both departments could access and update.22 However, OIG found no 

evidence that such a database exists. The OIG team asked several ICE 

employees, including those involved with DHS’ reunification efforts at ICE 

Headquarters, if they knew of such a database, and they did not. Two officials 

suggested that the “central database” referenced in DHS’ announcement is 

actually a manually-compiled spreadsheet maintained by HHS, CBP, and ICE 

personnel. According to these officials, DHS calls this spreadsheet a “matching 

table.” 

 19 ICE uses a system called the ENFORCE Alien Removal Module (EARM). CBP has two 

separate systems: (1) the Border Patrol uses a system called e3, and (2) OFO uses a system 

called SIGMA. 

20 At some point, CBP officials began using a free text field to record family separation 

information because that field is visible in ICE’s system. However, that information was 

apparently not consistently recorded and is not searchable. Therefore, without reviewing 

individual files, ICE was unable to determine which aliens had been separated from their 

children. 

21 Although the Border Patrol’s system can automatically send certain information to HHS, the 

Border Patrol apparently cannot later retrieve what it sent to HHS. To better understand the 

data inconsistencies discussed later in this report, the OIG team requested the data that the 

Border Patrol sent when it placed certain children with HHS. The Border Patrol said it does not 

store that data and therefore could not provide it to the OIG team. 

22 See DHS Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification (June 23, 2018), 

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/06/23/fact-sheet-zero-tolerance-prosecution-and-familyreunification. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-18-84 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

This matching table, however, was not created until after June 23, suggesting 

that it is not the “central database” referenced in the Department’s June 23 

announcement. Moreover, when the OIG team asked ICE for information that 

should have been accessible to ICE via the central database (e.g., information 

on the current location of separated children), ICE did not have ready access to 

the information. Instead, ICE had to request the information from HHS. DHS 

has since acknowledged to the OIG that there is no “direct electronic interface” 

between DHS and HHS tracking systems. 

Lack of Access to Reliable Data Poses an Obstacle to Accurate Reporting on 

Family Separations 

In the course of this review, OIG made several requests to DHS for data relating 

to alien family separations and reunifications. For example, OIG requested a 

list of every alien child separated from an adult since April 19, 2018,23 as well 

as basic information about each child, including the child’s date of birth; the 

child’s date of apprehension, separation, and (if applicable) reunification; and 

the location(s) in which the child was held while in DHS custody. It took DHS 

many weeks to provide the requested data, indicating that the Department 

does not maintain the data in a readily accessible format. Moreover, the data 

DHS eventually supplied was incomplete and inconsistent, raising questions 

about its reliability. 

For instance, when DHS first provided family separation data from its own 

information technology systems, the list was missing a number of children OIG 

had independently identified as having been separated from an adult. When 

OIG raised this issue with the Department, CBP officials stated that they 

believed the errors were due to agents in the field manually entering data into 

the system incorrectly. Additionally, the data provided from DHS’ systems was 

not always consistent with the data on the matching table that DHS and HHS 

use to track reunifications. For example, the DHS systems do not contain the 

date (if any) that each separated child and adult were reunited, while the 

matching table does. 

Similarly, OIG identified 24 children who appeared in the DHS data set, but 

not on the matching table. When OIG requested additional information from 

the Department about these 24 children, the information provided revealed 

inaccuracies in the data DHS had previously provided to OIG. For example, the 

initial data set indicated that ICE had not yet removed a particular adult. The 

new information revealed that ICE had in fact removed the adult several weeks 

before it provided the initial data set to OIG. Additionally, while the initial data 

 23 OIG selected this date because Border Patrol officials stated that they could not feasibly 

identify children who were separated before that date. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-18-84 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

set identified two particular minors as having been separated from an adult, 

the new information indicated the minors entered the country unaccompanied. 

Nevertheless, CBP’s and ICE’s systems both continue to identify the minors as 

having been separated from an adult. 

Despite these issues with the reliability of some of DHS’ data, OIG was able to 

determine from other data maintained by ICE that 23 of the 24 children were 

properly left off the matching table. For example, the list derived from the DHS 

data contained separated families where the child had since been placed with a 

sponsor out of Office of Refugee Resettlement custody, as well as children who 

were separated from adults who were not parents or legal guardians. None of 

these cases met the criteria for inclusion on the matching table. 

Regarding the one remaining child identified by OIG, OIG learned that DHS 

reunited the child with his parent in September. The circumstances 

surrounding the September reunification of this child with his parent raise 

questions about the accuracy of the Department’s previous reporting on family 

separations and reunifications. For instance, on July 26, 2018, DHS declared 

that it had reunified all eligible parents in ICE custody with their children; yet 

this eligible parent was in ICE custody on that date, but was not reunified with 

his child until September.24 

Dissemination of Inconsistent or Inaccurate Information 

Resulted in Confusion among Alien Parents about the 

Separation and Reunification Process 

The OIG team observed inconsistencies in the information provided to aliens 

who arrived with children, resulting in some parents not understanding that 

their children would be separated from them and/or being unable to 

communicate with their children after separation. 

Alien Parents Were Provided Inconsistent or Incorrect Information about Being 

Separated from Their Children 

CBP officials reported that, prior to separation, adult aliens accompanied by 

children were given an HHS flyer providing information about a national call 

 24 See Tal Kopan, “Hundreds of Separated Children Not Reunited By Court-Ordered Deadline,” 

CNN, July 26, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/26/politics/family-separationsdeadline/index.html. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-18-84 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

center25 and/or a “Next Steps for Families” flyer26 produced jointly by DHS and 

HHS. In English and Spanish, the Next Steps flyer explains the separation 

process in four steps, and provides information on how to locate and speak 

with one’s child after separation. However, at the Port Isabel Detention Center, 

one of the four detainees interviewed by the OIG team reported that she had 

never seen the Next Steps flyer. The other three detainees reported that they 

were only provided a copy after they had been separated from their children 

and transferred to the ICE facility. 

The OIG team also asked six individuals about the information provided to 

them before or at the time they were separated from their children. Five of the 

six said they did not receive any information. The sixth stated that when he left 

the Border Patrol facility to appear in court for prosecution, a Border Patrol 

Agent told him that his 5-year-old daughter would still be at the Border Patrol 

facility when he returned. When he arrived at court, however, he was given a 

short flyer that explained for the first time that he would be separated from his 

child. After his court hearing, he was driven back to the same Border Patrol 

facility, but not taken inside. Instead, he was placed on a bus to be transferred 

to an ICE detention facility without his daughter. 

Detained Parents Reported Mixed Results in Locating and Speaking with Their 

Children after Separation 

HHS maintains a toll-free number for aliens to call to obtain information about 

their separated children. Although the OIG team observed flyers containing the 

toll-free number at the Port Isabel Detention Center, staff reported that, at least 

in one area with female detainees, ICE posted the flyer for the first time on 

June 27, 2018 (a week after the Executive Order ending family separations). In 

addition, posted flyers at Port Isabel and another detention facility in El Paso 

failed to indicate that detainees must dial a unique code assigned to each 

individual by the detention facility before dialing the HHS toll-free number. 

One mother with whom the OIG team spoke stated she had previously tried to 

call the toll-free number, but had not been able to get it to work. The team 

assisted her with making the call, and she was able to speak with an operator 

after holding for a couple of minutes. The HHS operator told the mother, 

however, that she could not release information about the child because the 

operator could not ascertain parentage over the telephone. The operator 

 25 HHS’s flyer (English version) is available at 

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/orr/orr_national_call_center_english_508.pdf. 26 The “Next Steps for Families” flyer is available at 

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_0615_CBP_Next-Steps-forFamilies.pdf. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-18-84 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

informed the mother that the child’s aunt, who apparently had been identified 

as the child’s sponsor in HHS’ system, had information about the child. 

While onsite at the Port Isabel Detention Center, the OIG team witnessed early 

efforts to facilitate enhanced communication between separated families. The 

Detention Center had begun offering free phone calls for separated parents 

trying to reach their children and had started installing computer tablets for 

video calls. While OIG spoke with several detainees who confirmed that they 

were permitted to make free phone calls to their children, a group of separated 

mothers in one dorm had not yet had a chance to make free calls. In addition 

to these efforts, ICE had contracted social workers to come to the Detention 

Center to prepare ICE officers for assisting parents as they reconnected with 

their children. The OIG team also observed HHS personnel at the Detention 

Center interviewing detainees and collaborating with ICE employees working on 

reunification efforts. 

The team spoke with 12 adult aliens — some who were in ICE detention and 

others who had been released — about their experiences locating and 

communicating with their children after separation.27 These individuals 

reported mixed results: 

x 	 Only 6 of the 12 individuals reported being able to speak with their 

children while in detention. 

x 	 Of the 6 who were able to speak with their children, 2 reported receiving 

assistance from ICE personnel and 4 reported receiving assistance from 

non-detained family members, legal representatives, or social workers. 

x 	 Of the 6 who were unable to speak with their children, none of them 

reported receiving any assistance from ICE. Five of the 6 also reported 

being unable to reach an operator on HHS’ toll-free number or were told 

the number was not working. One of the 6 reported that he never 

received any information on how to make the call. 

Several factors may have contributed to these mixed results. For instance, the 

OIG team observed that some adults expressed hesitation about requesting 

information from ICE officers. Some adults appeared to be unable to read 

Spanish or English, while others spoke indigenous dialects. In addition, 

important information about how to contact separated children was not always 

available. For example, a poster appearing throughout an ICE facility in El 

Paso directed detainees to a particular document on reunifications in the law 

library, but no ICE personnel could locate the document when OIG asked for it. 

 27 The experiences of these adults reflect the types of issues some alien parents separated from 

children faced while in detention. This is not a statistical sample, and these individuals’ 

experiences are not necessarily representative of what other alien parents encountered. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14	 OIG-18-84 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Additionally, ICE personnel reported they were often unaware that adults in 

their custody had been separated from children, which likely impacted their 

ability to provide more assistance. 

Additional Observations 

In addition to the issues identified previously, the OIG team made the following 

noteworthy observations during its fieldwork: 

x 	 A senior Border Patrol official stated that the resources required to 

increase prosecutions under the Zero Tolerance Policy hampered the 

Border Patrol’s ability to screen possible fraudulent claims of parentage. 

In particular, it limited the resources that could be devoted to conducting 

interviews and other behavioral analyses typically undertaken by the 

Border Patrol to verify that an adult and child are related. 

x 	 Border Patrol does not currently conduct DNA testing to verify that an 

adult claiming to be the parent of an accompanying child is, in fact, the 

parent. As a result, Border Patrol is limited to confirming parentage with 

documentation provided by an adult or obtained from consular officials 

from the adult’s home country, making detecting fraud and definitively 

proving parentage more difficult. 

x 	 Border Patrol agents do not appear to take measures to ensure that preverbal children separated from their parents can be correctly identified. 

For instance, based on OIG’s observations, Border Patrol does not 

provide pre-verbal children with wrist bracelets or other means of 

identification, nor does Border Patrol fingerprint or photograph most 

children during processing to ensure that they can be easily linked with 

the proper file. 

x 	 CBP may have been able to avoid separating some families. In McAllen, 

Texas, many adults prosecuted under the Zero Tolerance Policy were 

sentenced to time served and promptly returned to CBP custody. Several 

officers at CBP’s Central Processing Center in McAllen stated that if these 

individuals’ children were still at the facility when they returned from 

court, CBP would cancel the child’s transfer to HHS and reunite the 

family. However, CBP officials later arranged to have adults transferred 

directly from court to ICE custody, rather than readmitting them where 

they might be reunited with their children. According to a senior official 

who was involved with this decision, CBP made this change in order to 

avoid doing the additional paperwork required to readmit the adults. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15	 OIG-18-84 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

OIG Analysis of DHS’ Management Response 

We have included a copy of DHS’ Management Response in its entirety in appendix B. 

In its response, DHS raised concerns that the draft report conflated actions the 

Department took under the Zero Tolerance Policy with separate CBP efforts to 

manage the flow of asylum-seekers at ports of entry. In the final report, we have 

clarified how even though the two policies may have been implemented separately, 

their effects are interrelated. Similarly, to address DHS’ comment that the draft 

report did not adequately account for factors that may have caused CBP to detain 

unaccompanied alien children beyond the 72-hour period generally permitted by 

Federal law, we have included additional factors that we observed during our 

fieldwork. The Management Response also states that the draft report failed to 

recognize the Department’s efforts to reunify families separated under the Zero 

Tolerance Policy. However, as we note, the observations in this report are limited to 

June 26–28, 2018, before reunification efforts were underway. DHS also provided 

technical comments that OIG incorporated as appropriate. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-18-84 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Appendix A 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

DHS OIG was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 

107-296) by amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978. 

The objective of this special report is to detail some of our observations from 

field visits to CBP and ICE facilities in and around McAllen and El Paso, Texas, 

that pertain to the separation of alien adults and children who entered the 

United States at or between ports of entry together in order to claim asylum. 

We selected facilities in and around McAllen, Texas, because the Rio Grande 

Valley Border Patrol sector had more apprehensions of family units and 

unaccompanied alien children than any other sector in April–May 2018. We 

selected facilities in and around El Paso, Texas, because the El Paso Border 

Patrol sector had the third-most apprehensions during that time as well as 

active ports of entry. We conducted our unannounced field visits between June 

26 and 28, 2018, at the following facilities: 

Rio Grande Valley, Texas 

CBP Border Patrol facilities: 

o McAllen Station; 

o Ursula Central Processing Center; 

CBP OFO facilities: 

o Gateway International Bridge POE; 

o Brownsville and Matamoros International Bridge POE; 

o Hidalgo POE. 

ICE ERO Facility: 

o Port Isabel Detention Center. 

El Paso, Texas 

CBP Border Patrol facilities: 

o Clint Station; 

o Paso del Norte Processing Center; 

o El Paso Station; 

CBP OFO facility: 

o Paso del Norte International Bridge POE; 

ICE ERO facilities: 

o El Paso Processing Center; 

o Tornillo Processing Center. 

Throughout our visits, we spoke with approximately 50 CBP and ICE 

employees, including line officers, agents, and senior management officials. We 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-18-84 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

met with 17 alien detainees (both adults and children) as well as parents who 

had been separated from their children and subsequently released from ICE 

custody. We also spoke with people in Mexico waiting for CBP officers to permit 

them to enter the United States to make asylum claims. Additionally, we spoke 

with CBP and ICE headquarters personnel in Washington, D.C., regarding 

statistical tracking, Department policies, and the computer systems those 

entities use to track individuals in their custody. We also reviewed relevant 

directives, guidance, policies, and procedures, as well as documents and 

communications related to the Zero Tolerance Policy implemented by DHS and 

the Department of Justice in May 2018. 

This special report was prepared according to the Quality Standards for Federal 

Offices of Inspector General issued by the Council of the Inspectors General on 

Integrity and Efficiency, and reflects work performed by the DHS OIG Special 

Reviews Group and the Office of Inspections and Evaluations pursuant to 

Section 2 of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. Specifically, this 

observational report provides information about CBP and ICE actions during 

and after the implementation of the Zero Tolerance Policy for the purpose of 

keeping the Secretary of DHS and Congress fully and currently informed about 

problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of DHS programs and 

operations and the necessity for corrective action. This report is designed to 

promote the efficient and effective administration of, and to prevent and detect 

fraud, waste, and abuse in, the programs and operations of DHS. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-18-84 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Appendix B 

DHS’ Management Response to the Draft Report 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-18-84 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-18-84 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-18-84 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security

Appendix C 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Under Secretary for Management 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chiefs of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

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 

Chief Human Capital Officer 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees 

www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-18-84 
Additional Information and Copies 

To view this and any of our other reports, please visit our website at: 

www.oig.dhs.gov. 

For further information or questions, please contact Office of Inspector General 

Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. 

Follow us on Twitter at: @dhsoig. 

OIG Hotline 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov and click 

on the red "Hotline" tab. If you cannot access our website, call our hotline at 

(800) 323-8603, fax our hotline at (202) 254-4297, or write to us at: 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305 

Attention: Hotline 

245 Murray Drive, SW 

Washington, DC 20528-0305