Immigration Enforcement: ICE Could Improve Controls to Help Guide Alien Removal Decision Making

We found that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) did not provide officers with updated policies, guidance, and procedures for alien apprehension and removals, including factors that officers should consider when apprehending, charging, and detaining aliens with humanitarian issues. By providing such updates, ICE would better enable officers to exercise discretion for aliens with humanitarian issues. We recommended that the Assistant Secretary of ICE develop time frames for updating existing policies, guidelines, and procedures for exercising discretion and include in the updates factors that should be considered when officers make apprehension, charging, and detention determinations for aliens with humanitarian issues. In fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010, ICE issued three memorandums that provide guidance on humanitarian issues and outline enforcement priorities for apprehending, detaining, and removal of aliens based on, among other things, national security or public safety risks. For example, one memorandum states that, absent extraordinary circumstances or mandatory detention requirements, field office directors should not detain aliens known to be suffering from physical or mental illness; who are disabled, elderly, pregnant, or nursing; or, aliens who demonstrate that they are primary caretakers of children or an infirm person. The memorandum also requires ICE officers and agents to obtain approval from field office directors when detaining such aliens. In issuing these memorandums, ICE demonstrated that officers are being provided updated information to inform officers' use of discretion in alien apprehensions and removals. These memorandums are consistent with our recommendation.

In fiscal year 2008, we found that United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) did not provide officers who were responsible for apprehending, charging, and detaining removable aliens at ICE field offices with comprehensive guidance and consistent legal updates that could help inform their decisions. ICE, by providing officers with this information, would better enable its officers to make correct removal disposition decisions and better ensure that removal cases are not incorrectly terminated. In August 2008, ICE officials reported that they took two actions in response to our recommendation. First, ICE implemented new internal training programs and created a new position within ICE's legal department that is responsible for coordinating training in field offices and with other local ICE operational components. Second, ICE developed and produced an online document providing officers with monthly legal updates. This document is posted on the ICE intranet and employees are notified when it is updated. As a result, ICE demonstrated that officers are being provided regular opportunities to learn about changes in law and policy that can impact alien apprehension and removal decisions.

In fiscal year 2008, we reviewed and reported on how U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ensures that officer discretion is used in the most fair, reasoned, and efficient manner possible to (1) achieve its operational goals of removing aliens subject to removal that pose a threat to national security and public safety and (2) safeguard aliens' rights in the removal process. We found that ICE had two control mechanisms in place to monitor its removal operations--supervisory review practices and procedures and an inspection program--but lacked a means to analyze information specific to the exercise of discretion across field offices. In 2008, ICE officials indicated that no actions had been taken to address this recommendation. However, they said that ICE's recent elimination of its operating system and its implementation of the ENFORCE database system would likely provide some of the capabilities to support a variety of types of analyses that could help inform managers' decisions. Further, they were currently evaluating the options available to them that would enable them to develop a reporting mechanism that would give managers the ability to conduct trend analysis in support of management actions. Nonetheless, ICE officials said that they hoped to address this recommendation by December 2008. In September 2011, ICE determined that it is not feasible to develop a reporting mechanism by which ICE senior managers can analyze trends in the use of discretion. According to ICE, discretion occurs at many different decision points throughout the immigration enforcement process and there is no feasible way for the agency to adequately track the outcomes of each decision point. ICE further stated that while it is not feasible to develop a reporting mechanism, the agency has issued revised guidance on prosecutorial discretion to better reflect ICE civil immigration enforcement priorities and ensure consistency throughout the field in its use and implementation. ICE's action to evaluate the costs and alternatives of developing a mechanism by which to analyze information specific to the exercise of discretion is consistent with our recommendation and this recommendation is closed as implemented.