Illegal Aliens: Opportunities Exist to Improve the Expedited Removal
Process (Letter Report, 09/01/2000, GAO/GGD-00-176).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) expedited removal
process, focusing on: (1) INS' management controls over the expedited
removal process and the credible fear determination process, including
those determinations relating to aliens' decisions to recant their
claims of a fear of persecution or torture; and (2) analysis of aliens
who failed to appear before an immigration judge for their removal
hearing after being released from detention.
GAO noted that: (1) analysis of documentation in 365 randomly selected
case files of aliens who were processed for expedited removal in fiscal
year 1999 indicated that INS inspectors were generally complying with
requirements of the expedited removal process at the Los Angeles, John
Fitzgerald Kennedy, and Miami airports and the San Ysidro port of entry;
(2) these requirements include asking aliens if they feared being
returned to their home country, having a supervisor review the
inspectors' decisions to remove the alien, and having aliens sign their
sworn statements; (3) in the Los Angeles, Miami, and New York asylum
offices, GAO reviewed all 45 cases in which an asylum officer determined
that the aliens did not have a credible fear of persecution or torture;
(4) in these cases, asylum officers generally complied with documenting
the credible fear process; (5) INS guidance requires that asylum
officers document an alien's wish to withdraw a claim of fear of
persecution or torture by having the alien: (a) make this request in
writing; or (b) sign a statement indicating that the decision was
voluntary; (6) in 8 percent of 10,755 cases, aliens recanted their
claims of a fear of persecution or torture between April 1, 1997, and
September 30, 1999; (7) the asylum offices varied in the amount of
documentation they obtained from aliens recanting their claims of a fear
of persecution or torture; (8) in July 2000, INS required that asylum
officers document the alien's reason for not asking for protection from
being removed from the United States; (9) INS favors releasing aliens
from detention, in cases when an asylum officer determined those aliens
to have a credible fear of persecution or torture if INS determines the
aliens do not pose a flight risk or danger to the community; (10) in
fiscal year 1999, 78 percent of aliens in cases when asylum officers
determined those aliens to have a credible fear of persecution or
torture, were released; (11) data on aliens who were found to have a
credible fear of persecution or torture between April 1, 1997, and
September 30, 1999, showed that 2,351 aliens were released and had
received an immigration judge's decision; (12) of the 2,351 aliens,
1,000 (or 42 percent) of them had not appeared for their removal
hearings; (13) Department of Justice officials pointed out that over
time more cases will be closed in which aliens will have appeared for
their removal hearings; and consequently, this would result in a
reduction of the failure to appear rate, to as low as 25 percent; and
(14) INS has efforts under way to increase aliens' appearance rates.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-00-176
TITLE: Illegal Aliens: Opportunities Exist to Improve the
Expedited Removal Process
DATE: 09/01/2000
SUBJECT: Illegal aliens
Hearings
Immigration and naturalization law
Deportation
Internal controls
Fraud
Eligibility determinations
IDENTIFIER: EOIR Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review
John F. Kennedy International Airport (NY)
Miami International Airport (FL)
DOJ Appearance Assistance Program
DOJ Asylum Pre-Screening System
Executive Office for Immigration Review
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Los Angeles International Airport (CA)
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO/GGD-00-176
ILLEGAL ALIENS Opportunities Exist to Improve the Expedited Removal Process
United States General Accounting Office
GAO Report to Congressional Committees
September 2000 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176
United States General Accounting Office General Government Division
Washington, D. C. 20548
Page 1 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
B- 283759 September 1, 2000 The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman The
Honorable Patrick J. Leahy Ranking Minority Member Senate Committee on the
Judiciary
The Honorable Jesse Helms, Chairman The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Chairman The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member House Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman The Honorable Sam Gejdenson
Ranking Minority Member House Committee on International Relations
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
among other things, included new provisions establishing an expedited
removal process for dealing with aliens who attempt to enter the United
States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation (e. g., falsely claiming to
be a U. S. citizen or misrepresenting a material fact) or those who arrive
with fraudulent, improper, or no documents (e. g., visa or passport). The
new process went into effect on April 1, 1997, and reduced aliens' rights to
seek review of decisions not to admit them. As part of this new process,
aliens who are subject to expedited removal and assert a fear of being
returned to their home country or country of last residence are to be
provided a credible fear interview. The purpose of this interview is to
identify aliens whose asylum claims have a significant possibility of
succeeding.
The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (P. L. 105- 292) required us
to address selected issues related to aliens who are subjected to the
expedited removal process and the detention of such aliens. We make a
recommendation for the Immigration and Naturalization
B- 283759 Page 2 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Service to reevaluate its policy for deciding when to release aliens who
have a credible fear of persecution or torture.
Copies of this report are being sent to the Honorable Janet Reno, the
Attorney General; the Honorable Doris Meissner, Commissioner, Immigration
and Naturalization Service; the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director, Office of
Management and Budget; and other interested parties. Major contributors to
this report are listed in appendix IV. If you need any additional
information or have any questions, please contact me on (202) 512- 8777.
Richard M. Stana Associate Director Administration of Justice Issues
Page 3 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Executive Summary
Page 4 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (the
1996 Act) included provisions to deal with aliens who attempt to enter the
United States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation (e. g., falsely
claiming to be a U. S. citizen or misrepresenting a material fact) or who
arrive with fraudulent, improper, or no documents (e. g., visa or passport).
This process, 1 which is called expedited removal, gives Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) officers the authority to formally order these
aliens removed from the United States.
The expedited removal process reduces aliens' rights to seek review of
removal orders. Aliens who are subject to expedited removal but who express
a fear of persecution or torture if they are returned to their home country
or country of last residence are to be provided a credible fear interview
with an asylum officer. The purpose of this interview is to identify aliens
whose asylum claims have a significant possibility of succeeding. If the
asylum officer determines that the alien has a credible fear of persecution
or torture, the alien is referred to a hearing before an immigration judge
where the alien can make a request for asylum. Under the 1996 Act, INS may
either continue to detain or release aliens who are awaiting their hearings
with an immigration judge.
The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (P. L. 105- 292) requires
GAO to study issues relating to aliens who are subject to expedited removal
and those who have claimed a fear of persecution or torture in their home
country. GAO is to issue its report to the Senate and House Committees on
the Judiciary, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House
Committee on International Relations. As agreed with these committees, this
report addresses, among other things,
� INS' management controls over (1) the expedited removal process and (2)
the credible fear determination process, including those determinations
relating to aliens' decisions to recant their claims of a fear of
persecution or torture, and
� analysis of aliens who failed to appear before an immigration judge for
their removal hearing after being released from detention.
GAO's analysis of documentation in 365 randomly selected case files of
aliens who were processed for expedited removal in fiscal year 1999
indicated that INS inspectors were generally complying with requirements of
the expedited removal process at the Los Angeles, John Fitzgerald
1 On April 1, 1997, the expedited removal process was established. Purpose
Results in Brief
Executive Summary Page 5 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Kennedy (JFK), and Miami airports and the San Ysidro port of entry. 2 These
requirements include asking aliens if they feared being returned to their
home country, having a supervisor review the inspectors' decisions to remove
the alien, and having aliens sign their sworn statements.
In the Los Angeles, Miami, and New York asylum offices, GAO reviewed all 45
cases in which an asylum officer determined that the aliens did not have a
credible fear of persecution or torture (negative credible fear
determinations). In these cases, asylum officers generally complied with
documenting the credible fear process. For example, asylum officers
documented that they generally read mandatory information to the alien
during the interview, and supervisors documented their review of asylum
officers' decisions.
INS guidance requires that asylum officers document an alien's wish to
withdraw a claim of a fear of persecution or torture (recanting the claim)
by having the alien (1) make this request in writing or (2) sign a statement
indicating that the decision was voluntary. At the time of GAO's review, the
guidance did not require that asylum officers document the reasons aliens
stated for the withdrawal. While supervisors were to review expedited
removal orders, they did not have to review aliens' decisions to recant
their claims. In 8 percent of 10,755 cases, aliens recanted their claims of
a fear of persecution or torture between April 1, 1997, and September 30,
1999. Some aliens recanted their claims after asylum officers had determined
that their fears were credible and referred their cases to immigration
judges. GAO's review of 133 randomly selected case files of aliens who
recanted their claims in Los Angeles, Miami, and New York showed that asylum
officers generally complied with INS guidance. However, the asylum offices
varied in the amount of documentation they obtained from aliens recanting
their claims of a fear of persecution or torture. On the basis of
discussions with GAO, in July 2000, INS required that asylum officers
document the alien's reason for not asking for protection from being removed
from the United States.
INS favors releasing aliens from detention, in cases when an asylum officer
determined those aliens to have a credible fear of persecution or torture if
INS determines the aliens do not pose a risk of flight or danger to the
community. According to 29 of 33 responses of INS district offices to GAO's
survey, an estimated 3, 432 of 4,391 (78 percent) of the aliens, in cases
when asylum officers determined those aliens to have a credible fear of
persecution or torture, were released in fiscal year 1999. GAO's analysis
2 These ports handled about 44, 400 (or 50 percent) of the expedited removal
cases in fiscal year 1999.
Executive Summary Page 6 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
of data on aliens who were found to have a credible fear of persecution or
torture between April 1, 1997, and September 30, 1999, showed that 2,351
aliens were released and had received an immigration judge's decision. Of
the 2,351 aliens, 1,000 (or 42 percent) of them had not appeared for their
removal hearings. Department of Justice officials pointed out that over time
more cases will be closed in which aliens will have appeared for their
removal hearings; and consequently, this would result in a reduction of the
failure to appear rate, to as low as 25 percent. INS currently has efforts
under way to increase aliens' appearance rates.
GAO makes a recommendation for INS to reevaluate its policy for when to
release aliens who have a credible fear of persecution or torture. The
Department of Justice stated that the report was fair and accurate.
Aliens seeking admission to the United States at a port of entry generally
are to present documents to INS inspectors showing that they are authorized
to enter. INS can prohibit aliens from entering the United States for
several reasons (e. g., criminal activity or failing to have a valid visa or
passport).
In the years preceding passage of the 1996 Act, concerns were raised about
the difficulty of preventing illegal aliens from entering the United States
and the difficulty of identifying and removing illegal aliens after they had
entered this country. Under expedited removal, INS inspectors can issue
expedited removal orders to aliens who attempt to enter the United States by
engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or who arrive with fraudulent,
improper, or no documents. As part of the expedited removal process, INS
inspectors are to provide the aliens with certain information about the
expedited removal process and to ask them specific questions, such as
whether they fear being returned to their home country or country of last
residence. With few exceptions, aliens cannot request an immigration judge's
review of INS inspectors' removal decisions. However, before the orders are
issued to the alien, supervisors are to review inspectors' removal
decisions. In those situations in which an asylum officer has determined
that the alien has a credible fear of persecution or torture, INS has the
option of releasing or continuing to detain the alien. INS favors release of
such aliens provided that the aliens do not pose a risk of flight or danger
to the community.
In conducting its study, GAO reviewed INS' procedures aimed at helping
ensure that inspectors comply with its expedited removal procedures. GAO
interviewed officials at INS headquarters, one land port of entry (San
Ysidro, CA), and three airports (Los Angeles International, Miami Background
Executive Summary Page 7 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
International, and New York's JFK International). In addition, GAO obtained
and reviewed headquarters and local guidance on the processes and procedures
for processing aliens who recant their claims of fear. GAO also reviewed 133
randomly selected files of 232 aliens who recanted their claims of fear
between October 1, 1998, and September 30, 1999, at the Los Angeles, Miami,
and New York asylum offices. Furthermore, for aliens found to have a
credible fear of persecution or torture between April 1, 1997, and September
30, 1999, GAO determined the number and rate of aliens who did not appear
before an immigration judge for their removal hearings after being released
from detention.
GAO's review of 365 case files randomly selected from 47,791 fiscal year
1999 case files of aliens who attempted entry at Los Angeles, JFK, and Miami
airports, and San Ysidro port of entry and were charged under the expedited
removal provisions showed that inspectors at these ports generally complied
with INS' procedures. Specifically, depending on the port,
� inspectors documented that they had asked the aliens the three required
questions designed to identify a fear of returning to their home country in
84 to 100 percent of the files,
� supervisors reviewed the expedited removal orders in 97 to 100 percent of
the files, and
� the aliens' signed sworn statements were in 95 to 100 percent of the
files. GAO's review of all 45 negative credible fear determinations at the
Los Angeles, Miami, and New York asylum offices showed that the asylum
officers documented reading to aliens mandatory information regarding the
(1) purpose of the credible fear interview, (2) the review by the
immigration judge, and (3) torture. For example, the number of times the
asylum officers documented reading mandatory information about the interview
ranged from 21 of 24 times in Los Angeles to all of the times in the other
two offices.
According to INS data on closed cases, between April 1, 1997, and September
30, 1999, about 8 percent of 10,755 aliens who inspectors referred for a
credible fear interview with an asylum officer later recanted their claims
of a fear of persecution or torture.
INS guidance requires that asylum officers document an alien's wish to
recant a claim of a fear of persecution or torture by having the alien (1)
GAO's Analysis
INS Generally Followed Its Procedures for Documenting the Expedited Removal
Process at Selected Ports
INS Generally Followed Its Procedures for Documenting the Credible Fear
Process at Selected Asylum Offices
INS Clarified Requirements for Documentation Needed for Aliens Who Recant
Their Fear of Persecution or Torture
Executive Summary Page 8 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
make this request in writing or (2) sign a statement indicating that the
decision was voluntary. The guidance does not, however, require that asylum
officers document the reason for the withdrawal. However, INS has the
responsibility under the 1996 Act to identify aliens who claim to have a
fear of persecution or torture if they are returned to their home country
and not to return aliens who are found to have such a fear. Without
documentation on the reasons aliens recanted their claims, along with
supervisory review, INS has little assurance that some aliens who recanted
their claims would not be improperly returned home where they might be
subjected to persecution or torture.
The Los Angeles, Miami, and New York asylum offices varied in the amount of
documentation that they obtained from aliens withdrawing their claims of a
fear of persecution or torture and generally complied with INS guidance. Two
locations, New York and Miami, had aliens sign a standardized letter stating
that the alien did not want to go through the credible fear process and
would be allowed to go home as soon as travel arrangements could be made.
The letter also noted that the alien had been advised that he or she would
be barred from reentry into the United States. The letter also stated that
the alien was making the decision freely and voluntarily and had not been
coerced by an immigration officer or any other person. In Miami, 15 of the
45 files also contained a memorandum prepared by the asylum officers that
summarized the aliens' reasons for recanting their claim of fear. In Los
Angeles, 37 of the 40 case files contained statements written or signed by
the aliens that described why they were recanting their claims, or they
showed evidence that asylum officers had asked the aliens about their
original claims of a fear of persecution or torture and recorded the aliens'
responses.
Due to the various ways in which the offices document withdrawals, GAO could
not determine the reasons why aliens recanted their claims of a fear of
persecution or torture for the majority of cases. Therefore, INS also cannot
determine whether it is returning some aliens to a country where they could
be persecuted or tortured.
In discussing this documentation issue, INS said that (1) procedures
requiring a more detailed record of reasons for which aliens recanted their
claims of fear of persecution or torture should implemented and (2) review
by a supervisory asylum officer should be documented. INS said that a more
extensive record might provide a clearer chronology in cases similar to
those that we sampled. Subsequently, on July 26, 2000, INS required that
when an alien decides to stop pursuing protection from removal, an asylum
officer will question the alien about his or her reason and will
Executive Summary Page 9 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
explain the process for removal and the ability of that alien to pursue
protection at any time prior to removal. Further, the asylum officer is to
complete a form that includes the alien's reason for not asking for
protection from removal and the signature of the supervisory asylum officer.
In cases when an asylum officer determines that an alien has a credible fear
of persecution or torture and the alien is released from INS custody, the
alien is required to appear at a removal hearing before an immigration
judge. At the removal hearing, the alien is to present his or her claim for
asylum and the immigration judge is to rule on the merits of the claim.
Aliens whose claims are denied are to be removed from the country and
returned to their home country. GAO's analysis of data on aliens who were
found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture between April 1,
1997, and September 30, 1999, showed that 2,351 aliens were released and had
received an immigration judge's decision. Of the 2,351 aliens, 1,000 (or 42
percent) of them had not appeared for their removal hearings. In all 1,000
cases in which aliens did not appear for their removal hearings, immigration
judges ordered them removed from the United States in absentia.
Department of Justice officials pointed out that over time more cases will
be closed in which aliens appeared for their removal hearing; and
consequently, this will result in a reduction of the 42 percent failure to
appear rate. They determined that the failure to appear rate was 34 percent,
as of August 10, 2000. They estimated that eventually the rate would be as
low as 25 percent when all the cases are completed. These data and other
studies suggest that many aliens may be using the credible fear process to
illegally remain in the United States.
Aliens who INS did not detain were not likely to be removed from the
country, according to a 1996 report by the Department of Justice's Office of
the Inspector General. The report stated that, on the basis of its analysis
of fiscal year 1994 data, only 11 percent of aliens who were not detained
were actually removed at the end of removal proceedings, versus well over 90
percent of those aliens who were detained throughout the process.
GAO recommends that the Attorney General direct INS to analyze the
characteristics of those aliens who appear and who do not appear for their
removal hearing and to use the results to reevaluate its policy for deciding
when to release aliens in cases when an asylum officer determined the aliens
to have a credible fear of persecution or torture. Many Released Aliens Did
Not Appear for Their Hearing
Recommendations
Executive Summary Page 10 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal
Process
The report contains another recommendation to help ensure aliens appear at
their removal hearings.
We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review and
comment. On August 10 and 14, 2000, we met with Department of Justice
officials to obtain Justice's comments. Overall, the officials stated that
the report was fair and accurate. They suggested a modification of one of
our recommendations to help ensure aliens appear at their removal hearings.
They also provided technical comments, which have been incorporated in this
report where appropriate. Agency Comments
Page 11 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Page 12 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Contents 4 Executive Summary 18 Aliens Attempting to Enter the United States
at Ports of
Entry 18
Expedited Removal Provision 19 Expedited Removal Process 20 Credible Fear
Process 28 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 30 Agency Comments 36 Chapter
1
Introduction 37 INS Management Controls for Expedited Removal 38 INS Allows
Some Aliens to Withdraw Their Applications
for Admission 45 Chapter 2
INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures and Internal Controls For the
Expedited Removal Process At Selected Ports
47 Information Related to Aliens Referred to Asylum
Officers 48
INS' Management Controls Over the Credible Fear Determination
52 INS Initiated Steps to Improve Controls Over Aliens Who
Withdrew Their Request for a Credible Fear Interview 56
Conclusions 61 Chapter 3
INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures Regarding the Credible Fear
Process at Selected Asylum Offices
62 INS Policy Favors Release of Credible Fear Aliens
Provided They Meet Certain Conditions 62
Indications Suggest Many Aliens May Be Using the Credible Fear Process to
Illegally Remain in the United States
67 Chapter 4
INS Released Many Aliens and Many of Them Did Not Appear for Their Hearing
Conclusion 72
Contents Page 13 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Recommendations 72 Agency Comments 73
74 Facility Conditions 74 Conclusions 78 Chapter 5
Detention Conditions Varied for Aliens Subject to Expedited Removal
Appendix I: Additional Information on Aliens Subject to Expedited Removal
80 Appendix II: Description of the Violations That Subject
Aliens to Expedited Removal 86
Appendix III: Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
88 Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 106 Appendixes
Table 2.1: Why Did You Leave Your Home Country or Country of Last Residence?
39 Table 2.2: Do You Have a Fear or Concern About Being
Returned to Your Home Country or Removed From the United States?
39 Table 2.3: Would You Be Harmed If You Were Returned
To Your Home Country? 40
Table 2.4: Is There Evidence That a Second- line Supervisor Signed off on
the Removal Order in the File?
41 Table 2.5: Is the Record of Sworn Statement Signed by
the Alien? 41
Table 2.6: Is There Evidence that an INS Port Director or Assistant Area
Port Director Signed off on the Supervisory Checklist?
42 Table 2.7: Documentation Existed Showing That Credible
Fear Questions Asked 46
Table 2.8: Documentation Existed Showing That INS Supervisor Signed off on
the File
46 Tables
Table 3.1: Most Common Citizenship of Aliens Referred to Asylum Officers
Between April 1, 1997, and September 30, 1999
49
Contents Page 14 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Table 3.2: Percentage of Credible Fear Determinations by Asylum Offices for
Aliens Who Attempted to Enter the United States Between April 1, 1997, and
September 30, 1999
49 Table 3.3: Number of Cases Where Asylum Officer
Checked That He/ She Read Paragraph Explaining the Purpose of the Interview
53 Table 3.4: Number of Cases Where Asylum Officer
Checked That He/ She Read Paragraph on the Process of Referral/ Review by an
Immigration Judge
54 Table 3.5: Number of Cases Where Asylum Officer
Checked That He/ She Read Paragraph on Torture 54
Table 3.6: Percentage of Recanted Claims by Asylum Office for Aliens Who
Attempted to Enter the United States Between April 1, 1997, and September
30, 1999
57 Table 4.1: District Practices for Detaining or Releasing
Aliens Who Have a Credible Fear in Fiscal Year 1999 64
Table 4.2: Factors Reported in Decisions to Release or Detain Aliens
66 Table 5.1: ACA Accreditation of INS- Controlled Facilities 75 Table I. 1:
Dispositions of Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal Provision Between October 1, 1998, and September 30, 1999, at the
Nation's Airports
81 Table I. 2: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens
Subject to Expedited Removal at John F. Kennedy Airport
82 Table I. 3: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens
Subject to Expedited Removal at Miami International Airport
82 Table I. 4: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens
Subject to Expedited Removal at Los Angeles International Airport
82 Table I. 5: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens
Subject to Expedited Removal at Houston International Airport
83 Table I. 6: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens
Subject to Expedited Removal at Newark International Airport
83 Table I. 7: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens
Subject to Expedited Removal at Chicago International Airport
83
Contents Page 15 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Table I. 8: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal at Atlanta International Airport
84 Table I. 9: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens
Subject to Expedited Removal at San Francisco International Airport
84 Table I. 10: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens
Subject to Expedited Removal at Dallas International Airport
84 Table I. 11: Dispositions of Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal Provision Between October 1, 1998, and September 30, 1999, at San
Ysidro, CA Port- of- Entry
85 Table III. 1: Number of Aliens Who Did or Did Not Recant
Their Claims of Fear of Persecution or Torture, by Selected Characteristics,
and Odds and Odds Ratios Derived From Them
91 Table III. 2: Number of Aliens Who Received Positive and
Negative Credible Fear Determinations From Asylum Officers, by Selected
Characteristics, and Odds and Odds Ratios Derived From Them
94 Table III. 3: Numbers of Cases Recanted and Not
Recanted Resulting in Positive and Negative Credible Fear Determinations and
Odds Derived From Them for Countries With the Larger Number of Credible Fear
Cases Within Regions
96 Table III. 4: File Review Populations and Samples for the
Four Ports of Entry of Aliens Who Were Subject to Expedited Removal and Were
Ordered Removed From the United States, Fiscal Year 1999
103 Table III. 5: File Review Populations and Samples for the
Three Ports of Entry of Aliens Who Were Subject to Expedited Removal and
Were Allowed to Withdraw Their Applications for Entry, Fiscal Year 1999
103 Table III. 6: File Review Populations and Samples for the
Three Asylum Offices of Aliens Who Recanted Their Fear of Persecution or
Torture, Fiscal Year 1999
104 Figure 1. 1: Flowchart of the Expedited Removal Process
Under the 1996 Act 22
23 Figures
Contents Page 16 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Abbreviations
A- number alien number ACA American Correctional Association AAP Appearance
Assistance Program ANSIR Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review
APSS Asylum Pre- Screening System EOIR Executive Office for Immigration
Review INA Immigration and Nationality Act INS Immigration and
Naturalization Service INSpect Program for Excellence and Comprehensive
Tracking JFK John Fitzgerald Kennedy International Airport OIA Office of
Internal Audit SPC Service Processing Centers UNHCR United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees
Page 17 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 18 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (the
1996 Act), which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 1 as
amended, was enacted September 30, 1996, (P. L. 104- 208). Among other
things, the 1996 Act included a provision, which is called expedited
removal, for dealing with aliens who attempt to enter the United States by
engaging in fraud or misrepresentation (e. g., falsely claiming to be a U.
S. citizen or misrepresenting a material fact) or those who arrive with
fraudulent, improper, or no documents (e. g., visa or passport). The
expedited removal provision, which went into effect on April 1, 1997,
reduces an alien's right to seek review of a determination of
inadmissibility decision.
In the years preceding the passage of the 1996 Act, concerns were raised
about the difficulty of preventing illegal aliens from entering the United
States and the difficulty of identifying and removing illegal aliens after
they had entered this country. The expedited removal process was designed to
prevent aliens who attempt to enter the United States by engaging in fraud
or misrepresentation or who arrive without proper documents from entering
this country at our ports of entry.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and immigration judges have
roles in implementing the provisions of the 1996 Act relating to the
expedited removal of aliens. INS' responsibilities include (1) inspecting
aliens to determine their admissibility and (2) reviewing the basis and
credibility of aliens who are subject to expedited removal but who claim a
fear of persecution or torture if returned to their home country or country
of last residence. 2 Aliens can request that immigration judges review INS'
negative credible fear determinations. Immigration judges, who report to the
Chief Immigration Judge, are in the Executive Office for Immigration Review
(EOIR), within the Department of Justice. The immigration judges are located
in immigration courts throughout the country.
Aliens who want to be admitted to the United States at a port of entry are
required to establish admissibility to an inspector. INS has about 4,900
inspectors and about 250 staffed ports of entry. Generally, aliens provide
inspectors with documents that show they are authorized to enter this
country. At this primary inspection, an INS inspector either permits the
aliens to enter the country or sends the aliens to another inspector for a
more detailed review of their documents or for further questioning. The
1 8 U. S. C. 1101, et seq. 2 For the purposes of this report, we use the
term “home country” in referring to the aliens' home country or
their country of last residence. Aliens Attempting to
Enter the United States at Ports of Entry
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 19 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
more detailed review is called secondary inspection. In deciding whether to
admit the alien, the INS inspector is to review the alien's documents for
accuracy and validity and check INS' and other agencies' databases for any
information that could affect the alien's admissibility. After reviewing the
alien's documents and interviewing the alien at the secondary inspection,
the inspector may either admit or deny admission to the alien or take other
discretionary action. INS can prohibit aliens from entering the United
States for several reasons (e. g., criminal activity or failing to have a
valid visa, passport, or other required documents). Inspectors have
discretion to permit aliens to (1) enter the United States under limited
circumstances although they do not meet the requirements for entry (paroled)
3 or (2) withdraw their applications for admission and depart the country.
Under the 1996 Act, an INS inspector can issue an expedited removal order to
aliens who (1) are denied admission to the United States because they engage
in fraud or misrepresentation or arrive without proper documents when
attempting to enter this country and (2) do not express a fear of returning
to their home country. INS is to remove the alien from this country. 4
Generally, aliens who do not express a fear of being returned to their home
country cannot have a review of INS' decisions. 5 Between April 1, 1997, and
September 30, 1999, about 190,000 aliens who attempted to enter the country
were given expedited removal orders. 6 Further information on the
characteristics of aliens who were removed can be found in appendix I. The
specific violations (i. e., aliens attempting to enter the United States by
engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or arriving without proper documents)
under the 1996 Act that could subject the alien to an expedited removal
order are discussed in appendix II.
3 Parole is a procedure used to temporarily admit an inadmissible alien into
the United States, for emergency reasons or when in the public interest. 4
There are other reasons why INS may find an alien inadmissible (e. g.,
criminal activity). However, expedited removal orders can only be issued to
aliens whom INS finds inadmissible because the aliens attempted to enter the
United States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or arrived without
proper documents at the U. S. ports of entry. If INS includes any other
charge against an alien, the alien cannot be processed under expedited
removal procedures. INS is not required to charge an alien with all of the
grounds under which it finds the alien inadmissible. With its new authority
under the 1996 Act to issue expedited removal orders, INS' guidance to its
inspectors states that, generally, if aliens are inadmissible because they
attempted to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or
misrepresentation or arrived without proper documents, additional charges
should not be brought, and the alien should be placed in the expedited
removal process.
5 An alien can request an immigration judge's review of an inspector's
decision if the alien swears under oath to be a U. S. citizen or to have
lawful permanent residence, refugee, or asylee status. If the judge finds
that the alien is not a U. S. citizen or does not have lawful permanent
residence, refugee, or asylee status, then the alien will be subject to
expedited removal.
6 Expedited removal orders were issued to about 23, 100 aliens in fiscal
year 1997 (April through September), to about 76, 700 aliens in fiscal year
1998, and about 89, 000 aliens in fiscal year 1999. Expedited Removal
Provision
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 20 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Under the 1996 Act, aliens who are issued an expedited removal order
generally are barred from reentering this country for 5 years. However,
under the 1996 Act aliens are allowed to request permission to reapply for
admission to this country during the 5- year period. 7
The expedited removal provision also established a process for aliens who
express a fear of being returned to their home country and who are subject
to expedited removal. Inspectors are to ask specific questions and to look
for signs from the aliens of fear of being returned to their home country
and, if aliens exhibit such a fear, inspectors are to refer the aliens to an
INS asylum officer for an interview to determine whether the aliens have a
credible fear of persecution or torture or harm if returned to their home
country. This is called a credible fear interview. The term “credible
fear of persecution” is defined by statute as “a significant
possibility, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by
the alien in support of the alien's claim and such other facts as are known
to the officer, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum under
Section 208” of the INA. 8
INS has about 400 asylum officers who are involved with the asylum process.
About 300 of these officers have been trained to conduct credible fear
interviews. INS has eight asylum offices nationwide.
From April 1, 1997, to September 30, 1999, INS inspected about 28.3 million
aliens per month at ports of entry. 9 INS referred about 601, 000 of these
aliens to secondary inspection; about 62,900 were not admitted.
Under the 1996 Act, on behalf of the Attorney General, the Commissioner of
INS carries out the responsibilities to issue expedited removal orders
against aliens classified as “arriving aliens.” Justice
regulations have defined arriving aliens as those who seek admission to or
transit through the United States at a port of entry 10 or those who are
interdicted in international or U. S. waters and are brought to this
country. The 1996 Act also allows expedited removal orders to be issued to
aliens who have entered the United States without being inspected or paroled
at a port of
7 The 1996 Act also increased the penalties for aliens who were removed
under other provisions of the law. 8 8 U. S. C. 1225.
9 These inspections were done at primary inspection. 10 The 1996 Act
excludes from expedited removal Cuban nationals who arrive at a port of
entry by aircraft. Expedited Removal
Process
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 21 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
entry. 11 INS determined that it would not apply expedited removal orders to
the last category of aliens- namely, those who entered the United States
without inspection or parole.
The 1996 Act defines when INS can use expedited removal orders for arriving
aliens. As discussed below, INS has established procedures for implementing
the provisions, such as requiring inspectors to read specific information to
the aliens. Figure 1.1 shows the expedited removal process, including the
credible fear process.
11 The 1996 Act only permits INS to issue expedited removal orders against
aliens who have been in the United States for less than 2 years.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 22 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Figure 1. 1: Flowchart of the Expedited Removal Process Under the 1996 Act
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 23 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Note: Withdrawals can also occur at later stages in the expedited removal
process. Sources: Information provided in discussions with INS officials and
review of INS documentation.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 24 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
According to INS' regulations and implementing instructions, when an
inspector plans to issue an expedited removal order to an alien, the
inspector is to follow certain steps, as shown below:
� Explain the expedited removal process to the alien and read the statement
of rights and consequences in a language the alien can understand. Included
in this statement are the facts that the alien may be immediately removed
from this country without a hearing and, if so, may be barred from
reentering the country for 5 years or longer; that this may be the alien's
only opportunity to present information to the inspector before INS makes a
decision; and that if the alien has a fear or concern about being removed
from the United States or being sent to his or her home country, the alien
should tell the inspector during this interview because the alien may not
have another chance to do so.
� Take a sworn statement from the alien, which is to contain all pertinent
facts of the case. As part of the sworn statement process, the inspector
provides information to the alien, interviews the alien, and records the
alien's responses. The inspector is to cover and document in the sworn
statement topics such as the alien's identity and reasons for the alien
being inadmissible into the United States; whether the alien has a fear of
persecution or torture or return to his or her home country; and the INS
decision (i. e., issue the alien an expedited removal order, refer the alien
for a credible fear interview, permit the alien to withdraw his or her
application for admission, admit the alien into the country, allow him or
her to apply for any applicable waiver, or defer the inspection or otherwise
parole the alien).
When the inspector completes the record of the sworn statement, he or she is
to have the alien read the statement, or have it read to the alien, and have
the alien sign and initial each page of the statement and any corrections
that are made. The inspector is to provide a copy of the signed statement to
the alien. The alien is to be given an opportunity to respond to INS'
decision.
� Complete other administrative processes and paperwork, including the
documents needed to remove the alien.
� Present the sworn statement and all other related paperwork to the
appropriate supervisor for review and approval. Steps in the Expedited
Removal Process
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 25 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
As previously discussed, INS instructions require that the inspector is to
refer an alien for an interview with an asylum officer if, for example, the
alien indicates a fear of returning to his or her home country or an intent
to apply for asylum. The asylum officer is to determine if the alien has a
credible fear of persecution or torture. Immigration officers referred
11,104 aliens who requested admittance to the United States between April 1,
1997, and September 30, 1999, for a credible fear interview.
According to INS, to determine if an alien should be referred to an asylum
officer for a credible fear interview, the inspector is to consider any
statement or signs, verbal or nonverbal, that the alien may have a fear of
persecution or torture or a fear of returning to his or her home country.
The questions that the inspector is required to ask and to record were
designed to help determine whether the alien has such a fear. These
questions are as follows:
� Why did you leave your home country or country of last residence?
� Do you have any fear or concern about being returned to your home country
or being removed from the United States?
� Would you be harmed if you are returned to your home country or country of
last residence?
According to INS guidance, if the alien indicates that he or she has a fear
or concern or intends to apply for asylum, the inspector may ask additional
questions to ascertain the general nature of the alien's fear or concern.
The alien does not need to use the specific terms “asylum” or
“persecution” for the inspector to refer the alien for a
credible fear interview, nor does the alien's fear have to relate
specifically to one of the five bases contained within the definition of
refugee, which are the legal basis for an asylum determination. 12 INS
training materials note that there have been many cases in which asylum was
ultimately granted that may not have initially appeared to relate to the
definition of asylum. INS further requires that the inspector should not
make eligibility determinations or weigh the strengths or credibility of the
alien's claim. Additionally, the inspector should err on the side of caution
and refer all questionable cases to the asylum officer.
When an inspector is going to refer an alien for a credible fear interview,
the inspector is to process the alien as an expedited removal case. 13
12 As discussed later in this chapter, for an asylum officer to find that
the alien has a credible fear of persecution or torture, the alien's fear
must be related to one of the five bases (or grounds) listed in the refugee
definition.
13 The expedited removal order is not issued at this time. Need to Identify
Potential
Asylum Seekers
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 26 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Additionally, the inspector is to explain to the alien, in a language the
alien understands, information about the credible fear interview, including
(1) the alien's right to consult with other persons, (2) the alien's right
to have an interpreter, and (3) what will transpire if the asylum officer
finds that the alien does not have a credible fear of persecution or
torture. This information is contained in an INS form that the inspector is
to give the alien. The inspector also is to provide the alien with a list of
free legal services, which is prepared and maintained by EOIR.
Generally, INS requires that aliens who are subject to expedited removal
should be processed immediately unless they claim lawful status in the
United States or a fear of return to their home country. Those aliens who
arrive at air and sea ports of entry who are to be removed from the United
States are to be returned by the first available means of transportation.
Aliens arriving at land ports of entry who are ordered removed usually
should be returned to the country from which they tried to enter (i. e.,
Canada or Mexico). If the inspector is unable to complete the alien's case
or transportation is not available within a reasonable amount of time from
the completion of the case, the inspector is to send the alien to an INS
detention center or other holding facility until he or she can complete the
case or remove the alien. Parole may only be considered on a case- by- case
basis for medical emergencies or for legitimate law enforcement purposes. 14
An expedited removal order is not the only option available for the
inspector to apply to aliens who are inadmissible because they attempted to
enter the United States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or arrived
without proper documents. Depending upon the specific violation, the options
available to the inspector include (1) allowing the alien to withdraw his or
her application, (2) processing a waiver, (3) deferring the inspection, or
(4) paroling the alien into the United States. Normally, INS can refer these
aliens to an immigration judge only if the alien is found to have a credible
fear of persecution or torture or the alien swears under oath to be a U. S.
citizen or to have lawful permanent resident, refugee, or asylee status, and
that status has been verified. For those aliens whom the inspector cannot
verify the alien's claim to be a U. S. citizen or to have
14 A legitimate law enforcement purpose could include paroling the alien
into the custody of another law enforcement agency for prosecution of the
alien or for having the alien testify or assist the government in the
prosecution of a criminal matter. Removal of Aliens Served
an Expedited Removal Order
Other Options Available in Lieu of Expedited Removal
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 27 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
lawful permanent residence, refugee, or asylee status, the alien is sent to
an immigration judge only for a review of the expedited removal order. 15
On December 22, 1997, INS issued additional guidance on when an inspector
should offer aliens an opportunity to withdraw their application for
admission. According to this guidance, the inspector should carefully
consider all facts and circumstances related to the case to determine (1)
whether permitting withdrawal would be in the best interest of justice, or
(2) whether justice would be ill- served if an order of removal (such as an
expedited removal order) were issued. Factors to consider in making this
decision may include, but are not limited to, previous findings of
inadmissibility against the alien, the alien's intent to violate the law,
the alien's age or health, and other humanitarian or public interest
considerations. The guidance further states that ordinarily, the inspector
should issue an expedited removal order when the alien has engaged in
obvious, deliberate fraud. If the alien may have innocently or through
ignorance, misinformation, or bad advice obtained an inappropriate visa and
did not conceal information during the course of the inspection, withdrawal
should ordinarily be permitted. Between October 1, 1997, and September 30,
1999, about 151,000 aliens subject to expedited removal were permitted to
withdraw their applications for admission. 16 For more information on the
characteristics of aliens allowed to withdraw, see appendix I.
On January 3, 1997, INS issued proposed rules regarding the implementation
of the 1996 Act, including the expedited removal process. On March 6, 1997,
INS issued its interim rules on the implementation of the 1996 Act,
including the expedited removal process. 17 According to an INS Headquarters
official, these interim rules were still in effect at the time of our
review.
INS developed and distributed specific guidance for its inspectors on how to
implement the expedited removal process. This guidance was
15 The inspector is to issue these aliens an expedited removal order and
refer them to an immigration judge to review the order. If the immigration
judge determines the alien has never been admitted as a lawful permanent
resident or as a refugee, has not been granted asylum status, or is not an
U. S. citizen, INS is to remove the alien. If the judge determines the alien
was admitted as a lawful permanent resident or as a refugee, was granted
asylum status, or is an U. S. citizen, the judge is to cancel the expedited
removal order.
16 INS did not begin to report data on the number of aliens subject to
expedited removal who were permitted to withdraw until fiscal year 1998.
About 72, 000 were permitted to withdraw in fiscal year 1998, and about 79,
000 were permitted to withdraw in fiscal year 1999.
17 The effective date of these rules was April 1, 1997. Guidance and
Training
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 28 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
incorporated into the training that INS developed for its officers on the
1996 Act. The training information on the expedited removal process included
instructions on who would be subject to expedited removal, what information
should be obtained in a sworn statement, and when an alien should be
referred to an asylum officer for a credible fear interview. According to
INS, the agency has trained all of its inspectors on expedited removal. INS
has modified its existing inspector basic training for newly hired employees
to include the expedited removal process.
Inspectors are to refer aliens who have expressed a fear of persecution or
torture to an asylum officer for a credible fear interview. Under current
operating instructions, that interview can be held no sooner than 48 hours
after the alien has arrived to allow the alien an opportunity to recover
from the rigors of travel and, if desired, to consult with friends, family,
or other advisors, which may include attorneys. 18 Before holding the
credible fear interview, asylum officers are required to (1) inform aliens
about the credible fear and asylum processes; (2) inform aliens of their
option to obtain a consultant who can be a lawyer, friend, relative, or
anyone of the aliens' choosing; and (3) provide a list of people and
organizations that provide legal services. According to an INS official, at
some locations, this information is provided during an orientation. The
regulations require INS to provide interpreters in the credible fear
interviews, when necessary.
In a credible fear interview, the 1996 Act requires the asylum officer to
decide whether there is a significant possibility that the alien could
establish eligibility for asylum. To make this determination, INS requires
the asylum officer to consider whether a significant possibility exists that
(1) the alien's statements are credible (i. e., that the alien's testimony
is consistent, plausible, and detailed); (2) the alien was persecuted in the
past or there is a reasonable possibility the alien would be persecuted in
the future; 19 and (3) the alien's fear is related to one of five bases for
obtaining asylum- persecution or torture because of race, religion,
nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
In addition, the asylum officer is to read mandatory information about the
process, the right to appeal a negative credible fear determination to an
immigration judge, and the fear of being tortured. The asylum officer is to
18 However the alien can choose to waive this right and request an earlier
credible fear interview. 19 INS' regulations that took effect March 22,
1999, (64 Fed. Reg. 8, 478 (1999)) amended the credible fear screening
provisions to ensure that an arriving alien subject to the expedited removal
process will, when appropriate, be considered for protection under the
Convention against Torture. The amended regulations expanded the credible
fear screening to include a screening for credible fear of torture, as well
as for credible fear of persecution. Credible Fear Process
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 29 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
read aloud the mandatory paragraphs from an INS form on which the officer
also records the results of the credible fear interview.
INS' training materials state that it may be helpful to think of the
standard as a net that will capture all potential refugees and individuals
who would be subject to torture if returned to their country of feared
persecution or harm. Such a protective net may also capture nonrefugees and
individuals that may not be subject to torture. The purpose of this standard
is to guarantee the identification of all persons who could be classified as
refugees or who require protection from torture under the United States'
international obligations. The materials also note that the legislative
history of the 1996 Act indicated that the credible fear of persecution
standard is intended to be a low screening standard for admission into the
usual full asylum process.
The asylum officer is to record the results of the credible fear interview,
including (1) a determination of the alien's ability to establish past harm
or fear of future harm, with a potential connection between the harm
experienced or fear to any of the five grounds for asylum or (2) where
applicable, a determination of whether the alien has a significant
possibility of establishing eligibility for protection under the Convention
against Torture. INS requires supervisory review of asylum officers'
credible fear determinations. 20
If the asylum officer finds that the alien has a credible fear of
persecution or torture, the alien will be placed in removal proceedings 21
before 1 of about 117 immigration judges. During these proceedings, the
alien can make a formal application for asylum. The application for asylum
generally must be submitted within 1 year of arriving in the United States.
22 During these proceedings, the immigration judge is to decide whether the
alien's asylum claim warrants his or her being granted asylum in the United
States. If the asylum officer finds that the alien does not have a credible
fear, the alien has a right to request that an immigration judge review the
negative credible fear determination. If the alien does not request a review
of the credible fear determination, the alien is subject to expedited
removal. According to INS, asylum officers have been instructed that aliens
who refuse to sign papers or seem confused by the process or
20 INS requires that when either an asylum officer or his or her supervisor
determines that an alien has a credible fear, the alien is to be referred
for a removal hearing before an immigration judge. 21 The 1996 Act merged
deportation and exclusion proceedings into a single removal proceeding.
22 If the alien demonstrates the existence of changed circumstances relating
to the delay in filing the application, the application does not have to be
filed within the required period of time.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 30 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
undecided about whether to request a review should receive a review unless
they are requesting to be sent home.
In cases where the alien requests a review of an asylum officer's negative
credible fear determination, the immigration judge is to review this
determination. During this review, the immigration judge may receive into
evidence any relevant written or oral statements. If the immigration judge
agrees with the asylum officer's negative credible fear decision, the alien
cannot appeal the immigration judge's decision and is to be removed through
the expedited removal process. If the immigration judge disagrees with the
asylum officer's negative credible fear decision, the alien is to be placed
in removal proceedings, during which he or she can apply for asylum. During
the immigration judge's review, at the discretion of the immigration judge,
the alien may enlist the aid of a consultant in the review process.
In some cases, aliens decide to withdraw their requests for a credible fear
interview later in the process. In such cases, INS requires that immigration
officers document that the alien had not been coerced and was voluntarily
withdrawing his or her claim. These aliens may then be placed in expedited
removal.
Generally, the 1996 Act requires INS to detain aliens who are subject to
expedited removal and who express a fear of persecution or torture until
they are removed from the country or permitted to remain in the country. 23
These aliens are initially detained at the port of entry during the
inspection process and then transported to a detention facility to await an
interview by an asylum officer, unless release 24 is required to meet a
medical emergency or legitimate law enforcement objectives. If an asylum
officer determines that the alien has a credible fear of persecution or
torture, detention is no longer mandatory. The INS district director, chief
patrol agent, or officer in charge has the discretion to release such aliens
for whom an asylum officer determined that a credible fear existed, provided
there is a determination by an INS district officer the alien is likely to
appear for the removal hearing and does not pose a risk to the community.
The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (P. L. 105- 292) requires us
to study issues relating to aliens who are subject to expedited removal and
those who have claimed a fear of persecution or torture. In addition, our
23 Generally, aliens who are subject to expedited removal and do not express
a fear of persecution or torture are to be detained until they are removed
from the country. 24 This is parole of aliens into the United States either
on bond or on their own recognizance. Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 31 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
study is to address issues related to their detention. We are to issue our
report to the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary, the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on International
Relations. We agreed with these committees to review
� INS' management controls over the expedited removal process, including
those related to INS' decision on whether to permit aliens the option of
withdrawing their application for admission;
� INS management controls over the credible fear determination process,
including those relating to aliens' decisions to recant their claims of a
fear of persecution or torture; and the results of the credible fear
process; and
� factors related to aliens who (1) were subjected to the credible fear
process and the effect of those factors on the results of the credible fear
determination and (2) were subjected to the credible fear process and
subsequently recanted their claim of a fear of persecution or torture and
the effect of those factors on the aliens' decision to recant their claim.
Concerning the detention of aliens during the expedited removal process, we
agreed to provide data on
� the number of aliens INS detained and the basis for INS' detention
decisions, including the criteria INS used in making its detention
decisions;
� the number of aliens who failed to appear before an immigration judge for
their removal hearing after being released from detention; and
� the conditions of the facilities INS used to detain aliens. To determine
the management controls in place to help ensure that inspectors and asylum
officers comply with proper expedited removal and credible fear procedures,
we interviewed key officials at INS headquarters and at one land port of
entry (San Ysidro, CA); three airports- Los Angeles International, Miami
International, and New York's John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) International;
and the three asylum districts that conduct credible fear interviews for the
San Ysidro land port and the Los Angeles, Miami, and New York airports.
We judgmentally selected these four ports to include a large number of
entries by aliens, geographically diverse areas, and the two major types of
ports of entry (land ports and airports). According to INS, these ports were
expected to have large volumes of expedited removal orders and a large
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 32 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
number of credible fear referrals and, thus, should provide us with a
reasonable representation of the expedited removal process. These locations
handled about 44, 400, or 50 percent, of the expedited removal cases in
fiscal year 1999.
We also reviewed headquarters and local guidance on the processes and
procedures for processing aliens through expedited removal and credible fear
interviews as well as on withdrawals and cases in which aliens recanted
their claims of credible fear.
At the four ports we visited, we examined INS' use of three internal
controls that are designed to help ensure that inspectors handle expedited
removal cases in accordance with prescribed guidelines. These controls are
(1) documentation of specific expedited removal procedures, including
supervisory review of cases; (2) training on expedited removal and credible
fear policies and procedures; and (3) monitoring of the expedited removal
and credible fear processes at the ports. Our analysis of these internal
controls included the following steps:
� To examine the documentation of specific expedited removal procedures,
including supervisory review of cases, we reviewed probability samples 25 of
585 files for aliens who entered the expedited removal process but were not
referred for a credible fear interview between October 1, 1998, and
September 30, 1999. These files included 365 aliens who were issued an
expedited removal order as well as 220 aliens who were offered withdrawals
at the ports of entry. We did not examine withdrawals at San Ysidro because
the port did not create and retain case files in the majority of instances
where withdrawals were allowed.
� To determine whether asylum officers followed certain credible fear
determination processes, we reviewed all 45 files of negative credible fear
determinations for aliens who entered the country between October 1, 1998,
and September 30, 1999, for the 3 asylum offices we visited. We also
reviewed 133 randomly selected files of the 232 aliens who recanted their
claims of fear during this period at the same 3 offices.
� To review the training provided on expedited removal and credible fear
policies and procedures to immigration officers, we interviewed INS training
officials in headquarters as well as at each of the four district
25 A probability sample is drawn using statistical, random selection methods
that ensure that each member of the universe has a known probability of
being selected. This approach allows us to make inferences about the entire
universe.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 33 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
offices and three asylum offices we visited and obtained appropriate
guidance and training manuals. We also discussed training with inspectors
and asylum officers at the offices visited and distributed a questionnaire
to 401 inspectors and 108 asylum officers to elicit their views on the types
and adequacy of training received on expedited removal and credible fear
processes. We received responses from 182 inspectors and 64 asylum officers.
� To examine INS' monitoring and oversight of the expedited removal
processes at the ports and asylum offices, including credible fear
determinations, we interviewed INS officials at headquarters and the
locations we visited and obtained audit reports and other data related to
these activities.
In addition, during our field visits we observed inspectors processing seven
aliens through the expedited removal process and asylum officers conducting
six credible fear interviews. We also interviewed immigration judges at each
of the locations and observed judges' reviews of two negative credible fear
determinations of aliens who attempted entry at the ports we visited. We
selected courts that were near the ports of entry included in our review.
To examine the characteristics of aliens subject to the expedited removal
process, we analyzed two INS databases, which contained information on all
aliens subject to expedited removal who applied for entry at the nation's
airports and San Ysidro, CA during fiscal year 1999. The databases contained
information on the nationality, gender, and age of the aliens, the charges
against the aliens, and inspectors' decisions to either issue expedited
removal orders, allow aliens to withdraw, or refer aliens to the asylum
office for credible fear interviews. To examine the factors associated with
aliens' decisions to recant their fear of persecution or torture and with
credible fear determinations made by asylum officers, we analyzed an INS
database containing information on all aliens referred by inspectors to
asylum officers for credible fear interviews. The database contained
information on the citizenship, age, and gender of the aliens; whether
aliens attempted to enter the country alone or with dependents; and whether
aliens recanted their fear, or received positive or negative credible fear
determinations from asylum officers. This database had information on aliens
applying for entry to the United States between April 1, 1997, and September
30, 1999. Appendix III contains additional discussion of this database and
our assessment of its reliability.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 34 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
To determine how INS exercised its authority to detain or release aliens who
arrive at ports of entry and claim a fear of persecution or torture, we
reviewed INS headquarters policy and guidance on detention priorities. We
also reviewed applicable laws and regulations.
To determine how each district exercised its discretion to release or detain
an alien after an asylum officer determines that the alien has a credible
fear of persecution or torture, we conducted a mail survey of the Detention
and Deportation Branches of all 33 domestic INS district offices. We
surveyed the district offices because they were the best source of
information regarding the detention and release of aliens. We received
responses from all 33 district offices. The Anchorage, AK, and Honolulu, HI,
District Offices reported that they routinely transferred all aliens
claiming a fear of persecution or torture to other western region districts
for the credible fear processing. As a result, the district offices that
received these aliens included them in the number of cases they reported.
Two districts could not estimate or provide an exact number of cases.
Therefore, we have responses from 29 district offices on the number of
aliens detained or released and from 29 district offices regarding their
detention practices.
Specifically, we asked these district officials to describe what factors
they considered in deciding whether to detain or release credible fear
aliens. We also asked them to provide district data on the number of
credible fear cases for fiscal year 1999; the number of aliens detained and
released; and a list of the facilities they used to detain aliens, including
those facilities used to detain aliens claiming a fear of persecution or
torture.
To determine the number of aliens who did not appear before an immigration
judge for their removal hearings after being released from detention, we
obtained and analyzed a joint INS and EOIR database that contained
information on the results of removal hearings for aliens, in cases when
asylum officers determined those aliens to have a credible fear of
persecution or torture between April 1, 1997, and September 30, 1999. Our
analysis focused on those aliens who received a decision from an immigration
judge (e. g., granted the alien's asylum request or ordered the alien
removed in absentia). This database was created by merging selected data
fields from EOIR's nationwide database on all removal hearings handled by
immigration judges with selected data fields from INS' nationwide database
on the results of credible fear interviews conducted by asylum officers. The
two databases were merged using the applicant's INS- assigned alien number.
The resulting database contained identifying information on the alien,
including name, alien number, and nationality;
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 35 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
the date of the asylum officer's credible fear determination; whether the
alien filed an application for asylum relief; dates and locations of any
hearings before an immigration judge; whether the alien requested a change
of venue for such hearings; whether the alien was detained or released as of
the date of a specific hearing; and the results of the hearings, including
whether the alien was present for the hearings; and whether the judge
granted asylum or other relief from removal or issued a formal removal
order. The database contained information on removal hearings for 7,947
aliens who had received positive credible fear determinations from asylum
officers, including 5,320 (or 67 percent) who were released from INS custody
as of the date of their hearing.
To review detention conditions, we visited six INS districts whose ports of
entry processed 77 percent of the aliens claiming a credible fear of
persecution or torture in fiscal year 1999. The six districts were Chicago,
Los Angeles, Miami, New York, San Diego, and San Francisco. Within these
districts we visited 12 detention facilities 26 that district officials said
were generally used to detain aliens who claimed a fear of persecution or
torture. According to our district survey, officials reported that they used
166 detention facilities, excluding hotels and shelters, to detain credible
fear aliens. The 12 facilities we visited were used to detain about 70
percent of all credible fear aliens nationally in fiscal year 1999. The
facilities we visited were two INS- owned and operated Service Processing
Centers (SPC), three contractor- owned and operated facilities, and seven
city and county jails. We discussed detention policies and procedures with
facility officials and toured the living, medical, visitation, recreation,
library, and kitchen areas in each facility.
To guide our observations of detention conditions at the 12 facilities we
visited, we developed a data collection instrument. The specific conditions
we chose to observe were developed from INS' draft detention standards,
American Correctional Association (ACA) standards, guidelines and principles
of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) on detention
standards for asylum seekers and other detainees, a survey mailed to INS
detainees in support of a class action law suit 27 on detention conditions
by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, immigrant detention
reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
26 By district, the facilities were Chicago- DuPage County Jail, IL, and
Racine County Jail, WI; Los Angeles- Mira Loma Detention Center, CA, and San
Pedro SPC, CA; Miami- Krome SPC, FL; New York- Elizabeth Detention Center,
NJ, Queens Private Detention Facility, NY, and York County Prison, PA; San
Diego- San Diego Detention Center, CA; and San Francisco- Kern County
Sheriff's Department Lerdo Facility, CA, Marin County Jail, CA, and Oakland
City Jail, CA.
27 The suit was dropped after a new case judge decertified the case.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 36 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
International, 28 and discussions with representatives from UNHCR and other
immigrant rights advocates. We focused on conditions about which we did not
have to make value judgments, such as whether aliens were allowed access to
telephones, visitation, and health care.
More details on our objectives, scope, and methodology are in appendix III
of this report. References made to aliens in this report may be related to
their cases.
We conducted our work at INS headquarters in Washington D. C., and the six
INS districts and their associated port and detention facilities, as
discussed above, from August 1999 to July 2000 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review and
comment. On August 10 and 14, 2000, we met with INS officials, including the
GAO Audit Liaison in its Office of Internal Audit (OIA), and with EOIR
officials, including its General Counsel, respectively, to obtain Justice's
comments. Overall, the officials stated that the report was fair and
accurate. They also provided technical comments, which have been
incorporated in this report where appropriate.
28 Human Rights Watch, September 1998, “Locked Away: Immigration
Detainees in Jails in the United States.” Amnesty International,
September 1999, “United States of America: Lost in the Labyrinth:
Detention of Asylum- Seekers.” Agency Comments
Chapter 2 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures and Internal Controls
For the Expedited Removal Process At Selected Ports
Page 37 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Our review of documentation in the case files of aliens who had been
processed for expedited removal indicated that INS inspectors were complying
with requirements of the expedited removal process in almost all cases at
Los Angeles, JFK, and Miami airports and the San Ysidro port of entry. These
requirements include the inspectors' taking aliens' sworn statements and
asking aliens if they had a fear of returning to their home country,
supervisory oversight, and having the aliens sign their sworn statements. We
identified some cases where the supervisors did not sign removal orders, but
documentation indicated that supervisors' concurrence was obtained by
telephone, which is consistent with INS policy.
From the inception of expedited removal INS stated that it has provided
training to inspectors and supervisors on the requirements of the expedited
removal process and has now included it as part of basic training for all
inspectors. Most of the inspectors we interviewed or surveyed expressed
satisfaction with the training provided.
INS has established two internal oversight groups- the Expedited Removal
Working Group 1 and OIA- to help ensure that immigration officers comply
with expedited removal procedures. In fiscal year 1999, these groups found a
small number of problems, and they were the same types of problems that we
identified in our review. Specifically, they found sworn statements that
were not done correctly and removal orders without proper supervisory
signature. Additionally, the two groups found that the appropriate INS
databases were not being updated in a timely manner.
INS also requires that inspectors follow specific procedures in cases where
aliens are allowed to withdraw their applications for admittance rather than
being processed for expedited removal. Our examination of these files at Los
Angeles, Miami, and JFK airports showed that inspectors generally documented
that they followed these procedures.
1 The Expedited Removal Working Group was established in 1997 to identify
and address questions, procedural and logistical problems, and quality
assurance concerns related to the expedited removal process. It consists of
representatives from INS' offices of Inspections, International Affairs,
Asylum, Detention and Deportation, Field Operations, and General Counsel.
The group provides policy guidance and training on expedited removal. The
activities of the group are discussed later in this chapter.
Chapter 2 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures and Internal Controls
For the Expedited Removal Process At Selected Ports
Page 38 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
At the four ports we visited, we examined INS' use of three management
controls that help INS to ensure that inspectors are properly following its
policies and procedures for carrying out the expedited removal process.
Specifically, we found that
� documentation generally indicated that (1) inspectors asked aliens
specific questions about their fear of being returned to their home country,
(2) supervisors reviewed expedited removal orders, and (3) aliens signed
their sworn statements;
� training was provided to inspectors and supervisors on expedited removal
procedures, including how to process required paperwork and take sworn
statements from aliens; and
� two internal groups were in place to monitor the expedited removal
process.
We reviewed randomly selected case files on 365 of 47,791 aliens who
attempted entry at Los Angeles, JFK, and Miami airports and San Ysidro port
of entry during fiscal year 1999, and who were charged under the expedited
removal provisions but were not referred to an asylum officer for a credible
fear interview. 2 Our review showed that the documentation in the case files
at the four locations indicated general compliance with the procedures. We
generally found that (1) inspectors documented in the sworn statement that
they asked the aliens the three required questions designed to identify a
fear of returning to their home country, (2) supervisors reviewed the
expedited removal orders, and (3) aliens signed the sworn statements.
As discussed previously, inspectors are required to ask aliens questions
about a fear of being returned to their home country to identify those
aliens who may have a credible fear of persecution or torture and, thus, may
be eligible for asylum. Specifically, inspectors are to ask aliens (1) why
they left their home country or country of last residence, (2) if they have
a fear or concern about being returned or removed from the United States,
and (3) if they thought that they would be harmed if they were returned.
Regarding inspectors asking the three required questions, our case file
review of the documentation showed that inspectors at all four
2 INS did not offer these aliens the opportunity to withdraw their
applications for admission. See appendix III, table III. 4 for a listing of
the sample and population sizes for the four ports. INS Management
Controls for Expedited Removal
File Review Indicated General Compliance With INS Procedures at Selected
Ports
Inspectors at Selected Ports Generally Documented Asking Required Questions
Chapter 2 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures and Internal Controls
For the Expedited Removal Process At Selected Ports
Page 39 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
locations almost always documented that they followed procedures. 3 As shown
in table 2.1, the large majority of case files contained documentation that
the inspectors asked the aliens why they left their home country or country
of last residence. 4
Port of entry Percent of cases where
inspectors recorded asking the required question
Los Angeles International Airport 96 JFK International Airport 99 Miami
International Airport 99 San Ysidro Port of Entry 84 Note: The confidence
intervals are less than or equal to plus or minus 10 percentage points.
Source: GAO review of INS case files of aliens who attempted entry during
fiscal year 1999.
As shown in table 2.2, nearly all of the case files contained documentation
that the inspectors asked the aliens if they had a fear or concern about
being returned to their home country or of being removed from the United
States.
Port of entry Percent of cases where
inspectors recorded asking the required question
Los Angeles International Airport 96 JFK International Airport 99 Miami
International Airport 99 San Ysidro Port of Entry 100 Note: The confidence
intervals are less than or equal to plus or minus 10 percentage points.
Source: GAO review of INS case files of aliens who attempted entry during
fiscal year 1999.
As shown in table 2.3, nearly all of the case files contained documentation
that the inspectors asked the aliens if they would be harmed if they were
returned to their home country.
3 The absence (or presence) of documentation in the file does not
necessarily mean that the inspector did not (or did) ask the required
questions. 4 Unless othewise noted, all confidence intervals are less than
or equal to plus or minus 10 percentage points.
Table 2. 1: Why Did You Leave Your Home Country or Country of Last
Residence?
Table 2. 2: Do You Have a Fear or Concern About Being Returned to Your Home
Country or Removed From the United States?
Chapter 2 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures and Internal Controls
For the Expedited Removal Process At Selected Ports
Page 40 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Port of entry Percent of cases where inspectors recorded asking the required
question
Los Angeles International Airport 93 JFK International Airport 99 Miami
International Airport 98 San Ysidro Port of Entry 99 Note: The confidence
intervals are less than or equal to plus or minus 10 percentage points.
Source: GAO review of INS case files of aliens who attempted entry during
fiscal year 1999.
INS inspectors and supervisors at all four locations told us that the
standard for a finding of credible fear was very low and that inspectors
were directed to send cases forward when any mention of fear is made. During
our file review, we identified six cases at JFK in which file documentation
indicated that the aliens had expressed a fear. However, the aliens were not
referred to an asylum officer and were instead placed in expedited removal.
According to the documentation, the aliens' reasons for the fear in three
cases were that they (1) owed money, (2) might be arrested for leaving their
country, or (3) had a fear but would not be harmed if returned to their home
country. In the remaining three cases, the aliens' reasons for being afraid
were not clear from reading the sworn statements. An INS official at the JFK
port of entry reiterated that the port of entry's policy requires all cases
where fear is mentioned to be referred to an asylum officer. He indicated
that additional training or clarification of the standard might be helpful.
We identified a similar case in Los Angeles where the alien claimed a fear
of persecution or torture but was placed in expedited removal. All seven of
these cases had evidence of supervisory approval.
All expedited removal orders require supervisory approval. By regulation,
this approval authority is not to be delegated below the level of a
secondline supervisor. On the basis of our case file review at the four
ports, we estimate that second- line supervisors documented that they
reviewed the expedited removal orders in an estimated 97 to 100 percent of
the cases (see table 2.4).
Table 2. 3: Would You Be Harmed If You Were Returned To Your Home Country?
Supervisory Approval Generally Provided at Selected Ports
Chapter 2 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures and Internal Controls
For the Expedited Removal Process At Selected Ports
Page 41 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Port of entry Percent of files that included evidence that a second- line
supervisor signed off on the removal order in the file
Los Angeles International Airport 97 JFK International Airport a 100 Miami
International Airport 99 San Ysidro Port of Entry 97 Note: The confidence
intervals are less than or equal to plus or minus 10 percentage points. a A
second- line supervisor concurred by telephone for most of the cases.
Source: GAO review of INS case files of aliens who attempted entry during
fiscal year 1999.
Some of the files we reviewed contained expedited removal orders without
supervisory signatures, but documentation indicated that supervisory
concurrence was obtained by telephone. For example, in 80 of the 94 cases we
reviewed at JFK, documentation indicated that supervisory review was
obtained in this manner. According to an INS official at JFK, having an
assistant port director at all the various terminals at all times was not
feasible given staffing constraints. INS permits approval by telephone if an
appropriate supervisor is not present at the port. However, according to an
INS headquarters official, training provided to regions has included a
recommendation that approving officials keep a log of telephonic concurrence
to ensure the integrity of the process and that all cases have been properly
approved. A JFK official said that they were not keeping a log at the time
of our review. 5
Another internal control to help ensure that inspectors are properly
following expedited removal policies and procedures is to have the alien
sign their sworn statements. Files at the four ports indicated that aliens
signed the sworn statements between 95 and 100 percent of the time for the
case files we reviewed, as shown in table 2.5.
Port of entry Percent of time documentation indicated that the alien signed
the sworn statement
Los Angeles International Airport 95 JFK International Airport 97 Miami
International Airport 97 San Ysidro Port of Entry 100 Note: The confidence
intervals are less than or equal to plus or minus 10 percentage points.
Source: GAO review of INS case files of aliens who attempted entry during
fiscal year 1999.
5 We did not determine if the other ports kept a log or added follow- up
information. We obtained information at JFK due to the large number of cases
with telephonic concurrence.
Table 2. 4: Is There Evidence That a Second- line Supervisor Signed off on
the Removal Order in the File?
Aliens Usually Signed Sworn Statements at Selected Ports
Table 2. 5: Is the Record of Sworn Statement Signed by the Alien?
Chapter 2 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures and Internal Controls
For the Expedited Removal Process At Selected Ports
Page 42 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Local officials at each of the three airports told us that they had
implemented an additional management control to ensure inspector compliance
with proper procedures. Specifically, these ports required that at least an
assistant area port director sign off on a detailed checklist prior to
closing a case file. As shown in table 2.6, we found that most of the files
contained this signature, as required at these locations.
Port of entry Percent of cases with evidence of port director or assistant
area port director signature
Los Angeles International Airport 93 JFK International Airport 100 Miami
International Airport 99 Note: The confidence intervals are less than or
equal to plus or minus 10 percentage points. Source: GAO review of INS case
files of aliens who attempted entry during fiscal year 1999.
It should be noted that we could not determine when this supervisory review
took place. For example, an official at one port told us that after cases
were completed in secondary inspection, the case files were sent to the
Intelligence Unit. She said that, among other things, the Intelligence Unit
checks for missing signatures and returns the files for appropriate
signatures when needed. According to the port official, cases may remain
open for a very short time or as long as 2 months, depending on the existing
workload and what needs to be done to the file. We could not determine from
the case file when the officials reviewed the cases.
According to INS, all immigration officers who conduct expedited removal
proceedings are to receive training on how to implement the statutory
provisions and regulations. Further, INS requires that its inspectors are to
successfully complete a 12- week basic training program and a 1- year field
training and probationary period before being allowed to conduct expedited
removal proceedings. During this period, all officers are to receive
training in the provisions of the 1996 Act, including the expedited removal
statute, regulations, and implementing procedures. INS also provided
training for designated “expedited removal experts” from each
district. These individuals were, in turn, to provide training at their
respective offices and act as focal points for distribution and
implementation of policy guidance and memorandums.
The expedited removal training is designed to provide instructions on aliens
who would be subject to expedited removal, what information should be
obtained in a sworn statement, and when to refer an alien to an asylum
officer for a credible fear interview. Training also covers guidance
Table 2. 6: Is There Evidence that an INS Port Director or Assistant Area
Port Director Signed off on the Supervisory Checklist?
INS Makes Training Available on Expedited Removal Policies and Procedures
Chapter 2 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures and Internal Controls
For the Expedited Removal Process At Selected Ports
Page 43 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
on when to offer withdrawals in lieu of expedited removal. Some of the ports
that we visited provided additional training to inspectors in special units
that processed expedited removal cases. Additionally, INS' Expedited Removal
Working Group provides policy guidance and training on expedited removal as
well as addresses port- specific problems during its site visits. An INS
headquarters official told us that they would continue to conduct additional
support training at field offices and ports of entry, as necessary.
Inspectors and supervisors we surveyed acknowledged receiving the training
on expedited removal and said that they were generally satisfied with it.
The response rate to our survey was 182 of 401 inspectors (or 45 percent) at
the four ports. Of those responding, 149 inspectors indicated that they were
satisfied or generally satisfied with the training they received. Twenty-
eight of the 182 respondents thought that course content and frequency could
be enhanced. Some inspectors raised questions regarding what actually
constitutes credible fear and whether all aliens who express the slightest
indication of fear should be referred to an asylum officer. Although some
inspectors thought more clarification would be helpful, INS requires
inspectors to refer any alien claiming a fear of returning to his/ her home
country to an asylum officer.
INS' Expedited Removal Working Group and the Office of Internal Audit (OIA)
monitor various aspects of the expedited removal process. The two groups
conduct site visits and provide their findings to ports and districts for
corrective actions. The purpose of this on- site monitoring is to ensure
compliance with regulatory and statutory requirements. In fiscal year 1999
the groups found a small number of problems, such as the use of improper
forms and the lack of supervisory oversight.
The Expedited Removal Working Group conducts 1- to 2- day site visits to
offices to provide training and conduct file reviews to help identify and
address questions and concerns. The working group focuses its training on
those inspectors and supervisors who have the responsibility for conducting
expedited removal. A working group official stated that some ports have
created dedicated expedited removal teams, and at those ports it focuses its
review efforts on those teams.
The group made 38 site visits in the past 3 years, 10 of which were made in
fiscal year 1999. The group's agenda includes topics such as an office's
overall compliance with procedures as well as specifics on file
documentation, such as unsigned or outdated forms being used. According to a
working group official, the group does not produce reports on the INS Has
Taken Steps to
Monitor the Expedited Removal Process
Expedited Removal Working Group
Chapter 2 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures and Internal Controls
For the Expedited Removal Process At Selected Ports
Page 44 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
results of their visits. Rather, the group brings issues that arise to the
attention of local management and discusses them in the training conducted
at the time of its visit. The official recalled only one problem identified
during the site visits in fiscal year 1999. That problem involved one
airport that seemed to have a large number of errors in its expedited
removal paperwork. The official added that the team provided some training
to the inspectors during the site visit. It then arranged through INS'
regional office to have two expedited removal experts from another port
conduct more detailed training, observe case processing, and work with the
inspectors to answer questions and show them exactly what needed to be done.
According to the official, as the field became more familiar with the
expedited removal process, the group identified fewer errors or issues and
decreased its oversight activities. The official stated that the working
group has already visited most of the major ports in the country. However,
monitoring of the process is now left primarily to the districts and
regions. As of June 15, 2000, the group did not have any additional port
visits scheduled.
In addition to the site visits, the working group has periodically requested
and reviewed a sample of files from selected ports. After reviewing the
files, it is to inform the ports of any major problems and uses information
from these reviews in the training sessions for the various locations. The
working group requested 802 files in fiscal year 1998, 168 files in fiscal
year 1999, and 40 files as of April 2000 for fiscal year 2000. 6
As with on- site monitoring, the group has reduced its file review efforts
over time. According to a group official, the reduced effort is due to
overall familiarity with the expedited removal process at the ports, few
errors being identified, limited resources, oversight being done by OIA, and
visits having been made to the large ports of entry.
To determine the kinds of problems the group identified, we reviewed
documentation on 36 of the cases it reviewed in fiscal year 1999. 7 In more
than half of these cases, the reviewing official noted that the sworn
statements were either incomplete or that the wrong form was used. Other
problems that were identified included someone other than the second- line
supervisor signing the order of removal and the case not being updated in
the necessary database.
6 A working group official stated that although the group receives most of
the files its requests, it does not receive all of them. This official could
not provide a count of the number of cases received and reviewed.
7 A working group official provided 36 cases from those the group reviewed
in fiscal year 1999.
Chapter 2 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures and Internal Controls
For the Expedited Removal Process At Selected Ports
Page 45 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
OIA has incorporated into its field audit program criteria for reviewing
compliance with the expedited removal procedures through its Program for
Excellence and Comprehensive Tracking (INSpect). 8 At the 11 districts at
which various aspects of the inspection function were reviewed, including
expedited removal in fiscal year 1999, INSpect cited 8 districts for
expedited removal- related concerns. 9 The most common problem was untimely
updates to automated systems with expedited removal information, followed by
incomplete documentation and review of removal orders. Some of the sworn
statements did not contain all required information and some removal orders
did not indicate second- level supervisory approval. At three of the
districts, OIA recommended that the District Director provide refresher
training in expedited removal processing, particularly in taking sworn
statements. While the reviews contained a small number of cases with these
errors or omissions, OIA considered them as continuing problems in the
Inspections area.
As discussed in chapter 1, INS may permit an alien to withdraw his or her
application for admission. Withdrawals do not carry the 5- year prohibition
for reentry into the United States, as does an expedited removal order.
INS guidance generally requires that inspectors ask aliens the three
required questions about their fear of being returned to their home country
and obtain supervisory concurrence for withdrawals before permitting the
alien who is subject to expedited removal to withdraw his or her application
for admission. INS headquarters allows the local offices to determine the
level of supervisory oversight. According to an INS official, headquarters
has not found it necessary to dictate the level of supervision for
withdrawals, since INS has been allowing this procedure for decades and
inspectors have been routinely processing these types of cases as part of
normal operations. In cases where an alien would have been subject to
expedited removal if not permitted to withdraw an application, the guidance
directs inspectors to take sworn statements from the alien asking the same
fear questions as under expedited removal. As shown in table 2.7, our review
of 220 randomly selected files of 1,611 withdrawal cases in fiscal year 1999
at Los Angeles, JFK, and Miami airports in which INS
8 The primary focus of INSpect is to assess office effectiveness; determine
compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and procedures; measure
performance against established standards; and provide a means to share
local successes and solutions applicable to servicewide problems.
9 The inspection function was not reviewed in one district and final reports
had not been issued for two districts. OIA Reviews
INS Allows Some Aliens to Withdraw Their Applications for Admission
Chapter 2 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures and Internal Controls
For the Expedited Removal Process At Selected Ports
Page 46 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
allowed applicants to withdraw their applications for admission showed a
range of compliance. 10
Port of entry Percent of cases in
which all credible fear questions were
asked Percent of cases in
which no credible fear questions were
asked Percent of cases in
which some credible fear questions were
asked
Los Angeles International Airport 74 21 5 JFK International Airport 95 5 0
Miami International Airport 95 2 3
Note: The confidence intervals are less than or equal to plus or minus 10
percentage points. Source: GAO review of INS case files of aliens who
attempted entry during fiscal year 1999.
Our file review indicated documentation of first- line supervisory inspector
review in estimated 93 to 100 percent of the cases, as shown in table 2.8.
Port of entry Percent of cases having supervisor's signature
Los Angeles International Airport 93 JFK International Airport 100 Miami
International Airport 98 Note: The confidence intervals are less than or
equal to plus or minus10 percentage points. Source: GAO review of INS case
files of aliens who attempted entry during fiscal year 1999.
Procedures at Los Angeles, JFK, and Miami airports required second- line
supervisory review of withdrawals. The estimated percentages of compliance
of the three airports with their local requirement for assistant area port
director or port director review, were 66 percent, 11 94 percent, and 61
percent, 12 respectively. As was the case with the expedited removal files,
we could not determine from the files when the supervisor signed the forms.
10 We did not examine withdrawals at San Ysidro because the port did not
create and retain case files in the vast majority of instances where
withdrawals were allowed. The port only creates these files and issues alien
numbers to the aliens subject to expedited removal who withdraw when, for
example, the alien is charged with being involved in criminal activities or
claims eligibility for a specific immigration benefit, such as marriage to a
U. S. citizen. According to data from the San Ysidro port of entry, 11,782
withdrawals were issued in fiscal year 1999, but alien numbers were issued
in 237 of these cases.
11 Sampling error is plus or minus 11 percent. 12 Sampling error is plus or
minus 13 percent.
Table 2. 7: Documentation Existed Showing That Credible Fear Questions Asked
Table 2. 8: Documentation Existed Showing That INS Supervisor Signed off on
the File
Chapter 3 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures Regarding the Credible
Fear Process at Selected Asylum Offices
Page 47 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Under the expedited removal process, as of November 20, 1999, INS inspectors
had referred 11,087 aliens to an asylum officer for a credible fear
interview. These aliens attempted to enter the United States between April
1, 1997, and September 30, 1999, and expressed a fear of being returned to
their home country. Of the referred aliens, 9, 870 had completed their
interview, as of November 20, 1999, and 96 percent were determined to have a
credible fear of persecution or torture. Our analysis showed that the
likelihood of an asylum officer determining an alien did not have credible
fear of persecution or torture depended heavily on the region of the alien's
citizenship and depended less heavily on other factors, such as the asylum
office that reviewed the alien's case, the alien's gender, and the year in
which the alien attempted to enter the United States.
Our review of internal controls at INS' Los Angeles, Miami, and New York
Asylum Offices revealed that asylum officers generally complied with
requirements, including documenting that mandatory paragraphs were read to
the aliens during the interview process and that documentation in the
aliens' files indicated that supervisors' review took place. We also found
that the asylum officers we surveyed were satisfied with the required
training INS provided. Finally, our review showed that the headquarters
quality assurance team responsible for reviewing all negative (as well as
some positive) determinations was performing these reviews and providing
feedback to the asylum offices on their results.
Of the 10, 755 aliens who were referred to an asylum officer and whose cases
were closed, 1 about 8 percent of the aliens decided to recant their claims
of a fear of persecution or torture. We analyzed various factors to
determine their effect on aliens' likelihood of recanting their claims of
fear of persecution or torture. As with credible fear determinations, the
factor with the most pronounced effect on the likelihood that aliens would
recant their claims was the region of the alien's citizenship.
We reviewed a random sample of 133 out of 232 cases in which aliens withdrew
their requests for a credible fear interview and recanted their claims of a
fear of persecution or torture. INS requires asylum officers to document
that aliens were withdrawing their claims voluntarily but, at the time of
our review, did not require them to obtain a reason for the withdrawals. In
July 2000, INS changed its policy to require that asylum
1 Closed cases include those in which aliens withdrew their claim of a fear
of persecution or torture or received an asylum officer's credible fear
determination and do not include those cases in which aliens' cases were
terminated for other reasons, such as the aliens' eligibility to apply for
relief from removal for reasons outside the credible fear process.
Chapter 3 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures Regarding the Credible
Fear Process at Selected Asylum Offices
Page 48 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
officers document the aliens' reasons for not pursuing their claim of a fear
of persecution or torture and supervisors' review.
Between April 1, 1997, and September 30, 1999, INS data showed that
inspectors referred 11,087 aliens to asylum offices for credible fear
interviews. 2 In about 96 percent of 9, 870 cases where a determination had
been made, the asylum officer found that the alien had a credible fear of
persecution or torture (positive determination). Among the asylum offices,
the percentages of positive credible fear determinations for 7 of the 8
asylum offices were greater than 90 percent. The remaining office's positive
determination was 78 percent. The nationwide percentage has increased from
82 to 98 percent over the past 3 years. Our analysis of various factors (e.
g., an alien's region of citizenship, the alien's age and gender, whether
the alien was traveling alone or not, and the asylum office that reviewed
the case) showed that the alien's region of citizenship had the largest
effect on the likelihood of an alien's receiving a positive or negative
credible fear determination.
Aliens requested that immigration judges review 376 negative credible fear
determinations. The judges affirmed the asylum officers' determinations 85
percent of the time.
According to INS data, inspectors referred 11,087 aliens who attempted to
enter the United States between April 1, 1997, and September 30, 1999, to
asylum officers for a credible fear interview. As of November 20, 1999, of
these 11,087 aliens, 9,870 aliens had completed their interviews and had
received either a positive or negative credible fear determination from an
asylum officer. An additional 885 aliens had recanted their claims of a fear
of persecution or torture, and their cases had been closed. These aliens
were to be removed from the country. The remaining 332 aliens either had not
been interviewed or were awaiting an asylum officer's decision.
As shown in table 3.1, a little over 50 percent of all aliens referred to
asylum officers were citizens of China (27 percent), Sri Lanka (14 percent),
or Haiti (13 percent). 3
2 This figure is from INS' Asylum Pre- Screening Database, current as of
November 20, 1999, which was the data source for analyses, which follow for
the time period April 1, 1997, to September 30, 1999. As of June 24, 2000,
INS had revised this total to 11, 104. The small difference in the totals is
the result of updates and corrections to the data in APSS between November
1999 and June 2000.
3 These aliens attempted to enter the country between April 1, 1997, and
September 30, 1999. Information Related to
Aliens Referred to Asylum Officers
Results for Aliens Who Were Referred to Asylum Officers
Chapter 3 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures Regarding the Credible
Fear Process at Selected Asylum Offices
Page 49 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Country of citizenship Number of aliens Percentage of total aliens
China 2,946 27 Sri Lanka 1,521 14 Haiti 1,456 13 Albania 379 3 Somalia 371 3
Yugoslavia 291 3 Mexico 242 2 El Salvador 222 2 Pakistan 214 2 Guatemala 213
2 Other a 3,232 29 Total 11,087 100 a “Other” is comprised of
119 countries, 25 of which had only 1 case. This category also includes 40
cases where the alien's citizenship was coded as “unknown” (n=
34) or “stateless” (n= 6). Source: GAO analysis of data from
INS' Asylum Pre- Screening System.
Nationwide, asylum officers determined that 96 percent of the 9,870 aliens
with completed interviews had a credible fear of persecution or torture. The
percentage grew from 82 percent in fiscal year 1997 to 96 percent in fiscal
year 1998 and 98 percent in fiscal year 1999. As shown in table 3.2, the
percentages of positive credible fear determinations for 7 of the 8 asylum
offices were greater than 90 percent.
Asylum office Percentage of positive credible
fear determinations
Arlington, VA 92 Chicago, IL 98 Houston, TX 78 Los Angeles, CA 96 Miami, FL
96 New York, NY 97 Newark, NJ 96 San Francisco, CA 97 Source: GAO analysis
of data from INS' Asylum Pre- Screening System.
Table 3. 1: Most Common Citizenship of Aliens Referred to Asylum Officers
Between April 1, 1997, and September 30, 1999
Table 3. 2: Percentage of Credible Fear Determinations by Asylum Offices for
Aliens Who Attempted to Enter the United States Between April 1, 1997, and
September 30, 1999
Chapter 3 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures Regarding the Credible
Fear Process at Selected Asylum Offices
Page 50 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
We examined the effects of a number of factors on the likelihood of an
alien's receiving a negative (or positive) credible fear determination from
an asylum officer. 4 These factors included
� the alien's region of citizenship; 5
� which asylum office reviewed the alien's case ;
� the alien's age and gender;
� what fiscal year (1997, 6 1998, or 1999) the alien attempted to enter the
United States; and
� whether the alien was traveling alone or was the lead member of a family
group.
The most important factor affecting an alien's likelihood of receiving a
negative (or positive) credible fear determination was the alien's region of
citizenship. While less important than region, other factors that affected
the likelihood were the asylum office where the alien's case was decided,
the alien's gender, and the year in which the alien attempted to enter the
United States.
� Aliens from Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, South America, the
Middle East, and the former Soviet Bloc countries had a significantly higher
likelihood of receiving negative findings than did aliens from Asia. Aliens
from Mexico and Central America, for example, were over 20 times more likely
to receive a negative determination; aliens from the Caribbean and South
America were 4 and 10 times, respectively, more likely; and aliens from the
Middle East and the former Soviet Bloc were 2 to 3 times more likely to
receive a negative determination than were aliens from Asia.
4 We were limited to data contained in INS' Asylum Pre- Screening System. We
used multivariate logistic regression to estimate the effects of the
factors. The procedure provides likelihoods (or odds ratios), which provide
a simple description of the differences across categories for the factors we
compared. See appendix III for a fuller discussion of our analyses and the
likelihoods derived from them. Our multivariate results for the likelihood
of a negative credible fear determination are on the basis of 8, 849 cases
with no missing data. Appendix III also contains a discussion of our
assessment of the reliability of the APSS database.
5 Because of the limited number of cases by country of citizenship, we
grouped countries by regions of the world. The regions were: Asia (of which
China, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and India each had over 100 cases), Africa (of
which Somalia, Nigeria, Niger and Ghana each had over 100 cases), the
Caribbean (of which Haiti and Cuba each had over 100 cases), Central America
(of which El Salvador and Guatemala each had over 100 cases), the Middle
East (of which Iran, Lebanon, Algeria and Iraq were the countries with the
largest numbers of cases, with 93, 79, 74 and 62 cases, respectively), South
America (of which Colombia had over 100 cases), and the former Soviet Bloc
(of which Albania and Yugoslavia each had over 100 cases). However, we
included Mexico separately because it was the only North American country
included in the analysis and traditionally has been responsible for the
largest group of illegal aliens in the United States.
6 Data for fiscal year 1997 represent the period from April 1, 1997 to Sept.
30, 1997. Factors Associated with
Aliens' Receiving a Negative Credible Fear Determination
Chapter 3 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures Regarding the Credible
Fear Process at Selected Asylum Offices
Page 51 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Aliens from Africa did not differ significantly compared to aliens from
Asia.
� Aliens who had their cases heard in some asylum offices were more likely
to receive a negative credible fear determination than aliens whose cases
were heard in other asylum offices. For example, cases heard in the Newark,
Arlington, and Houston Asylum Offices were 2 to 3 times more likely to
result in negative determinations than cases heard in Miami. Cases heard in
the Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, or San Francisco Asylum Offices were not
significantly different from those heard in Miami.
� Aliens' gender was the only other personal characteristic that was
significantly related to credible fear determinations. Women were about 75
percent as likely as men to receive a negative determination.
� Regarding the fiscal year in which the case was heard, the alien was about
13 percent as likely to receive a negative credible fear determination in
fiscal year 1998 as in 1997, and 8 percent as likely in fiscal year 1999 as
in 1997.
According to EOIR officials, between April 1, 1997, and September 30, 1999,
376 aliens requested that an immigration judge review their negative
credible fear determinations. 7 The judges affirmed the asylum officers'
negative credible fear determinations in 86 percent of these 376 cases,
vacated (invalidated) the decisions in 14 percent, and made other decisions
8 in 2 percent. 9 The percentage affirmed varied between 80 percent in
fiscal year 1997, 91 percent in fiscal year 1998, and 86 percent in fiscal
year 1999.
If an asylum officer determines that an alien has a credible fear of
persecution or torture or an immigration judge vacates an asylum officer's
negative credible fear determination, the alien goes to an immigration judge
for a removal hearing, where the alien requests relief from removal (e. g.,
the alien requests asylum). Our analysis of EOIR data showed that in
7 According to INS data from the Asylum Pre- Screening System, 68 percent of
those aliens who attempted to enter the United States between April 1, 1997,
and September 30, 1999, and received a negative credible fear determination
from an asylum officer requested that an immigration judge review this
determination and 32 percent of the aliens did not.
8 These other decisions included, for example, case closures because the
alien was married to a U. S. citizen and could claim benefits under a
process different from the credible fear process or because the alien asked
for a change of venue.
9 The numbers do not add to 100 percent, due to rounding. Judges' Review of
Credible
Fear Cases Results of Removal Hearings
Chapter 3 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures Regarding the Credible
Fear Process at Selected Asylum Offices
Page 52 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
64 percent of the 7,947 cases, immigration judges had reached a decision
about whether the alien should be removed or granted some form of relief. 10
Of the 5,102 decisions by judges, 30 percent (1, 534) of the aliens were
granted relief from removal, and 61 percent (3, 111) were ordered removed
from the United States. The remaining 9 percent represented cases in which
action was pending.
We interviewed immigration judges in Los Angeles, Miami, and New York. Some
judges questioned the need for the asylum officer's credible fear review,
given the great likelihood that such cases were ultimately referred to them
(i. e., due both to the high percentage of aliens found to have credible
fear and 68 percent of aliens who requested reviews of negative findings). A
judge in Miami stated that INS asylum officers were more strict when the
expedited removal process was first implemented, which was fair in his view,
but that asylum officers were no longer trying to find that the alien had a
significant possibility of establishing eligibility for asylum. Some judges
told us that although the credible fear process was the result of a well-
intentioned statute, within the current parameters the process did not seem
effective because so many asylum officers were determining that aliens had a
credible fear of persecution or torture.
We reviewed INS' management controls over the credible fear process- file
documentation, training, and reviews of asylum officer decisions. Our
analysis of case files in three asylum offices showed that the required
documentation was generally present in the aliens' files. For example, all
three offices documented that the mandatory paragraph on torture was read.
About 92 percent of the responding asylum officers at the three asylum
offices we visited were satisfied or generally satisfied with their
training. Evidence existed, in most cases, that an INS quality assurance
team had reviewed all negative credible fear determinations at the three
asylum offices that we visited.
10 Aliens have the right to appeal immigration judges' decisions in removal
cases to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Thus the decisions captured in
this database may be subsequently appealed and the outcomes after appeal may
be different from those we have reported here. Further information on our
analysis is presented in appendix III. Immigration Judges' Views
on the Credible Fear Process
INS' Management Controls Over the Credible Fear Determination
Chapter 3 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures Regarding the Credible
Fear Process at Selected Asylum Offices
Page 53 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
INS guidance requires that asylum officers complete several key
documentation requirements. 11 Asylum officers are required to complete a
detailed worksheet 12 from which asylum officers must read several mandatory
paragraphs and to document that they have read them to the alien. INS also
requires supervisory review of every credible fear determination prior to
notifying the applicant of the decision. This review must be documented in
the files.
We reviewed files of all 45 negative credible fear determinations made at
the Los Angeles, Miami, and New York Asylum Offices during fiscal year 1999.
13 In the Los Angeles, Miami, and New York Asylum Offices we reviewed 24,
13, and 8 cases, respectively. We found evidence of supervisory review in 44
of 45 cases. In these 44 cases, the asylum officer concluded that the
alien's fears were not related to 1 of the 5 bases for obtaining asylum--
persecution or torture because of race, religion, nationality, political
opinion, or membership in a particular social group. An example of one of
the cases in which an asylum officer concluded that the alien's fear was not
related to one of the five bases for obtaining asylum was one in which the
alien's fear was that she would be subjected to a life of poverty, but not
harmed, if she was returned to her home country. In that case, the reason
checked by the asylum officer was that there was no significant possibility
that the harm feared in the future was well founded.
Generally, the 45 case files we reviewed included documentation indicating
that the asylum officer read the mandatory information regarding (1) the
purpose of the interview, (2) review by an immigration judge, and (3)
torture to the aliens, as shown in tables 3.3 to 3.5.
Asylum office Number of cases in which the asylum offficer
checked that the paragraph explaining the purpose of inteview was read
Los Angeles 23 Miami 13 New York 8 Source: GAO review of INS case files.
11 The absence (or presence) of documentation in the file does not
necessarily mean that the asylum officers did not (or did) read the
mandatory paragraphs. 12 Form- I- 870, “Record of Determination/
Credible Fear Worksheet.”
13 We focused our review on negative credible fear determinations because
our concern was to identify those management controls to prevent aliens with
a claim of a fear of persecution or torture from being improperly removed
from the country. File Review Indicated That
Asylum Officers Were Documenting Key Requirements At Three Offices
Table 3. 3: Number of Cases Where Asylum Officer Checked That He/ She Read
Paragraph Explaining the Purpose of the Interview
Chapter 3 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures Regarding the Credible
Fear Process at Selected Asylum Offices
Page 54 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Asylum office Number of cases in which the asylum officer
checked the paragraph explaining the referral/ review process was read
Los Angeles 21 Miami 13 New York 8 Source: GAO review of INS case files.
Asylum office Number of cases in which the asylum officer checked the
paragraph on torture was read
Los Angeles 22 Miami 13 New York 8 Source: GAO review of INS case files.
INS makes training available to asylum officers on the credible fear
process. Additionally, officials at the three asylum offices we visited said
that they held training sessions on asylum- related issues. At the three
offices, asylum officers said that they had received training and were
generally satisfied with the training provided.
According to INS guidance, beginning June 1, 1998, asylum officers were
required to have completed the Asylum Officer Training Course and normally
were to have 1 year of interviewing experience to conduct credible fear
interviews. Asylum officer training on credible fear covers areas such as
standards of proof to establish credible fear, the role of country condition
information, the credibility standard, and the credible fear interview
process. Moreover, the three offices we visited also provided training on
how changing country conditions and membership in various social groups
affected applicants' decisions to flee their countries. Officials told us
that procedures, policies, and information from headquarters' quality
assurance, including responses to specific cases, and other issues were
discussed at meetings and that written information was disseminated.
Asylum officers we surveyed were generally satisfied with the training they
received on expedited removal. The response rate to our survey was 59
percent (64 of 108 distributed). Asylum officers indicated that they were
satisfied or generally satisfied with the training they received on credible
fear. Some asylum officers provided additional comments. For example,
several asylum officers said that they would like additional training on the
credible fear standard. Some asylum officers expressed concern with the
Table 3. 4: Number of Cases Where Asylum Officer Checked That He/ She Read
Paragraph on the Process of Referral/ Review by an Immigration Judge
Table 3. 5: Number of Cases Where Asylum Officer Checked That He/ She Read
Paragraph on Torture
INS Makes Training Available to Asylum Officers on Making Credible Fear
Determinations
Chapter 3 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures Regarding the Credible
Fear Process at Selected Asylum Offices
Page 55 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
implementation of the standard and a requirement, they believe, to find that
everyone had a credible fear.
INS headquarters officials reiterated that the credible fear standard was
designed to be a safety net to include all possible cases. They further
stated that INS has refined the credibility analysis in the credible fear 14
process over time. INS' original test for assessing credibility required
that an asylum seeker had to establish a "significant possibility that his
or her statements are true." According to INS, after review of completed
credible fear cases, a revised test for credibility was developed. The new
test required that to meet the credible fear standard, an applicant must
establish that there is a "significant possibility that the assertions
underlying his or her claim could be found credible in a full asylum or
withholding of removal hearing." INS officials indicated that this revised
test more closely reflected the intent of the statute.
INS' Asylum Office has established a quality assurance team at headquarters
to review credible fear case files. The team is to (1) review and approve
all asylum officers' negative credible fear determinations and (2) review a
selected number of positive credible fear determinations. Additionally, INS
headquarters is to review all cases where a positive or negative credible
fear determination was made involving (1) determinations of credible fear on
the basis of torture, (2) high profile cases, (3) gender- based claims, and
(4) domestic violence cases unrelated to gender. During these reviews,
quality assurance officials analyze case decisions and provide feedback to
applicable asylum officers on such things as thoroughness, clarity,
exploration of legal issues, application of country conditions data, and
sensitivity in eliciting pertinent information.
At the 3 asylum offices, we found evidence that headquarters had reviewed 41
of 45 negative credible fear case files. In the Los Angeles and Miami Asylum
Offices, evidence of headquarters review existed in 21 of 24 and 12 of 13
cases, respectively. In the New York Asylum Office, evidence of headquarters
review existed for all 8 cases. However, officials at headquarters and
asylum offices told us that these reviews were mandatory and that the
absence of copies of the documentation most
14 A credible fear of persecution is defined in the Immigration and
Nationality Act as " ... a significant possibility, taking into account the
credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the alien's
claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could
establish eligibility for asylum under section 208." Quality Assurance Team
Reviews Asylum Officer Decisions
Chapter 3 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures Regarding the Credible
Fear Process at Selected Asylum Offices
Page 56 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
likely was due to our review of the case working files (which are not the
official files) but that documentation would be in the alien's files. 15
During the course of reviewing the files we read a number of quality
assurance team critiques of asylum officers' positive and negative credible
fear determinations. In these reviews, quality assurance officials provided
extensive feedback on the quality of the decisions, including such things as
the need for more information, suggested follow- up questions to be asked of
the alien, additional ways to analyze issues relating to an alien's
membership in a specific social group, and alternative wording for
summarizing key points. The analysis pointed out instances of not following
procedural guidance and, in some cases, questioned apparent time lags in
processing a case. The quality assurance team also noted what it considered
to be exemplary interviews.
According to INS data, about 8 percent of all aliens who inspectors referred
for a credible fear interview with an asylum officer later recanted their
claims of a fear of persecution or torture. Our analysis of these
withdrawals showed that the likelihood of aliens' recanting their claims of
persecution or torture was affected principally by the alien's region of
citizenship.
INS' policy did not require asylum officers to document the reasons aliens
recanted their claim of a fear of persecution or torture. Our review showed
that asylum offices were not consistent in how they documented aliens'
recantations of their claims of a fear of persecution or torture. While INS
did not require supervisory review, we generally found evidence of such
reviews in the case files. However, INS has changed its policy to now
require asylum officers to document aliens' reasons for withdrawing their
claims of a fear of persecution or torture and supervisors' review.
Between April 1, 1997, and September 30, 1999, about 8 percent of 10,755
aliens who inspectors referred for a credible fear interview subsequently
recanted their claims of a fear of persecution or torture and had their
cases closed. This percentage did not vary substantially over time. Aliens
who recanted their claims of a fear of persecution or torture comprised 9
percent of closed cases in fiscal year 1997, 11 percent in fiscal year 1998,
and 7 percent in fiscal year 1999. As shown in table 3.6, alien recantation
rates varied from 3 to 15 percent among the eight asylum offices.
15 Since the aliens' files were not readily available, we did not review
them. INS Initiated Steps to
Improve Controls Over Aliens Who Withdrew Their Request for a Credible Fear
Interview
Data on Aliens Who Recanted Their Claims of Fear of Persecution or Torture
Chapter 3 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures Regarding the Credible
Fear Process at Selected Asylum Offices
Page 57 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Percentage of claims Asylum office Recanted fear Did not recant
fear
Arlington, VA 11 89 Chicago, IL 3 97 Houston, TX 10 90 Los Angeles, CA 7 93
Miami, FL 6 94 New York, NY 15 85 Newark, NJ 14 86 San Francisco, CA 4 96
Source: GAO analysis of INS' Asylum Pre- Screening System.
We examined the likelihood of aliens' recanting their claims of fear of
persecution or torture, using the same set of factors used in our analysis
of the likelihood of a negative credible fear determination. 16 As before,
the factor that had the most pronounced effect on the likelihood of aliens'
recanting their claims of a fear of persecution or torture was the alien's
region of citizenship. The asylum office assigned to hear the claim and the
alien's gender and age had less of an impact. The year in which the alien
attempted to enter the country and the alien's status, as lead applicant for
other family members, did not have a significant impact on the likelihood of
recanting.
Our analysis showed that aliens from Mexico and from Central and South
America were more likely than aliens from Asia to recant their claims.
� Aliens from Mexico, for example were 24 times as likely as those from Asia
to recant their claims.
� Aliens from South America and Central America were about 12 and 6 times as
likely, respectively, to recant their claims as those from Asia.
� Aliens from the Middle East and the former Soviet Bloc nations were not
significantly different from aliens from Asia in terms of their likelihoods
of recanting their claims.
The likelihood of an alien recanting a claim of a fear of persecution or
torture also varied by the asylum office assigned to hear the alien's case.
Aliens who were assigned to the Houston Asylum Office were about half as
likely to recant their claims as aliens assigned to the Miami Asylum Office.
16 These factors are the alien's region of citizenship, age, and gender;
whether the alien was traveling alone or was the lead member of a family
group; which asylum office was assigned to review the alien's case; and what
fiscal year (1997, 1998, or 1999) the alien attempted to enter the United
States. Our results for the likelihood of aliens' recanting their claims of
a fear of persecution or torture are on the basis of 9, 674 cases.
Table 3. 6: Percentage of Recanted Claims by Asylum Office for Aliens Who
Attempted to Enter the United States Between April 1, 1997, and September
30, 1999
Factors Associated With Aliens' Recanting Their Claims of a Fear of
Persecution or Torture
Chapter 3 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures Regarding the Credible
Fear Process at Selected Asylum Offices
Page 58 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Aliens assigned to the Arlington, Newark, and New York Asylum Offices, by
contrast, were between 2 and 5 times as likely to recant their claims as
aliens assigned to the Miami Asylum Office. Aliens assigned to the Chicago,
Los Angeles, and San Francisco Asylum Offices did not have significantly
different recantation rates from aliens assigned to the Miami Asylum Office.
Some other factors also had an impact on aliens' decisions to recant their
claims of a fear of persecution or torture. However, these effects were less
important than those for the alien's region of citizenship and the asylum
office assigned to hear the alien's claim of a fear of persecution or
torture. For example,
� men were about twice as likely as women to recant their claims of a fear
of persecution or torture, and
� aliens 30 or over were about two to three times as likely as aliens under
20 to recant their claims of a fear of persecution or torture.
INS guidance requires that asylum officers document an alien's wish to
withdraw a claim of a fear of persecution or torture (recanting their claim)
by having the alien (1) make this request in writing or (2) sign a statement
indicating that the decision was voluntary. The guidance does not, however,
require that asylum officers document the reason for the withdrawal. Yet,
INS has the responsibility under the 1996 Act to identify aliens who claim
to have a fear of persecution or torture if they are returned to their home
country and not to return aliens who are found to have such a fear. By
requiring asylum officers to document the reason aliens recanted their
claims and requiring supervisory review, INS would be in a better position
to determine whether it could be returning some aliens to a country where
they could be persecuted.
Our analysis of the three asylum offices showed general compliance with INS
guidance. However, we found that the Los Angeles, Miami, and New York
offices varied in the amount of documentation that they obtained from aliens
recanting their claims of a fear of persecution or torture. At the 3 asylum
offices, we reviewed 133 randomly selected cases from a population of 232
cases in which aliens withdrew their requests for a credible fear interview
and recanted their claims of a fear of persecution or torture. 17 Two
locations, New York and Miami, had aliens sign a standardized letter stating
that the alien did not want to go through the credible fear process and
would be allowed to go home as soon as travel
17 See appendix III for a listing of the sample size and population of each
of the three asylum offices. INS Clarified Requirements
for Documentation Needed for Aliens Who Recant Their Fear of Persecution or
Torture
Chapter 3 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures Regarding the Credible
Fear Process at Selected Asylum Offices
Page 59 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
arrangements could be made. The letter also noted that the alien had been
advised that he or she would be barred from reentry into the United States.
The letter also stated that the alien was making the decision freely and
voluntarily and had not been coerced by an immigration officer or any other
person. In Miami, 15 of the 45 files we reviewed also contained a memorandum
prepared by the asylum officers that summarized the aliens' reasons for
recanting their claim of fear. In 37 of the 40 Los Angeles case files we
reviewed, we found documentation, such as (1) statements written or signed
by the aliens that described why they were recanting their claims or (2)
evidence of asylum officers asking specific questions about the aliens'
original claims of a fear of persecution or torture and recording the
aliens' responses. For three Los Angeles cases, we did not find this
documentation.
INS did not require that asylum officers document aliens' reasons for
recanting their claims. Due to the various ways in which the offices
document withdrawals, we could not determine the reasons why aliens recanted
their claims of a fear of persecution or torture for 94 of the 133 cases.
For those cases in the 2 asylum offices where a reason for recantation was
documented (39 cases), the cases cited most often by aliens, respectively,
were that the alien
� had no fear or had been misunderstood (22),
� did not want to stay in detention (12), or
� wished to be reunited with his or her family in their home country (5).
INS can process aliens who recant their claims under the expedited removal
process. In some cases, asylum officers, in consultation with inspectors,
may instead grant a withdrawal. We estimated that 220 of 232 aliens in our
case file review were processed under expedited removal with supervisory
approval.
Our case file review in the New York Asylum Office showed that some aliens
expressed a desire to return to their home country after the asylum officer
had completed the interview; a credible fear determination had been made;
and, in some of these cases, referrals to a judge had been issued. 18 These
aliens were allowed to withdraw their claims of a fear of persecution or
torture, and all were then processed as expedited removals. According to an
INS official, an alien can recant his or her claim at any
18 In cases where the alien meets the credible fear of persecution or
torture standard, the asylum officer is to refer the case to an immigration
judge for further consideration and issue the alien a Notice to Appear, INS
Form I- 862.
Chapter 3 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures Regarding the Credible
Fear Process at Selected Asylum Offices
Page 60 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
time during the process, as long as the alien is under its jurisdiction.
While supervisors are to review expedited removal orders, they did not have
to review aliens' decisions to recant their claims.
Of the three asylum offices we visited, the New York Asylum Office used only
a standardized letter that did not ask aliens their reason for recanting
their claims of a fear of persecution or torture. In one file we reviewed,
an alien sent a note from detention stating, “ I want to have my
credible fear cancelled for I want to be deported . . . I can't stay in here
[detention]
because I am an ulcer patient.” The alien later signed the
standardized form and was processed for expedited removal.
Without a standardized process for documenting the reasons for the aliens'
decision to recant their claim of a fear of persecution or torture, INS is
not in the best position to reduce the possibility of returning aliens to
countries where they might be persecuted. A standardized process that
includes (1) directing asylum officers to document the reasons why aliens
are recanting their claims of a fear of persecution or torture and (2)
require supervisors to review this documentation would
� strengthen INS' control over the process by helping ensure that aliens who
had progressed far into the process (e. g., waiting for their hearing before
an immigration judge) were recanting their claim of a fear of persecution or
torture because they no longer had such a fear, rather than for some other
reason (e. g., health problems associated with being in detention) and
� help provide consistent application of withdrawal procedures among INS
asylum offices and thereby document the reasons the aliens were recanting
their fear of being returned.
We discussed this issue with an INS official responsible for asylum
processing. INS informed us that a more detailed record of an alien's reason
for recanting his or her claim of a fear of persecution or torture and
review by a supervisory asylum officer should be implemented. It said that a
more extensive record might provide a clearer chronology in cases similar to
those that we sampled. Subsequently, on July 26, 2000, INS required that
when an alien decides to stop pursuing protection from removal, an asylum
officer will question the alien about his or her reason and explain the
process for removal and the ability of that alien to pursue protection at
any time prior to removal. Further, the asylum officer is to complete a form
19 that includes the alien's reason for not asking for
19 Request for Dissolution of Credible Fear Process.
Chapter 3 INS Is Generally Following Its Procedures Regarding the Credible
Fear Process at Selected Asylum Offices
Page 61 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
protection from removal and the signature of the supervisory asylum officer.
Our analysis of the file documentation of the credible fear determination
and the quality assurance team's reviews of asylum officers' decisions
indicate general compliance with INS' procedures. For example, our review of
all 45 negative credible fear determinations at 3 asylum offices showed that
generally supervisory review existed and documentation indicated that
mandatory information was read to the alien.
In some cases, aliens recanted their claims after an asylum officer had
determined that they had a credible fear of persecution or torture and, they
were waiting to go before an immigration judge to make their claim for
asylum. Our review of case files showed that they did not always contain
documentation of the reasons why aliens were recanting their claims of a
fear of persecution or torture. While supervisors are to review the
expedited removal orders, they do not have to review aliens' decisions to
recant their claims.
INS has a responsibility not to return aliens who have a fear of persecution
or torture. At the time of our review, INS did not require documentation
regarding the reasons that aliens recanted their fear of persecution or
torture. Therefore, it had no assurance that such aliens would not be
returned to places where they could be harmed. We pointed out that its
internal controls over such cases could be improved by requiring (1)
additional documentation on aliens' reasons for recanting their claims of a
fear of persecution or torture to show that asylum officers are properly
handling such cases and (2) supervisory review of the related documentation.
This could provide a clearer chronology of cases in which aliens recanted
their claim of a fear of persecution or torture. Determining and documenting
the reasons aliens stated for recanting their claim of a fear of persecution
or torture could help INS reduce the possibility of returning aliens to
countries where they could be subjected to persecution or torture. INS
agreed and now requires that asylum officers complete a form that contains
an alien's reason for pursuing protection from removal and the signature of
a supervisory asylum officer. Conclusions
Chapter 4 INS Released Many Aliens and Many of Them Did Not Appear for Their
Hearing
Page 62 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
INS has the discretion to release from detention aliens for whom an asylum
officer determined that a credible fear existed. Its policy favors releasing
such aliens provided it determines the aliens are likely to appear for the
removal hearing and do not pose a risk to the community. In response to our
survey, 29 of 33 INS district offices reported that in fiscal year 1999, an
estimated 78 percent of such aliens were released to await their hearing
before an immigration judge, although some differences existed in district
office detention practices. INS is issuing guidance that would promote more
consistent decisions about releasing aliens among district offices.
INS released 5, 320 aliens who were determined to have a credible fear of
persecution or torture between April 1, 1997, and September 30, 1999. As of
February 22, 2000, of the 5,320 aliens, 2, 351 aliens also had received a
decision from an immigration judge. Of the 2,351 aliens, 1,000 aliens (42
percent) did not appear for their removal hearings before an immigration
judge and were subsequently ordered removed in absentia. EOIR officials
pointed out that over time more cases will be closed in which aliens will
have appeared for their removal hearings and consequently this will result
in a reduction of the failure to appear rate.
Once an asylum officer determines that aliens have a credible fear of
persecution or torture, INS' October 1998 Detention Use Policy favors
release of such aliens after the district director or certain other INS
officials determine that the aliens will likely appear for their removal
hearing and will not pose a danger to the community. INS district offices
reported to us that in fiscal year 1999, 3,432 (or 78 percent) such aliens
were released. In responding to our survey, nearly all district offices told
us that they considered the alien's criminal history and/ or community ties
as important factors in making the decision to release or detain the alien.
Officials said that INS plans to clarify that headquarters and regional
managers have authority to make detention decisions.
In October 1998, INS revised its national detention policy and priority
system. 1 The revised policy identified four categories of aliens for the
purpose of making detention decisions:
1 The change was in response to the expiration of the Transition Period
Custody Rules. The expiration of these rules discontinued INS' discretionary
authority in certain custody determinations; that is, they had to detain
more criminal aliens. As a result, more bed space was required for mandatory
detention cases. INS Policy Favors
Release of Credible Fear Aliens Provided They Meet Certain Conditions
INS Detention Policy
Chapter 4 INS Released Many Aliens and Many of Them Did Not Appear for Their
Hearing
Page 63 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
� Category 1 includes aliens who are for the most part required to be
detained (e. g., aliens chargeable as terrorists or aliens convicted of
aggravated felonies);
� Category 2 includes aliens who are removable because of national concerns
or having engaged in alien smuggling;
� Category 3 includes aliens whom INS apprehended at a work site and had
committed fraud in obtaining employment; and
� Category 4 includes aliens in cases when asylum officers determined that
they had a credible fear of persecution or torture and as a result were
referred to immigration judges for full removal proceedings.
Under INS' detention policy, the categories are sequentially prioritized (i.
e., aliens in category 2 generally should be detained before aliens in
category 3). INS requires aliens who express a fear of persecution or
torture to an INS inspector at a port of entry to be detained (i. e.,
category 1) unless release is required to meet a medical emergency or
legitimate law enforcement objectives, such as serving as a witness. If an
asylum officer determines that the alien has a credible fear of persecution
or torture, the alien is to be placed in removal proceedings before an
immigration judge where he or she may present a claim for asylum. At this
point, the alien is placed in category 4 and can be released at the
discretion of the district director or certain other INS officials.
Under this priority system, these INS officials have discretion in their
implementation of the detention policy. INS requires the reasons for the
detention decision to be clearly documented in writing and placed in the
alien's file if a custody determination is not in keeping with its policy. 2
INS policy favors release of aliens in cases when an asylum officer
determined those aliens to have a credible fear of persecution or torture,
provided that the aliens do not pose a risk of flight or danger to the
community.
2 Officials at 16 of the 33 district offices said that they documented their
reasons. Twelve district offices reported they did not record the decision,
three district offices did not respond to this question, and two district
offices transferred aliens who claim a fear of persecution or torture to
other district offices.
Chapter 4 INS Released Many Aliens and Many of Them Did Not Appear for Their
Hearing
Page 64 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
In response to our survey of the 33 INS district offices, 29 3 reported that
in fiscal year 1999 4 they released 3,432 of the 4,391 (78 percent) aliens,
in cases when asylum officers determined those aliens to have a credible
fear of persecution or torture, as shown in table 4.1.
Aliens processed Aliens released Aliens detained
Number of offices Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent District
offices that released aliens
12 3,069 100 2,998 98 71 2 District offices that detained aliens 4 614 100
239 39 375 61 District offices that did not specify any general practice
13 708 100 195 28 513 72
Total 29 4,391 100 3,432 78 959 22
Source: Analysis of GAO survey of INS district offices.
The district offices initially decided to detain the other 22 percent of the
aliens; however, the district offices may have subsequently released the
aliens after they met certain conditions, such as posting a bond.
We queried INS district offices regarding their general detention practices
for aliens in cases when an asylum officer has determined the aliens to have
a credible fear of persecution or torture. We found that 12 of 29 district
offices said that they generally released such aliens before their removal
hearing before an immigration judge.
� Of the 12 district offices that said they generally released aliens, 10
reported that they released in accordance with INS' detention policy (i. e.,
3 The 29 district offices provided estimated and actual numbers of aliens
who were released or detained- 16 district offices gave estimated numbers, 9
gave exact numbers, 2 gave a combination of exact and estimated numbers, and
2 did not indicate whether the numbers were exact or estimated. Two district
offices did not provide numbers and for two other district offices the
question was not applicable because they transferred aliens who claim to
have a fear of persecution or torture to other district offices.
4 INS headquarters reported 6, 515 aliens in cases when an asylum officer
determined those aliens to have a credible fear of persecution or torture
for fiscal year 1999. This figure differs from the number of aliens reported
by the district offices in our survey because headquarters uses an asylum
officers database which they consider to be the most accurate of the various
INS databases. Most district offices reported that the data used to respond
to our survey did not come from one of the standard INS databases. As a
result, the number of aliens could not be reconciled. However, in comparing
the headquarters reported figures with the district reported figures we
noted three district offices (Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami) accounted for
1, 759 of the 2, 124 discrepancy. These three district offices released
virtually all credible fear aliens under their jurisdictions. Most Aliens
Found to Have
a Credible Fear of Persecution or Torture Are Released
Table 4. 1: District Practices for Detaining or Releasing Aliens Who Have a
Credible Fear in Fiscal Year 1999
Chapter 4 INS Released Many Aliens and Many of Them Did Not Appear for Their
Hearing
Page 65 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
the district offices determined that the alien was not a threat to the
community or a flight risk). One district reported that it considered all
aliens in cases when an asylum officer determined the alien to have a
credible fear of persecution or torture to be flight risks and normally
required a $5,000 bond. The other district reported that it released such
aliens because of the lack of detention space. These 12 district offices
reported that it released 98 percent of the aliens that they processed. In
addition, these offices processed 68 percent of 4,391 such aliens, as shown
in table 4.1.
� Four other district offices reported that they generally detained aliens
in cases when an asylum officer determined the alien to have a credible fear
of persecution or torture on the basis of their interpretation of the
headquarters directive. However, such decisions also depended on the
availability of detention space or requests by the aliens' lawyers to INS to
release the alien. These 4 district offices reported that they detained 61
percent of the aliens that they processed, as shown in table 4.1.
� Thirteen district offices did not identify any general practice to detain
or release aliens in cases when an asylum officer determined the alien to
have a credible fear of persecution or torture. Of these 13 district
offices, 10 district offices did not specifically comment on their detention
practices. Three offices responded that they evaluated such aliens on a
case- by- case basis, looking at the strength and credibility of the aliens'
claims of fear of persecution or torture in deciding to release or detain
them. These 13 district offices reported that they detained 72 percent of
the aliens that they processed, as shown in table 4. 1.
Guidance for making a release decision is found in regulations. 5 In part,
the regulations state that the district director may require reasonable
assurances that the alien will appear at all hearings. They also state that
the aliens do not have to meet all the factors listed in the regulations to
be released. The factors to ensure appearance include the alien posting a
bond, having community ties, or having to meet such conditions as periodic
reporting to INS of their whereabouts. The guidance concludes by stating
that the district director should apply reasonable discretion in making
detention decisions.
In responding to our survey, district offices identified several factors
that they considered in making release or detention decisions regarding
aliens in cases when an asylum officer determined those aliens to have a
credible
5 8 C. F. R. 212. 5. Criminal History and
Community Ties Are the Main Factors District Offices Said They Consider in
the Release or Detain Decision
Chapter 4 INS Released Many Aliens and Many of Them Did Not Appear for Their
Hearing
Page 66 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
fear of persecution or torture. They are required to determine if the aliens
are likely to appear for their removal hearings before an immigration judge
and are not a danger to the community. However, one district office reported
only considering the aliens' family ties or sponsorship, whereas officials
at another district office said that they considered eight different factors
in making the decision to release or detain. Table 4. 2 categorizes the
factors that 28 of the 29 responding district offices reported that they
considered.
Factors reported Number of district
offices that reported this factor
Community ties: evidence of family or friends in the United States or
sponsorship of religious or charitable groups 24 Criminal history check
against law enforcement databases 24 Overall behavior and demeanor 10
Ability to establish the identity of the alien 9 Health and medical
considerations 9 Means and manner of entry into the United States 6 The need
to assist in law enforcement efforts 5 Means of support so as not to become
a public charge 4 Detention does not serve the public interest 4 Strength of
credible fear claim 2 Any legal bars to asylum 2 Other miscellaneous factors
7 Note: District offices could have reported more than one factor. Source:
Analysis of GAO survey of INS districts.
While indicating compliance with INS' detention guidance, 28 district
offices in our survey reported other factors they considered when making
release or detention decisions. One district office reported that since
asylum officers were determining that aliens had a credible fear of
persecution or torture 99 percent of the time, it did not consider the
asylum officers' findings to be a viable prescreening process or useful in
making detention decisions. A port director made a similar comment. Another
district responded that they deferred to the determination made by the
asylum officer (i. e., the district office released the alien if the asylum
officer determined that the alien had a credible fear of persecution or
torture).
INS plans to revise its regulations this year to affirm the authority of
headquarters and regional managers to make detention and release decisions.
According to INS, these new regulatory changes will clarify that
headquarters and regional managers, and not only district directors, have
Table 4. 2: Factors Reported in Decisions to Release or Detain Aliens
Pending INS Actions Affecting Detention Policy
Chapter 4 INS Released Many Aliens and Many of Them Did Not Appear for Their
Hearing
Page 67 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
the authority to make these decisions. Through these regulations, INS aims
to provide the basis for stronger oversight of detention and release
decisions nationwide. As part of this effort, INS plans to standardize
certain components of the decisionmaking process.
INS plans to issue instructions that would require that noncriminal aliens,
in those cases when an asylum officer determined the alien to have a
credible fear of persecution or torture, be given a uniform letter
specifying the reasons for granting or denying release. According to INS,
this letter is an effort to standardize the release decisions among district
offices.
Our analysis showed that 1,000 of the 2, 351 aliens who were found to have a
credible fear of persecution or torture from April 1, 1997, through
September 30, 1999, were released from INS custody and received a decision
on their case from an immigration judge but did not appear for their removal
hearings. 6 Over half of these aliens who did not appear had requested and
received a change of removal hearing location. During the same period, 3,140
of 7,947 aliens determined to have a credible fear of persecution or torture
had not applied for asylum. Of those aliens, 1,338 of them did not file
their asylum applications within 1 year of entering the country, as
required. INS has studies in process regarding factors related to alien
appearance rates at removal hearings.
In those cases when an asylum officer determines that an alien has a
credible fear of persecution or torture 7 and the alien is released from INS
custody, the alien is required to appear at removal hearings before an
immigration judge. At the removal hearings, aliens are to present their
claims for asylum, and the immigration judge is to rule on the merits of the
claim. Those aliens whose claims are denied are to be removed from the
country and returned to their home country. 8 In using a joint INS and EOIR
database, we found that 7, 947 aliens were found to have a credible fear of
persecution or torture between April 1, 1997, 9 and September 30, 1999. As
6 Three nationalities- Sri Lankans, Chinese, and Haitians- represented 72
percent of the 1, 000 aliens who were released and ordered removed in
absentia- 442 Sri Lankans were ordered removed in absentia out of 500
released Sri Lankans for whom an immigration judge made a decision, 164
Chinese were ordered removed in absentia out of 488 released Chinese for
whom an immigration judge made a decision, and 115 Haitians were ordered
removed in absentia out of 374 released Haitians for whom an immigration
judge made a decision.
7 In addition, if an immigration judge vacates an asylum officer's negative
credible fear determination, these aliens are required to appear at a
removal hearing. 8 Aliens can appeal the decision of the immigration judge
to EOIR's Board of Immigration Appeals.
9 The inception date of the expedited removal program. Indications Suggest
Many Aliens May Be Using the Credible Fear Process to Illegally Remain in
the United States
A Significant Number of Released Aliens Are Not Appearing for Their Removal
Hearings
Chapter 4 INS Released Many Aliens and Many of Them Did Not Appear for Their
Hearing
Page 68 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
of February 22, 2000, of the 7,947 aliens, 5, 320 aliens were released from
INS custody. Of these 5, 320 aliens, 2,351 aliens received an immigration
judge's decision. Of the 2,351 aliens, 1,000 aliens (or 42 percent) did not
appear for their removal hearing before an immigration judge. 10 In all
1,000 cases in which the alien did not appear for their removal hearing,
immigration judges ordered them removed from this country in absentia. 11
In commenting on a draft of the report, EOIR officials confirmed that they
essentially agreed with our analysis and methodology which revealed that, as
of February 22, 2000, 42 percent of the aliens who had been released and had
a final decision by the court had not appeared for their removal hearing
before an immigration judge and had received a ruling in absentia. However,
the officials explained that the majority of the in absentia orders were
entered at the master calendar hearing stage, 12 where the alien fails to
appear for his or her hearing. In addition, EOIR officials noted that cases
that are set for a merits hearing ( i. e., for aliens who appear and wish to
pursue their claim) tend to be scheduled on average of 1 year from the
initial master calendar hearing date. Consequently, as more of the 5,320
cases 13 are completed over time, a greater percentage of aliens will appear
for their hearing, which will result in a lower in absentia rate. Therefore,
cases closed from April 1, 1997, through fiscal year 1999 were aliens who
did not appear for their initial removal hearing and were ordered removed
from the United States at that time. Conversely, those cases which remained
open involved aliens who had appeared for their initial removal hearing and
were scheduled for subsequent merits hearings to determine if they should be
granted relief from removal (e. g., granted asylum). Regarding the case
sample analyzed by us, EOIR determined that the failure to appear rate was
34 percent, as of August 10, 2000. EOIR estimated that eventually the
failure to appear rate would be as low as 25 percent when all the cases are
completed.
10 In three cases, the immigration judges granted the aliens some form of
relief from removal in absentia. We did not include these cases in the 2,
351 decisions because we did not know the basis for the immigration judges'
decisions.
11 In ordering an alien removed in absentia, the immigration judge is to be
assured by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the alien
received proper notification of the hearing. 12 The Judge explains the
alien's rights, ascertains whether they received notice of the hearing from
the INS, and inquires whether they understand the nature of the charges and
whether they want to admit or deny the charges. They also handle other
preliminary matters, such as the availability of free legal services, and
give the alien a list of such service providers.
13 The 5, 320 cases are on the basis of our analysis.
Chapter 4 INS Released Many Aliens and Many of Them Did Not Appear for Their
Hearing
Page 69 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
According to a 1996 report by the Department of Justice's Office of the
Inspector General, aliens who INS did not detain were not likely to be
removed from the country. 14 The report stated that, on the basis of its
analysis of fiscal year 1994 data, only 11 percent of aliens who were not
detained were actually removed at the end of the removal proceedings, 15
versus well over 90 percent of those aliens who were detained throughout the
process.
In those cases when an asylum officer determined an alien to have a credible
fear of persecution or torture and the alien was subsequently released, the
alien can ask an immigration judge for a change in removal hearing location.
According to an EOIR official, immigration judges' decisions to grant
aliens' requests for a change in the hearing location are done on a case-
by- case basis. Further, according to the Chief Immigration Judge, before a
change of location may be granted, an address where the alien will reside
must be provided to the immigration judge. 16 The guidance does not require
any verification of the address provided. Our analysis of the INS and EOIR
data from April 1, 1997, through fiscal year 1999 showed that 3, 695 of the
5,320 aliens who were released received a change of location for their
removal hearing. Of those 3,695 aliens, 1,467 aliens had a decision made by
an immigration judge. Of the 1,467 aliens, 557 aliens (or 38 percent) were
ordered removed in absentia because they failed to appear for their removal
hearings. 17 The Los Angeles, Miami, and New York immigration courts were
the most common changes of location requested. Aliens who changed locations
and failed to appear were ordered removed in absentia in the Los Angeles,
Miami, and New York immigration courts, in 60 percent (62 of 103) of the
cases, 50 percent (333 of 662) of the cases, and 22 percent (91 of 406) of
the cases, respectively. During a discussion with immigration judges in New
York, they said that the records of some aliens who received a change of
hearing location to New York from Los Angeles contained incorrect
information, such as nonexistent addresses as their residences. 18
14 Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General Inspection Report,
Immigration and Naturalization Service Deportation of Aliens After Final
Orders Have Been Issued (I- 96- 03, Mar. 1996). 15 Previously, removal
hearings were called deportation hearings.
16 8 C. F. R. 3. 14, 3.20 and Operating Policy and Procedures Memorandum 97-
10, Change of Venue. 17 The 557 aliens ordered removed in absentia
represented 56 percent of the 1,000 released aliens who were ordered removed
in absentia. 18 While EOIR did not comment on this analysis, these
percentages might be reduced as cases are closed over time. Many Aliens Who
Changed
Removal Hearing Location Were Not Appearing for Their Hearings
Chapter 4 INS Released Many Aliens and Many of Them Did Not Appear for Their
Hearing
Page 70 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
To determine whether or not aliens who claimed to have a fear of persecution
or torture pursued their claim of asylum, we reviewed the rate by which
claimants failed to file applications for asylum. Generally, these aliens
have 1 year from their arrival to file an application showing their intent
to request asylum.
Our analysis of the joint INS and EOIR database showed that since the
inception of the expedited removal program on April 1, 1997, through fiscal
year 1999, 7,947 aliens were determined to have a credible fear of
persecution or torture. Of these 7,947 aliens, 3, 140 aliens had not filed
for asylum, as of February 22, 2000. Of the 3,140 aliens who had not filed,
1,338 (or 43 percent) aliens missed the 1- year required filing deadline and
as a result, generally may not be able to file for asylum. 19 In addition,
1,239 of the 3, 140 aliens who did not file an asylum application were
subsequently ordered removed by an immigration judge. 20
Recent INS National and Regional Intelligence Assessments reported that
smuggling people from the People's Republic of China is an ongoing and
growing phenomenon, using every known method of illegal entry into the
United States. According to the assessments, the vast majority of the
illegal entrants who were caught appeared to have been coached and
instructed to claim fear of persecution. Almost all were found by asylum
officers to meet the standard for credible fear of persecution and were
released pending a removal hearing. However, only a few of these aliens
actually showed up for their scheduled removal hearings, according to the
assessments.
In addition, a March, 2000 Canadian Parliamentary Report 21 on major
immigration issues stated that Chinese migrants who arrived by boat in
Canada last year had paid enormous sums to traffickers for their voyage. The
report also stated that the final destination for many was not Canada but
the United States, and most often New York City.
In September 1996, INS commissioned the Vera Institute of Justice to
implement a 3- year demonstration Appearance Assistance Program (AAP) to (1)
increase appearance rates in immigration courts and compliance
19 Other forms of relief from removal from the United States may be
available, including asylum as a result of provisions other than those
provided for by expedited removal. 20 Of the 1, 239 aliens who had not filed
an asylum application and were ordered removed by an immigration judge, 733
also missed the 1- year required filing deadline. 21 Refugee Protection and
Border Security: Striking a Balance, report of the Canadian House of Commons
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, March 2000. Many Aliens
Are Not Filing
Asylum Applications Studies Suggested Some Illegal Aliens Claimed a Fear of
Persecution or Torture to Remain in the Country
INS Actions
Chapter 4 INS Released Many Aliens and Many of Them Did Not Appear for Their
Hearing
Page 71 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
with the law among aliens in removal proceedings and (2) address a
combination of problems, such as the lack of detention facilities having an
impact on released aliens who were not appearing in court and rarely
complying with removal orders. In addition, the Institute was to make
recommendations on the more efficient use of detention facilities.
To qualify for AAP, aliens had to meet criteria on the basis of their
community ties, record of compliance in previous proceedings, and threat to
public safety. The Institute interviewed and investigated 360 asylum seekers
who were subject to expedited removal to determine if they met criteria to
participate in the supervision program. The Institute recommended 85 asylum
seekers who were subject to expedited removal between August 1998 and
October 1999 to participate in AAP. INS approved 79 of these asylum seekers.
The Institute was to supervise the participants throughout the duration of
their immigration proceedings or until the program ended. As of March 31,
2000, of the 79 aliens, 46 aliens had their asylum claims decided by an
immigration judge in regular removal proceedings. The Institute reported the
following outcomes: 18 were granted relief; 17 were ordered removed; 6 were
ordered removed in absentia; 4 were allowed to remain in the United States
on grounds other than asylum; and 1 was granted voluntary departure. On the
basis of their findings, the Institute concluded that with supervision, a
high degree of compliance with immigration procedures and requirements can
be obtained at a lower cost, without detention. The Institute recommended
that INS consider the implementation of a broader, permanent supervision
program.
It is not clear if the results of the AAP demonstration could be widely
implemented with the same outcomes. According to a New York INS district
official, AAP's selection process favored aliens claiming a credible fear of
persecution or torture who had more easily established and verifiable
identities, more community ties, and a greater likelihood of appearing.
Further, the official added that aliens who participated in AAP did so
voluntarily and therefore, this may have an impact on the analysis of the
study results.
In January 1999, the INS Commissioner asked for an internal study to
determine (1) the rate at which aliens who claimed to have a fear of
persecution or torture were not appearing for their removal hearings and (2)
the reason all INS district offices were not following headquarters policy
that favored the release of aliens found to have a credible fear of
persecution or torture. Regarding the rate of nonappearance for removal
hearings, INS was analyzing data from the same source we used in this
Chapter 4 INS Released Many Aliens and Many of Them Did Not Appear for Their
Hearing
Page 72 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
report. At the time of our review, INS was not routinely analyzing such data
regarding aliens who were released and whether they appeared for their
subsequent removal hearing.
On the basis of our analysis of our district office survey, an estimated 78
percent of the aliens, in cases when asylum officers determined those aliens
to have a credible fear of persecution or torture, were released in fiscal
year 1999. Our analysis of the joint INS and EOIR database showed that, as
of February 22, 2000, 5,320 of these aliens were released from INS custody,
and of these, 2,351 received an immigration judge's decision. Of the 2,351,
1,000 (or 42 percent) aliens did not appear for their removal hearing before
an immigration judge. In all 1, 000 cases in which the alien did not appear
for their removal hearing, immigration judges ordered them removed from this
country in absentia. As more cases involving the 5,320 released aliens who
subsequently appear for their hearing are decided, the failure to appear
rate would be as low as 25 percent, according to EOIR. INS has ongoing
efforts looking at nonappearance rates. However, INS' recent policy that
favors releasing aliens from detention contributed to some of the 1,000
aliens not appearing for their removal hearings. These data suggest that
many aliens may be using the credible fear process to illegally remain in
the United States.
Another issue that needs to be addressed involves the policies and
procedures surrounding aliens' requests for a change of hearing locations.
Our analysis revealed that 557 aliens who requested and received a change of
location of their removal hearing did not appear for their hearings.
According to the Chief Immigration Judge, in granting a change of hearing
location the address where the alien will reside must be provided to the
immigration judge, but no requirement exists to verify the alien's new
address.
We recommend that the Attorney General direct
� INS to analyze the characteristics of those aliens who appear and those
who do not appear for their removal hearing and to use the results to
reevaluate its policy for when to release aliens in cases when an asylum
officer has determined the aliens to have a credible fear of persecution or
torture.
� INS and EOIR to work together to establish a system to (1) have the
aliens' new address verified by using readily available information sources
and (2) provide the results to the immigration judges for their use in
making Conclusion
Recommendations
Chapter 4 INS Released Many Aliens and Many of Them Did Not Appear for Their
Hearing
Page 73 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
change of location decisions. In commenting on a draft of this report,
Department of Justice officials suggested that the second recommendation-
related to verifying the addresses of aliens who request a change of hearing
location- be modified to provide flexibility for the implementation of our
recommendation. In response, we changed the recommendation to have INS and
EOIR work together to establish a system to verify aliens' addresses. Agency
Comments
Chapter 5 Detention Conditions Varied for Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal
Page 74 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
INS uses a variety of facilities for detaining aliens. INS has direct
control over its own and contract facilities but less control over local
city and county jails. We observed that the conditions and available
services provided aliens varied at the 12 facilities we visited. Generally,
aliens who were housed in five INS- controlled facilities had access to more
services than aliens housed in the seven city and county jails. In addition,
INScontrolled facilities provided services in a more standardized manner
than city and county jails.
INS primarily uses SPC, contract, city, and county facilities to detain
aliens who are subject to expedited removal and those who claim a fear of
persecution or torture. INS requires SPCs and contract facilities to meet
ACA 1 standards, but cannot require city and county facilities to meet these
same standards. In fiscal year 1999, our analysis of INS district offices'
responses showed that about 70 percent of the 959 detained aliens in cases
when an asylum officer had determined the aliens had a credible fear of
persecution or torture were detained in INS- controlled facilities (i. e.,
SPCs and contractor facilities). At the time of our review, INS was
developing detention standards for all the facilities that INS used to
detain aliens, including aliens in cases when an asylum officer had
determined the aliens had a credible fear of persecution or torture.
In fiscal year 1999, district directors decided to detain 959 aliens after
asylum officers determined that the aliens had a credible fear of
persecution or torture. Of the aliens detained, about 70 percent were housed
in INS- controlled facilities.
INS has recognized a need for all aliens in INS' custody to be subject to
uniform detention standards. At the time of our review, INS was developing
and issuing standards for various services as they were drafted. INS had
already issued 17 standards and was expected to issue a total of 39
standards. Upon issuance, all standards are to apply immediately to INS-
controlled facilities, both those that were operated by INS and those that
were operated under direct contract. INS planned to phase in the standards'
applicability to all other facilities in which INS detainees are housed,
including county and city jails. INS planned to implement the standards in
INS- controlled facilities by imposing specific procedural requirements.
Other facilities were to be permitted to implement the standards under their
own guidelines. For example, while INS- controlled
1 The ACA is a nationally recognized association that is committed to
continually reviewing and updating standards to ensure that they reflect the
current professional requirements in the field of corrections. Their
standards are used as the professional benchmark for judging the quality of
a detention operation. Facility Conditions
Majority of Detained Aliens Were Housed in INScontrolled Facilities
Chapter 5 Detention Conditions Varied for Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal
Page 75 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
facilities would be required to have 18- inch partitions between telephones
to ensure privacy, local facilities would have the option of adopting this
procedure or using a private room or other means to meet the telephone
privacy standard.
INS requires all of its SPCs and contract facilities to be accredited by the
ACA. At the time of our review, 12 of 18 SPCs and contract facilities had
obtained ACA accreditation. Table 5.1 shows which INS- controlled facilities
were ACA accredited and the status of those not accredited.
Facility Date ACA accredited Status of facilities seeking ACA accreditation
SPCs
Aquadilla, PR N/ A Accreditation audit to begin in August 2000 Buffalo, NY
August 1999 N/ A El Centro, CA January 1997 N/ A El Paso, TX January 2000 N/
A Florence, AZ January 1999 N/ A Krome, FL N/ A Accreditation expected by
November 2000 Port Isabel, TX N/ A Accreditation expected by April 2001 San
Pedro, CA April 1998 N/ A Varick Street, NY N/ A Accreditation expected by
December 2000
Contract facilities
Aurora, CO August 1998 N/ A Jamaica, NY January 1999 N/ A Houston, TX
January 1999 N/ A Laredo, TX N/ A Accreditation not required under current
contract Elizabeth, NJ January 1999 N/ A San Diego, CA N/ A Accreditation
expected by December 2001 Seattle, WA August 1996 N/ A
Joint federal facilities
Oakdale, LA January 1997 N/ A Eloy, AZ August 1997 N/ A Note: N/ A means not
applicable. Source: ACA and facility officials.
According to an INS official, INS headquarters had agreements with over 700
local jails for use of their facilities in fiscal year 1999. Each INS
district office had the authority to enter into an agreement or use existing
U. S. Marshal agreements with local jails for detention space. ACA has
accredited about 70 local jails throughout the United States, some of which
INS may have been using. ACA Accreditation
Table 5. 1: ACA Accreditation of INSControlled Facilities
Chapter 5 Detention Conditions Varied for Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal
Page 76 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
We visited 12 facilities that were used to detain nationwide about 70
percent of the aliens in cases when an asylum officer had determined the
aliens had a credible fear of persecution or torture in fiscal year 1999.
These facilities consisted of two SPCs, three contract facilities, and seven
local jails. We found that conditions and available services provided for
the aliens varied. However, on the basis of discussions with officials at
the 12 facilities, INS- controlled facilities generally provided the
following services in a uniform manner and to a greater extent than did the
local jails:
� segregation of detainees,
� telephones,
� diet,
� law library,
� visitation,
� health care, and
� recreation. Regarding the separation of aliens, in cases when an asylum
officer had determined the aliens had a credible fear of persecution or
torture, we observed that male aliens were mixed with criminals in 5 of 12
facilities (1 contract facility and 4 local jails). Female aliens were mixed
with criminals in 6 of 12 facilities (1 SPC, 1 contract facility and 4 local
jails). The comingling of criminals with aliens in the INS- controlled
facilities is not consistent with INS standards nor is it in accordance with
ACA standards or UNHCR principles/ guidance. However, the comingling of
females at these facilities was practiced because INS believed that females
were not as violent as males and thus, there was no need to separate them.
Regarding the use of telephones, to make outgoing calls, officials at the
facilities told us that all the facilities provided aliens with telephone
access. However, rules on telephone usage varied. For example, four
facilities (one SPC, two contract facilities, and one local jail) permitted
24hour access, while the other eight facilities placed limitations on hours
when aliens could use the telephones. All 12 facilities had the telephones
located in living areas where the aliens slept. In addition, all 12
facilities permitted the aliens to make collect calls. Officials at two of
the facilities said that time limits on the length of calls were enforced,
whereas, the other 10 facilities permitted unlimited or did not enforce time
limits on calls.
Regarding the meals provided to the aliens, 11 of the 12 facilities made
accommodations for the specific dietary needs of the detained aliens, such
Conditions in INSControlled
Facilities Were Generally Different From Local Jails
Segregation of Detainees Telephones Meals
Chapter 5 Detention Conditions Varied for Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal
Page 77 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
as for religious or health diets. Generally, the weekly menus were varied on
4- or 5- week cycles and were reviewed by a dietitian.
Regarding law libraries, 11 of 12 facilities permitted detainees access to
legal materials. The remaining facility, a local jail, did not have a law
library. Of the 11 facilities with legal materials, 2 local jails did not
have current immigration- related law materials. 2 In addition, two contract
facilities did not have laws, regulations, guidance or related materials
pertaining to expedited removal. Generally aliens had access to law
materials on a daily basis when they requested access. The INS- controlled
facilities allowed free photocopying of legal materials and provided
typewriters and/ or computers. Generally, local jails allowed free
photocopying and provided typewriters; however, two of these facilities did
not provide any of these services.
Regarding visitation, INS- controlled facilities generally had uniform
practices, whereas local jails had a wide range of practices. For example,
family visitation at INS- controlled facilities generally provided for
noncontact visits 3 for 1 hour, 2 to 4 days a week. Local jail visitation
policies generally called for noncontact visits for a half an hour to 10
hours with extended hours if no one was waiting, 1 to 7 days a week.
Regarding attorney visits, attorneys could generally visit 7 days a week in
all facilities, but their ability to have contact visits varied. For
example, three INS- controlled facilities and two local jails allowed
contact visits with aliens and their attorneys, and two INS- controlled
facilities and five local jails did not allow contact visits between the
aliens and their attorneys. Visiting hours for attorneys at all facilities
ranged from 8. 5 hours to 24 hours a day.
Regarding health care, all 12 facilities we visited had established
procedures and required that at least one nurse be available on site at all
times. The range of health care services varied from physician- staffed
onsite accredited facilities 4 to access to an on- call physician. For
example, four of the five INS- controlled facilities had on- site,
accredited health care facilities staffed by at least one physician and
supporting staff 5 days a
2 We considered current immigration- related law materials to be dated April
1997 or later so as to include materials pertaining to expedited removal. 3
Basically, noncontact visit means there is a physical barrier between the
alien and the visitor.
4 For example, accreditation by the National Commission on Correctional
Health Care, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations, or the California Department of Corrections. Law Libraries
Visitation Health Care
Chapter 5 Detention Conditions Varied for Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal
Page 78 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
week. Three of the seven local jails had on- site accredited health care
facilities staffed by at least one physician and supporting staff 1 to 3
days a week. Two local jails had on- call physician services only. All
facilities had contracts for off- site services not provided on- site.
Generally, all facilities screened aliens at intake for infectious and
mental disease, and aliens had access to their medical records after being
released from the facility.
Regarding recreation, INS- controlled facilities generally had uniform
practices in that each facility provided team games and exercise equipment
in outdoor recreation for at least 1 hour a day, 7 days a week. Local jails'
outdoor recreation practices varied. For example, three jails provided
outdoor recreation from 1 to 14 hours a day, 3 to 7 days a week. Four jails
had team games in either their outdoor or indoor recreation programs. Only 1
of the 7 jails had exercise equipment. Two jails offered no recreation.
Regarding day room activities, all 12 facilities we visited had televisions
and generally provided board games and cards. INS- controlled facilities
generally allowed personal radios with headphones, but local jails did not
allow these items.
Regarding educational, vocational, and work programs, none of the facilities
we visited provided vocational opportunities, and 6 of 12 facilities
provided some educational services. INS- controlled facilities generally
provided paid voluntary work programs, whereas three of the seven local
jails provided unpaid voluntary work programs.
Detention conditions varied among the six ports of entry we visited. The
conditions ranged from aliens being handcuffed to wooden benches to separate
gender lounges with various amenities. These facilities usually detained
aliens for less than 24 hours. INS is a tenant at air terminals that serve
as ports of entry, and has little detention space. According to INS
officials, newer terminals are being designed to accommodate INS' detention
needs.
Our review showed that aliens who were detained in INS controlledfacilities
had access to more services than aliens housed in city and county jails. INS
has recognized the need for all aliens in its custody to be subjected to
uniform detention standards and was in the process of developing and issuing
such standards. Establishing such standards should help INS ensure that
detained aliens are treated consistently at all facilities in which INS
detains aliens. Recreation
Airport Detention Conclusions
Page 79 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Appendix I Additional Information on Aliens Subject to Expedited Removal
Page 80 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
The following tables represent data on aliens who attempted to enter the
United States between October 1, 1998, and September 30, 1999, and were
processed under the expedited removal provision. These data include
information on aliens who
� were ordered removed from the country,
� were allowed to withdraw their applications for admission, or
� were referred for a credible fear interview. These data do not include
information on those aliens subject to expedited removal who swear under
oath to be U. S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or have refugee or
asylee status, and are referred to an immigration judge for a review of this
claim.
These data are presented separately for the nation's airports and for the
largest land port of entry at San Ysidro, California. Data for airports come
from INS' Record of Intercepted Passenger System. Data for San Ysidro come
from INS' Port of Entry Tracking System.
These data do not include aliens under 18 years of age to make this analysis
consistent with analyses presented elsewhere in this report and because
under INS policy, unaccompanied minors are generally not subject to
expedited removal. However, in some instances, minors may be subject to
certain expedited removal processes. For example, under INS guidance,
inspectors are encouraged to allow unaccompanied minors to withdraw their
applications for entry. Further, minors who are accompanied by adults may,
in some cases, be ordered removed, or be referred to an asylum officer for a
credible fear interview, if the adults they are accompanying are to be
removed or referred. Excluding minors from the tables below, generally does
not substantially affect the reported percentages. However, in some cases,
the reported number of cases would have changed had we included them. For
example, in table I. 1, with minors included, the number of persons referred
from New York's JFK airport for a credible fear interview rises from 545 to
653. Including minors in table I. 11, for aliens subject to expedited
removal at the San Ysidro port of entry, would have affected the reported
percentages, because inspectors in that location allow a large number of
minors to withdraw their applications for entry.
Appendix I Additional Information on Aliens Subject to Expedited Removal
Page 81 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Ordered removed Allowed to withdraw Referred for credible fear Interview
Airport Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
New York (JFK) 2,116 70 381 13 545 18 Miami 825 30 509 18 1,423 52 Los
Angeles 963 43 458 20 830 37 Houston a 744 38 1,123 58 83 4 Newark 525 33
733 47 310 20 Chicago 746 47 344 22 488 31 Atlanta 454 44 521 50 62 6 San
Francisco 185 24 461 59 131 17 Dallas 426 56 318 42 14 2 All others 459 23
1,062 54 457 23
Gender
Male 4,892 44 3,510 31 2,815 25 Female 2,551 39 2,400 37 1,528 24
Age
18- 19 367 38 259 27 329 34 20- 29 3,340 42 2,389 30 2,309 29 30- 39 2,364
44 1,804 33 1,257 23 40- 49 1,024 44 965 41 346 15 50 and older 348 37 493
52 102 11
Region of citizenship b
Africa 258 29 130 14 510 57 Asia 844 21 1,115 28 2,012 51 Caribbean 1,054 49
179 8 921 43 Central America 665 44 739 49 97 6 Mexico 2,028 56 1,536 43 34
1 Middle East 169 32 195 37 165 31 South America 1,909 58 1,136 35 238 7
Former Soviet Bloc 340 32 445 42 287 27 Other 176 26 435 63 79 11
a Data for February 1999 missing for Houston airport. b We grouped 172
countries of citizenship by regions of the world, because of the small
number of cases in some countries. The regions we used include the following
countries, among others: Asia (includes China, India, Pakistan, the
Philippines, and Sri Lanka), Africa (includes Ghana, Niger, Nigeria, and
Somalia), the Caribbean (includes Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and
Jamaica), Central America (includes El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras),
the Middle East (includes Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Israel, and Lebanon), South
America (includes Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela), and the
former Soviet Bloc (includes Albania, the Czech Republic, the Ukraine,
Russia, and Yugoslavia), and Other (includes Australia, Canada, France,
Great Britain, and New Zealand). We included Mexico separately because it
was the only North American country included in the analysis and
traditionally has been responsible for the largest group of illegal aliens
in the United States.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Table I. 1: Dispositions of Aliens Subject to Expedited Removal Provision
Between October 1, 1998, and September 30, 1999, at the Nation's Airports
Appendix I Additional Information on Aliens Subject to Expedited Removal
Page 82 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Country of citizenship Number Percent
Brazil 389 13 Dominican Republic 286 9 Jamaica 257 8 Ecuador 157 5 China 121
4 Pakistan 113 4 Sri Lanka 102 3 Peru 92 3 Israel 82 3 Ghana 81 3 Source:
GAO analysis of INS data.
Country of citizenship Number Percent
Haiti 706 26 Colombia 354 13 China 200 7 Brazil 160 6 Dominican Republic 117
4 Jamaica 115 4 Peru 97 4 Sri Lanka 91 3 Ecuador 88 3 Venezuela 77 3 Source:
GAO analysis of INS data.
Country of citizenship Number Percent
China 642 29 Mexico 522 23 Sri Lanka 150 7 Philippines 86 4 Peru 84 4
Pakistan 49 2 Guatemala 45 2 El Salvador 43 2 South Korea 37 2 Australia 31
1 Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Table I. 2: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal at John F. Kennedy Airport
Table I. 3: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal at Miami International Airport
Table I. 4: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal at Los Angeles International Airport
Appendix I Additional Information on Aliens Subject to Expedited Removal
Page 83 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Country of citizenship Number a Percent
Mexico 751 39 El Salvador 245 13 Ecuador 194 10 Guatemala 184 9 Honduras 117
6 Colombia 112 6 Peru 70 4 Costa Rica 69 4 Belize 35 2 Nicaragua 34 2 a Data
for February 1999 missing for Houston airport.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Country of citizenship Number Percent
Brazil 219 14 Ecuador 112 7 Mexico 105 7 Colombia 97 6 Peru 70 5 Jamaica 69
4 Costa Rica 60 4 Czech Republic 49 3 Dominican Republic 48 3 Sri Lanka 45 3
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Country of citizenship Number Percent
Mexico 645 41 China 278 18 Sri Lanka 136 9 Poland 106 7 Albania 38 2 India
36 2 Czech Republic 24 2 Pakistan 24 2 Canada 20 1 Jamaica 18 1 Source: GAO
analysis of INS data.
Table I. 5: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal at Houston International Airport
Table I. 6: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal at Newark International Airport
Table I. 7: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal at Chicago International Airport
Appendix I Additional Information on Aliens Subject to Expedited Removal
Page 84 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Country of citizenship Number Percent
Mexico 489 47 Peru 69 7 El Salvador 57 6 Guatemala 49 5 Brazil 38 4 Czech
Republic 32 3 Jamaica 22 2 Costa Rica 21 2 Nigeria 18 2 Panama 18 2 Source:
GAO analysis of INS data.
Country of citizenship Number Percent
Mexico 255 33 China 126 16 Philippines 68 9 Indonesia 50 6 Taiwan 28 4 India
26 3 Sri Lanka 24 3 Thailand 16 2 Peru 14 2 South Korea 14 2 Source: GAO
analysis of INS data.
Country of citizenship Number Percent
Mexico 513 68 Peru 33 4 El Salvador 32 4 Costa Rica 24 3 Guatemala 23 3
Venezuela 16 2 Brazil 15 2 Colombia 12 2 South Korea 12 2 Honduras 9 1
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Table I. 8: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal at Atlanta International Airport
Table I. 9: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal at San Francisco International Airport
Table I. 10: Top 10 Countries of Citizenship for Aliens Subject to Expedited
Removal at Dallas International Airport
Appendix I Additional Information on Aliens Subject to Expedited Removal
Page 85 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Ordered removed Allowed to withdraw Referred for credible fear interview
Gender Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Male 24,362 89 2,853 10 182 1 Female 19,378 86 2,994 13 107 0
Age
18- 19 4,591 88 644 12 13 0 20- 29 25,061 89 2,918 10 138 0 30- 39 9,612 88
1,219 11 99 1 40- 49 3,135 87 447 12 31 1 50 and older 1,342 68 619 31 8 0
Country of citizenship
Mexico 43,364 88 5,768 12 31 0 Guatemala 96 74 9 7 25 19 Ukraine 23 36 22 34
19 30 El Salvador 39 63 5 8 18 29 Honduras 38 63 1 2 21 35 Cuba 3 8 3 8 33
85 Russia 5 17 5 17 20 67 Bulgaria 1 5 3 14 18 82 China 5 29 0 0 12 71
Dominican Republic 16 94 1 6 0 0 All others 151 55 30 11 92 34
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Table I. 11: Dispositions of Aliens Subject to Expedited Removal Provision
Between October 1, 1998, and September 30, 1999, at San Ysidro, CA Port- of-
Entry
Appendix II Description of the Violations That Subject Aliens to Expedited
Removal
Page 86 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
The violations under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that would
subject aliens to an expedited removal order are the following: (1) obtained
a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or any
benefit under the INA through fraud or misrepresentation (INA sect.212( a)( 6)(
C)( i)); (2) obtained a benefit under federal or state law by falsely
claiming to be a U. S. citizen (INA sect.212( a)( 6)( C)( ii)); or (3) were not
in possession of valid entry documents (INA sect.212( a)( 7) subparagraphs (A)(
i)( I), (A)( i)( II), (B)( i)( I), or (B)( i)( II)).
According to INS training material, in order for an alien to be found
inadmissible under the first section of the INA, the misrepresentation must
be willful (i. e., the alien had knowledge that the information was false
and he or she deliberately used the false information to gain a visa, entry,
or other benefit). In addition, the misrepresentation must be material (i.
e., the alien is inadmissible on the true facts, or the misrepresentation
tends to shut off a relevant line of inquiry that might have resulted in a
determination of inadmissibility). Further, the misrepresentation must have
been made to a government official and the purpose of the misrepresentation
was to gain a benefit under the INA for the alien (such as admittance to the
United States). In general, the inspector is not to apply this section when
the alien makes a timely retraction of the misrepresentation, in most cases
at the first opportunity.
The second section of the INA relates to false claims of U. S. citizenship.
To be charged with this violation, the alien must have claimed to be a U. S.
citizen to obtain a benefit under federal or state law.
The third section of the INA relates to specific sections of the law. These
sections of the law state that aliens are inadmissible if their situation is
any of the following at the time they apply for admittance:
� Any immigrant who is not in possession of a valid, unexpired visa; reentry
permit; border crossing identification card; or other valid entry document
and a valid unexpired passport, other suitable travel document, or document
of identity and nationality if required. Two examples provided in the
Immigration and Naturalization Service training materials of situations that
would fall under this basis of inadmissibility are that an immigrant in
possession of an immigrant visa bearing an immigrant classification for
which the alien is not eligible (hence, the alien has improper documents)
and an immigrant in possession of an expired immigrant visa.
Under the INA, all aliens requesting entry are considered to be immigrants
unless they are able to establish that they are entitled to a nonimmigrant
Appendix II Description of the Violations That Subject Aliens to Expedited
Removal
Page 87 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
status. If an alien applies for entry as a nonimmigrant, the alien has the
burden of establishing that he or she is entitled to the nonimmigrant
status. If the alien fails to establish that he or she is entitled to the
nonimmigrant status, the inspector may refuse to allow entry because the
alien does not have a valid entry document.
� Any immigrant whose visa had been issued without compliance with
provisions of the INA. This provision applies when the alien has an
immigrant visa bearing an immigrant classification symbol, however the alien
is not entitled to that immigrant classification and the alien is not
entitled to a preference class.
� Any nonimmigrant not in possession of a valid passport or a valid
nonimmigrant visa or border crossing identification card. An alien who
requests entry and has a valid nonimmigrant visa may be ordered removed if
the inspector finds that the visa is an improper visa (e. g., the alien has
a valid tourist visa but is intending to become a student).
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 88 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
This appendix contains additional information regarding
� supporting documentation and additional information regarding our
multivariate analysis of Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) asylum
data on the outcomes for aliens in the credible fear process, including
aliens who recanted their claim of a fear of persecution or torture;
� analysis of data from removal hearings for aliens found to have a credible
fear of persecution or torture;
� methodology for our reviews of case files at ports of entry and asylum
offices, and associated sampling and nonsampling errors; and
� nonsampling errors affecting observational data collected during our site
visits.
The Asylum Pre- Screening System (APSS) is a mainframe INS database that the
Asylum Office created to track data on aliens subject to expedited removal
who were referred to an asylum officer for a credible fear interview. Data
for each case are to be keyed in at the individual asylum offices. Data are
to be reviewed for accuracy monthly by INS headquarters officials.
Asylum Office officials provided us with a copy of this database, which was
current as of November 20, 1999. We spoke to INS Asylum Office staff about
the data- entry processes used at the field level and the edit checks
incorporated into the system to reduce data entry error. We also spoke to
staff in the INS Statistics Office about analyses they had conducted to
examine the reliability of the data. We conducted various logic checks of
our own. We also used the database for our file review of the credible fear
determination process at the three locations.
In an effort to assess the reliability of the variables included in our
multivariate model, we compared data from our review of files in the Los
Angeles, Miami, and New York Asylum Offices to data recorded in the APSS
system. We found that the information recorded during our file reviews and
the APSS data were generally consistent.
Under INS policy, unaccompanied minors generally are not subject to
expedited removal. Therefore, we did not include them in our analyses.
However, as part of our assessment of the reliability of the APSS data, we
identified 339 minors who were listed as the sole or lead applicant on their
credible fear interviews and were thus subject to expedited removal. As a
result, we discussed this issue with an INS official to determine why these
minors were included in the database. The official identified some reasons
Multivariate Analysis
of INS Asylum Data
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 89 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
for the inclusion of these minors. For example, some aliens had an incorrect
entry for their date of birth and were recorded as minors even though they
were not minors. Other aliens were recorded as minors, but for example,
dental forensics later determined that they were 18 years of age or older.
We conducted a sensitivity analysis to assess the effects of excluding
minors who were listed as the sole or lead applicant from our multivariate
analysis. Our analysis showed that excluding this group did not have a
significant impact on our findings and therefore, we excluded them from the
multivariate analysis.
On the basis of our review, sensitivity analysis, and discussions with INS
officials, we believe the data in the fields we used are sufficiently
reliable to support our conclusions.
We analyzed data on credible fear cases for aliens who were 18 years or
older and who attempted to enter the United States as the sole or lead
applicant between April 1, 1997, and September 30, 1999, in two steps.
First, we investigated which characteristics affected the likelihood that
aliens recanted their claims of fear of persecution or torture. Then we
investigated, for cases where aliens did not recant, which characteristics
affected the likelihood that the asylum officer's finding in the case was
negative. The characteristics were the fiscal year in which the alien
attempted to enter the country (1997, 1 1998, 1999), the gender and age (18
to 19, 20 to 29, 30 to 39, 40 to 49, 50 and older) of the alien, whether the
alien attempted to enter the United States alone or with dependents, the
region (Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, Central America, Mexico, the Middle
East, South America, and the former Soviet Bloc) of the alien's country of
citizenship, and the asylum office at which the case was processed (Miami,
Arlington, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Newark, New York, and San
Francisco). 2 Because of the large number of countries of citizenship and
the small number of cases in many of them, we grouped countries by regions
of the world. The regions were: Asia (in which China, Sri Lanka, Pakistan
and India each had over 100 cases), Africa (in which Somalia, Nigeria, Niger
and Ghana each had over 100 cases), the Caribbean (in which Haiti and Cuba
each had over 100 cases), Central America (in which
1 Data for fiscal year 1997 represent the period from April 1, 1997 to Sept.
30, 1997. 2 We undertook additional analyses in which we restricted our
attention to the 16 countries that contributed more than 100 cases and which
jointly accounted for nearly 80 percent of all cases in the 3 years for
which we had data. These analyses showed considerable variability in the
likelihood of aliens recanting and in negative credible fear determinations
across countries within the various regions, but our estimates of the
effects of the asylum office and year in which the cases were heard remained
essentially the same.
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 90 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
El Salvador and Guatemala each had over 100 cases), the Middle East (in
which Iran, Lebanon, Algeria, and Iraq were the countries with the largest
number of cases, with 93, 79, 74, and 62 cases, respectively); South America
(in which Colombia had over 100 cases); and the former Soviet Bloc (in which
Albania and Yugoslavia each had over 100 cases). However, we included Mexico
separately because it was the only North American country included in the
analysis and traditionally has been responsible for the largest group of
illegal aliens in the United States.
In our analyses we estimated the size and statistical significance of the
effect that each of these characteristics had on the likelihood that aliens
recanted, and for those cases where aliens did not recant, on the likelihood
that the credible fear finding was negative. We first used bivariate methods
to determine the effect of each characteristic ignoring every other. We then
used multivariate techniques (logistic regression models) to estimate the
net effect of each of these six characteristics or the effects they had on
these two outcomes (i. e., likelihood of aliens' deciding to recant or not
their claim of a fear of persecution or torture and likelihood of receiving
a negative or positive credible fear determination) when the associations
between characteristics were controlled and their effects were estimated
simultaneously. Odds and odds ratios were used to estimate the size of the
effects of the different characteristics, and chi- square statistics and
Wald statistics were used to determine whether they were statistically
significant (i. e., large enough that it is very unlikely that they occurred
due to random fluctuations or chance).
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 91 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Table III. 1 shows the effects of the various characteristics on the
likelihood that aliens recanted their claims.
Fiscal year Did not recant Recanted Total Odds on recanting Bivariate ratios
Multivariate
ratios
1997 927 103 1,030 0.111 1998 2,690 334 3,024 0.124 1.12 a 1.21 1999 5,232
388 5,620 0.074 0.67 a 0.95
Gender
Male 5,959 678 6,637 0.114 Female 2,890 147 3,037 0.051 0.45 a 0.45 a
Age
18- 19 648 36 684 0.056 20- 29 4,709 363 5,072 0.077 1.39 1.14 30- 39 2,614
297 2,911 0.114 2.04 a 1.58 a 40- 49 703 92 795 0.131 2.36 a 1.75 a 50 and
older 175 37 212 0.211 3.81 a 2.67 a
Alone or with dependents
Alone 8,752 819 9,571 0.094 With dependents 97 6 103 0.062 0.66 0.57
Region of citizenship
Asia 4,134 215 4,349 0.052 Africa 1,225 164 1,389 0.134 2.57 a 1.48 a
Caribbean 1,579 76 1,655 0.048 0.93 1.42 a Central America 443 87 530 0.196
3.78 a 6.41 a Mexico 128 88 216 0.688 13.22 a 24.37 a Middle East 357 31 388
0.087 1.67 a 1.31 South America 283 119 402 0.420 8.08 a 11.79 a Former
Soviet Bloc Nations 700 45 745 0.064 1.24 0.83
Asylum Office
Miami 2,313 136 2,449 0.059 Arlington 140 18 158 0.129 2.19 a 2.83 a Chicago
788 22 810 0.028 0.48 a 1.01 Houston 474 48 522 0.101 1.72 a 0.60 a Los
Angeles 2,332 179 2,511 0.077 1.30 a 1.13 Newark 1,029 162 1,191 0.157 2.68
a 3.85 a New York 1,228 236 1,464 0.192 3.27 a 4.85 a San Francisco 545 24
569 0.044 0.75 1.22
a These ratios are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
interval. Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Factors Associated With Aliens' Recanting Claims of Fear of Persecution or
Torture
Table III. 1: Number of Aliens Who Did or Did Not Recant Their Claims of
Fear of Persecution or Torture, by Selected Characteristics, and Odds and
Odds Ratios Derived From Them
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 92 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
The odds on recanted claims, which are displayed in the fourth column of
numbers in table III. 1, show how many cases were recanted for every case
that was not recanted, within each of the six categories. In 1997, for
example, 103 cases were recanted while 927 cases were not recanted, and the
odds on cases being recanted were 0.111 (103/ 927). This implies that 0.111
cases were recanted for every one that was not recanted or, multiplying by
100, that about 11 cases were recanted for every 100 that were not recanted.
In 1998 the odds on cases being recanted were slightly higher, and equal to
0.124 (about 12 were recanted for every 100 that were not recanted), while
in 1999 they were lower, and equal to 0.074 (less than 8 cases were recanted
for every 100 that were not recanted). The odds ratios at the top of the
next to last column of the table (which are 0.124/ 0.111 = 1. 12 and 0.074/
0.111 = 0. 67) provide estimates of the change in the odds on cases being
recanted over the 3 years; they were higher in 1998 than in 1997 by a factor
of 1.12, but lower in 1999 than in 1997, by a factor of 0. 67. These odds
ratios and the others in the same column indicate the effects of this factor
and the other factors when each factor is assessed separately. Regarding the
other factors, we found the following:
� Women were half as likely (i. e., 45 percent as likely) as men to recant
their fear of persecution or torture.
� Older aliens were more likely than younger ones to recant their fear of
persecution or torture (i. e., aliens 30 to 39 and 40 to 49 were slightly
more than twice as likely to recant as aliens under 20, and aliens 50 and
over were nearly 4 times as likely to recant as aliens under 20).
� Aliens with dependents were only two- thirds as likely as aliens without
dependents to recant (or, alternatively, aliens without dependents were 1/
0.66 = 1.5 times as likely as those with dependents to recant).
� Aliens who came from Asia, the Caribbean, the Middle East, and former
Soviet Bloc countries were the least likely to recant. Relative to aliens
from Asia, aliens from Africa and Central America were roughly 3 or 4 times
as likely to recant, while aliens from South America and Mexico were about 8
and 13 times as likely to recant as aliens from Asia, respectively.
� Finally, it appeared that there was considerable variability in the
likelihood of aliens recanting across the various asylum offices. Cases in
Chicago had lower odds on recanting than cases in Miami, and cases in
Arlington, Houston, Newark and New York had higher odds than cases in Miami
of recanting, by factors ranging from roughly 2 to roughly 3.
These odds ratios, as noted above, are estimates of the effects of each
factor when all other factors are ignored. However, some of these factors
are associated with one another and, as a result, our estimates of some of
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 93 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
these effects are quite different when we control for, or take account of,
those associations. The odds ratios in the final column of the table are
derived from statistical models which estimate the effects of each factor
net of every other, using logistic regression techniques. While the effects
of gender, age, and dependency status are quite similar when they are
estimated simultaneously, the effects of region of citizenship and asylum
office and the change over time are somewhat different. In particular:
� The odds on aliens recanting in 1999 were not lower than in 1997, when
characteristics of the aliens involved in the cases, including their
citizenship, were controlled. Supplemental analyses (not shown) of these
data reveal that the lower overall odds on aliens recanting in the most
recent year for which we had data, before these characteristics were
controlled, is partly a function of more of the cases in 1999 than in prior
years coming from regions that had lower recanting rates.
� Aliens with citizenship from Caribbean countries had higher odds on
recanting than aliens from Asian countries, when differences between those
groups on other characteristics are controlled or accounted for. Aliens from
Mexico and Central and South America persisted in having the highest odds on
recanting their fear of persecution or torture. Citizens from the Middle
East and the former Soviet Bloc were not significantly different from those
from Asian countries.
� Differences in the likelihood of aliens recanting across the asylum
offices at which the cases were processed change somewhat when we take
account of differences in the characteristics of cases coming into different
offices, in particular the region from which they came. After these
differences in characteristics are accounted for in our multivariate model,
aliens processed in Chicago do not have significantly lower odds of
recanting than cases processed in Miami, though aliens processed in Houston
do. That is, once we take account of the fact that many of the aliens whose
cases were processed in Houston came from regions (i. e., Mexico and Central
and South America) in which the odds on recanting were quite high, the
likelihood of aliens recanting in Houston was 60 percent as high as in
Miami. Table III. 2 shows the effects of these same characteristics on the
likelihood aliens who did not recant their claims received a negative
credible fear finding from an asylum officer. Negative findings were
significantly less likely for women than men after other characteristics
were controlled. Also, before other factors were controlled, it appeared
that older aliens were significantly more likely to receive negative
findings than younger aliens. For example, aliens age 50 and over were
roughly between two and three times as likely to receive negative findings
as aliens under age 20. After we controlled for the association of age with
these Factors Associated With
Negative Credible Fear Determinations by Asylum Officers
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 94 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
other factors and the effects of these other factors on the credible fear
outcome, however, there were no significant differences across age
categories.
Fiscal year Positive
determination Negative determination Total
Odds on negative determination Bivariate
ratios Multivariate ratios
1997 744 183 927 0.246 1998 2,574 116 2,690 0.045 0.18 a 0.13 a 1999 5,126
106 5,232 0.021 0.08 a 0.08 a
Gender
Male 5,673 286 5,959 0.050 Female 2,771 119 2,890 0.043 0.85 0.75 a
Age
18- 19 621 27 648 0.043 20- 29 4,515 194 4,709 0.043 0.99 0.73 30- 39 2,495
119 2,614 0.048 1.10 0.72 40- 49 656 47 703 0.072 1.65 a 0.88 50 and older
157 18 175 0.115 2.64 a 1.25
Alone or with dependents
Alone 8,349 403 8,752 0.048 With dependents 95 2 97 0.021 0.44 0.47
Region of citizenship
Asia 4,081 53 4,134 0.013 Africa 1,187 38 1,225 0.032 2.47 a 1.55 Caribbean
1,510 69 1,579 0.046 3.52 a 4.31 a Central America 328 115 443 0.351 27.00 a
25.25 a Mexico 77 51 128 0.662 51.00 a 32.46 a Middle East 343 14 357 0.041
3.14 a 2.14 a South America 253 30 283 0.119 9.13 a 9.76 a Former Soviet
Bloc Nations 665 35 700 0.053 4.05 a 2.69 a
Asylum Office
Miami 2,233 80 2,313 0.036 Arlington 129 11 140 0.085 2.38 a 2.48 a Chicago
777 11 788 0.014 0.40 a 0.96 Houston 371 103 474 0.278 7.75 a 2.70 a Los
Angeles 2,227 105 2,332 0.047 1.32 1.13 Newark 984 45 1,029 0.046 1.28 1.60
a New York 1,191 37 1,228 0.031 0.87 1.12 San Francisco 532 13 545 0.024
0.68 1.03
a These ratios are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level. Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Table III. 2: Number of Aliens Who Received Positive and Negative Credible
Fear Determinations From Asylum Officers, by Selected Characteristics, and
Odds and Odds Ratios Derived From Them
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 95 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Regarding other characteristics and focusing on our estimates of the effects
of each characteristic net of every other (as shown in the last column of
table III. 2) our results were as follows:
� In 1998 and 1999 the odds on a negative credible fear finding were much
lower than in 1997. Considering differences in the characteristics of the
cases heard in each year, we find that the odds on negative findings were
only 13 percent and 8 percent as high in 1998 and 1999, respectively, as in
1997.
� Females were about 75 percent as likely as males to receive negative
credible fear findings.
� Older aliens were not significantly different from younger ones, and
aliens with dependents were not significantly different from aliens without
dependents in terms of their likelihood of receiving negative credible fear
findings, after other factors were controlled.
� Net of other characteristics, region had a very pronounced effect on
negative findings among the cases that were not recanted. Aliens from the
Middle East and the former Soviet Bloc were somewhat more likely than aliens
from Asia to receive negative findings, aliens from Caribbean or South
American countries were about 4 and 10 times as likely, respectively, and
aliens from Central American countries and Mexico were over 25 times as
likely as Asians to receive negative findings. Aliens from Africa were not
significantly different than those from Asia.
� Once characteristics of cases were controlled, cases processed in Miami,
Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco were quite similar in
terms of their likelihood of producing negative findings. Cases that were
not recanted and were processed in Arlington and Newark were about twice as
likely to produce negative findings as those processed in Miami, and cases
in Houston were about three times as likely.
As previously discussed, our grouping of countries into regions to simplify
our presentation of results does not alter very substantially our estimates
of the effects of asylum office nor of the change over time on whether
aliens recanted or whether aliens received negative credible fear
determinations, though it does mask significant variability in those
outcomes across different countries within the various regions. For that
reason, we show in table III. 3 the breakdown of cases where aliens did or
did not recant and that produced negative or positive findings of a credible
fear of persecution or torture, by the countries with the larger number of
credible fear cases within each region. Additional Analyses of
Specific Countries of Citizenship
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 96 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Region/ Country Not recanted Recanted Total Odds on
recanting Positive
determination Negative
determination Total Odds on
negative determination
Asia
China 2,422 53 2,475 0.022 2391 31 2,422 0.013 Sri Lanka 1,346 6 1,352 0.004
1344 2 1,346 0.001 Pakistan 120 74 194 0.617 111 9 120 0.081 India 83 20 103
0.241 77 6 83 0.078 Other 163 62 225 0.380 158 5 163 0.032
Africa
Somalia 338 4 342 0.012 336 2 338 0.006 Nigeria 130 27 157 0.208 123 7 130
0.057 Niger 132 15 147 0.114 129 3 132 0.023 Ghana 90 53 143 0.589 78 12 90
0.154 Sierra Leone 86 13 99 0.151 85 1 86 0.012 Other 449 52 501 0.116 436
13 449 0.030
Caribbean
Haiti 1,359 28 1,387 0.021 1302 57 1,359 0.044 Cuba 179 1 180 0.006 177 2
179 0.011 Other 41 47 88 1.146 31 10 41 0.323
Central America
El Salvador 159 36 195 0.226 118 41 159 0.347 Guatemala 163 29 192 0.178 118
45 163 0.381 Other 121 22 143 0.182 92 29 121 0.315
Middle East
Iran 87 6 93 0.069 85 2 87 0.024 Lebanon 74 5 79 0.068 74 0 74 0.000 Algeria
71 3 74 0.042 70 1 71 0.014 Iraq 61 1 62 0.016 61 0 61 0.000 Other 64 16 80
0.250 53 11 64 0.208
South America
Colombia 101 37 138 0.366 94 7 101 0.074 Peru 53 21 74 0.396 48 5 53 0.104
Ecuador 35 25 60 0.714 28 7 35 0.250 Guyana 50 8 58 0.160 48 2 50 0.042
Other 44 28 72 0.636 35 9 44 0.257
Table III. 3: Numbers of Cases Recanted and Not Recanted Resulting in
Positive and Negative Credible Fear Determinations and Odds Derived From
Them for Countries With the Larger Number of Credible Fear Cases Within
Regions
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 97 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Region/ Country Not recanted Recanted Total Odds on
recanting Positive determination Negative
determination Total Odds on
negative determination Former Soviet Bloc Nations
Albania 298 10 308 0.034 280 18 298 0.064 Yugoslavia 199 2 201 0.010 198 1
199 0.005
Other 203 33 236 0.163 187 16 203 0.086 Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
We analyzed a database (which we shall refer to as the removal database)
that contained information on the results of removal hearings for aliens who
were found by an asylum officer to have a credible fear of persecution or
torture between April 1, 1997, and September 30, 1999.
INS and Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) staff created the
removal database by merging selected data fields from INS' APSS with data
from the EOIR Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review (ANSIR),
using the applicant's INS- assigned number (A- number). The APSS database
contains information on all cases referred to asylum officers for credible
fear interviews. The ANSIR database tracks cases handled by immigration
judges and appeals handled by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is a
unit in EOIR. Each EOIR field location is to enter and validate case data in
its local database daily. The nationwide database also is updated with these
data daily. The ANSIR system includes several built- in data edit checks to
prevent the entry of inappropriate or missing values.
The removal database contained selected fields from the APSS database for
all aliens for whom asylum officers had made a credible fear decision
(either positive or negative), and for all aliens whose cases were still
pending, as of October 20, 1999. The APSS fields included (1) A- number, (2)
alien's last name, first name and middle name, and (3) the date of the
asylum officer's credible fear decision. The removal database contained
several data fields from the ANSIR database, which was current as of
February 22, 2000. The ANSIR fields included A- number; alien's nationality;
whether the alien filed an application for asylum; dates and locations of
any hearings before an immigration judge; whether the alien requested a
change of location for such hearings; whether the alien was detained or
released as of the alien's specific hearing date; and the results of the
hearings, including whether the alien was present for the hearings, and
Analysis of Data From
Removal Hearings for Aliens Found to Have a Credible Fear of Persecution or
Torture
Characteristics of the Removal Database
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 98 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
whether the immigration judge granted asylum or other relief from removal or
issued a formal removal order.
The removal database contained data on 10,253 separate A- numbers. Because
the ANSIR system tracks the results of proceedings, or hearings, before
immigration judges, some individual A- numbers had information from multiple
hearings. Therefore, there were 17,256 separate records in the removal
database, each containing information on the results of a single hearing
that ended in what EOIR calls a “completion.” 3 For example, one
alien may have requested and received a change of location on the first
hearing and received a removal order from the immigration judge on the next
hearing. This alien would then have two records in the ANSIR system (and in
the removal database), each containing identifying information on the alien
and information pertaining to each separate hearing. In another example, an
alien may have received a removal order on the first hearing and might have
left the country without appealing the decision. There would be only one
record in the removal database for this individual. Thus there were more
records in the removal database than the number of Anumbers in the APSS
database.
After aggregating the removal database by A- number, there were 10, 253
unique A- numbers in the removal database that had at least some identifying
information from the APSS database, such as the A- number, name, and (in
most cases) the date of the asylum officer's credible fear determination.
However, for 1,000 cases there was no matched information from the EOIR
ANSIR system. Therefore, these cases from INS could not be matched with the
EOIR data. As a result, we omitted them from our analyses.
Of the 9, 253 cases remaining in the removal database for which there was
information from both APSS and ANSIR, we excluded some A- numbers
(individual cases) and some hearings (individual records), which were not
relevant to our analysis. These cases included the following:
� Records of hearings that predated the expedited removal process. Though
all aliens in the APSS database had been referred to an asylum officer
3 Completions include (1) decisions by an immigration judge to grant relief
from removal (including grants of asylum), issue a removal order, issue a
voluntary departure order, or terminate the case, with the option that INS
can reopen the removal process by filing other charges against the alien and
(2) cases that are administratively closed (when an alien fails to appear
for the hearing, but the judge believes that the alien was not properly
informed of the date and place of the hearing and does not want to issue a
removal order or other formal decision), cases that are transferred from one
hearing location to another, and cases where the alien requests a change of
location from one location to another. Sample selection
procedures
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 99 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
during the period in which expedited removal had been in effect (beginning
April 1, 1997), during the process of merging the databases all information
in ANSIR on a specific A- number would have been captured in the removal
database. In some cases, hearings before an immigration judge that predated
expedited removal would have been captured.
� Records of hearings that were not removal hearings for aliens who were
subject to expedited removal and had received positive credible fear
determinations by an asylum officer. The ANSIR database contained some
records of claimed status reviews, 4 asylum- only hearings, 5 and judges'
reviews of negative credible fear determinations by asylum officers. In
addition, the ANSIR database contained fields that record the charges that
INS had filed against the alien. All individuals who receive a positive
credible fear determination and are referred to removal hearings before an
immigration judge should have been charged with one of the following charges
under the INA that subject them to expedited removal: 212( a)( 6)( C)( i),
212( a)( 6)( C)( ii), 212( a)( 7)( A)( i)( I), 212( a)( 7)( A)( i)( II),
212( a)( 7)( B)( i)( I), and 212( a)( 7)( B)( i)( II). We excluded
individual cases that did not have the appropriate charge in any of the six
fields on any of their data records.
� We included only those cases where the asylum officer decision occurred
between April 1, 1997, and September 30, 1999. If an asylum officer decision
date was missing, we included an individual if the date of the Notice to
Appear (recorded by immigration court personnel in the ANSIR database)
occurred during this time period.
The resulting database contained data on 7, 947 individual A- numbers. Some
of these aliens had multiple records of hearings while other aliens had only
a single record.
For our analyses of the appearance rate of aliens who were released from
custody, we examined only those aliens who were never detained by INS after
the asylum officer's credible fear decision or those who were released at
some point during the hearing process before an immigration judge made a
final decision. Of the 7, 947 cases in the removal database, 5,320 (or 67
percent) were never detained or had been released at some point. The
remainder (2, 627) was detained throughout the removal hearing process.
4 These are hearings in which an arriving alien claims that he or she is a
United States citizen, refugee, asylee, or permanent resident and is
referred to an immigration judge for verification of identity. 5 These are
asylum hearings for alien crewmen and stowaways, who are not eligible for
removal hearings under the expedited removal process. Appearance Rates for
Aliens Released From Custody
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 100 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
To determine how many of the released aliens appeared for the removal
hearing, we examined only those cases where an immigration judge had reached
a decision on the alien's case. These were cases where the judge had decided
the alien was entitled to asylum or some other form of relief and could
remain in the country or were to be removed from the country with a removal
order or a voluntary departure order. Of the 5,320 released aliens,
immigration judges had reached decisions in 2,354 (or 44 percent) of the
cases. Immigration judges made in absentia rulings in 1, 003 of the 2,354
decisions. In 3 of the 1, 003 in absentia rulings, the alien was granted
some form of relief from removal. These 3 rulings have been eliminated from
the 2, 354 cases, since we do not know the basis for the immigration judges'
granting relief in absentia.
Of the 2, 351 decisions on released aliens' cases, 1,000 aliens (or 42
percent) were ordered removed in absentia (i. e., the judge believed that
there was sufficient evidence to determine that the alien was at fault for
not appearing for the hearing and ordered the alien removed from the
country). 6
In commenting on a draft of the report, EOIR officials confirmed that they
essentially agreed with our analysis and methodology which revealed that, as
of February 22, 2000, 42 percent of the aliens who had been released and had
a final decision by the court had not appeared for their removal hearing
before an immigration judge and had received a ruling in absentia. However,
the officials explained that the majority of the in absentia orders were
entered at the master calendar hearing stage, where the alien fails to
appear for his or her hearing. In addition, EOIR officials noted that cases
that are set for a merits hearing (i. e., for aliens who appear and wish to
pursue their claim) tend to be scheduled on average of 1 year from the
initial master calendar hearing date. Consequently, as more of the 5,320
cases are completed over time, a greater percentage of aliens will appear
for their hearing, which will result in a lower in absentia rate. Therefore,
cases closed from April 1, 1997, through fiscal year 1999 were aliens who
did not appear for their initial removal hearing and were ordered removed
from the United States at that time. Conversely, those cases that remained
open involved aliens who had appeared for their initial removal hearing and
were scheduled for subsequent merits hearings to determine if they
6 A judge could also make a decision to “terminate” a case. EOIR
officials stated that in these instances, the judge did not believe that
INS' charges against the alien could be supported. However, INS continues to
have the opportunity to bring these or other charges, against the alien. We
treated this category of cases as a pending decision, and did not include
these cases in the computation of percentages of released aliens who had
received a decision from a judge. If such cases are included, the percentage
of aliens who do not appear for their hearings and are ordered removed in
absentia drops from 42 to 38 percent.
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 101 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
should be granted relief from removal (e. g., granted asylum). Regarding the
case sample analyzed by us, EOIR determined that the failure to appear rate
was 34 percent, as of August 10, 2000. EOIR estimated that eventually the
failure to appear rate would be as low as 25 percent when all the cases will
be completed.
We also examined how many aliens requested a change of location for their
removal hearings. The ANSIR database recorded whether the result of a
hearing in front of an immigration judge was the granting of a change of
location to the alien. Of the 5,320 aliens who were not detained during the
hearing process or were released from INS custody at some point during the
process, 3,695 (69 percent) requested a change of location. Of those 3,695
aliens, 1,467 aliens had a decision by an immigration judge. Of the 1,467
aliens, 557 aliens (or 38 per cent) were ordered removed in absentia because
they failed to appear for their removal hearings.
To determine whether aliens who claimed to have a fear of persecution or
torture pursued their claim of asylum, we reviewed the rate at which
claimants filed applications for asylum. Generally, these aliens have 1 year
from their arrival to file an application showing their intent to request
asylum.
The removal database did not contain a record of the date of the alien's
arrival in the country, so we used as a proxy the date when the Notice to
Appear in front of the immigration judge was signed by the asylum officer.
This date was recorded in the ANSIR database, and data for this field were
not missing for any of the aliens. The ANSIR database also contained a
record of the date when the alien filed the asylum application. If more than
one date was recorded, we used the earliest date. We then computed, for each
alien, the length of time between the date the Notice to Appear was signed
and the date the first asylum application was filed. We examined how many
aliens missed the 1- year filing deadline, for those cases where a specific
date of filing was recorded. For a number of aliens, however, no date was
recorded in the asylum application field. In these cases, we computed the
number of aliens who had not filed an asylum application as of February 22,
2000 (the date for which the ANSIR database was current) and had been in the
United States for more than 1 year (as measured by the date of the Notice to
Appear). Because of our decision to use the Notice to Appear date, the
computed time period was likely an underestimate of the actual time from
entry into the country to filing of the asylum application and thus was a
conservative test of how many aliens filed the asylum application within the
1 year deadline. Requests for Change of
Location Number of Aliens Who Filed Applications for Asylum
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 102 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Since the inception of the expedited removal program on April 1, 1997,
through fiscal year 1999, of 7,947 aliens, 3,140 aliens had not filed for
asylum in cases when asylum officers had determined that the aliens had a
credible fear of persecution or torture. Of those who had not filed, 1,338
(or 42 percent) of 3,140 aliens missed the 1- year required filing deadline;
and as a result, they generally may not be able to file for asylum. 7
We examined INS' management controls over the expedited removal process,
including whether inspectors and asylum officers documented that they asked
required questions of aliens, and whether INS documented that supervisory
review had occurred. The first file review, which we conducted at the four
ports we visited, was of INS files on aliens who were subject to the
expedited removal process but were not referred for a credible fear
interview. The second file review, which was conducted at the three asylum
offices we visited, was of files on aliens who recanted their claims of fear
of persecution or torture or those who were determined not to have a
credible fear of persecution or torture.
We developed a data collection instrument for use in extracting information
from the files. All the information was obtained from working case files on
aliens provided to us at the ports of entry or the asylum offices. We relied
exclusively on the information in the files, and we were unable to determine
the accuracy of the information in the files. Therefore, our results cannot
distinguish between a failure to ask a question in an interview and a
failure to document that a question was asked.
We reviewed only those files that were for aliens who attempted to enter the
United States in fiscal year 1999. For the file review of aliens who were
subject to expedited removal, we randomly selected case files (probability
samples) at each of the four locations we visited from INS databases
covering aliens found inadmissible at the ports of entry. At each location,
we randomly selected case files from two populations of aliens subject to
expedited removal:
� aliens who were ordered removed from the country and
� aliens who were allowed to withdraw their applications for admission. At
Los Angeles International Airport, we used a port- specific database to
select our cases, because at the time of our selection, INS' national
database was missing several months of data and had not yet been updated. At
Miami International Airport and New York's John F. Kennedy
7 Other forms of relief from removal from the United States may be
available, including asylum as a result of provisions other than those
provided for by expedited removal. File Review
Methodology and Sampling Errors
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 103 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Airports (JFK) we used INS' national database on aliens found inadmissible
at the country's airports. At the San Ysidro, CA port we used a port-
specific database on aliens found inadmissible at the port. At San Ysidro,
we did not review files of aliens who were allowed to withdraw their
applications for admissions, because the port did not create files for, and
assign A- numbers to, the vast majority of these aliens. The samples
selected at these locations were large enough to allow us to make estimates
with a reasonable degree of accuracy to all individuals entering each
location during the 1999 fiscal year who were subject to expedited removal
and were not referred for a credible fear interview.
Tables III. 4 and III. 5, respectively, provide a description of the
populations and sampling frames for the file reviews of (1) 365 randomly
selected case files for aliens who were subject to expedited removal and
were ordered removed and (2) 220 randomly selected case files for aliens who
were subject to expedited removal and were allowed to withdraw their
applications for admission, at each of the locations we visited where case
files were kept.
JFK Los Angeles Miami San Ysidro Total
Population 2,248 1,256 796 43,491 47,791 Sample 94 90 85 96 365 Source: INS
data and GAO sample.
JFK Los Angeles Miami Total
Population 380 724 507 1,611 Sample 78 81 61 220 Note: We did not examine
withdrawals at San Ysidro because the port did not create and retain case
files in the vast majority of instances where withdrawals were allowed. The
port only creates these files and issues A- numbers to the aliens subject to
expedited removal who withdraw when, for example, the alien is charged with
being involved in criminal activities or claims eligibility for a specific
immigration benefit, such as marriage to a U. S. citizen. According to data
from the San Ysidro port of entry, 11,782 withdrawals were issued in fiscal
year 1999, but alien numbers were issued in only 237 of these cases.
Source: INS data and GAO sample.
For the file review of aliens who recanted their fear of persecution or
torture or whom INS found not to have a credible fear of persecution or
torture, we selected case files at the three locations we visited, using
INS' APSS database. For aliens who recanted their fear of persecution or
torture, we randomly selected case files at the three locations. Table III.
6 provides a description of the populations and sampling frames for the file
Table III. 4: File Review Populations and Samples for the Four Ports of
Entry of Aliens Who Were Subject to Expedited Removal and Were Ordered
Removed From the United States, Fiscal Year 1999
Table III. 5: File Review Populations and Samples for the Three Ports of
Entry of Aliens Who Were Subject to Expedited Removal and Were Allowed to
Withdraw Their Applications for Entry, Fiscal Year 1999
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 104 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
review of 133 randomly selected case files for aliens who recanted their
fear of persecution or torture.
Los Angeles Miami New York Total
Population 58 79 95 232 Sample 40 45 48 133 Source: INS data and GAO sample.
For aliens whom INS determined not to have a credible fear of persecution or
torture, we reviewed all the case files, because of the small number of
negative determinations during this period. The number of case files
reviewed was 24 in Los Angeles, 13 in Miami, and 8 in New York. Our results
cannot be projected to other locations or to other time frames.
Where we used random sampling at the four ports of entry and the three
asylum offices, the results obtained for these file reviews are subject to
some uncertainty or sampling error. The sampling error can be expressed in
terms of confidence levels and ranges. The confidence level indicates the
degree of confidence that can be placed in the estimates derived from the
sample. The range is a pair of values derived from the sample data, an upper
and lower limit, between which the actual population values might be found.
Our samples were designed so that the sampling error would not be greater
than 10 percentage points at the 95- percent confidence level. Thus, if all
cases in our population for a particular port of entry or asylum office had
been examined, the chances are 95 out of 100 that the results obtained would
be included in the range formed by adding or subtracting 10 percentage
points from the sample estimates. In this report, all sampling errors fall
within this range, unless otherwise noted.
In addition to the reported sampling errors, the practical difficulties of
conducting any file review may introduce other types of errors, commonly
referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how two
reviewers interpret a question, or in the ways in which two INS inspectors
or asylum officers provided file documentation, can introduce unwanted
variability into the results. We included steps in both the data collection
and data analysis stages to minimize such nonsampling errors. We developed
and pretested our data collection instrument in consultation with INS
officials, and we conducted training with all of our staff who would be
conducting the reviews. During the review process, we reviewed a small
subset of our completed forms to ensure consistency in the way
Table III. 6: File Review Populations and Samples for the Three Asylum
Offices of Aliens Who Recanted Their Fear of Persecution or Torture, Fiscal
Year 1999
Appendix III Scope, Methodology, and Additional Results of Analysis
Page 105 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
they were being filled out. We verified all data entry of the data
collection instruments as well as all the programming used in the analyses.
In addition to the possible nonsampling errors that could affect our file
review results, our ability to generalize from our observations of the
process at the ports, asylum offices, immigration courts, and detention
facilities was limited by:
� the randomness of the time and location for the arrival of aliens who
would have been subject to the expedited removal process at secondary
inspection,
� scheduling changes, including delays and postponement of a credible fear
interview with an asylum officer and negative credible fear review before an
immigration judge, and
� the detention facilities selected for our observations and the unknown
degree to which they may or may not represent conditions at other facilities
or at these facilities at other points in time. In addition, planning such
observations had to be done in conjunction with our field visits. Due to the
limited number of interviews, credible fear reviews, and facilities we were
able to observe, our observation data are not generalizable to all aliens
subject to the expedited removal process or to all detention facilities.
Furthermore, we do not know if our presence affected the behavior of the
individuals whom we observed.
We did our review from August 1999 to July 2000 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Nonsampling Error
Affecting Observational Data Collected During Site Visits
Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 106 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Richard M. Stana, (202) 512- 8777 James M. Blume, (202) 512- 8777
In addition to the names above, Bonnie D. Hall, Daniel R. Garcia, Tom
Jessor, Carla D. Brown, Samuel L. Hinojosa, Brian J. Lipman, Ann H. Finley,
Wendy Ahmed, Catherine M. Hurley, Michelle A. Sager. Barry J. Seltser,
Douglas M. Sloane, Michael H. Little, Lessie M. Burke, Tracy J. Harris,
Donna M. Leiss, Laura G. Shumway, and Larry D. Harrell made key
contributions to this report. GAO Contacts
Acknowledgments
Page 107 GAO/ GGD- 00- 176 Improve Expedited Removal Process
Ordering Copies of GAOReports The first copy of each GAO report and
testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to
the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the
Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit
cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a
single address are discounted 25 percent.
Order by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
DC 20013
or visit: Room 1100 700 4 th St. NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) U. S.
General Accounting Office Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512- 6000 or by using fax number
(202) 512- 6061, or TDD (202) 512- 2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.
Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet For information on how to access GAO
reports on the INTERNET, send e- mail message with “info” in the
body to:
info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at: http:// www.
gao. gov Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs To contact
GAO FraudNET use: Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm
E- Mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Telephone: 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated
answering system)
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate
Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. G100
(183627)
*** End of document. ***