Within CBP, Border Patrol is responsible for securing U.S. borders and apprehending individuals arriving at the border between ports of entry. Also within CBP, OFO is responsible for inspecting travelers and cargo seeking to enter the United States through ports of entry and encounters or apprehends individuals determined to be inadmissible to the country. Upon apprehension of individuals at or between ports of entry, Border Patrol agents and OFO officers generally decide whether to (1) place apprehended adults and family units into expedited removal proceedings, or (2) initiate full immigration proceedings, according to CBP officials. If agents or officers place individuals into expedited removal proceedings, CBP will transfer them to DHS’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for longer-term detention (see appendix II for more information on eligibility, screening standards, and possible screening outcomes for credible and reasonable fear cases). Noncitizen adults and family units may make a fear claim in CBP custody at any point after apprehension, and during the pendency of their expedited removal proceedings in ICE custody (see appendix III for data on apprehensions of noncitizens placed into expedited removal who claimed fear of returning to their country, along with other characteristics of their cases). ICE is generally responsible for referring any fear claims to USCIS for a fear screening after individuals enter detention. If USCIS makes a negative determination and the determination is either not reviewed by an immigration judge, because the noncitizen has declined immigration judge review, or, if reviewed, is upheld by a reviewing immigration judge, ICE is then responsible for removing the person from the country. Within USCIS, the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate (RAIO) is to provide, among other things, services for people who are fleeing oppression, persecution, or torture or facing urgent humanitarian situations. RAIO is made up of two divisions: the Asylum Division and the International and Refugee Affairs Division. USCIS’s Asylum Division is responsible for, among other responsibilities, adjudicating affirmative asylum applications—that is, claims made at the initiative of the individual who files an application for asylum with USCIS—and screening credible and reasonable fear cases. As of March 2019, USCIS had 546 asylum officers on board and eligible to screen credible and reasonable fear cases (out of 745 authorized positions). Asylum officers screen cases at the Asylum Prescreening Center in Arlington, Virginia, and eight asylum offices nationwide. USCIS established the Asylum Pre-Screening Center in fiscal year 2016 to provide additional support for the credible and reasonable fear caseload. As of April 2019, the Asylum Pre-Screening Center and the Arlington asylum office together had jurisdiction over 27 ICE detention centers across the United States. EOIR is responsible for conducting immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings to fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly administer and interpret U.S. immigration laws and regulations. As of September 30, 2019, 442 immigration judges presided over EOIR’s 63 immigration courts nationwide. In addition to removal proceedings, immigration judges also conduct certain other types of hearings, such as the review of negative credible fear determinations. Table 1 provides additional information about DHS’s and DOJ’s roles in the credible and reasonable fear processes. In July 2019, USCIS made several changes to its credible fear screening processes in response to an interim final rule implementing a new mandatory bar to asylum, known as the “third country transit bar.” Under the interim final rule, noncitizens who enter, attempt to enter, or arrive in the United States across the southern land border on or after July 16, 2019, after transiting through at least one country outside their country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence en route to the United States, must be found ineligible for asylum unless they demonstrate that they fall under an exception to the third country transit bar. As shown in table 2, USCIS’s credible and reasonable fear caseloads nearly doubled from fiscal year 2014 (over 56,000 referrals to USCIS) to fiscal year 2018 (almost 109,000 referrals)—the most recent full year of USCIS data available at the time of our analysis. From fiscal year 2014 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019, referrals to USCIS for credible fear screenings comprised about 89 percent of all credible and reasonable fear referrals. The number of referrals for credible fear screenings in the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019 alone was larger than the total number of referrals in each of fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Referrals for reasonable fear screenings also increased from fiscal years 2014 to 2018, and comprised between 9 and 15 percent of all referrals during that time period. Appendix III contains additional information on the characteristics of credible and reasonable fear applicants from fiscal year 2014 through March 2019. As shown in figure 1, USCIS asylum officers made positive determinations in about 71 percent of all credible and reasonable fear screenings between fiscal years 2014 and the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019. The remaining credible and reasonable fear screenings were almost evenly divided between negative determinations and administrative closures (approximately 14 percent each) with a small remainder of screenings pending resolution (0.1 percent). Individually, from fiscal year 2014 through the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2019, USCIS asylum officers made positive determinations in nearly 77 percent of all credible fear screenings; officers made positive determinations in about 30 percent of reasonable fear screenings. Regarding credible fear screenings specifically, the percentage of positive determinations ranged from about 73 to 80 percent of total credible fear cases completed each year from fiscal year 2014 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019 (see fig. 2). Regarding reasonable fear screenings, as shown in figure 3, outcomes for reasonable fear cases from fiscal year 2014 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019 were generally split evenly each year among positive determinations (from 28 to 32 percent), negative determinations (from 29 to 35 percent), and administrative closures (from 35 to 42 percent). EOIR’s credible and reasonable fear workload increased by about 16 percent—from about 8,100 reviews to about 9,400 reviews each year— between fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2018. According to EOIR data, from fiscal year 2014 through the third quarter of 2019 (the most recent data available at the time of our analysis), EOIR’s immigration judges, at the noncitizens’ requests, reviewed about 55,000 cases in which USCIS asylum officers made a negative credible or reasonable fear determination (see figure 4). Approximately 10 percent of these reviews were for individuals detained at the Karnes, Dilley, or Berks family residential centers. As shown in figure 4, immigration judges upheld USCIS’s negative credible and reasonable fear determinations in 77 percent of all reviews judges conducted from fiscal year 2014 through the third quarter of fiscal year 2019. During this time period, immigration judges vacated (or overturned) 22 percent of USCIS’s negative determinations—meaning, judges found that those individuals had a credible or reasonable fear, as appropriate. As a result, individuals found to have a credible fear were to be placed in full removal proceedings and individuals found to have a reasonable fear were to be placed into more limited removal proceedings to consider the applicants’ eligibility for withholding of removal or deferral of removal. Immigration judges upheld 45 percent of USCIS’s negative determinations and vacated 54 percent of USCIS’s negative determinations for individuals in ICE’s Dilley, Karnes, or Berks family residential centers. In addition, EOIR publicly reports data on the outcomes of removal cases across immigration courts that originated with a positive credible fear determination. EOIR reported that, from fiscal years 2014 through March 2019, immigration judges completed about 135,000 cases that began with a positive credible fear determination. Individuals in about 75,800 of the completed removal cases filed applications for asylum (56 percent). In about 59,200 of the completed removal cases (44 percent), individuals did not file an asylum application. However, as previously described, individuals who have received positive credible fear determinations may apply for other forms of relief or protection besides asylum, such as withholding of removal, and those applications are not represented in the statistics on EOIR’s website. Further, EOIR officials told us that, for data reporting purposes, each member of a family who receives a Notice to Appear before an immigration judge is counted as one EOIR removal case and each removal case may or may not include an asylum application. However, for a number of immigration applications before the court, including asylum and the related screening for credible fear, a spouse or child (defined as an unmarried natural or legally adopted child under 21 years of age) may be included as a dependent on a principal’s application and derive lawful immigration status from the principal applicant if the application is granted. As previously discussed, individuals detained in family residential centers—including individuals who could be eligible dependents for credible fear screening and asylum application purposes—comprise a substantial proportion of those who receive positive credible fear determinations. As such, according to EOIR officials, each family member would not be expected to file a separate asylum application. For example, a mother and her two children whose removal cases originated with a positive credible fear screening would comprise three removal cases in EOIR’s publically reported data, but it is likely that only the mother’s case would include an application for asylum, with her children as dependents on that application. For those removal cases in which the noncitizen applied for asylum, immigration judges granted asylum in about 19,300 cases (25 percent of the 75,800 completed removal cases with an asylum application). USCIS has developed various policies and procedures related to managing and overseeing credible and reasonable fear cases in accordance with the regulations governing credible and reasonable fear screenings, including setting requirements for interview procedures, background and security checks, and supervisory review. In particular, USCIS has a Credible Fear Procedures Manual and a Reasonable Fear Procedures Manual that outline the procedures officers are to follow in screening these cases. Interview procedures. As of July 2019, an asylum office is to wait a minimum of one full calendar day from the applicant’s arrival at an ICE detention facility before conducting a credible fear interview; an asylum office is to wait 48 hours after an initial orientation on the reasonable fear process before a reasonable fear interview, according to USCIS policy. However, both credible and reasonable fear interviews generally occur at least 48 hours after the applicant’s arrival at a detention facility, according to USCIS officials. Asylum officers may conduct credible and reasonable fear interviews either in-person or on the phone. Asylum officers are to arrange the assistance of an interpreter, generally connected over the phone, if the applicant is unable to proceed effectively in English pursuant to regulation. Asylum officers are to verify and document that applicants have received and understood information regarding the credible or reasonable fear process before they begin asking substantive questions during the interview about the applicant’s claim. According to USCIS documents and officials, during the interview, asylum officers are to elicit all information relevant to a credible or reasonable fear claim, and regulation requires they conduct interviews in a non- adversarial manner. For example, asylum officers are to ask applicants questions to determine whether they can establish a credible or reasonable fear of persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. In addition, asylum officers are to ask applicants questions to determine whether they can establish a credible or reasonable fear of torture if returned to their home country. During our observations of in-person and telephone interviews, we observed asylum officers asking questions to ensure they fully explored any aspect of the claim related to a protected ground that could result in a positive determination. For example, we observed asylum officers asking applicants separate questions about each protected ground, even if the applicant had not previously expressed they were harmed because of their political beliefs or race. USCIS policy notes the applicant’s credibility is dependent on various factors such as comparing information provided during the interview with that previously provided in the applicant’s sworn statement to Border Patrol or OFO when initially apprehended. If asylum officers identify an issue with the applicant’s credibility, they are to inform the applicant of the concerns and ask the applicant for his or her perspectives. During our site visits, we observed asylum officers questioning applicants on inconsistencies, in a non-adversarial manner, between information provided during the interview as compared to the applicant’s sworn statements to Border Patrol agents upon apprehension. At the end of the interview, asylum officers are to provide a verbal summary of the material facts of the applicant’s claim, and provide an opportunity for the applicant to make any corrections or additions. We observed asylum officers providing such summaries in all but one of the interviews that we observed in full. According to USCIS policy, asylum officers are to record key information about the applicant’s claim, as well as specific details of the determination, on required forms that serve as the official record of the credible or reasonable fear screening. In addition, asylum officers use a “checklist” to record more detailed legal analysis related to the applicant’s claim. Asylum officers also generally type notes during interviews in a question and answer format, capturing each question and follow-up question they ask, and each response the applicant provides. We observed asylum officers documenting interviews in this way during all of the interviews where we observed the asylum officer in person. Background and security checks. USCIS policy requires asylum officers to ensure certain background and security checks are conducted. If security checks or information discovered during the interview raises concerns related to fraud, public safety, or national security, asylum officers are to refer the case to USCIS’s Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) for assistance. FDNS officials told us the short time frames in the credible and reasonable fear process, among other factors, make direct involvement in individual cases less likely than in other caseloads at USCIS, such as affirmative asylum cases. As such, the scope and extent of FDNS investigations into credible and reasonable fear cases is limited relative to other USCIS caseloads. FDNS data indicate that asylum officers referred approximately 1,400 total credible and reasonable fear cases to FDNS between fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Of those, 13 cases resulted in a formal finding, called a Statement of Finding. FDNS officials told us referrals from asylum officers on credible and reasonable fear cases typically result in FDNS conducting research related to an applicant’s criminal history or travel patterns. FDNS may refer this information, in turn, to ICE to reference in the applicant’s removal proceedings, as appropriate. In contrast, according to FDNS officials, a fraud referral in the affirmative asylum context may result in a more formal finding of fraud in a Statement of Finding. Supervisory review. USCIS oversight of credible and reasonable fear cases includes a required supervisory review of each case after an asylum officer makes a positive or negative determination. USCIS officials said supervisors are to review cases for legal sufficiency and accuracy, including a review of the screening checklist and the asylum officer’s supporting interview notes. According to officials, supervisors are to communicate the results of their review to the asylum officer informally (e.g., via email or in-person discussion) for small issues, such as an administrative error, or through a formal write-up for larger issues, such as if the asylum officer’s legal analysis was insufficient and requires a second interview with the applicant. USCIS oversight of credible and reasonable fear cases includes basic training for new asylum officers and ongoing training for incumbent officers at asylum offices; these trainings include information specific to credible fear and reasonable fear screenings. As of the time of our review, the initial training program for asylum officers is comprised of two main components: Distance Training. New asylum officers participate in 3 weeks of self- paced RAIO Directorate and Asylum Division distance training in their respective asylum offices. During distance training, asylum officers are expected to participate in webinars, read the training materials and complete exercises and quizzes in preparation for residential training. The Asylum Division distance training includes course readings on credible and reasonable fear, and observations of credible and reasonable fear interviews. Residential Basic Training. Asylum officers participate in a 6-week residential basic training program, which includes 3 weeks of training in issue areas common across USCIS’s Refugees, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate, as well as three weeks of Asylum Division-specific training. In the first 3-week session, courses include classroom instruction, practical exercises, and interviewing exercises on a variety of topics and skills relevant to multiple areas of USCIS’s work, such as on affirmative asylum and refugee adjudications. The legal topics and skills covered in this initial training include eligibility for asylum, an applicant’s nexus to protected grounds, and eliciting testimony, among others. The second 3-week session focuses on division-specific policy, procedure, and law related to asylum adjudications and screenings. For example, the 3-week session includes training on the affirmative asylum process, and multiple mock affirmative asylum interviews, among others, as well as 2 days of training specific to credible and reasonable fear cases. These 2 days include practical exercises; one mock credible fear interview exercise; and formal presentations on interviewing skills and security checks in a credible fear context, forms required for credible and reasonable fear, and on the Convention against Torture. At the end of the 6-week residential training course, new asylum officers must pass final exams with a score of at least 70 percent. We reviewed a version of the exam and found that it included questions specific to credible and reasonable fear screenings. Asylum Division officials said the 9 combined weeks of distance and residential basic training constitute the minimum amount of formal training required for asylum officers to effectively screen credible and reasonable fear cases. However, Asylum Division officials said it is important for individual asylum offices to provide additional, on-the-job training to new officers assigned to screen credible and reasonable fear cases, specifically. Asylum officers screen credible and reasonable fear cases under shorter time frames and with less corroborating documentation compared to affirmative asylum cases. As such, Asylum Division officials told us that officers accustomed to adjudicating affirmative asylum cases may need to adjust to the shorter time frames required in credible and reasonable fear cases. For example, some asylum offices have developed formal presentations on local policies and procedures, or provide officers with an opportunity to observe other officers conducting credible or reasonable fear interviews and gradually increase the number of cases they screen per day. Given their caseloads, the Houston and Arlington asylum offices provide 3 and 4 weeks of additional credible and reasonable fear training for new asylum officers, respectively. By comparison, the San Francisco and Newark asylum offices provide 1 week of training on credible and reasonable fear procedures for new asylum officers and Los Angeles provides 2 days of such training, according to officials. For incumbent asylum officers, USCIS policy requires asylum offices to allocate four hours per week for formal or informal training. The training can range from classroom instruction by a training officer, to individual study time that asylum officers can use to review case law, research country conditions affecting asylum applicants, or read new USCIS procedures and guidance. Individual asylum offices design their weekly training programs based on the types of cases their office generally receives, according to Asylum Division officials. The Asylum Division requires training officers to track the date and topic of each weekly training session and report that information to Asylum Division headquarters on a quarterly basis. Our analysis of fiscal year 2018 quarterly training reports for all asylum offices and sub-offices indicates that offices with larger credible and reasonable fear caseloads generally provided more weekly trainings on these topics. For example, Houston and Arlington conducted seven or more weekly training sessions on credible and reasonable fear screenings in fiscal year 2018. By comparison, two offices with smaller credible and reasonable fear caseloads—Newark and New York—conducted one or fewer weekly sessions on credible and reasonable fear (see app. III for credible and reasonable fear workload data by asylum office). In addition to this training program for asylum officers, USCIS trains officers from outside the Asylum Division to screen credible and reasonable fear cases, including refugee officers and others. Refugee officers receive some of the same basic training as asylum officers, as they participate in the same RAIO distance training and RAIO Directorate residential training. Refugee officers do not participate in Asylum Division distance training or residential training. As a result, USCIS provides refugee officers with 3 days of training on screening credible fear cases before they can begin screening cases. We reviewed training materials for the refugee officer training, and found the sessions are similar to Asylum Division residential training sessions on credible fear screening. In addition, some materials provide information and guidance on the differences between adjudicating refugee cases and screening credible fear cases. Officials said refugee officers generally screen credible fear cases, including at the family residential centers, only if they are detailed to the Houston and Arlington asylum offices. Both Houston and Arlington provide refugee officers detailed to their offices with 1-2 weeks of additional training on credible fear screening, similar to the procedural training they provide to new asylum officers. At both offices, trainings include formal presentations or exercises on legal concepts and procedures specific to credible fear, credible fear interview observations, and a gradual increase in the number of cases refugee officers screen each day. Although all new asylum officers receive basic training on the credible and reasonable fear screening process and may also receive on-the-job training in their home offices, not all offices provide additional pre- departure training to asylum officers before they begin screening cases for family units at ICE family residential centers. Credible fear screenings at ICE’s family residential centers, in particular, represent a significant percentage—about 34 percent—of all credible fear cases asylum officers screened from fiscal year 2014 though the second quarter of fiscal year 2019. As discussed previously, asylum offices with relatively small credible and reasonable fear local caseloads generally provide less on- the-job training throughout the year on credible and reasonable fear. However, almost all asylum offices send officers to the family residential centers in Texas for in-person interviews, including those offices with small credible and reasonable fear caseloads at the local level. Asylum Division officials said they require asylum offices to send a specific number of asylum officers—a number in proportion to the size of the office—with the largest offices sending the most officers to the family residential centers each year. For example, in fiscal year 2018, Newark, Los Angeles, Houston, and Chicago sent the most officers to the family residential centers, as shown in figure 5 below. At least two asylum offices provide pre-departure training to asylum officers being sent to ICE’s family residential centers. To support officers who are more accustomed to adjudicating affirmative asylum cases, the Los Angeles asylum office provides pre-departure training for officers before they travel to the family residential centers. In Los Angeles, officers observe credible and reasonable fear interviews and gradually increase to a full caseload of credible or reasonable fear cases at their home office, according to officials. In San Francisco, officers receive pre- departure training highlighting procedures unique to the family residential centers or to processing family units in credible and reasonable fear. Specifically, San Francisco pre-departure training includes a formal presentation on family residential center procedures, including discussion of challenges officers may experience, according to officials. By comparison, officials from the Chicago and New York offices told us they do not provide formal pre-departure training but rather direct or recommend that officers review Asylum Division guidance and procedures on family processing independently before they travel. Officials from two other offices told us they rely on the training asylum officers may receive throughout the year related to credible and reasonable fear, which can vary, as previously discussed. Asylum officers also noted inconsistent pre-departure training prior to their temporary duty during our February 2019 visits to two Texas family residential centers in Dilley and Karnes. For example, some asylum officers we interviewed said they screened credible and reasonable fear cases at their home office in preparation for their assignment. Others said they reviewed procedures independently on family processing in credible and reasonable fear cases. Officers from one asylum office said they relied primarily on an email from USCIS support staff located at the family residential centers to learn about screening family cases. Asylum officers are to review the procedures on family processing in credible and reasonable fear before they arrive at the family residential centers, according to officials. However, there is no minimum amount of pre-departure training, or required content for such training, that all asylum offices are to provide before officers begin screening family units. Asylum Division officials acknowledged that training on screening of family units for credible and reasonable fear varies by asylum office and noted that offices have been given discretion to determine what, if any, pre-departure training to provide on screening family units. Arlington and Houston asylum office officials stated that inconsistent asylum officer training on credible and reasonable fear cases negatively impacts efficiency at the family residential centers. Specifically, these officials noted that asylum officers who typically adjudicate affirmative asylum applications benefit from training on key differences between credible fear, reasonable fear, and affirmative asylum. For example, officials said more training could reduce administrative errors in applicants’ paperwork, and changes needed during supervisory review, both of which occur more often for officers with less experience and training, according to officials. Further, officials said asylum officers less experienced in credible and reasonable fear may not be able to handle a full caseload at the family residential centers when they first arrive. As a result, Houston officials said they may spend the first week of a 2-week assignment providing additional support to inexperienced officers as they gradually increase to a full caseload. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states management should demonstrate a commitment to recruit, develop, and retain competent individuals. The standards also note that competence is the qualification to carry out assigned responsibilities, and requires relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities, which are gained largely from professional experience, training, and certifications. As previously noted, Asylum Division officials told us additional training for asylum officers before they begin screening cases at the family residential centers is important. Officials also said their intention is to balance such training against the need for rapid deployment, in some cases. Although additional training may not be feasible before every deployment, providing asylum officers additional pre-departure training before they begin screening credible and reasonable fear cases for family units would better prepare officers and help ensure efficient and effective case processing at ICE’s family residential centers. USCIS relies primarily on two quality assurance reviews for assessing quality of credible and reasonable fear cases, but does not document the results of one of these reviews in a consistent manner. Annual, Asylum Division-wide reviews. The Asylum Division conducts division-wide quality assurance reviews on a random sampling of credible fear, reasonable fear, or affirmative asylum cases selected proportionally from asylum offices nationwide. To do so, the Asylum Division works in collaboration with the RAIO Directorate. The reviews occur each year, and rotate between a sampling of credible fear cases, reasonable fear cases, and affirmative asylum cases. For credible and reasonable fear reviews, USCIS randomly selects a specified number of cases after supervisory review, but before officers serve determinations to the applicant. Reviewers use a checklist to identify and track quality issues arising in each reviewed case, such as accurate data entry, appropriate legal analysis, asylum officer notes that reflect a skilled interview, and others. The review process for each case includes two lines of review. If the two reviewers come to different conclusions, they discuss any differences in their reviews and reach consensus about how to score the case. USCIS records the results of these reviews in a document that lays out the numbers and percentages of errors in areas covered in the review checklist. For example, for the 2018 review of credible fear cases, the document states asylum officer notes did not reflect a skilled interview in an estimated 58 percent of cases. For most of these cases, the reason for the error that reviewers noted was insufficient follow-up questions. USCIS officials said while the sample across asylum offices is generalizable with respect to the credible or reasonable fear caseloads nationwide, the samples taken from each asylum office are not large enough to draw conclusions about trends at individual asylum offices. Officials said they rely on periodic reviews to identify trends by asylum office. Periodic, asylum office reviews. In addition to the Asylum Division-wide quality assurance reviews, the Asylum Division began conducting periodic reviews at asylum offices in November 2017. As of November 2019, the Asylum Division had conducted periodic reviews of credible and reasonable fear cases or affirmative asylum adjudications at some asylum offices, as well as a review of credible and reasonable fear cases at the family residential centers. For periodic reviews, the Asylum Division selects cases over a period of several weeks. For example, based on the Asylum Division’s draft standard operating procedures for the periodic reviews, an asylum office may send two to four credible and reasonable fear cases every day for several weeks to reach the required total number of cases. According to the draft standard operating procedures, Asylum Division reviewers are to use a reviewer checklist, modeled off the checklist used for the Asylum Division-wide reviews, as a starting point for what factors to review. However, USCIS does not document the results of the periodic reviews in a consistent manner. We reviewed the reports resulting from six periodic reviews conducted at the Arlington, Chicago, Miami, and Houston asylum offices, the New Orleans sub-office, and the family residential centers. We found that all reports included information on strengths and weaknesses, and some reports further organized analysis into additional categories. For example, some reports had analysis on details related to procedures, eliciting testimony, and issues related to fraud detection and national security. Other reports included analysis of specific trends in persecution cases and in Convention against Torture cases. Some reports also included analysis on legal sufficiency, applicant country of origin, determination outcomes, and others. According to the draft standard operating procedure, reviewers are to note trends, common errors, and collect samples to create a deliverable, such as a short report or other deliverables, for the asylum office at the end of the review. However, the Asylum Division has not provided guidance on what specific information is important to include in reports resulting from periodic reviews in order to track trends within an asylum office over time, or across asylum offices. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states management should establish and operate monitoring activities to oversee the internal control system and evaluate the results. Management should document the results of ongoing monitoring and separate evaluations to identify internal control issues, and should use this evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the internal control system. Asylum Division officials told us the primary purpose of the periodic reviews is to collect information about current, office-specific trends, and provide timely support in the form of training sessions and other guidance. Further, the Asylum Division historically has not used the periodic reviews to compare one office to another, though they have sometimes noted issues from these reviews requiring similar guidance across multiple offices. Documenting the results of periodic reviews in a consistent manner would help the Asylum Division identify trends and provide support across asylum offices. The draft standard operating procedures for the periodic review provides general directions for reviewers to share information on trends to asylum office personnel, such as strengths, weaknesses, and other developing trends. However, the draft standard operating procedures do not specify requirements for documenting the results of these reviews. Asylum Division officials told us the periodic review standard operating procedures are in draft form, and that they may provide more specific guidance on aspects of the reviews in the future. However, officials also said they are not planning any changes or additions to the standard operating procedure as of September 2019. More specific guidance on requirements for documenting results would better position USCIS to track trends in a consistent manner for credible and reasonable fear reviews within and across asylum offices. By regulation, dependents, specifically a spouse or child, of a noncitizen (referred to as the “principal applicant”) can be included in the applicant’s credible fear determination if the dependent (1) arrived in the United States concurrently with the principal applicant, and (2) desires to be included in the principal applicant’s determination. However, any noncitizen may have his or her credible fear determination made separately, if he or she expresses such a desire. USCIS policy is to include any dependents on a principal applicant’s credible fear determination if the principal applicant receives a positive determination, resulting in both the principal applicant and any dependents being issued a Notice to Appear for full removal proceedings. For example, USCIS may process credible fear cases together for family units detained at ICE’s family residential centers, including children as dependents on a parent’s case, or issuing a Notice To Appear for the parent and children in the interest of family unity (see figure 6). We observed asylum officers at the family residential centers asking principal applicants whether they were apprehended with any family members. If yes, asylum officers asked for the names and dates of birth of those family members, and recorded the information in their typed notes. For parents who received a positive determination, we observed asylum officers including the child on the parent’s case as a dependent. Further, if a parent receives a negative credible fear determination, and his or her child receives a positive credible fear determination, USCIS may issue a Notice to Appear to the child as a positive credible fear determination and to the parent in the interest of family unity. In that case, because a parent could not be a “dependent” of a child under the regulation, USCIS policy is to use its discretion to issue a Notice to Appear to both the child receiving a positive determination and the parent he or she arrived with, in the interest of family unity, even though the parent initially received a negative determination. Issuing the parent and child a Notice to Appear places them into full removal proceedings where they can apply for multiple forms of relief or protection before an immigration judge, including asylum, rather than being expeditiously ordered removed in accordance with the expedited removal process. The exercise of this discretion to issue a Notice to Appear to both the child receiving a positive determination and the parent he or she arrived with in the interest of family unity is limited to cases in which the children are under the age of 18 because, according to the policy, family unity interests are more compelling when the child is a minor. USCIS data indicate that asylum officers screened more than 141,000 credible fear cases at ICE’s four family residential centers between fiscal years 2014 and the first two quarters of 2019 (see table 3). In addition, USCIS data indicate that positive credible fear determination rates are higher at the family residential centers—87 percent compared with the nationwide rate of 77 percent from fiscal year 2014 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2019 (see app. III for data on reasonable fear cases screened at ICE’s family residential centers). Asylum officers are to record individual case outcomes for all family members in USCIS’s automated case management system. However, Asylum Division officials said their system does not allow asylum officers to record whether an individual receives a credible fear determination as a principal applicant, dependent, or in the interest of family unity. Instead, asylum officers are to record positive determinations in the USCIS case management system for both (1) dependents on the basis of the principal applicant’s positive case, and (2) parents with negative determinations, on the basis of their child’s positive case. USCIS does record more specific information related to outcomes for family units in the family members’ individual hardcopy alien files, but this information is not readily available in an automated manner. USCIS’s case management system allows asylum officers to record family relationships—that is, officials stated that asylum officers are to record who is a principal applicant, and who is a spouse, child, parent, or sibling of the principal applicant. According to USCIS officials, asylum officers are to record a parent who receives a positive credible fear determination as the principal applicant, and record any children as a child. Further, asylum officers are to link known family members’ cases in the system, but adding a description of the family relationship is up to asylum officers’ discretion. However, the system does not allow officers to record whether an applicant’s determination stems from his or her own case, or from a family member’s case. As a result, USCIS does not maintain automated data in a readily accessible manner on outcomes for family members in a manner that indicates whether (1) an eligible family member received a positive determination as a dependent on a principal applicant’s positive case or (2) whether a parent was issued a Notice to Appear based on his or her child’s positive determination, after the parent received a negative determination. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should process obtained data into quality information that supports the internal control system. Quality information is appropriate, current, complete, accurate, accessible, and provided on a timely basis. Although USCIS data indicate that positive credible fear determination rates are higher at the family residential centers compared to rates of positive credible fear determinations across all detention facilities, USCIS officials stated the higher rates result from the ability to (1) include children under 18 on a parent’s positive credible fear determination, and (2) record all family members as positive in the system when USCIS uses its discretion in the interest of family unity. USCIS officials told us that systematically recording all outcomes of credible fear screenings for family members in a more complete manner would require changes to their case management system; according to Asylum Division officials, they are continually exploring options to improve the system’s capabilities. Without complete data in its case management system on all outcomes of credible fear screenings at family residential centers, USCIS is not well-positioned to report on the scope of either the agency’s policy for family members who are treated as dependents, pursuant to regulation, or USCIS’s use of discretion in the interest of family unity. USCIS manages its credible and reasonable fear workloads using national- and local-level staffing models to inform staffing allocation decisions. Specifically, USCIS has an agency-wide staffing model to allocate staff to different workload categories, including credible and reasonable fear workloads, for each upcoming fiscal year. Asylum Division headquarters officials stated they collaborate with USCIS’s Office of Performance and Quality, USCIS administrative offices, and local asylum offices to develop the national staffing model. Headquarters officials said the national staffing model is intended to allocate staff for each workload category for the upcoming fiscal year. They begin working on the staffing model in June for any given year in anticipation of resource decisions the agency will make before a new fiscal year begins, usually in September or October. According to officials, the national staffing model for credible and reasonable fear is based on historical case receipt and workload data, historical staffing data and future staffing workload forecasting data, bi-weekly reports on staffing and workload data, and observations from asylum offices submitted to headquarters, among other things. The Asylum Division also maintains staffing models that guide local staffing deployment, according to headquarters officials. Asylum offices make local staffing allocation decisions in collaboration with the Asylum Division at headquarters. Headquarters officials stated they consider several factors in allocating staff specifically for the credible and reasonable fear workloads for local asylum offices. Such factors include workload projections, available facilities and planned facilities projects, and existing workforce and vacancy levels (table 4 shows the number of asylum officers authorized and on board for each asylum office in March 2019). In addition, headquarters officials said they work with local asylum offices to review the number of credible and reasonable fear case receipts and current staffing allocations by asylum office on a daily basis. Headquarters officials stated they change staffing allocation as necessary to address changes in credible or reasonable fear case receipts. In the Houston and Arlington asylum offices, in particular, officials stated they review headquarters data on workload projections to assign personnel to the credible and reasonable fear workloads for their offices. For example, officials in the Houston office said they look at the projected credible and reasonable fear workload to determine the number of officers they may need. Houston office officials said they assign officers based on officer availability, considering factors such as leave or training schedules. Similarly, a senior official responsible for staffing in the Arlington office said they look at the projected numbers of credible and reasonable fear cases, as well as the location of the cases, to determine the target number of officers assigned to a specific workload. Once they set targets for the number of officers needed, a senior official responsible for staffing in the Arlington office said they assign personnel based on a number of factors, including officer preferences, seniority, and locations with the greatest need. Although USCIS uses national and local staffing models for determining staffing needs and allocating staff at and across field offices, senior Asylum Division officials stated that predicting future workload for credible fear cases is challenging. Moreover, headquarters officials told us that USCIS’s credible fear workload projections have been off by as much as 50 percent when comparing projected and actual credible fear workload volume in recent years. For example, the USCIS projections for credible fear cases in fiscal year 2015 were 78,485, but actual case receipts totaled 48,052. More recently in fiscal year 2018, USCIS projected 70,000 credible fear case receipts, but actual case receipts totaled 99,035. Headquarters officials stated that a variety of external factors— unpredictable changes in country conditions, and CBP and ICE decisions to either place individuals in expedited removal or issue Notices to Appear before an immigration judge—make it difficult to project this workload. Furthermore, headquarters officials stated the volume of credible fear cases can fluctuate on a weekly basis, while reasonable fear projections have been fairly accurate, since the number of reasonable fear cases has remained relatively stable in recent years. To manage its workload of credible and reasonable fear cases, USCIS relies on a flexible workforce to respond to fluctuations in cases, in addition to asylum officers who generally screen credible and reasonable fear cases. For example, USCIS pulls asylum officers from affirmative asylum adjudications and uses overtime hours to handle surges in credible and reasonable fear case receipts, according to officials. Senior Asylum Division officials stated they do not receive staffing increases to account for lost or stopped work in other workload categories, such as affirmative asylum, that result from surges in credible fear case receipts. They stated surges in credible and reasonable fear case receipts may require immediate staff redeployment from the affirmative asylum workload. As a result, asylum offices have sometimes canceled planned affirmative asylum interviews and have prioritized credible and reasonable fear screenings over affirmative asylum cases, which have significantly contributed to the current backlog in pending affirmative asylum cases, according to headquarters officials. As previously discussed, asylum offices across the country also send officers on details to ICE’s family residential centers to conduct credible and reasonable fear screenings. In addition, the Asylum Division headquarters tracks the number of asylum officers assigned to the credible and reasonable fear workload, among other workload categories such as affirmative asylum, through biweekly reports received from local asylum offices. Headquarters officials told us they use the reports to respond to specific requests for information about Asylum Division staffing allocation. For example, Congress may request information on the number of USCIS personnel working on credible fear cases for a particular time period, according to headquarters officials, so they maintain these reports to fulfill such requests. Specifically, with regard to the biweekly reports, asylum offices record the number of asylum officers assigned to credible and reasonable fear cases for each day in the 2-week pay period. The resulting biweekly reports are spreadsheets with 15 tabs, one tab for each day in a pay period and one tab summarizing the pay period, with 26 separate spreadsheets for each year per asylum office. Headquarters officials stated the biweekly reports are manually compiled and may contain errors, but the biweekly reports have historically provided the overall number of personnel performing credible and reasonable fear work for any particular date or pay period. As of October 2019, headquarters officials said they are developing automated software that will track information similar to that collected in the biweekly reports, which will allow more systematic analysis of the staffing data that the current biweekly reports contain. USCIS sets and monitors timeliness goals for completing credible and reasonable fear cases. Monitoring timeliness goals for credible fear cases. USCIS monitors credible fear processing times by setting timeliness goals for completing credible fear cases and those goals have changed over time. USCIS regulation does not require that credible fear cases be completed in a specific time frame; however, Asylum Division headquarters officials said they have used timeliness goals to help monitor their credible fear workload. In addition, case delays may occur for credible fear cases (discussed further below). Specifically, from fiscal year 2009 through the first quarter of fiscal year 2018, USCIS used a 14-day goal to monitor credible fear case processing times. In other words, USCIS monitored the extent to which officers completed credible fear cases within 14 calendar days of USCIS receiving referral documents from ICE and created an electronic file for the case in their case management system. According to our analysis, USCIS completed at least 81 percent of credible fear cases in 14 or fewer days for each fiscal year from 2014 to 2017—the last full fiscal year under the 14-day goal (see table 5). In February 2018, USCIS lowered its credible fear processing time goal to 10 days. USCIS completed 68 percent of credible fear cases in 10 or fewer days between February and September 2018. Monitoring timeliness requirements for reasonable fear cases. USCIS monitors reasonable fear processing times by setting a 10-day goal. Pursuant to regulation, asylum officers are to conduct reasonable fear interviews and make a determination within 10 days of receiving a referral from CBP or ICE with an indication that the individual has made a fear claim, absent exceptional circumstances. Additionally, a 2015 settlement agreement in the Alfaro-Garcia v. Johnson case (“Alfaro- Garcia” Settlement Agreement) requires USCIS to achieve an average national reasonable fear determination period of no more than 10 court days (i.e. business days), calculated on a monthly basis, for cases in which individuals are detained by DHS. For reasonable fear cases subject to this settlement agreement that take longer than 20 court days to complete, asylum offices are to notify the Chief of the Asylum Division in writing and provide an explanation for the delay. Further, USCIS must provide class counsel in the Alfaro-Garcia case a notice and remedial plan of action for cases that exceed 20 days that are subject to that settlement agreement. Consistent with USCIS policy and the Alfaro-Garcia settlement agreement, officers may pause the clock for reasonable fear cases— and thus case processing times—in the following limited circumstances: the applicant or the applicant’s representative requests to defer the reasonable fear interview; the applicant refuses to participate in the reasonable fear interview or accept service of a reasonable fear determination; or exceptional circumstances. USCIS pauses processing times for detained reasonable fear cases by recording the dates when the case was paused and when processing resumed, once the basis for pausing the clock no longer exists. Asylum Division headquarters officials said pauses in reasonable fear case processing times are separate from case delay reasons, but case delays may occur for reasonable fear cases. In our case processing time analysis of USCIS data, we excluded approximately 13 percent of reasonable fear cases that had at least one pause in case processing time from our analysis because, in conducting our analysis, we could not systematically confirm the appropriate order of dates for those cases. As shown in table 6, our review of USCIS data for cases that did not include pauses found that USCIS completed at least 91 percent of reasonable fear cases within 10 or fewer court days from fiscal year 2016 to the second quarter of fiscal year 2019. Although the Asylum Division monitors overall processing times for credible and reasonable fear cases, it does not collect comprehensive data in its case management system on some types of case delays. For example, USCIS tracks whether cases are delayed for certain reasons related to the individual—such as if he or she has a medical condition that prevents the asylum officer from conducting the interview, if the individual requests that the interview be rescheduled, or if the individual is detained in a remote location. In addition, USCIS’s system can track if cases are delayed for logistical or resource constraints. Specifically, asylum officers may select “lack of resources” as one case delay reason in the system. However, this field in the system does not allow officers to distinguish more specific types of delays—such as a lack of space in detention facilities for officers to screen fear cases, telephones not working properly, and other types of delays—which officers told us occur on a regular basis. Asylum officers we interviewed in the Arlington and Houston offices stated that logistical delays could affect the number of credible or reasonable fear cases they can complete each day. Specifically, some asylum officers said they have experienced delays up to 30 minutes waiting for phone lines to work properly at detention facilities. Moreover, supervisors we interviewed in the Arlington office stated telephone and interpreter delays could add 20 or 30 minutes per case, resulting in a cumulative delay that could affect an officer’s productivity for any given day. Moreover, supervisors in the Arlington office said it is challenging to identify the appropriate number of cases to assign to officers because the number depends on whether or not disruptions occur. Asylum officers in Arlington said they are expected to conduct a certain number of credible or reasonable fear screenings per day, but expectations for completing their assigned cases may be tempered by circumstances such as interpreter availability or if there are issues at the detention facility, including physical space shortfalls or difficulty in locating the individual at the facility. Similarly, asylum officers in Houston said they are expected to complete a certain number of credible or reasonable fear cases per day, but supervisors understand that they may face logistical challenges such as interpreter or telephone issues. In addition to system limitations in tracking case delay reasons, Asylum Division headquarters officials said their case management system does not have the capability to track how long case delays may last. Our analysis of USCIS data from fiscal year 2014 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2019 indicates that 21,528 credible fear cases and 6,724 reasonable fear cases had delays. USCIS’s system can calculate the number of days for each credible and reasonable fear case—in other words, the total processing time for each case—and the system can produce daily reports noting these overall processing times. However, officials in the Houston office told us they must investigate individual cases on an ad hoc basis to understand how long cases have been delayed during processing. Specifically, officials in the Houston office said they maintain weekly “late reports” using information from USCIS’s case management system that show pending credible and reasonable fear cases with the longest processing times and that they must spend time researching cases on the report to determine the length of the delays. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management should obtain data on a timely basis so that they can be used for effective monitoring. These standards also state that management should process the obtained data into quality information that supports the internal control system. As previously discussed, USCIS’s case management system does not track specific logistical reasons for any delays in credible and reasonable fear cases, which affect the number of cases an officer can complete in a day. Furthermore, USCIS’s system can calculate the number of processing days for each credible and reasonable fear case. However, the system cannot track how long a case delay lasts. Headquarters officials said they evaluate the usefulness of their system, and consider options for improvements or changes, on an ongoing basis. However, as of October 2019, they stated they did not have plans for significant changes to the system to track more specific case delay reasons. Collecting additional information in its automated case management system on case delays would provide USCIS with more readily available information and analyzing such data could help USCIS identify case delay reasons relevant in the current environment for officers conducting fear screenings and better position USCIS to mitigate the reasons for the delays and improve efficiency in case processing. EOIR has developed processes for immigration courts and judges to help manage its workload related to credible and reasonable fear reviews. As previously discussed, in the event of a negative outcome of their credible or reasonable fear screening, noncitizens can request a review of USCIS’s negative determination by an immigration judge. The Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, and regulation require that such reviews occur within certain time frames. Specifically, immigration judge reviews of negative credible fear determinations are to be conducted no later than 7 days after referral from USCIS, to the maximum extent practicable, and immigration judge reviews of negative reasonable fear determinations are to be conducted within 10 days of referral, in the absence of exceptional circumstances. EOIR officials told us that increased resources, beginning in fiscal year 2015, and a faster process for hiring immigration judges have allowed EOIR to increase the number of immigration judges. As of September 30, 2019, EOIR reported that it had 442 immigration judges on board, including 173 judges hired in fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019. EOIR reports that the number of immigration judges has increased each year from fiscal year 2015 through fiscal year 2019. EOIR officials told us that they plan to hire an additional 100 judges in fiscal year 2020. Additionally, EOIR officials told us that they prioritize credible and reasonable fear reviews and that these reviews can generally be accommodated within EOIR’s existing resources—specifically, by finding efficiencies within judges’ existing schedules to add credible or reasonable fear review hearings or by conducting hearings via video teleconferencing (VTC). EOIR officials also said that credible and reasonable fear reviews for individuals in ICE’s family residential centers comprise a small portion of EOIR’s overall workload. According to EOIR officials, each ICE detention facility is assigned to the jurisdiction of an immigration court, and the workload for credible and reasonable fear reviews is managed locally by the court to which each detention facility is assigned. ICE officers are to initiate the immigration judge’s review by filing a request with the appropriate immigration court. Some courts are co-located with ICE detention facilities in which the detainee requesting the credible or reasonable fear review is housed. EOIR officials said that reviews in those locations are typically heard in person by immigration judges assigned to that facility, and that the court finds room in the judge’s regular calendar to hear credible and reasonable fear reviews. For individuals in detention facilities without a co-located immigration court, including ICE family residential centers, immigration judges typically conduct credible and reasonable fear reviews via VTC. Judges conducting credible or reasonable fear reviews via VTC may be located in any immigration court in the United States. According to EOIR officials, the Assistant Chief Immigration Judge for each court is responsible for managing the court’s workload, including seeking support from judges outside the court in circumstances where there are too many cases for the court’s assigned judges. EOIR officials told us that the use of VTC technology—which is available in all courtrooms—provides flexibility to the courts in balancing workloads related to credible and reasonable fear reviews, among other workloads. In addition, EOIR officials stated that judges’ credible and reasonable fear workload is impacted, in particular, by immigration enforcement priorities and USCIS credible or reasonable fear determinations. For example, if DHS places more noncitizens into expedited removal proceedings who subsequently express fear or intent to apply for asylum, EOIR’s related workload might increase. In addition, because immigration judges do not review USCIS’s positive credible fear determinations, if USCIS’s screenings result in more negative determinations, EOIR’s caseload related to credible or reasonable fear reviews might increase. As of January 2018, EOIR has performance measures that include timeliness goals for credible and reasonable fear reviews, and these timeliness goals align with the required credible and reasonable fear review time frames. However, EOIR data we reviewed indicate that about 30 percent of credible and reasonable fear reviews are not completed within the required time frames. Specifically, EOIR’s memorandum on Case Priorities and Immigration Court Performance Measures states that 100 percent of credible fear reviews should be completed within seven days of an asylum officer’s negative determination and that 100 percent of reasonable fear reviews should be completed within 10 days of the filing of a negative reasonable fear determination. Further, according to EOIR officials, courts are to assign credible and reasonable fear reviews to a judge within 48 hours of receipt of the request from ICE, and immigration judges are to complete such reviews within 24 hours after they are assigned. EOIR officials said their automated case management system maintains data on the date when courts receive a request from ICE for an immigration judge review, the date the review is assigned to a judge, and the date the review takes place. EOIR headquarters officials told us that they monitor the extent to which judges are completing reviews within 24 hours after they are assigned using an automated immigration judge performance dashboard, which allows officials to review this performance measure for all judges combined, for individual courts, or for individual judges. Further, EOIR officials told us that if courts are scheduling credible and reasonable fear reviews within 48 hours after receipt and judges are completing reviews within 24 hours after they are assigned, they expect that EOIR should be meeting the required time frames (7 days after ICE’s referral for credible fear reviews and 10 days after ICE’s referral for reasonable fear review) for conducting credible and reasonable fear reviews. EOIR data we reviewed indicate that, from fiscal year 2014 through June 2019, approximately 28 percent of credible fear and 36 percent of reasonable fear reviews exceeded the required time frames, as shown in table 7 below. As previously discussed, the Immigration and Nationality Act and regulation allow for some flexibility with regard to the required credible and reasonable fear review time frames. Specifically, credible fear reviews are to be completed within 7 days, to the maximum extent practicable, and reasonable fear reviews are to be completed within 10 days, absent exceptional circumstances. EOIR officials we spoke with said there are a variety of court, judge, or applicant-related reasons that reviews could exceed the required time frames. For example, case file documentation sent from USCIS to the court may be incomplete. Further, a detention facility may have a medical quarantine that restricts court proceedings for a certain period of time. EOIR headquarters officials told us that, as of October 2019, they review weekly reports that include the median processing times for completed credible and reasonable fear reviews. For example, according to one weekly report from October 2019, the median completion time for credible fear reviews was 7 days. These reports also include information about the average and median number of days pending per case, for those credible and reasonable fear reviews that are not complete. For example, the weekly report we reviewed from October 2019 showed that EOIR had 553 pending credible fear reviews that week, with a median of 7 days pending and an average of 18 days pending. While these weekly reports allow EOIR headquarters officials to monitor some information about their credible and reasonable fear workload, they do not provide information to EOIR officials about the proportion of EOIR’s credible and reasonable fear reviews that are completed within the required time frames, or whether any reviews are delayed for reasons within the limits set out in the law or regulation. EOIR officials said they plan to implement an automated court operations dashboard in early 2020 which is to, among other things, monitor court performance against the performance goals EOIR established in January 2018, including the credible and reasonable fear performance goals. This automated dashboard is to be similar to the immigration judge performance dashboard, which EOIR implemented in early 2019. According to EOIR, the court operations dashboard is intended to operationalize EOIR’s performance measures—including completion of 100 percent of credible fear reviews with 7 days and 100 percent of reasonable fear reviews within 10 days—by providing court staff with daily alerts and warning notices to help court administrators prioritize the scheduling of cases based on the performance measures. This prioritization, combined with EOIR’s monitoring of judge performance to ensure that credible and reasonable fear reviews are completed within 24 hours after they are scheduled, should provide EOIR officials with sufficient information to monitor EOIR’s adherence to the required credible and reasonable fear review time frames. Because implementation of the court operations dashboard is planned for early 2020, it is too soon to know if EOIR will use the dashboard to monitor adherence to the required credible and reasonable fear review time frames or if it will help EOIR understand reasons for delays in those cases that take longer than 7 or 10 days. The number of credible and reasonable fear cases has increased since fiscal year 2014, and USCIS policies and procedures require completion of those cases within short time frames. The Asylum Division provides training for credible and reasonable fear cases to new asylum officers in basic training, given the differences between these screenings and affirmative asylum adjudications. However, not all offices provide additional training on screening such cases at the family residential centers. Ensuring that all asylum offices provide such training, in addition to basic training for new officers, would better prepare them to screen those cases efficiently and effectively. In addition, USCIS relies on its periodic quality assurance reviews to assess the quality of credible and reasonable fear cases across asylum offices. Developing and implementing more specific guidance on requirements for documenting the results of its periodic quality assurance reviews would better position the agency to track trends for credible and reasonable fear reviews across asylum offices. USCIS data show that positive credible fear determination rates are higher at the family residential centers than they are nationwide, in part because USCIS’s automated case management system does not track whether an individual receives a credible fear determination as a principal applicant, dependent, or in the interest of family unity. Without systematically recording credible fear determinations involving family members, USCIS may not have complete data on credible fear determination rates, and the agency may not be in a position to report on the scope of its policy for family members in the credible fear process. Asylum officers have experienced logistical delays that can affect the number of credible and reasonable fear cases they complete each day. Although USCIS tracks some of these delays in its case management system, the system does not distinguish between specific reasons for logistical case delays, such as telephones nor working properly or lack of space at detention facilities for officers to screen cases. Furthermore, USCIS’s system can calculate the number of processing days for each credible and reasonable fear case. However, the system cannot track how long case delays last. By collecting and analyzing additional information on case delays, including specific reasons for delays and how long they last, USCIS can identify relevant case delays for officers conducting fear screenings. Moreover, analyzing specific case delay information could help USCIS mitigate reasons for case delays and improve efficiency in case processing. We are making the following four recommendations to USCIS: The Director of USCIS should ensure that, in addition to USCIS’s basic asylum officer training, all asylum offices provide pre-departure training on the credible and reasonable fear processes before their officers begin screening cases at the family residential centers. (Recommendation 1) The Director of USCIS should develop and implement more specific guidance on requirements for documenting results of Asylum Division periodic quality assurance reviews. (Recommendation 2) The Director of USCIS should ensure asylum officers systematically record in USCIS’s automated case management system if individuals receive credible fear determinations as principal applicants, dependents, or in the interest of family unity, pursuant to regulation or USCIS policy. (Recommendation 3) The Director of USCIS should collect and analyze additional information on case delays, including specific reasons for delays and how long they last, that asylum officers may face when screening credible and reasonable fear cases. (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to DHS and DOJ for review and comment. DHS provided formal, written comments, which are reproduced in full in appendix IV. DHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOJ told us they had no comments on the draft report. DHS concurred with our recommendations and described actions planned or underway to address them. For example, regarding our recommendation that all USCIS asylum offices provide officers with pre-departure training on credible and reasonable fear before they officers begin screening cases at family residential centers, DHS stated that USCIS plans to develop a standardized pre-departure training and provide this training to all asylum officers prior to their deployment to the family residential centers. In addition, regarding our recommendation that USCIS ensure that asylum officers record in their automated case management system if individuals receive credible fear determinations as principal applicants, dependents, or in the interest of family unity, DHS noted USCIS will explore ways to modify its case management system to ensure that asylum officers record such data and train officers on any subsequent system changes. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on GAO’s website at https://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. We were asked to review processes for screening noncitizens who arrive at the southwest border expressing an intention to apply for asylum, a fear of persecution or torture, or a fear of return to their country, and the resources needed to carry out these screenings within applicable time frames by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). This report discusses (1) what USCIS and EOIR data show about the credible fear and reasonable fear processes, (2) the extent to which USCIS has policies and procedures for overseeing credible fear and reasonable fear screenings, and (3) the extent to which USCIS and EOIR have processes for managing their respective credible fear and reasonable fear-related workloads. To address all three objectives, we interviewed USCIS headquarters personnel from the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate (RAIO) and RAIO’s Asylum Division who are responsible for managing USCIS’s credible and reasonable fear screening processes. We also interviewed officials from USCIS’s Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS), which is responsible for leading USCIS’s efforts to detect and deter immigration benefit fraud and help detect national security and public safety threats. We conducted site visits at two of USCIS’s eight asylum offices—Houston, Texas and Arlington, Virginia—in April 2019. We selected these asylum offices based on the relatively large size of their credible and reasonable fear caseloads in fiscal year 2018—the most recent, complete data available at the time of our review. During these visits, we conducted in-person, semi-structured interviews with asylum officers, supervisory asylum officers, training officers, FDNS immigration officers, and asylum office management. During these interviews, we discussed topics related to data quality, supervisory review, training, quality assurance, family processing, and resource allocation. While the views expressed in these interviews do not represent those of all Houston and Arlington asylum office officials, they provide valuable insights from stakeholders who have experience with credible and reasonable fear policies and procedures. In addition, we collected written responses from the remaining six asylum offices on the same topics. Further, we conducted site visits to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) adult detention centers and family residential centers. Specifically, we visited single adult detention facilities in San Diego, California (September 2018), and Port Isabel and Pearsall, Texas (October 2018 and February 2019, respectively). We selected these ICE single adult facilities based on their geographic proximity to various CBP field locations we visited (discussed below). In addition, in February 2019, we visited ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations field office in San Antonio, Texas, as well as ICE’s South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, and Karnes County Residential Center in Karnes, Texas. We selected these two ICE family residential centers for field visits because they accounted for more credible and reasonable fear referrals to USCIS than any other single adult detention facility or family residential center. We also selected them to examine unique aspects of ICE and USCIS processing of credible and reasonable fear claims made by members of family units. During these visits to USCIS asylum offices and ICE detention facilities, we observed USCIS asylum officers conducting credible or reasonable fear screenings of single adults and family unit members either in person or via telephone. In total, we observed more than 20 credible and reasonable fear interviews across our site visits. Our observations are not generalizable to all USCIS asylum offices conducting credible and reasonable fear screenings, but provided us the opportunity to learn more about how USCIS personnel conduct interviews, make fear determinations, process these cases, and coordinate with ICE officials. For additional context about how noncitizens are apprehended at the border, processed into expedited or full immigration removal proceedings, transferred to ICE, and ultimately referred to USCIS for credible and reasonable fear screenings, as appropriate, we interviewed headquarters personnel from DHS’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Office of Field Operations (OFO) and U.S. Border Patrol (Border Patrol) who are responsible for apprehending noncitizens at or between U.S. ports of entry. In addition, we conducted site visits at CBP facilities in California and Texas from September 2018 to October 2018. In California, we visited Border Patrol’s San Diego sector headquarters and Imperial Beach station, and OFO’s San Ysidro port of entry. In Texas, we visited CBP’s Central Processing Center and McAllen Border Patrol station in McAllen, Texas; Border Patrol’s Fort Brown, Weslaco, and Harlingen stations; and OFO’s Hidalgo and Brownsville ports of entry. During these visits, we interviewed Border Patrol and OFO officials and observed how CBP personnel processed apprehended individuals and, as appropriate, documented whether those individuals expressed an intention to apply for asylum, a fear of persecution or torture, or a fear of return to their country. To select these locations, we assessed CBP data on Border Patrol and OFO apprehensions along the southwest border and targeted specific locations that saw the greatest increase in the number of apprehensions of individuals from fiscal year 2016 to 2017. As noted previously, we also considered the geographical proximity of multiple CBP and ICE facilities to maximize observations. Our observations during site visits are not generalizable to all Border Patrol and OFO operations along the southwest border, but provided us the opportunity to learn more about policies and procedures for processing noncitizens into removal proceedings and documenting any fear claims. To address the first objective, we obtained and analyzed data and documentation from USCIS and EOIR. Regarding USCIS, we analyzed record-level data from USCIS’s automated case management system from fiscal year 2014 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2019 (March 2019)—the most recent time period for which complete data were available at the time of our review. We analyzed these data to identify the number, characteristics, and outcomes of credible and reasonable fear cases. According to USCIS officials, USCIS’s system creates a unique number, or “case ID” for each case. USCIS officials told us that a previous system used a different identifier for each case—the individual’s Alien number (or “A-number”)—and did not use a “case ID” field. USCIS transitioned from its previous system to its current system in February 2018 and, according to USCIS officials, cases originally opened prior to the transition to the new system may have been re-opened under the same “case ID” number in the new system. As part of our data reliability testing, we checked for unique “case ID” numbers by searching for duplicate values and determined the data did not have duplicate values for “case ID” numbers. For our analysis of USCIS data specifically for ICE detention facilities and family residential centers, we only included credible and reasonable fear cases for detained individuals. To assess the reliability of USCIS data, we completed a number of steps, including (1) performing electronic testing for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, such as running logic tests; (2) reviewing existing information about the data and the systems that produced them, such as relevant training materials for USCIS officers who use the system; and (3) discussing data entry issues and data limitations with USCIS officials. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable to describe the number, outcomes, and characteristics of credible and reasonable fear cases. Regarding EOIR, we reviewed data on immigration judge reviews of credible and reasonable fear cases posted on its public website. Specifically, we reviewed EOIR data on credible and reasonable fear reviews from fiscal year 2014 through June 2019—the most recent, complete data available at the time of our review. We also obtained and analyzed summary data from EOIR on credible and reasonable fear reviews for those individuals detained in ICE’s family residential centers. We analyzed the data to determine the outcomes of all credible and reasonable fear reviews and compared the outcomes of all reviews with the outcomes of reviews at ICE’s family residential centers. Finally, we reviewed EOIR data on the outcomes in immigration court for those completed removal cases that began with a positive credible or reasonable fear determination. In addition, we interviewed immigration judges and other court personnel serving both detained and nondetained dockets from EOIR’s Otay Mesa Immigration Court and San Diego Immigration Court in California, and from EOIR’s Harlingen Immigration Court in Texas. We also observed two immigration judge reviews of negative credible fear determinations. Our observations are not generalizable to all immigration judge reviews, but provided us the opportunity to learn more about EOIR’s processes. We interviewed EOIR officials about their data entry and management practices for credible and reasonable fear reviews. We determined that the data EOIR provided, much of which they report publicly on their website, are sufficiently reliable for analyzing the number and duration of credible and reasonable fear reviews that are received, completed, and pending. To provide additional context on the numbers, characteristics, and outcomes of CBP apprehensions, we obtained and analyzed record-level data on all apprehensions by Border Patrol and OFO from fiscal year 2014 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2019. We also obtained and analyzed record-level data on ICE detentions from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2018 (see app. III for the results of our analyses). To assess the reliability of Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE data, we completed a number of data reliability steps, including (1) performing electronic testing for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, such as running logic tests; (2) reviewing existing information about the data and systems that produced them, such as relevant training materials for Border Patrol agents and OFO, and ICE officers who use agency data systems; and (3) discussing data entry issues and data limitations with Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE officials. We also received demonstrations on the data systems from Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE officials at headquarters and in the field. As described below, we determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for providing information on the numbers, characteristics, and outcomes of CBP apprehensions and ICE detentions. Border Patrol data. For our analysis of Border Patrol data, we used “apprehensions” as our unit of analysis, instead of the number of individuals apprehended, because an individual may have been apprehended multiple times in the same year. We identified a small number of Border Patrol apprehension records that had the same date of apprehension and unique identifier (“A-number”). It is possible that these apprehension records represented one apprehended individual that Border Patrol agents processed as two apprehensions. These records comprised less than one percent of the more than 2.3 million apprehension records we analyzed. We included these apprehension records in our analysis because Border Patrol considers them unique apprehensions and because their small number did not materially affect our analysis. In addition, Border Patrol did not systematically track family relationships in its data systems until fiscal year 2016, as we have previously reported. Therefore, our analysis of Border Patrol apprehensions of family unit members processed under expedited removal proceedings is for fiscal years 2016 through the first two quarters of 2019. Further, according to Border Patrol officials, Border Patrol did not record reasonable fear cases in its automated data system before April 2016. Therefore, we are reporting the number of reasonable fear cases recorded by the Border Patrol in its automated system from fiscal year 2017 (the first full year for which Border Patrol recorded this information in its system) through the second quarter of fiscal year 2019. We did not include the 860 reasonable fear cases that Border Patrol recorded in its automated system for fiscal year 2016, since this number represents only partial-year data. According to Border Patrol officials, prior to April 2016, these reasonable fear cases would likely have been recorded under other case dispositions in their automated system, such as one indicating the reinstatement of a prior removal order. We determined that Border Patrol data are sufficiently reliable to describe the numbers and demographic characteristics of individuals and family unit members apprehended from fiscal year 2014 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2019. OFO data. For our analysis of OFO data, we used “apprehensions” as our unit of analysis, instead of the number of individuals apprehended. We excluded approximately 13 percent of all apprehension records (including single adults, unaccompanied alien children, and parents and children that arrived as part of a family unit) from our analyses because we could not confirm an A-number for those apprehensions. Among the apprehension records missing an A-number, 44 percent were cases in which OFO officers paroled the individuals and, according to OFO officials, officers are not required to assign an A-number to these individuals. In addition, 47 percent of the records with a missing A- number were cases that involved the individual withdrawing their application for admission into the United States, in which OFO officers have discretion whether to assign an A-number. According to OFO officials, additional records with missing A-numbers may be due to data entry errors or problems with the data system saving this information in the database that OFO used to pull the data. Finally, we collapsed 182,266 apprehension records into 86,597 apprehension records because we determined that they were duplicate records for the same individual and the same apprehension, based on factors such as alien number, birth date, and date and time of apprehension. As a result, we determined that we could not present precise figures for analyses that include OFO data and instead provided approximations throughout the report. We rounded all data and figures on OFO apprehensions down to the hundreds place and described relevant data using modifiers such as “at least” because of possible missing information. In addition, according to OFO officials, OFO does not capture information in its automated data system on individuals who were processed under expedited removal with a reasonable fear claim. OFO officials stated that, since OFO has historically processed a relatively small number of such apprehensions, it does not collect automated data on reasonable fear claims. With the previously-described modifications, we determined that OFO data are sufficiently reliable to generally describe the numbers and demographic characteristics of individuals and family unit members apprehended from fiscal year 2014 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2019. ICE data. To report on ICE detentions of adults and family unit members, we obtained and analyzed ICE detention data from fiscal years 2014 to 2018, the most current data available at the time of our review. The ICE data we obtained contained information on whether adults and family members booked-in to an ICE detention facility had a fear claim recorded in ICE’s data system as of the date our data were pulled. Specifically, we divided our analysis of ICE detention data into two parts. First, we obtained data on all individuals (all adults and children without consideration of any family relationships) detained from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2018. Second, we obtained data specifically on family unit members apprehended by CBP and housed at the four ICE family residential centers from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2018. Regarding our analysis of family unit members who made a fear claim in one of ICE’s family residential centers, we excluded less than one percent of all detention records from our analyses because we could not confirm a unique identifier for the individual. In addition, for individual family unit members who were detained more than once in a fiscal year, we included the most recent record for the individuals in our analyses to report on the most recent information available about each individual. This accounted for less than one percent of all detention records in our time period of analysis. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to describe the numbers of individuals (adults and family unit members) who were apprehended by CBP and recorded by ICE as having made a credible fear claim. To address our second objective, in addition to our aforementioned interviews and site visits, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations governing the credible and reasonable fear screening process. We collected and analyzed documentation on key USCIS oversight mechanisms related to credible and reasonable fear screenings— supervisory review, asylum officer training, and quality assurance reviews. In particular, we reviewed the Credible Fear Procedures Manual, and the Reasonable Fear Procedures Manual, standard operating procedures, training and quality assurance records and materials, and guidance on conducting credible and reasonable fear screenings for families in ICE detention. Specifically, we reviewed USCIS asylum officer basic training materials from RAIO and the Asylum Division, and training materials for officers from outside the Asylum Division who screen credible and reasonable fear cases. In particular, we reviewed USCIS Asylum Division quarterly training reports for fiscal year 2018 and used them to analyze the weekly training activities in each asylum office for each week of the reporting quarter. We compared RAIO and Asylum Division training materials with federal internal control standards related to developing competent individuals qualified to carry out assigned responsibilities. We also reviewed documents associated with the quality assurance reviews that the Asylum Division conducted, including those reviews conducted in collaboration with RAIO. Specifically, we reviewed standard operating procedures, reviewer checklists, and resulting reports and analysis for three RAIO nationwide reviews of credible and reasonable fear cases and for the six periodic reviews of credible and reasonable fear cases the Asylum Division conducted at asylum offices and at the family residential centers between November 2017 and May 2018. We compared these policy documents and their role in providing oversight of the credible and reasonable fear process against federal internal control standards related to ongoing monitoring activities and evaluation of results. We also reviewed USCIS standard operating procedures, requirements, and training materials for processing family members, and corresponding data on applicant family relationships. We then compared the procedures, requirements and data against federal internal control standards related to obtaining high quality data. To address our third objective, we reviewed USCIS and EOIR documents and data, and interviewed relevant officials to evaluate the extent to which USCIS and EOIR have process for managing their respective credible and reasonable fear-related workloads. USCIS. In particular, we reviewed USCIS documentation and spoke with officials from Asylum Division headquarters and local asylum offices regarding the Asylum Division’s staffing allocation model for the credible and reasonable fear workload. In addition, we obtained and analyzed record-level data from USCIS’s automated case management system to identify processing times and case delays for credible and reasonable fear cases between fiscal year 2014 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2019 (March 2019). We included cases that had a fear determination that was served or an administrative closure for both detained and nondetained individuals. In this report, we present information on both credible and reasonable fear case receipts and analysis of processing times for the cases using the “clock-in” date recorded in USCIS’s automated case management system. However, while USCIS relies on the “clock-in” date to track case processing times, according to an Asylum Division official USCIS tracks and reports the number of credible and reasonable fear case receipts based on the date cases are input into, or “created” in, its automated system. According to the official, these “created” and “clock-in” dates are often the same, but can differ slightly. Therefore, the number of case receipts tracked and reported by USCIS may differ slightly from those presented in this report. Regarding credible fear cases, we determined case processing times by calculating the difference between the beginning and end dates for credible fear cases. We considered credible fear case processing times for detained individuals to begin on the day when USCIS receives referral documents and records a “clock-in” date in the automated case management system, as noted previously. For nondetained individuals, the clock starts for credible fear cases when a USCIS asylum office conducts the interview for a credible fear screening. We used the starting clock date for detained and nondetained individuals provided by USCIS for our analysis. We considered credible fear case processing times to end on the day when cases either had a fear determination that was served or an administrative closure. We included credible fear cases that had a fear determination that was served or an administrative closure for detained and nondetained individuals. We also reviewed USCIS’s publicly-reported data on credible fear processing times during this time period. Regarding reasonable fear cases, we used USCIS data to count the number of processing days and percent of cases completed in certain time intervals. We determined reasonable fear processing times by calculating the difference between the beginning and end dates for reasonable fear cases. We considered reasonable fear case processing times for detained individuals to begin on the day when USCIS receives referral documents and records a “clock-in” date in the automated case management system, as noted previously. For nondetained individuals, the clock starts for reasonable fear cases when a USCIS asylum office conducts the interview for a reasonable fear screening. We used the starting clock date for detained and nondetained individuals provided by USCIS for our analysis. We calculated reasonable fear processing times in court days by excluding weekends and federal holidays. USCIS may also pause the clock when processing reasonable fear cases in certain circumstances. We excluded approximately 13 percent of reasonable fear cases that had at least one pause in case processing time from our analysis because in conducting our analysis we could not systematically confirm the appropriate order of dates for those cases. We considered reasonable fear case processing times to end on the day when cases either had a fear determination that was served or administrative closure. We also included reasonable fear cases that were served a fear determination or received an administrative closure for detained and nondetained individuals. To identify the reasons for delays in credible and reasonable fear cases during the time period of our analysis, we identified the fields that USCIS’s case management system tracks for case delays related to the credible and reasonable fear workload. In addition, we reviewed USCIS’s manuals and documentation on its case management system. We compared USCIS’s recording and tracking of data on case delays to federal internal control standards related to obtaining data on a timely basis for management to use for effective monitoring and that data should be processed into high quality information. We determined that the USCIS data we reviewed on credible and reasonable fear processing times and case delays were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. EOIR. To evaluate EOIR’s process for managing its credible and reasonable fear-related workload, we interviewed EOIR officials about their practices to manage the credible and reasonable fear workload, including immigration judge hiring, oversight of credible and reasonable fear review processing times, infrastructure requirements for credible and reasonable fear reviews, and the use of video teleconferencing by judges to conduct credible and reasonable fear reviews. We reviewed publicly available data about EOIR’s workload and case adjudications, including data about the number of credible and reasonable fear reviews EOIR judges completed and data about judges hired from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2019. We also reviewed guidance documents, such as EOIR’s 2018 Case Priorities and Performance Measures memorandum, which established performance measures for credible and reasonable fear reviews. In addition, we used EOIR data to analyze the timeliness of EOIR’s completion of credible and reasonable fear reviews and compared EOIR’s processing times for fiscal year 2014 through the third quarter of fiscal year 2019 with required time frames. By reviewing documentation on EOIR’s case management system and interviewing officials with knowledge about EOIR’s case management system and the methodology used to calculate the publicly-reported data, we determined that the EOIR data we reviewed on credible and reasonable fear review processing times and outcomes was sufficiently reliable for analyzing the number of credible and reasonable fear reviews completed and pending, and the duration of the reviews. We conducted this performance audit from November 2018 to February 2020 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. This appendix provides detailed information on eligibility, screening standards, and possible screening outcomes for both credible fear and reasonable fear cases. Noncitizens placed into expedited removal who make fear claims will be referred to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a credible fear screening by an asylum officer or, if the individual has been issued a final administrative removal order after conviction for an aggravated felony or has a prior order of removal that is reinstated, and expressed a fear of return, for a reasonable fear screening. Table 8 below describes the eligibility and screening standards, as well as the potential outcomes for USCIS’s credible fear screening cases. Similarly, table 9 details eligibility, screening standards, and potential outcomes for reasonable fear screening cases. If noncitizens are placed into expedited removal proceedings instead of full removal proceedings, they are to be ordered removed from the United States without further hearing before an immigration judge unless they indicate either an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution or torture or a fear of return to their country (referred to throughout this appendix as making a “fear claim”). This appendix provides information on the number and dispositions (such as full removal proceedings or expedited removal proceedings, among others) of noncitizens who were apprehended by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) U.S. Border Patrol (Border Patrol) and Office of Field Operations (OFO) at or between U.S. ports of entry from fiscal year 2014 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2019. It also includes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data on detentions of noncitizens who made a credible fear claim. For cases in which noncitizens were referred to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a fear screening, this appendix also provides additional information on the characteristics of these cases, including their country of origin, age, gender, whether they had representation, and location of their screenings. As shown in table 10, Border Patrol apprehensions totaled more than 2.3 million from fiscal year 2014 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2019. Further, Border Patrol data indicate that agents processed about 687,000 (or 30 percent) for full immigration proceedings and nearly 931,000 (or 40 percent) under expedited removal proceedings. For those apprehensions that agents processed under expedited removal, more than 197,000 (approximately 9 percent of total apprehensions) included a credible fear claim made in Border Patrol custody. As also shown in table 10, during fiscal years 2017 through the first two quarters of 2019, Border Patrol apprehended more than 10,000 additional noncitizens who made reasonable fear claims. As shown in figure 7, the number of Border Patrol apprehensions of individuals who were placed into expedited removal proceedings with a credible fear claim increased from more than 16,000 apprehensions in fiscal year 2014 to more than 51,000 in fiscal year 2018. These apprehensions of individuals claiming fear ranged from 3 percent to 13 percent of total apprehensions during these fiscal years. Border Patrol data include various characteristics of each apprehension such as age, gender, and whether a noncitizen was a member of a family unit. For example, of the nearly 208,000 apprehensions processed under expedited removal with a credible or reasonable fear claim during fiscal years 2014 through the first half of fiscal year 2019, approximately 166,000 (or 80 percent) were adults age 18 and above with the remaining 42,000 (or 20 percent) encompassing children age 17 and under (see table 11). Of the nearly 208,000 apprehensions processed under expedited removal with a credible or reasonable fear claim during fiscal years 2014 through the first half of fiscal year 2019, approximately 117,000 (or 56 percent) were male and the remaining 90,000 (44 percent) were female (see table 12). As shown in table 13, for fiscal years 2016 through the first two quarters of 2019, Border Patrol apprehended nearly 456,000 noncitizens who were members of families. Of these, Border Patrol processed more than 120,000 (or 26 percent) under expedited removal proceedings. Nearly 71,000 apprehensions during this time period (15 percent of total family unit members apprehended and 59 percent of those placed in expedited removal) included a credible fear claim. From fiscal year 2014 through March 2019, OFO apprehensions at ports of entry totaled at least 546,900. Of these 546,900 apprehensions, OFO officers placed at least 193,500 (or 35 percent) into expedited removal proceedings. For those in expedited removal proceedings, OFO data indicate that at least 104,600 apprehensions included a credible fear claim in OFO custody (19 percent of total apprehensions). In addition, OFO issued Notices to Appear before an immigration judge for full immigration proceedings to at least 167,400 (or 31 percent) of the approximately 546,900 total apprehensions (see figure 8). As shown in figure 9, the number of OFO apprehensions in expedited removal proceedings with a credible fear claim generally increased over this time period from at least 11,600 apprehensions in fiscal year 2014 to at least 27,000 in fiscal year 2018 (the last full year of data available at the time of our analysis). In addition to this overall increase, the percentage of OFO’s total apprehensions placed into expedited removal proceedings with a credible fear claim also increased. Specifically, these apprehensions increased from about 17 percent of all apprehensions in fiscal year 2014 to about 26 percent in fiscal year 2018. OFO apprehension data include various characteristics such as age, gender, and whether an apprehension involved a member of a family unit. For example, as shown in table 14, of the approximately 104,300 OFO apprehensions with credible fear claims, at least 78,500 (or 75 percent) were adults age 18 and above with about 25,700 (or 25 percent) of the remaining credible fear claims encompassing children age 17 and under. Also, for each year during this period, the percentage of adults versus children was generally consistent with this overall percentage with the exception of fiscal year 2019, for which the partial year’s data show that about 98 percent of those apprehensions processed under expedited removal with a credible fear claim were adults. In addition, for fiscal years 2014 through the first two quarters of fiscal 2019, at least 56,500 (or 54 percent) of these apprehensions involving a fear claim were male and at least 47,400 (or 45 percent) were female (see table 15). Also, for each year during this period, the number of males and females were almost evenly split with the exception of fiscal year 2019, for which the partial year’s data show a larger proportion of males claiming fear. As shown in table 16, for fiscal years 2016 through the first two quarters of 2019, OFO had a total of at least 144,100 apprehensions involving members of family units. Of these approximately 144,100 apprehensions, OFO placed at least 39,100 (27 percent) into expedited removal proceedings of which at least 32,900 (about 23 percent of total family unit members apprehended and approximately 84 percent of those placed in expedited removal) claimed a credible fear of returning to their country. The number of individuals in expedited removal proceedings detained in ICE facilities with a credible fear claim increased from fiscal years 2014 to 2018. Specifically, as shown in table 17, ICE data indicate that the number of individuals in expedited removal proceedings with a recorded credible fear claim while in ICE detention increased from about 37,000 (or 9 percent) in fiscal year 2014 to about 99,000 (or 26 percent) in fiscal year 2018. The period of greatest percentage increase was from fiscal years 2015 to 2016 when the percentage of individuals in expedited removal proceedings with a credible fear claim while in ICE custody increased from approximately 15 percent to 25 percent. For fiscal years 2014 through 2018, the majority of family unit members in ICE’s four family residential centers had a credible fear claim (81 percent), as demonstrated in table 18. The number of family unit members with a fear claim ranged from approximately 69 percent in fiscal year 2015 to 88 percent in fiscal year 2018. For fiscal years 2014 through 2018, slightly more than half of all family unit members in ICE’s four family residential centers with a credible fear claim were children under the age of 18 (55 percent). As also shown in table 19, the division between adults and children with fear claims varied little each year. As shown in Figure 10, the majority of credible fear cases referred to USCIS for screening from fiscal year 2014 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019 had applicants who were nationals of El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, or Mexico. Citizens of these countries accounted for 74 percent of all credible fear cases during this time period (approximately 306,000 referrals). As shown in table 20, El Salvador had the most credible fear referrals to USCIS each year from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2017. However, beginning in fiscal year 2018, Honduras accounted for the most credible fear referrals to USCIS among these four countries. As shown in Figure 11, applicants from the countries of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala accounted for all but approximately 7 percent of the reasonable fear cases screened by USCIS for fiscal years 2014 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019. Overall, Mexican nationals accounted for the largest number of reasonable fear cases among these four countries (33 percent of total reasonable fear cases). As shown in table 21, Mexico had the most reasonable fear referrals to USCIS each year from fiscal years 2014 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019. As table 22 shows, noncitizens making credible fear claims who had representation present at their interviews with asylum officers more often received positive determinations of fear by the asylum officer. Overall, during this time period, the number of positive determinations in cases with representation was nearly 10 percentage points greater than those without representation. As table 23 shows, similar to credible fear cases, noncitizens making reasonable fear claims who had representation present at their interviews with asylum officers more often received positive determinations of fear by the asylum officer. Overall, during this time period, the number of positive determinations in cases with representation was over 20 percentage points greater than those without representation. As table 24 shows, two of ICE’s family residential centers (Dilley and Karnes family residential centers) accounted for the highest number of credible and reasonable fear referrals, among the top five facilities making these referrals, from fiscal years 2014 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019. As shown in table 25, reasonable fear screenings for those in ICE family residential centers comprised 6 percent of all such cases referred to USCIS during this same period with the percentage of positive determinations (77 percent) higher than that for all reasonable fear cases nationwide (30 percent). As shown in table 26, the Houston asylum office screened two-thirds (67 percent) of credible fear cases from fiscal year 2014 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019. Also, over this same time period, USCIS’s Los Angeles asylum office screened the second most credible fear cases (11 percent). However, since fiscal year 2018, USCIS’s Asylum Pre- Screening Center has screened the second most credible fear cases after Houston. As shown in table 27, the Houston asylum office screened nearly half (approximately 45 percent) of reasonable fear cases from fiscal year 2014 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019. Also, over this same time period, USCIS’s Los Angeles asylum office screened the second most reasonable fear cases (12 percent). However, since fiscal year 2018, USCIS’s Asylum Pre-Screening Center has screened the second most reasonable fear cases after Houston. In addition to the contact named above, Kathryn Bernet (Assistant Director), Michael Harmond (Analyst-in-Charge), Hiwotte Amare, Miranda Cohen, Benjamin Crossley, Michele Fejfar, Cynthia Grant, Jan Montgomery, Heidi Nielson, Mary Pitts, Adam Vogt, and Jessica Walker made key contributions to this work.