Illegal Aliens: Changes in the Process of Denying Aliens Entry Into the
United States (Chapter Report, 03/31/98, GAO/GGD-98-81).
Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, focusing
on: (1) how the expedited removal process and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) procedures to implement it are different
from the process and procedures used to exclude aliens before the act;
(2) the implementation and results of the process for making credible
fear determinations during the 7 months following April 1, 1997; and (3)
the mechanisms that INS established to monitor expedited removals and
credible fear determinations and to further improve these processes.
GAO noted that: (1) two major differences between the exclusion process
used before the act and its expedited removal process are INS
inspectors' authority to issue the expedited removal order and the
aliens' limited right of review of that order; (2) other changes
included an increased penalty for inadmissible aliens, including those
subject to expedited removal, and a more structured inspection process
for expedited removal than for exclusion; (3) at the five locations GAO
visited, INS estimated that the amount of time it took inspectors to
complete the expedited removal process was greater than the amount of
time used to complete the steps required of INS inspectors in the
previous exclusion process; (4) this increased time by INS inspectors
could be offset by reductions in time by immigration judges who no
longer make these decisions; (5) during the first 7 months that the
expedited removal process was in place, 29,170 aliens attempted to enter
the country and were placed in expedited removal; (6) INS inspectors
referred 1,396 of these aliens to asylum officers for credible fear
interviews; (7) as of December 1997, almost all of the approximately
27,800 remaining aliens had been removed from the United States; (8) at
the five locations it visited, GAO reviewed documentation in randomly
selected case files of aliens subject to expedited removal; (9) the
results of this review showed that between an estimated 80 percent and
100 percent of the time INS inspectors and supervisors documented that
they followed certain INS procedures; (10) these documented procedures
included activities such as supervisors' review of inspectors' removal
orders and inspectors' asking aliens specific questions about their fear
of being returned to their home country or country of last residence;
(11) of the 1,396 aliens referred to asylum officers for credible fear
determinations, asylum officers completed interviews with 1,108 and
found that 79 percent had a credible fear; (12) immigration judges
received 198 cases to review asylum officers' negative credible fear
determinations between April 1 and October 31, 1997; (13) the judges
affirmed the asylum officers' determinations in 83 percent of these
cases; (14) INS has developed or is in the process of developing
mechanisms to monitor the expedited removal procedures, including the
credible fear determinations; and (15) INS has made changes to its
processes on the basis of concerns raised by these internal reviewers
and outside organizations.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-98-81
TITLE: Illegal Aliens: Changes in the Process of Denying Aliens
Entry Into the United States
DATE: 03/31/98
SUBJECT: Immigration and naturalization law
Deportation
Illegal aliens
Eligibility determinations
Law enforcement
Immigrants
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** 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. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Committees
March 1998
ILLEGAL ALIENS - CHANGES IN THE
PROCESS OF DENYING ALIENS ENTRY
INTO THE UNITED STATES
GAO/GGD-98-81
Process of Denying Aliens Entry
(183608)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
BIA - Board of Immigration Appeals
EOIR - Executive Office for Immigration Review
FRCP - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
INA - Immigration and Nationality Act
INS - Immigration and Naturalization Service
JFK - John Fitzgerald Kennedy International Airport
OIA - Office of Internal Audit
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-275638
March 31, 1998
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Chairman
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde
Chairman
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996 was enacted September 30, 1996. Among other things, this act
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 who arrive
with fraudulent, improper, or no documents (e.g., visa or passport).
The new process went into effect on April 1, 1997, and reduces
aliens' rights to seek review of an inadmissibility decision. 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.
This report addresses (1) how the expedited removal process and
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) procedures to implement
it are different from the process and procedures used to exclude
aliens before the 1996 Act; (2) the implementation and results of the
process for making credible fear determinations during the 7 months
following April 1, 1997; and (3) the mechanisms that INS established
to monitor expedited removals and credible fear determinations and to
further improve these processes. It also provides information on
INS' and immigration judges' estimates of costs to implement the
expedited removal process and the time required to adjudicate
expedited removal cases and credible fear determinations.
Copies of this report are being sent to the Attorney General; the
Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested
parties. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
IX. 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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0
PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996 (the 1996 Act) amended the Immigration and Nationality Act. The
1996 Act included provisions establishing a new 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 who arrive with
fraudulent, improper, or no documents (e.g., visa or passport). This
process, which is called expedited removal, gives Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) officers, instead of immigration judges,
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 and express a fear of being persecuted or tortured if they
are 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 expedited removal process
went into effect on April 1, 1997.
The 1996 Act requires GAO to report on the implementation of this new
process. This report responds to that requirement by describing (1)
how the expedited removal process and INS procedures to implement it
are different from the process and procedures used to exclude aliens
before the 1996 Act; (2) the implementation and results of the
process for making credible fear determinations during the 7 months
following April 1, 1997; and (3) the mechanisms that INS established
to monitor expedited removals and credible fear determinations and to
further improve these processes. GAO also provides information on
INS' and immigration judges' estimates of costs to implement the
expedited removal process and the time required to adjudicate
expedited removal cases and credible fear determinations.
BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2
Aliens who want to be admitted to the United States at a port of
entry generally are to present documents to INS inspectors that show
the aliens are authorized to enter. INS can prohibit aliens from
entering the United States for a number of reasons (e.g., criminal
activity or failing to have a valid visa or passport).
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 the illegal aliens once they 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.
Before the 1996 Act, aliens who attempted to enter the United States
by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or who arrived with
fraudulent, improper, or no documents could be formally ordered
removed only by an immigration judge through a process called an
exclusion hearing. With the passage of the 1996 Act, INS inspectors
can issue formal removal orders (which are called expedited removal
orders), instead of immigration judges, 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 required information and to ask the aliens specific
questions, including questions on whether the aliens have a fear of
being returned to their home country or country of last residence.
With few exceptions, aliens cannot request an immigration judge's
review of the INS inspectors' removal decisions. However, before the
orders are issued, supervisors are to review the inspectors' removal
decision.
The purpose of having the inspector ask aliens questions about a fear
of being returned is to identify aliens who may have a credible fear
of persecution and, thus, may be eligible for asylum. Inspectors
also are to pursue any other indications from the aliens that they
have such a fear. If aliens exhibit a fear of return, inspectors are
to refer the alien to an asylum officer for a credible fear
interview. The purpose of this interview is to identify aliens whose
asylum claims have a significant possibility of succeeding. The
asylum officers are to provide required information to aliens and
obtain specific information from aliens that is related to their
having a credible fear of persecution and being subjected to torture.
In all cases, a supervisor is to review the asylum officers' credible
fear determinations.
Aliens whom the asylum officers find to have a credible fear are to
be referred to an immigration judge for a removal proceeding. The
judge is to decide during this proceeding whether the aliens' asylum
claims warrant their 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 immigration
judge agrees with the asylum officer's negative credible fear
determination, 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 determination, the alien then can apply for asylum
before an immigration judge through the removal proceeding process.
In doing its study, GAO reviewed INS' and immigration courts' data
and records to obtain nationwide information about aliens attempting
to enter the United States before and after the 1996 Act. GAO
visited 5 judgmentally selected locations that handled about half of
the 29,170 expedited removal cases between April 1, 1997, and October
31, 1997. At these 5 locations, GAO (1) reviewed 434 randomly
selected case files so that estimates could be made about all of the
expedited removal cases in these locations between May 1 and July 31,
1997, that did not go on to a credible fear determination interview
and (2) observed a limited number of INS inspectors' interviews with
aliens, asylum officers' credible fear determinations, and
immigration judges' reviews of negative credible fear determinations.
In addition, GAO reviewed all 84 negative credible fear determination
case files nationwide for aliens who attempted to enter the United
States between May 1 and July 31, 1997. GAO also met with Department
of Justice officials and representatives from nongovernmental
organizations who are knowledgeable about the expedited removal
process.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3
Two major differences between the exclusion process used before the
1996 Act and the act's expedited removal process are INS inspectors'
authority to issue the expedited removal order and the aliens'
limited right of review of that order. Other changes included an
increased penalty for inadmissible aliens, including those subject to
expedited removal, and a more structured inspection process for
expedited removal than for the previous exclusion process. Also,
generally at the five locations GAO visited, INS estimated that the
amount of time its inspectors took to complete the expedited removal
process was greater than the amount of time used to complete the
steps required of INS inspectors in the exclusion process. The
increase in time was due, in part, to the additional steps required
of INS inspectors in the expedited removal process. This increased
time by INS inspectors could be offset by reductions in time by
immigration judges who no longer make these removal decisions.
During the first 7 months that the expedited removal process was in
place, 29,170 aliens attempted to enter the country and were placed
in expedited removal. INS inspectors referred 1,396 of these aliens
to asylum officers for credible fear interviews. As of December
1997, almost all of the approximately 27,800 remaining aliens had
been removed from the United States. At the five locations it
visited, GAO reviewed documentation in randomly selected case files
of aliens subject to expedited removal (but were not referred for a
credible fear interview) between May 1 and July 31, 1997. The
results of this review showed that between an estimated 80 percent
and 100 percent of the time INS inspectors and supervisors documented
that they followed certain INS procedures. These documented
procedures included activities such as supervisors' review of
inspectors' removal orders and inspectors' asking aliens specific
questions about their fear of being returned to their home country or
country of last residence.
Of the 1,396 aliens referred to asylum officers for credible fear
determinations, asylum officers completed interviews with 1,108 as of
November 13, 1997, and found that 79 percent had a credible fear.
Immigration judges received 198 cases to review asylum officers'
negative credible fear determinations between April 1 and October 31,
1997. The judges affirmed the asylum officers' determinations in 83
percent of these cases. GAO's nationwide review of all 84 negative
credible fear determination case files between May 1 and July 31,
1997, and 9 observations made during visits to the 5 locations,
showed that asylum officers generally documented that they followed
INS procedures. However, some case files indicated that the asylum
officers did not document reading certain required information to the
alien.
INS has developed or is in the process of developing mechanisms to
monitor the expedited removal procedures, including the credible fear
determinations. These mechanisms include creating an Expedited
Removal Working Group to visit locations and address problems,
creating a quality assurance team at headquarters to review selected
credible fear files, and meeting with nongovernmental organizations
to discuss issues and concerns. INS has made changes to its
processes on the basis of concerns raised by these internal reviewers
and outside organizations.
GAO'S ANALYSIS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
EXCLUSION AND EXPEDITED
REMOVAL PROCESSES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1
The 1996 Act and the implementation of the expedited removal
provision affected immigration proceedings in numerous ways. A major
difference between the exclusion process in place before the 1996 Act
and the expedited removal process is that under the exclusion
process, aliens could have received a hearing before an immigration
judge to determine their eligibility for entry into the United
States. Furthermore, under the exclusion process, aliens had the
right to appeal the immigration judges' decisions not to allow them
to enter the country to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Aliens
also could appeal an adverse decision by the Board through the
federal courts. However, the federal court's review was limited to
whether the government followed established procedures. Under the
expedited removal process, INS inspectors can issue removal orders to
aliens, and aliens cannot request an immigration judge's review of
the INS' decisions, with few exceptions. (See pp. 35 and 36.)
Other changes resulting from the 1996 Act or its implementation
include the following:
-- The penalty for aliens who are found inadmissible to the United
States, including those subject to expedited removal, generally
was increased from a 1-year reentry prohibition before the 1996
Act to a 5-year prohibition after the 1996 Act. (See p. 36.)
-- INS developed specific procedures for inspectors to follow when
processing aliens subject to expedited removal. These
procedures include specific steps for (1) advising aliens of
their rights and the consequences of the expedited removal
process, (2) taking a sworn statement from the alien that is to
include all pertinent facts of the case, and (3) obtaining
supervisory review of inspectors' decisions. Furthermore, INS
inspectors now have additional responsibility for identifying
aliens who fear being returned to their home country or country
of last residence and for referring these aliens to an asylum
officer for a credible fear interview. (See pp. 36 and 37.)
-- INS estimates that the changes in INS' procedures resulting from
the 1996 Act generally increased the average time needed by
inspectors to process affected aliens at the five locations GAO
visited. Specifically, for cases not involving a credible fear
referral, the estimated average time needed to process cases
increased between 30 minutes and 2 hours at three locations, and
the time generally remained the same at the other two locations.
Times involved in steps in the pre-1996 exclusion process that
are no longer applicable were not included in GAO's analysis.
(See pp. 37 and 38.)
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
EXPEDITED REMOVAL PROCEDURES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2
Between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, INS data showed that
29,170 aliens were processed under the expedited removal procedures,
which includes 1,396 aliens who were referred for a credible fear
interview and 27,774 aliens who were not referred for a credible fear
interview. Almost all of the 27,774 aliens were removed from the
United States, as of December 15, 1997. (See pp. 40 and 41.)
GAO's reviews of case file documentation indicated a range of
compliance with certain aspects of the required expedited removal
processes at the five locations. For example, case file
documentation indicated that in almost all instances aliens signed
their sworn statement, as required. The files showed, however, that
at four of the locations inspectors did not always document that they
asked aliens all three of the required questions to determine if the
aliens had a fear of returning to their home country or country of
last residence. The inspectors did not document that they asked at
least one of the required questions between an estimated 1 and 18
percent of the time at these locations. The case files also had
documentation that supervisors reviewed the expedited removal orders
in an estimated 80 to 100 percent of the cases at the five locations.
(See pp. 42 through 44.)
An INS official said that INS, through its monitoring efforts, also
has identified case files that did not document that these processes
occurred. She added that INS reiterated to field offices that the
required questions must be asked and that supervisors must review the
orders. In addition, the case files are to contain documentation
that these questions were asked and that the review was done. (See
pp. 43 and 44.)
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
CREDIBLE FEAR PROCESS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3
INS inspectors referred 1,396 aliens who attempted to enter the
United States between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, to an
asylum officer for a credible fear interview. Asylum officers
completed interviews for 1,108 of these aliens as of November 13,
1997, and found that 79 percent had a credible fear of persecution.
The percentage of aliens whom asylum officers determined to have a
credible fear ranged by asylum office from 59 to 93 percent. In 198
cases between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, aliens requested
that an immigration judge review the asylum officers' negative
credible fear determinations. The judges affirmed the asylum
officers' negative credible fear determinations in about 83 percent
of these cases. (See pp. 48, 49, and 51.)
GAO's review of all of the 84 negative credible fear determination
case files nationwide for a 3-month period showed that asylum
officers generally documented that they followed procedures for
determining an alien's credible fear of persecution. However, asylum
officers did not consistently document in the case files that they
followed procedures for providing the aliens information regarding
torture. The case files showed that asylum officers marked on the
record of interview that (1) in 83 cases, they read the required
paragraphs regarding the aliens' fear of persecution and (2) in 81
cases, they informed the aliens of their right to have an immigration
judge review a negative credible fear determination. In 19 cases,
the asylum officers did not mark that they read the paragraph on
torture. Of the nine credible fear interviews that GAO attended,
asylum officers generally followed INS' procedures regarding credible
fear interviews, including reading the required information on
torture. An INS official said that INS has reiterated to its asylum
officers that they are to ask the torture questions in the credible
fear interview. (See pp. 49 and 50.)
INS EFFORTS TO MONITOR THE
EXPEDITED REMOVAL PROCESS,
INCLUDING THE CREDIBLE FEAR
PROCESS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.4
INS has developed or is in the process of developing mechanisms to
monitor the expedited removal process, which includes the credible
fear determination process. For example, INS established an
Expedited Removal Working Group to identify and address policy
questions, procedural and logistical problems, and quality assurance
concerns related to the expedited removal process. INS' Asylum
Office established a quality assurance team at headquarters to review
selected credible fear case files. The purposes of the case file
reviews are to analyze decisions in individual cases, provide
feedback to applicable asylum officers, and identify trends or
patterns on the basis of the reviews. In addition, INS' Office of
Internal Audit has incorporated into its field audit program,
criteria for reviewing compliance with the expedited removal
procedures. (See pp. 53 and 54.)
INS also has met periodically with nongovernmental organizations to
discuss issues related to the expedited removal process, including
the credible fear process. Several nongovernmental organizations
raised general concerns regarding the expedited removal process and
identified specific problems that aliens said they encountered when
they arrived at ports of entry. (See pp. 54 and 55.)
On the basis of concerns raised by INS internal reviewers and outside
organizations, INS has made or is making changes to its processes and
continues to monitor compliance with its policies and procedures.
(See p. 56.)
RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5
Since INS has established mechanisms to monitor and improve the
expedited removal process and has taken steps to address the
documentation problems GAO identified, GAO is making no
recommendations in this report.
AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6
We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review
and comment. On March 16, 1998, we met with Department of Justice
officials, including INS' Director, International Affairs, to obtain
Justice's comments. Overall, the officials stated that the report
was accurate and fair. They also provided technical comments, which
have been incorporated in this report where appropriate.
INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1
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 new 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 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 the illegal aliens once they 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.
Several legal services organizations and individual aliens have
challenged the constitutionality of the expedited removal process
established by the 1996 Act (see app. I for a discussion of these
court cases). These suits claim, among other things, that the
expedited removal process denies substantive and procedural rights to
asylum seekers; creates an unreasonably high risk of erroneous
removals of citizens, lawful permanent residents, and other holders
of valid visas; denies the organizations' First Amendment right of
access to aliens applying for entry into the United States; and may
not be correctly applied to unaccompanied minors. As of March 15,
1998, these cases were pending in federal court.
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 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.
--------------------
\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 1:1
Before the 1996 Act, aliens who wanted to be admitted to the United
States at a port of entry were required to establish admissibility to
an inspector. This requirement remains applicable under the 1996
Act. INS has about 4,500 inspectors and about 260 staffed ports of
entry. Generally, aliens provide inspectors with documents that show
they are authorized to enter this country. At this primary
inspection, the INS inspector either permits the aliens to enter or
sends the aliens for a more detailed review of their documents or
further questioning by another INS inspector. The 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 a number of
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 even though they do not meet the requirements for entry
or (2) withdraw their applications for admission and depart.
EXCLUSION PROCESS BEFORE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1996
ACT
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1.1
Before the April 1, 1997, enactment of the expedited removal process,
the INA authorized the Attorney General to exclude certain aliens
from admission into the United States. Aliens whom inspectors
determined to be excludable from this country generally were allowed
either to (1) return voluntarily to the country from which they came
or (2) appear for an exclusion hearing before an immigration judge.
During this hearing, aliens who said they had a fear of persecution
if they were returned to their home country could file an application
for asylum. The immigration judges' decisions could be appealed to
EOIR's Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which is a quasi-judicial
body that hears appeals of INS' and immigration judges' decisions.
Furthermore, the alien could appeal BIA's decision through the
federal court system. The scope of the federal court's review was
limited to whether the government followed established procedures.
Aliens who were excluded from entering the United States under this
process generally were barred from reentering this country for 1
year. The exclusion process is discussed in more detail in chapter
2.
From April 1, 1996, to October 31, 1996, the monthly average number
of aliens who INS (1) inspected at U.S. ports of entry\3 was about
27.1 million; (2) referred to secondary inspection was about 780,000;
and (3) did not admit into this country was about 63,250.
--------------------
\3 These inspections were done at primary inspection.
EXPEDITED REMOVAL PROCESS
AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
1996 ACT
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1.2
Under the 1996 Act, an INS inspector, instead of an immigration
judge, 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
Aliens who are issued an expedited removal order generally are barred
from reentering this country for 5 years.
The expedited removal provision also established a new process for
aliens who express a fear of being returned to their home country and
who are subject to expedited removal. Inspectors are to refer such
aliens to INS asylum officers for an interview to determine whether
the aliens have a credible fear of persecution 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.
INS has a cadre of 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. The expedited removal process is discussed in more
detail in chapter 2, and the credible fear process is discussed
further in chapter 3.
From April 1, 1997, to October 31, 1997, the monthly average number
of aliens who INS (1) inspected at ports of entry was about 28.9
million;\5 (2) referred to secondary inspection was about 608,000;
and (3) did not admit was about 56,500.
--------------------
\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 These inspections were done at primary inspection.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2
The 1996 Act requires us to study the implementation of the expedited
removal process, including credible fear determinations, and report
to the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary. We address the
following aspects of the exclusion and expedited removal processes in
this report:
-- how the expedited removal process and INS procedures to
implement it are different from the process and procedures used
to exclude aliens before the 1996 Act;
-- the implementation and results of the process for making
credible fear determinations during the 7 months following April
1, 1997; and
-- the mechanisms that INS established to monitor expedited
removals and credible fear determinations and to further improve
these processes.
We also provide information on INS' and EOIR's estimates of costs to
implement the expedited removal process and the time required to
adjudicate expedited removal cases and credible fear determinations.
We did our work at INS and EOIR headquarters offices and INS field
locations at five U.S. ports of entry--two land ports and three
airports. These five locations had about 50 percent of the expedited
removal cases during the first 7 months after the 1996 Act was
implemented. We judgmentally selected these 5 of the about 260
staffed ports to include a large number of entries by aliens,
geographically diverse areas, and the 2 major types of ports of entry
(land ports and airports). We selected San Ysidro (CA), as a
southern land port; Niagara Falls (NY), as a northern land port; and
Miami International, Los Angeles International, and John Fitzgerald
Kennedy International (JFK) Airports. According to INS, these ports
were expected to have large volumes of expedited removal orders, and
the airports were anticipated to have a large number of credible fear
referrals. We discussed these selections with INS officials who said
that the ports should provide us with a reasonable representation of
its implementation of the new law. Although we visited the Niagara
Falls land port, we included in some of our analyses, data for the
entire Buffalo district, which includes the Niagara Falls land port.
We selected the three asylum offices at which we did our field
work--New York, Miami, and Los Angeles--because they conducted
credible fear interviews for four (Los Angeles, JFK, Miami, and San
Ysidro) of the five ports we visited. The Newark (NJ) asylum office
conducted credible fear interviews for the Buffalo District Office.
Because Newark was not one of the five ports we included in our
review, we decided not to increase our audit costs by adding another
location. We did our fieldwork related to EOIR at four of the
immigration courts--Wackenhut (New York City), Krome (Miami), San
Pedro (Los Angeles), and El Centro (El Centro, CA)--which held
reviews of negative credible fear determinations for aliens who
attempted entry at the ports we visited. We selected these four
courts because they were near the ports of entry included in our
review.
We limited the data on removal of aliens before April 1, 1997, to the
airports because INS did not maintain nationwide data on the reasons
aliens were not admitted into the United States. However, the
individual airports maintained data on the reasons for aliens'
inadmissibility into the country. Therefore, we analyzed the data
for the Miami, Los Angeles, and JFK airports to determine the aliens'
dispositions.
To present disposition data on aliens who were subject to the
expedited removal process since April 1, 1997, we obtained data from
INS on aliens who were processed under expedited removal but were not
referred for a credible fear interview, both nationwide and for the
five ports in our study.
To develop data on inspectors' completion of required forms,
background information about the aliens, and the length of the
expedited removal process from the day the alien attempted to enter
the country to the day the alien was removed, we reviewed probability
samples\6 of 434 files for aliens who entered the expedited removal
process but were not referred for a credible fear interview. This
effort consisted of five separate reviews of individuals entering the
country between May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997, at the five locations
we visited and individuals who were processed through the expedited
removal process.
To obtain data on the time needed to adjudicate cases before and
after expedited removal, we asked INS and EOIR officials to estimate
the time required for different steps in the adjudication process,
including credible fear determinations, for the locations included in
our study.
To obtain estimates for the costs to INS and EOIR to implement the
expedited removal process, including the credible fear
determinations, we asked each agency to develop cost data.
To develop workload data related to the credible fear process that
went into effect on April 1, 1997, INS provided nationwide data.
These data included the number of credible fear interviews held and
the results of those interviews. EOIR provided data from a
nationwide database on the results of the negative credible fear
reviews conducted by the immigration judges. Also, we reviewed the
immigration judges' worksheets, for all cases in which they vacated
asylum officers' negative credible fear determinations, for the
period April 1, 1997, to August 31, 1997.
To determine, in part, whether it was documented that asylum officers
followed certain credible fear determination processes, we reviewed
all 84 files of negative credible fear determinations for the months
of May through July, 1997.
In addition, during our field visits we observed inspectors
processing 16 aliens through the expedited removal process, asylum
officers conducting 9 credible fear interviews, and immigration
judges holding 5 negative credible fear reviews in Miami, the only
location where reviews were conducted at the time of our visit.
We also met and/or talked with various nongovernmental organizations
(e.g., American Bar Association, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights,
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area,
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Amnesty
International, and American Civil Liberties Union) to discuss our
methodology and to get input on the types of data we should collect
through these observations and file reviews. Officials from these
organizations provided information on their concerns about the
expedited removal process, including credible fear determinations,
and provided information about specific problems they said were
encountered by aliens during the process.
To describe INS' controls to monitor and oversee the expedited
removal process, including credible fear determinations, we
interviewed INS officials at headquarters and locations we visited
and obtained data related to these activities.
More details on our objectives, scope, and methodology are in
appendix II of this report. Also included in appendix II is a
description of the databases we used and our efforts to assess these
databases' reliability.
We did our review from November 1996 to March 1998 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
--------------------
\6 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.
AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3
We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review
and comment. On March 16, 1998, we met with Department of Justice
officials, including INS' Director, International Affairs, to obtain
Justice's comments. Overall, the officials stated that the report
was accurate and fair. They also provided technical comments, which
have been incorporated in this report where appropriate.
THE EXCLUSION AND EXPEDITED
REMOVAL PROCESSES
============================================================ Chapter 2
The 1996 Act significantly changed INS' authority over the removal of
aliens requesting admission to the United States at ports of entry.
Previously, aliens could have a hearing before an immigration judge
and could appeal an immigration judge's decision ordering their
exclusion from this country through BIA and the federal courts. The
scope of the federal court's review was limited to whether the
government followed established procedures.
Generally, under the 1996 Act, aliens who attempt to enter the United
States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or who arrive
without proper documents are subject to an expedited removal order
from an INS inspector that the alien cannot appeal. The penalty for
inadmissible aliens, including those subject to expedited removal,
generally increased from the aliens' being prohibited from entry in
the United States for 1 year in the pre-1996 Act exclusion process to
being prohibited from entry for 5 years under the post-1996 Act
expedited removal process. Furthermore, inspectors have added
responsibility to identify aliens who have a fear of returning to
their home country. Under the expedited removal process, INS has
established more specific procedures to guide inspectors than it had
in the exclusion process used before the 1996 Act. Finally, the
inspections component of the expedited removal process has more steps
for INS inspectors than the exclusion process had and, therefore, INS
estimated it generally took more of the inspectors' time than the
exclusion process did at the locations we visited.
INS implemented the expedited removal process by issuing regulations
as well as specific guidance and training for its staff who would be
responsible for carrying out the process. Between April 1, 1997, and
October 31, 1997, INS data showed that 29,170 aliens went through the
expedited removal process, including 1,396 aliens who were referred
for a credible fear interview with an asylum officer. Documentation
in the INS files that we reviewed at five locations showed some
inconsistencies as to whether inspectors and supervisors were
documenting that they followed various steps in INS' expedited
removal process, such as signing key forms and asking required
questions. INS staff also have reviewed files and found that INS
inspectors and supervisors were not always documenting that they
followed INS procedures. INS officials told us that they have
reinforced with inspectors the need for proper documentation.
THE EXCLUSION PROCESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1
Before the implementation of the 1996 Act, aliens could be formally
ordered removed only by an immigration judge through an exclusion
hearing. If inspectors found that an alien was not admissible into
this country, options available to the inspector included allowing
the alien to withdraw his or her application for admission and
voluntarily depart, processing a waiver of inadmissibility, deferring
the inspection, paroling the alien into the United States (i.e., a
procedure used to temporarily admit an excludable alien into the
country for emergency reasons or when in the public interest), or
preparing the case for an exclusion hearing.\1 Figure 2.1 shows a
flowchart of the exclusion process that was used before the 1996 Act.
Figure 2.1: Flowchart of the
Exclusion Process Used Before
April 1, 1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Sources: Information provided in discussions with INS officials and
review of INS documentation.
As shown in the flowchart in figure 2.1, aliens who were denied
admission by INS could request an exclusion hearing before an
immigration judge. At these exclusion hearings, aliens were to be
afforded the following due process procedures:
-- be represented by counsel at no expense to the government;
-- be informed of the nature, purpose, time, and place of the
hearing;
-- present evidence and witnesses in their own behalf;
-- examine and object to evidence against them;
-- cross-examine witnesses presented by the government;
-- request the immigration judge to issue subpoenas requiring the
attendance of witnesses and/or the production of documentary
evidence; and
-- appeal the immigration judge decisions to BIA and the federal
courts.
At the exclusion hearing, the burden of proving admissibility
generally rested with the alien. INS would present evidence and
examine and cross-examine the alien and witnesses. At the end of the
hearing, the judge would render a decision, such as (1) exclude the
alien (i.e., not allow him/her to enter the United States); (2) grant
the alien relief from exclusion (i.e., allow the alien to enter this
country); or (3) permit the alien to withdraw his or her application
for admission (i.e., allow the alien to voluntarily leave the
country).\2
Either the alien or INS (or both) could appeal the immigration
judge's decision to BIA. If BIA upheld the judge's decision to
exclude the alien, the alien could appeal BIA's decision to a U.S.
district court.\3 The district court's review was limited to
determining if the government followed established procedures (e.g.,
that a fair hearing was held, that INS followed its regulations, and
that the immigration judge's decision was supported by the record).
The alien then could appeal an adverse district court decision to the
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and, ultimately, to the U.S. Supreme
Court. If an alien were found to be excludable after the final legal
action was completed, INS was to arrange for the alien's removal from
this country. Aliens removed under this process generally were to be
barred from reentering the United States for 1 year.
To provide some perspective on the disposition of aliens prior to
April 1, 1997, who could have been subjected to expedited removal if
they had attempted entry into this country after April 1, 1997, we
obtained INS data for the three airports we visited. The airports'
databases captured up to three charges as the basis for exclusion.
Table 2.1 shows the disposition of aliens who were not admitted into
this country between October 1, 1995, and March 31, 1997, because at
least one of the reasons for their inadmissibility was that they
attempted to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or
misrepresentation or arriving without proper documents--the only
charges for which aliens can be subject to expedited removal. The
majority of the aliens denied entry into this country at these three
airports were sent to immigration judges for exclusion hearings.
INS' options for those aliens who were not sent to an immigration
judge for an exclusion hearing included permitting the alien to
withdraw his or her application or waiving or paroling the alien into
the United States. We used the data from the three airports because
INS did not have a nationwide database on excluded aliens by charge.
Table 2.1
INS Disposition Data for Aliens Who
Attempted to Enter by Engaging in Fraud
or Misrepresentation or Who Arrived
Without Proper Documents, October 1,
1995, to March 31, 1997
Aliens
sent
to Percentage
Aliens exclus of aliens
Aliens withdrew Other ion sent to
denied applicat actio hearin exclusion
Airport entry ion n\a g hearings
----------------------------------- ------ -------- ----- ------ ----------
JFK 6,187 2,166 949 3,072 50
Los Angeles\b 1,292 350 23 919 71
Miami 7,007 2,570 495 3,942 56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "Other action" column includes the number of aliens detained and
turned over to another law enforcement agency and aliens who were
granted waivers or were paroled into the United States. These aliens
were not considered to have entered the country and, therefore, were
subject to exclusion provisions of the INA.
\b Data were missing for July 1996 and September 1996.
Source: GAO analysis of INS' Record of Intercepted Passenger System
data.
--------------------
\1 Appendix III contains INS data for fiscal years 1992 to March 31,
1997, on the number of aliens requesting admittance into the United
States and the number of aliens not admitted. For those aliens not
admitted, we provided the numbers that were (1) allowed to withdraw
their application or were refused entry; (2) paroled; (3) allowed a
deferred inspection; and (4) referred to an immigration judge.
\2 See appendix IV for information related to exclusion cases that
EOIR received from INS between October 1, 1995, and March 31, 1997,
for aliens charged with attempting to enter the United States by
engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or arriving without proper
documents.
\3 The appeal would be under a habeas corpus proceeding (i.e., a writ
to bring a person in custody before the court to determine the
legality of the custody).
THE EXPEDITED REMOVAL PROCESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2
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
aliens who seek admission to or transit through the United States at
a port of entry\4 or who are interdicted in international or United
States 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 entry.\5 INS determined that, at least initially, 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 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 V.
The 1996 Act defines when INS can use expedited removal orders for
arriving aliens. As discussed below, INS has established procedures
for implementing the new provisions, such as requiring inspectors to
read specific information to the aliens. Figure 2.2 shows the
expedited removal process, including the credible fear process. In
comparing figure 2.1 on the exclusion process with figure 2.2 on the
expedited removal process, the expedited removal process for aliens
who do not express a fear of being returned to their home country is
more streamlined than the exclusion process. However, the expedited
removal process for aliens who express a fear of being returned to
their home country contains more steps than the exclusion process.
Figure 2.2: Flowchart of the
Expedited Removal Process Under
the 1996 Act
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
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.
--------------------
\4 The 1996 Act excludes from expedited removal Cuban nationals who
arrive at a port of entry by aircraft.
\5 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.
STEPS IN THE EXPEDITED
REMOVAL PROCESS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.1
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 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 such
topics 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 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, 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. (See app. VI for a copy of the form used to
record the alien's sworn statement.)
-- 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.
NEED TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL
ASYLUM SEEKERS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.2
According to INS instructions, 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. Immigration officers referred
1,396 aliens who requested admittance to the United States between
April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, for a credible fear interview.
The process for determining whether aliens have a credible fear is
discussed in chapter 3.
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 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 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.\6
INS training materials note that there have been many cases for 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 to the asylum
officer any questionable cases.
If the alien asserts a fear or concern that is clearly unrelated to
an intention to seek asylum or a fear of persecution, then the
inspector should not refer the case to an asylum officer. During our
observations, we saw an instance where an alien initially expressed a
fear of removal during a sworn statement for which the inspector did
not refer the alien for a credible fear interview. The alien
expressed concern about not being able to see her boyfriend who lived
in the United States. The inspector checked with the supervisor to
make sure that she should not refer this alien for a credible fear
interview.
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.\7 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. This information is contained
in an INS form that the inspector is to give the alien (see app. VI
for a reprint of this form). The inspector also is to provide the
alien with a list of free legal services, which is prepared and
maintained by EOIR.
--------------------
\6 As discussed in chapter 3, for an asylum officer to find that the
alien has a credible fear of persecution, the alien's fear must be
related to one of the five bases (or grounds) listed in the refugee
definition.
\7 The expedited removal order is not issued at this time.
REMOVAL OF ALIENS SERVED AN
EXPEDITED REMOVAL ORDER
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.3
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
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.\8
--------------------
\8 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.
OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN
LIEU OF EXPEDITED REMOVAL
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.4
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. Similar to
the exclusion process, which was in place before April 1, 1997,
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.\9 However, INS can
no longer refer these aliens to an immigration judge unless the alien
is found to have a credible fear of persecution or the alien swears
under oath to be an U.S. citizen or to have lawful permanent
residence, refugee, or asylee status, but the inspector cannot verify
that claim.\10
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 whether permitting withdrawal would be in the best
interest of justice, or that 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.
--------------------
\9 INS did not have data readily available on the number of aliens
subject to expedited removal who were offered one of the four
options.
\10 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. The immigration judge's decision is not appealable. 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.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
EXCLUSION AND EXPEDITED REMOVAL
PROCESSES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3
The 1996 Act and its implementation affected the immigration
proceedings in numerous ways. Two major differences between the
exclusion and expedited removal processes are INS' authority to issue
the expedited removal order and the aliens' limited right of review
of that order. Other changes include (1) an increased penalty for
inadmissible aliens, including those subject to expedited removal;
(2) a more structured inspection process for expedited removal than
for exclusion; and (3) estimated additional time taken by inspectors
to complete the expedited removal process due to the additional steps
in the process.
LIMITED REVIEW OF
INSPECTORS' DECISIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3.1
Before the 1996 Act, aliens who attempted to enter the United States
by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or who arrived without
proper documents could have received a hearing by an immigration
judge to determine if the aliens should be allowed to enter the
United States. The aliens could apply for asylum during this
hearing. Furthermore, aliens had the right to appeal to BIA the
immigration judge's decision not to allow them to enter the country.
Aliens could appeal an adverse decision by BIA through the federal
courts. However, the scope of the federal courts' review was limited
to whether the government followed established procedures. Under the
1996 Act, inspectors, as opposed to immigration judges, can issue
aliens expedited removal orders if they attempt to enter the United
States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or arrive without
proper documents.\11 Generally, aliens who do not express a fear of
being returned to their home country cannot have a review of the INS'
decisions.\12 In addition, inspectors are 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 alien to an asylum
officer for a credible fear interview.
--------------------
\11 Inspectors are to complete expedited removal orders for aliens
who claim to be lawful permanent residents, refugees, asylees, or
U.S. citizens. Orders in these cases are to be reviewed by an
immigration judge. For aliens who express a fear of returning to
their home countries, inspectors are to fill in a portion of the
expedited removal orders; these orders are not completed unless the
asylum officer determines the fear is not credible.
\12 Aliens can request an immigration judge's review of an
inspector's decision if the alien swears under oath to be an U.S.
citizen or to have lawful permanent residence, refugee, or asylee
status. If the judge finds that the alien is not an U.S. citizen or
does not have lawful permanent residence, refugee, or asylee status,
then the alien will be subject to expedited removal.
INCREASED PENALTIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3.2
Before the 1996 Act, aliens who were issued a formal exclusion order
generally were barred from reentering the United States for 1 year.
With the implementation of the 1996 Act, the reentry restriction for
inadmissible aliens, including those subject to expedited removal,
generally increased to 5 years. Aliens are allowed to request
permission to reapply for admission to this country during the 5-year
period.\13
--------------------
\13 The 1996 Act also increased the penalties for aliens who were
removed under other provisions of the law.
MORE FORMAL INSPECTION AND
NEW CREDIBLE FEAR PROCESS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3.3
Under the exclusion process, INS had general procedures for its
inspectors to follow when referring aliens to an immigration judge.
For example, INS guidance stated that inspectors should make every
effort to establish the grounds of inadmissibility, including taking
a formal question and answer statement from the alien, if necessary.
Under the expedited removal process, INS requires the inspectors to
follow specific steps. (For information on steps in the expedited
removal process, see the previous discussion.)
The expedited removal process also added new procedures for asylum
officers to follow in determining whether aliens have a credible fear
of persecution and, therefore, should not be immediately removed
under the new process. These procedures are discussed in chapter 3.
INS ESTIMATES THAT EXPEDITED
REMOVAL CASES HAVE TAKEN
MORE INS STAFF TIME TO
COMPLETE THAN EXCLUSION
CASES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3.4
For the five INS field units we reviewed, INS estimates of average
inspection-related adjudication time generally show that the time it
took an inspector at secondary inspection to complete an expedited
removal case was greater than the average time it took to complete an
exclusion case for aliens who attempt to enter the United States by
engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or who arrive without proper
documents, as shown in tables 2.2 and 2.3. According to an INS
official, the differences in inspectors' time between the two
processes are due, in part, to the additional steps associated with
the inspection components of the expedited removal process.
The time for inspectors and supervisors to prepare a case in
secondary inspection includes interviewing the alien and preparing
and reviewing the paperwork related to an exclusion hearing or an
expedited removal order. Because the methods each office used to
develop its estimates varied, the data are not comparable among the
locations.
The estimated times presented in tables 2.2 and 2.3 represent cases
where interpreters were not used. Officials at some of the ports
told us that the use of an interpreter increased the amount of time
the inspector spent on the case from 1/2 hour to 1-1/2 hours. We
obtained estimates from the four ports of entry and the Buffalo
district.
Table 2.2
INS Inspectors' and Supervisors'
Estimated Average Adjudication Time per
Exclusion Case, by Location
Estimated average time per exclusion case
----------------------------------------------
Location By inspector By supervisor\a
---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
Buffalo district 3 hours 40 minutes
JFK airport 3 hours 45 minutes
Los Angeles airport 3 hours 1 hour, 30 minutes
Miami airport 5 hours, 48 minutes 1 hour, 50 minutes
San Ysidro 2 hours, 15 minutes 11 minutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This column combines the estimated time by the first-line and
second-line supervisors at each location. The Miami figure also
includes the estimated time by the area supervisor.
Source: INS field offices.
Table 2.3
INS Inspectors' and Supervisors'
Estimated Average Adjudication Time per
Expedited Removal Case, By Location
Estimated average time per expedited removal case
--------------------------------------------------------
No credible fear referral Credible fear referral
-------------------------- ----------------------------
By By
Location By inspector supervisor\a By inspector supervisor\a
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ --------------
Buffalo 5 hours 1 hour, 6 hours 1 hour,
district\ 15 minutes 15 minutes
JFK airport 3 hours, 45 minutes 4 hours, 45 minutes
30 minutes 30 minutes
Los Angeles 3 hours 1 hour, 4 hours 2 hours,
airport 30 minutes 30 minutes
Miami 6 hours, 20 minutes 6 hours, 20 minutes
airport 22 minutes 22 minutes
San Ysidro 2 hours, 11 minutes 3 hours, 11 minutes
11 minutes 30 minutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This column combines the estimated time by the first-line and
second-line supervisors at each location. The Miami figure also
includes the estimated time by the area supervisor.
Source: INS field offices.
The estimated time used by INS inspectors on the exclusion and
expedited removal processes are not comparable because of the
differences between the two processes. Also, the 1996 Act
established a new credible fear referral process for inspectors. In
addition, while some locations estimated that the expedited removal
process takes more inspection time, the process has reduced options
for aliens to appear before an immigration judge and federal courts
regarding an INS removal decision. Times involved in those steps of
the pre-1996 Act process were not included in our analysis.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXPEDITED
REMOVAL PROCESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4
To implement the expedited removal process, INS developed operating
instructions and planned to provide training to all of its
immigration and asylum officers. INS' and EOIR's estimated cost to
implement the expedited removal process was about $4.8 million. The
five ports of entry we visited developed port-specific methods to
implement INS' process. Between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997,
29,170 aliens, including 1,396 aliens referred for credible fear
interviews (discussed in ch. 3), were processed under the expedited
removal process.
Documentation in the files we reviewed at the locations we visited
showed mixed results as to whether inspectors and supervisors were
consistently documenting that they followed various steps in INS'
expedited removal process. For the steps we reviewed, the files
indicated a range of compliance from an estimated 80 to 100 percent.
In addition, at the locations we visited, INS was generally removing
aliens to whom it issued expedited removal orders within a few days.
INS officials at the locations we visited said that they had not
encountered any changes in cooperation from countries and air
carriers when removing aliens through the expedited removal process.
GUIDANCE AND TRAINING
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4.1
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. These
interim rules are to remain in effect until INS publishes final
rules.
INS developed and distributed specific guidance for its inspectors on
how to implement the expedited removal process. This guidance was
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 to refer an alien to an asylum officer for a credible fear
interview. According to INS, it trained about 16,400 of its staff.
INS has modified its existing training for newly hired employees to
include the expedited removal process.
ESTIMATED COST TO START UP
THE EXPEDITED REMOVAL
PROCESS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4.2
The 1996 Act required INS and EOIR to implement a number of changes,
including the expedited removal process. To identify the cost of
implementing only the expedited removal process, which includes the
credible fear determination procedures, we asked INS and EOIR to
provide data on the cost of getting policies and procedures in place
and providing training on the new process and procedures. We asked
the offices to limit their estimates to the start-up costs incurred
to implement the procedures. The data collected included estimated
costs for (1) salary and benefits of employees who worked full- and
part-time on the implementation or who took the training; (2) travel;
(3) materials and supplies; (4) office space and facilities; and (5)
goods and services received (including the use of outside
consultants). As shown in table 2.4, the estimated cost to implement
the expedited removal process was about $4 million for INS and about
$700,000 for EOIR. These estimated costs basically represent
one-time costs associated with starting the expedited removal process
for INS and EOIR.
Table 2.4
Estimated Start-Up Costs for Expedited
Removal and Credible Fear Processes
INS EOIR
-------------- --------------
Number Number
of of
Implementation costs staff Cost\a staff Cost\a
-------------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
Staff salaries and benefits:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff who worked full-time on 15 $344,6 21 $158,5
implementation 00 00
Staff who worked part-time on 397 1,515, 58 106,00
implementation 000 0
Staff who received training 16,401 1,171, 445 175,00
800 0
Travel and per diem -- 469,00 -- 137,30
0 0
Materials, office space, goods, and -- 603,80 -- 121,50
services 0 0
======================================================================
Total -- $4,104 -- $698,3
,200 00
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Figures rounded to the nearest $100.
Note: These costs were incurred through June 30, 1997.
Sources: INS and EOIR estimates.
ALIENS PROCESSED THROUGH THE
EXPEDITED REMOVAL PROCESS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4.3
According to INS data, about 7 percent of the aliens who attempted
entry between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, and who were not
admitted at ports of entry, were processed under the expedited
removal process (27,774 of 395,335 aliens). Table 2.5 shows the
number of aliens who requested entry between April 1, 1997, and
October 31, 1997, and who entered the expedited removal process (but
were not referred for a credible fear interview). Of the 27,774
cases\14 in which aliens were processed under expedited removal,
27,345 (98.5 percent) had been closed as of December 15, 1997. In
99.6 percent of the 27,345 cases that were closed, the alien was
removed after receiving a removal order.
Table 2.5
Cases of Aliens Who Entered the
Expedited Removal Process, Both
Nationwide and at Locations We Visited,
April 1, 1997, to October 31, 1997
Number of aliens charged under
Location the expedited removal process\a
------------------ --------------------------------------
Nationwide 27,774
Buffalo district 197
San Ysidro 11,833
JFK airport 902
Los Angeles 346
airport
Miami airport 1,036
----------------------------------------------------------
Note: Data as of December 15, 1997. The data for the airports
include cases for aliens entering through seaports in those
locations.
\a These figures represent the number of cases that inspectors at
secondary inspection processed as expedited removal cases. They do
not include the number of cases that were referred for a credible
fear determination interview or for a legal status claim review.
During this period, there were another 90 cases for aliens referred
for a legal status claim review; 1,396 cases for aliens referred for
a credible fear interview.
Source: GAO analysis of INS Deportable Alien Control System data and
Asylum Pre-Screening Officer database.
More detailed information on the characteristics of aliens who were
processed under the expedited removal process is provided in appendix
VII.
The following are some examples from our case file reviews at the
ports we visited of reasons inspectors found aliens inadmissible and
subject to the expedited removal process: the alien had previously
overstayed his or her visa; the alien intended to work in the United
States but did not have the proper documents to allow him or her to
do so; and the alien had a counterfeit border crossing card or
resident alien card.
--------------------
\14 This number represents aliens who were processed through the
expedited removal process but were not referred for a credible fear
interview. It is not necessarily 27,774 different aliens, because an
alien may have attempted entry more than once during this time frame
and may have been subject to expedited removal more than once.
Subsequent removals subject aliens to a longer reentry bar.
PORT-SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE EXPEDITED REMOVAL
PROCESS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4.4
In addition to the national guidance, three approaches for
implementing the expedited removal process were employed by the five
ports of entry we visited.
-- INS' Miami airport approach had a separate unit of inspectors to
handle the expedited removal cases. If an alien was sent from
primary inspection to secondary inspection and the inspector at
secondary determined the alien was subject to expedited removal,
the inspector was to refer the alien to the specific unit
handling expedited removal cases. The expedited removal unit
was staffed by inspectors and supervisors at the GS-11 level and
above. These inspectors were to take the sworn statement and
complete other paperwork related to the expedited removal case.
-- At the San Ysidro port, INS used a three-step approach. First,
when an alien admitted to the inspector at secondary that he or
she presented a malafide (e.g., fraudulent) application for
entry, the inspector was to send the alien to an enforcement
team for processing. The enforcement team that handled the
expedited removal cases was comprised of inspectors and
supervisors at the GS-7 to GS-12 level. Second, among other
things, the team was to show the aliens a Spanish-language video
tape explaining the expedited removal process. The sworn
statements were not taken at the port of entry unless the aliens
expressed a fear of returning to their home country. Third, the
women were to be transported to a local motel that is used for
temporary detention, and the males were to be transported to the
El Centro Service Processing Center. At these sites, an
enforcement team member was to take the aliens' sworn
statements, complete the paperwork, and serve the aliens with
the expedited removal order. The aliens were to be detained at
these locations until their removal.
-- The Niagara Falls land port (which consisted of three bridges),
JFK airport, and Los Angeles airport did not establish a
separate unit to process expedited removal cases. At these
locations, an inspector was to send an alien from primary
inspection to secondary inspection, where the inspector was to
determine if the alien was subject to expedited removal and, if
so, was to complete the case.
CASE FILE DOCUMENTATION
INDICATED INCONSISTENT
COMPLIANCE WITH INS
PROCEDURES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4.5
We reviewed the case files on 434 aliens who attempted entry at the
five locations between May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997, and who were
charged under the expedited removal provision but were not referred
for a credible fear interview. For the Buffalo district, we reviewed
all files and for the other four locations we randomly selected case
files for review. Our review showed that the documentation in the
case files at the five locations we visited indicated inconsistent
compliance with the procedures. See appendix II for information on
the case file review methodology and the calculation of the sampling
error.
As part of the case file review, we determined whether (1) the
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) the aliens signed the sworn
statements, and (3) the supervisors reviewed the expedited removal
orders. Documentation on compliance varied among the locations.
Regarding asking the three required questions, our case file review
of the documentation showed that inspectors at Miami airport
documented that they asked the required questions an estimated 100
percent of the time. At the other four locations the results were
less consistent: the case files indicated that inspectors did not
document asking at least one of the three required questions, or some
version thereof, between an estimated 1 and 18 percent of the time.
For example, the documentation in the case files showed that
inspectors did not record asking the required question "Why did you
leave your home country or country of last residence?" (or some
version thereof) an estimated 18 percent of the time at Los Angeles
airport, 15 percent of the time in San Ysidro, 5 percent of the time
in the Buffalo district, and 2 percent of the time at JFK airport.
In addition, the case file documentation showed that the inspectors
did not record asking the required question "Do you have a fear or
concern about being returned to your home country or being removed
from the United States?" (or some version thereof) an estimated 3
percent of the time at Los Angeles, 2 percent of the time in San
Ysidro and at JFK airport, and 1 percent of the time in the Buffalo
district. In the 434 files we reviewed, we found 6 cases involving 4
locations in which the inspector did not document asking any of the 3
required questions on fear.
According to one of its members, INS' Expedited Removal Working
Group\15 also has identified cases in which inspectors did not ask
these required questions. She said that the failure to ask the
questions generally occurred when the inspectors were using a draft
version of the sworn statement, which had a different version of the
required questions. As the Working Group became aware of this
problem at specific ports of entry, the official said that she
informed port officials of the importance of asking these questions
and documenting that they were asked and sent the ports of entry the
correct version of the sworn statement.
In addition to our file reviews, we observed secondary inspectors'
handling of 16 cases of aliens who were subject to expedited removal.
In 15 cases, the inspectors asked applicants the required fear of
return questions. In one case the inspector asked two of the three
required questions. In five cases the applicants expressed a fear of
return. In three of the cases, the inspectors referred the aliens to
an asylum office for a credible fear interview. In the other two
cases, the aliens initially expressed a fear. In one of the two
cases, the alien recanted his fear. In the second case, the alien
expressed concern about not being able to see her boyfriend who lived
in the United States. The inspector checked with the supervisor to
make sure that she should not refer this alien for a credible fear
interview.
Furthermore, for almost all the cases we reviewed, the files
contained sworn statements signed by the aliens. For the five
locations, the files indicated that aliens signed the statements
between an estimated 97 and 100 percent of the time.
Lastly, in our case file review at five locations, the documentation
showed that the range in which supervisors documented that they
reviewed the expedited removal orders was from an estimated 80 to 100
percent. At two of the locations, documentation in the files showed
that a supervisor reviewed all of the orders. In addition, INS'
Office of Internal Audit (OIA) conducted reviews of field unit
operations, including expedited removal. Its first audit that
included the expedited removal process covered the activities of the
Newark District Office and was conducted between April 21 and May 2,
1997. OIA found that in 6 of the 27 cases, supervisors did not
review and approve removal orders at the Newark International
Airport. OIA recommended that the District Director require all
removal orders issued by immigration officers be reviewed by a
second-line supervisor and that an indication of the review be
annotated on the form before its execution.\16
A member of INS' Working Group said that, through the group's case
file reviews, it has identified cases in which the documentation of
supervisory reviews has been missing. She said that when the Working
Group has identified this problem, it has informed relevant port
officials of the problem. She also said that the Working Group has
discussed the need for supervisory review and proper documentation of
such review in its field visits and in written guidance distributed
to the field.
--------------------
\15 The Working Group oversees the implementation of the expedited
removal process. See chapter 4 for a description of the Working
Group's members and functions.
\16 INSpect, Final Report Newark District (97-02, Jan. 5, 1998).
OIA also found that automated data systems related to expedited
removal were not being updated in a timely manner. OIA recommended
that the District Director implement procedures to ensure that all
applicable data systems be updated in a timely manner.
ALIENS GENERALLY REMOVED
WITHIN 2 DAYS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4.6
On the basis of our file reviews of cases where aliens were not
referred for a credible fear interview, for three of the locations
(Los Angeles airport, Miami airport, and Buffalo district) we
estimated that at least 95 percent of the aliens who received
expedited removal orders were removed either the day they attempted
to enter the United States or the day after. At JFK airport, an
estimated 84 percent of such aliens were removed either the same day
or the day after they attempted to enter this country. We estimated
that for the majority of the aliens who requested entry into this
country through the San Ysidro land port of entry (90 percent), it
took 2 or more days for them to be removed.
INS does not maintain nationwide data on the cooperation of foreign
countries and air carriers in accepting aliens who were removed under
the expedited removal provision. We asked INS officials at the
locations we visited if they had problems with air carriers or
countries accepting such aliens since April 1, 1997. INS officials
said that air carrier cooperation had not been a problem. They added
that, generally, delays related to the air carriers have occurred
only when there have been a limited number of available flights.
Regarding country cooperation, INS officials at four locations said
they have encountered problems returning aliens to certain countries.
However, these problems also existed before April 1, 1997, and,
therefore, were not unique to aliens who received expedited removal
orders. Buffalo district officials said that the United States has
an agreement with Canada whereby Canada will accept aliens whom the
United States denies entry to this country at the U.S.-Canada border.
Therefore, the officials said that the Buffalo district did not have
problems returning to Canada aliens who received expedited removal
orders.
THE CREDIBLE FEAR PROCESS
============================================================ Chapter 3
Aliens attempting to enter the United States who express to an INS
inspector a fear of being returned to their home country are to be
referred to an asylum officer for a credible fear interview. The
purpose of the interview is to determine if aliens have a credible
fear of persecution. The asylum officers are to read information to
the alien about the credible fear process. If the asylum officer
determines that the alien has a credible fear, the alien is referred
to an immigration judge for a removal hearing. If the asylum officer
finds that the alien does not have a credible fear, the alien can
request that an immigration judge review the asylum officer's
negative credible fear determination.
Asylum officers determined that 79 percent of the aliens who
attempted to enter the United States from April 1 to October 31,
1997, for whom the officer had completed the credible fear interview,
had a credible fear of persecution. On the basis of the
documentation in our nationwide case file review and nine
observations, the asylum officers read most of the required
information to the aliens during the credible fear interviews. INS
estimated the amount of time needed to process a credible fear case
ranged between about 6 to 10 hours for the Los Angeles, Miami, and
New York asylum offices. Nationwide, immigration judges affirmed
INS' negative credible fear determinations about 83 percent of the
time. EOIR estimated that the amount of time needed to complete a
negative credible fear review was about 1 hour.
THE CREDIBLE FEAR PROCESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1
As discussed in chapter 2, inspectors are to refer aliens who have
expressed a fear of persecution to an asylum officer for a credible
fear interview. Before holding the credible fear interview, asylum
officers are required to inform aliens about the credible fear and
asylum processes; to inform aliens of their option to obtain a
consultant who can be a lawyer, friend, relative, or anyone of the
aliens' choosing; and to 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.\1
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 faced persecution in the past or could
be harmed in the future; and (3) the alien's fear is related to one
of five bases for obtaining asylum--persecution 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.\2 The asylum officer is to read aloud the
mandatory paragraphs from an INS form on which the officer also
records the results of the credible fear interview. See appendix VI
for a reprint of the Credible Fear Worksheet.
For aliens referred to an asylum officer, INS states that the asylum
officer is to consider the credible fear standard as a low threshold
to screen for persons with promising asylum claims. During the
interview with an asylum officer, an alien can have a consultant
present. The asylum officer is to record the results of the credible
fear interview, including his or her determination of the alien's
ability to meet any of the five grounds for asylum. INS requires
supervisory review of asylum officers' credible fear determinations\3
.
If the asylum officer finds that the alien has a credible fear of
persecution, the alien will be placed in removal proceedings\4
before 1 of about 200 immigration judges during which the alien can
make a formal application for asylum. 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.
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.
--------------------
\1 Regarding the competency of the interpreters, INS permits the
alien or the alien's consultant to request a different interpreter if
he or she feels that the interpreter is not competent or neutral or
requests another interpreter for whatever reason. In addition, the
alien's consultant can request an interpreter whom he or she knows
from past experience.
\2 INS officials said that in cases where credible fear was not
found, reading the required torture information was critical because
applicants who are not found to have credible fear may still merit
protection under the Torture Convention. At present, asylum officers
are conducting Torture Convention interviews for aliens who are under
a final order of removal and have no appeals or motions to reopen
pending. The INS Office of the General Counsel reviews the asylum
officer's interview notes and assessment and makes the final decision
on which aliens merit protection under the Torture Convention.
\3 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.
\4 The 1996 Act merged deportation and exclusion proceedings into a
single removal proceeding.
DATA ON ALIENS REFERRED FOR
CREDIBLE FEAR INTERVIEWS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2
INS data for aliens who attempted to enter the United States between
April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, show that inspectors referred
1,396 aliens to asylum officers for a credible fear interview. Of
the aliens who were referred, 1,108\5 had completed their interviews
as of November 13, 1997. Nationwide, asylum officers determined that
79 percent of these 1,108 aliens had a credible fear of persecution.
According to an INS official, about 10 percent of the aliens referred
for a credible fear interview have recanted their claim of a fear of
persecution before an asylum officer. As shown in table 3.1,
positive credible fear determination rates for the eight asylum
offices ranged from 59 to 93 percent.\6
Table 3.1
Percentage of Credible Fear
Determinations by Asylum Offices for
Aliens Who Attempted to Enter the United
States Between April 1, 1997, and
October 31, 1997
Percentage of
determinations
--------------------------
Positive Negative
credible credible
Asylum office fear fear
------------------------------------------ ------------ ------------
Arlington, VA 86 14
Chicago, IL 93 7
Houston, TX\a 59 42
Los Angeles, CA 82 18
Miami, FL 59 41
New York, NY 89 11
Newark, NJ 72 28
San Francisco, CA 89 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Total does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: INS Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database.
--------------------
\5 The remaining 288 aliens included aliens who recanted their claim
of a fear of persecution and were to be removed or who had not yet
been interviewed.
\6 See appendix VIII for more detailed information on aliens who had
a credible fear interview.
RESULTS OF CASE FILE REVIEWS
AND OBSERVATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3
We reviewed the files for all 84 negative credible fear
determinations made for aliens who requested entry between May 1,
1997, and July 31, 1997. Not all of the 84 case files contained
complete documentation and, therefore, some of our analysis was made
on fewer than 84 cases. In most of these determinations (55 of 81)
the asylum officer concluded that the aliens' fears were not based on
1 of the 5 grounds for asylum. In 25 of 76 cases, the officer
concluded that the aliens' testimonies were not credible.
Documentation in the 84 case files we reviewed nationwide indicated
that INS generally followed its procedures for determining an alien's
credible fear, but did not consistently document whether asylum
officers provided information regarding the alien's fear of being
tortured. Our review of the 84 negative credible fear case files
showed that the asylum officers indicated by marking on the records
of interview that they (1) read the required paragraph regarding the
aliens' fear of persecution in all but 1 case and (2) informed the
aliens of their right to have an immigration judge review a negative
credible fear determination in all but 3 cases. However, our review
of the case files showed no documentation on whether the asylum
officers read the paragraph on torture in 19 of 83 cases. In
addition to the 84 cases, we attended 9 credible fear interviews in
which the asylum officers generally followed INS' procedures
regarding credible fear interviews, including reading the mandatory
material. In eight out of nine cases we observed, all of the
mandatory paragraphs were read or summarized. In the ninth case, the
asylum officer did not read the required paragraph on torture.
An INS official told us that the headquarters Asylum Office reviewed
the cases for which the paragraph on torture was not checked off in
the file and found other evidence in the file to indicate that
questions related to torture were asked and, therefore, she believed
that the problem was related to poor recordkeeping. The INS official
also told us that INS has subsequently reiterated to its asylum
officers that they are to read the paragraph on torture and ask the
related questions in the credible fear interview and to record that
the paragraph was read and questions were asked.
The asylum officers are to record the results of the credible fear
interview, including the alien's ability to meet any of the five
bases for asylum. As part of our observation, we compared asylum
officers' records of the credible fear interviews to our
observations. We found the credible fear worksheets completed by the
asylum officers to be consistent with our observations in all of the
nine cases.
Our case file review showed evidence that 69 of 75 cases had
supervisory reviews. For the remaining six cases, the files did not
have the signatures of supervisors indicating that they had reviewed
the files.
Furthermore, in the negative credible fear determination case files
we reviewed, we also determined whether in credible fear interviews
an interpreter was used and if the alien had a consultant. The case
files indicated that, in 66 of 82 credible fear interviews, an
interpreter was used.\7 Aliens had consultants in 19 of the 84 cases.
--------------------
\7 The following languages were most frequently translated: Haitian
Creole (16 times), Spanish (16 times), Mandarin Chinese (10 times),
and Albanian (5 times).
ASYLUM ADJUDICATION TIME AND
INTERPRETER COSTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.1
We requested that the three asylum offices we visited provide the
estimated time required to process a credible fear case. The
estimate for the asylum officer was to include the time needed to
provide aliens with an orientation, prepare for and conduct the
credible fear interview, and complete the associated paperwork. The
estimate for the supervisor was to include the time spent discussing
and reviewing the case and its related paperwork.
The New York and Miami asylum offices provided average time estimates
on a per case basis to complete these and other tasks associated with
the credible fear process. We totaled these time estimates to get an
overall average of the amount of time spent per case by the asylum
officers and supervisors at each office. The Los Angeles asylum
office estimated average time spent by asylum officers and
supervisors on the basis of total hours spent for the time period
October 1 to December 19, 1997, including travel time, and did not
identify the time by specific tasks. To estimate the average time
per case, the Los Angeles Office divided the total hours for the
asylum officers and supervisors by the number of cases for that
period. Therefore, estimates from the Los Angeles asylum office and
the other two asylum offices are not comparable because of the
different approaches used to develop their time estimates. The data
we received are summarized in table 3.2.
Table 3.2
Estimated Average Adjudication Time and
Interpreter Costs for Selected Asylum
Offices to Process a Credible Fear Case
Average time and cost per case
--------------------------------------------------
Asylum officer Interprete
Location time Supervisor r cost
---------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------
New York, with an 7 hours, 30 1 hour, 5 minutes $160
interpreter\a minutes
New York, without an 6 hours, 45 1 hour, 5 minutes N/A
interpreter\a minutes
Miami, with an interpreter\b 5 hours, 50 25 minutes 335
minutes
Los Angeles 10 hours, 10 5 hours 222
minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a According to an INS headquarters official, the New York asylum
office's travel only involved local travel.
\b The Miami asylum office said its officers also make one to two
trips per month to locations outside the Miami area. The case time
remains the same but there is the added time for travel, which
averaged 16 hours.
Source: INS field offices.
NEGATIVE CREDIBLE FEAR
DETERMINATION REVIEW BY THE
IMMIGRATION JUDGE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4
Aliens who have received a negative credible fear determination from
asylum officers have the option of requesting a review of their case
by an immigration judge. Between April 1, 1997, and October 31,
1997, EOIR received 198 cases for review of a negative credible fear
determination. Of these 198 cases, immigration judges affirmed
asylum officers' negative credible fear determinations in about 83
percent of the cases.\8
We reviewed the bases for immigration judges' decisions made through
August 31, 1997, in which they overturned (vacated) the asylum
officers' determinations. In 14 of the 18 cases we reviewed, the
immigration judges found that the aliens had established a
"significant possibility" of harm as required by the 1996 Act.
The following six nationalities had the most numbers of aliens who
requested review of their negative credible fear determinations:
Haiti (51), China (24), Albania (15), Guatemala (14), Mexico (12),
and El Salvador (8). The remaining 74 aliens were of 33
nationalities.
The seven judges we interviewed differed on their court procedures
for consultants' roles. The consultants' roles ranged from being
permitted to speak to not being allowed to speak in the court at all.
The position of the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge is that
although an alien has no statutory right to consult with anyone
during the immigration judge's review of a negative credible fear
finding, nonetheless, there are circumstances where the judge may
find it extremely helpful to enlist the aid of the consultant during
the review process. To ensure that his or her decision is based on
all relevant material available, the immigration judge may permit the
consultant to speak with the alien, may question the consultant, or
may request a statement from the consultant.
--------------------
\8 Five cases were pending and not included in this calculation.
EOIR ADJUDICATION TIME
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.1
According to EOIR data, the average time to complete a negative
credible fear review was about 1.5 hours. This time included about 1
hour spent by the immigration judge to prepare and conduct the
interview and complete the paperwork. In addition, legal technicians
spent about 30 minutes on the administrative process. Furthermore,
the cost for interpreters was $71 per hour for Spanish and Creole and
$95 per hour for other languages. According to EOIR, interpreters
were used in about 85 percent of all of the cases. EOIR based its
estimates on data it obtained from the Krome (Miami, FL), Elizabeth
(NJ), and Wackenhut (New York, NY) immigration courts for the period
April 1, 1997, to September 30, 1997.
INS' MECHANISMS TO MONITOR THE
EXPEDITED REMOVAL PROCESS
============================================================ Chapter 4
In addition to the procedures discussed in chapters 2 and 3, INS has
developed or is in the process of developing mechanisms to monitor
the expedited removal process, including the credible fear
determinations. These mechanisms include establishing headquarters
working groups and field experts, auditing and reviewing the process,
training staff who are involved in the process, establishing
procedures to be followed in carrying out the process, and getting
input from nongovernmental organizations.
INS MONITORING ACTIVITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1
INS has instituted activities to monitor and provide information on
and identify potential changes to the expedited removal process.
-- INS established the Expedited Removal Working Group to identify
and address policy questions, procedural and logistical
problems, and quality assurance concerns related to the
expedited removal process. The group consists of
representatives from the Offices of Inspections, International
Affairs, Asylum, Detention and Deportation, Field Operations,
and General Counsel. One way in which the group carries out its
duties is through visits to INS field units where group members
review case files and meet with management and staff involved in
the expedited removal process to discuss such things as resource
materials, the process, and policy issues. Among other things,
the Working Group has provided additional written guidance on
the taking of sworn statements and on when to permit aliens to
withdraw their applications.
-- INS established an Asylum Office quality assurance team at
headquarters to review selected credible fear files. According
to INS officials, the quality assurance team is to focus on
credible fear determination issues, while the Expedited Removal
Working Group is to focus on the entire expedited removal
process, including asylum and inspection. This quality
assurance team consists of four asylum officers who are to
analyze decisions in individual cases, provide feedback to
applicable asylum officers, and identify trends or patterns on
the basis of the reviews. Initially, the feedback to asylum
officers was informal and each member of the group used his or
her own review method. Beginning January 2, 1998, the team is
to use a checklist to standardize the monitoring and to review
all negative credible fear determinations before the decision is
served on the alien. The team is to prepare monthly reports
that are to address problems faced by all offices and is to
address serious problems immediately.
-- INS' Office of Internal Audit examines field unit functions and
operations. The objectives of these reviews include evaluating
units' effectiveness and determining compliance with applicable
laws, regulations, and procedures. Beginning in April 1997, the
audits were to include reviewing the expedited removal process.
In chapter 2, we discussed OIA's first report that included the
expedited removal process.
-- As part of its efforts to communicate with outside entities that
deal with immigration issues, INS has met periodically with
nongovernmental organizations to discuss issues related to the
expedited removal process, including the credible fear process.
Some of the concerns of the nongovernmental organizations are
discussed in the next section of this chapter.
In addition to these previously mentioned mechanisms, INS established
certain procedures to help ensure that the expedited removal process
is implemented properly and consistently. First, INS stated it
trained about 16,400 of its staff on the implementation process for
the 1996 Act, including the expedited removal (and credible fear)
provision. According to INS officials, asylum officers were to be
given additional training on making credible fear determinations.
Second, INS issued operating procedures that require inspectors and
asylum officers to follow specific steps when considering issuing
expedited removal orders and making credible fear determinations.
Third, INS requires that all expedited removal orders and credible
fear determinations be reviewed by a supervisor. Finally, for aliens
who were determined not to have a credible fear of persecution, INS
may, at its discretion, offer a second credible fear interview to an
alien, even if the alien has not established a credible fear before
an asylum officer or after an immigration judge review.
CONCERNS RAISED BY
NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2
Several nongovernmental organizations provided information about
their concerns regarding the expedited removal process and including
information on (1) issues related to the expedited removal process
and credible fear determinations and (2) specific problems that
aliens said they encountered when they arrived at ports of entry. In
addition, these organizations provided data describing specific
situations of INS' handling of aliens who were subject to expedited
removal. We did not verify the data they provided. These
organizations' concerns about the process included allegations that
-- aliens did not understand the expedited removal process because,
for example, the removal order was legalistic and
incomprehensible;
-- interpreters' competency varied, which in some instances caused
serious mistakes to be made in translation;
-- consultants were denied access to documents in applicants' case
files, such as the sworn statements; and
-- attorneys were not allowed to play a meaningful role at the
credible fear interview (e.g., they were not permitted to make
opening or closing statements or to ask questions, and they had
no opportunity to consult with their clients before deciding
whether to request a negative credible fear review by an
immigration judge).
The organizations also raised allegations of INS officers'
unprofessional treatment of aliens attempting to enter the United
States. The alleged actions of INS officers included (1) not
explaining the expedited removal process, including applying for
asylum; (2) not providing interpretation services; (3) verbally
abusing the aliens; and (4) not providing physical amenities, such as
food, water, bed and blankets, and bathroom facilities.
In addition to the INS mechanisms discussed above that are related to
these types of issues, INS officials told us that every alien and
consultant has access to the relevant documents regarding the alien's
case (e.g., sworn statement). Regarding the consultant's role, INS
stated that the consultant and the asylum officer should share a
cooperative role in developing and clarifying the merits of the
alien's claim. Furthermore, the consultant should generally be given
the opportunity to make a statement at the end of the interview,
comment on the evidence presented, and ask the alien additional
questions. Concerning the competency of interpreters, INS procedures
provide that the alien or the alien's consultant has the right to
request a different interpreter if he or she feels that the
interpreter is not competent or neutral. Additionally, INS officials
said that the alien or the alien's consultant may request another
interpreter for whatever reason. Regarding unprofessional behavior,
INS stated that it will do more to ensure that aliens, including
those who attempt to enter illegally, know their civil rights and how
to register a complaint if abused by an INS officer. Furthermore,
the Commissioner said that INS insists on proper, humane, and polite
treatment of people who are entering the United States whether their
documents are correct or not.
We had no way to determine the validity of the issues that the
organizations raised, including the specifics about any individual
alien. Our limited observations, case file reviews, and discussions
with INS officials did not identify problems similar to those raised
by the organizations. Concerning our observations, our presence may
have affected what took place during inspections, interviews, and
reviews, but we have no way of knowing whether, how, or to what
extent this happened.
CHANGES TO THE EXPEDITED
REMOVAL PROCEDURES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3
INS is in the process of changing aspects of the expedited removal
procedures on the basis of input it has received from its internal
groups and the nongovernmental organizations. These changes include
the following:
-- INS is revising some expedited removal forms that contain
explanations to be read to the alien (e.g., Information about
Credible Fear Interview). According to INS, as part of this
revision process, it has asked some of the nongovernmental
organizations to review the forms to make them easier for aliens
to understand.
-- INS assigned the responsibility of being an expedited removal
expert to selected staff for each region and district to ensure
that policy guidance is distributed, understood, and
implemented. INS officials have completed training these staff
on their new duties associated with being an expedited removal
expert.
-- INS said that it permits aliens to provide their own
interpreters for credible fear interviews.
PENDING LITIGATION CHALLENGING THE
EXPEDITED REMOVAL PROCESS
=========================================================== Appendix I
INS identified for us four pending lawsuits involving the expedited
removal process. These cases are discussed below.
American Immigration Lawyers Association, et al., v. Reno, No.
97-0597 (D.D.C.) (39-16-1370) and Liberians United for Peace and
Democracy, et al., v. Reno, et al., No. 97-1237 (D.D.C.)
(39-16-1381) (Judge Emmet G. Sullivan).
These consolidated lawsuits, initially brought by various legal
services organizations on March 28, 1997, challenge on behalf of
purported refugees the "expedited removal" procedures under section
235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by
the 1996 Act. The 1996 Act establishes a 60-day period for obtaining
limited judicial review of this expedited removal process.
Plaintiffs seek such review, asserting various statutory,
constitutional, and international law claims concerning the
substantive and procedural rights of asylum seekers and potential
asylum seekers. Defendants have filed pending motions to dismiss
these lawsuits under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)
12(b)(1) and (b)(6). The Rule 12(b)(1) "jurisdictional" issues and
the Rule 12(b)(6) "merits" issues have been briefed and argued. Also
briefed and argued is the government's motion to dismiss the claims
of individual alien plaintiffs who recently were added to the
lawsuits. At the outset of the litigation, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order against certain
aspects of the system. The court also has denied, pending the
outcome of the government's motions to dismiss, two requests by
plaintiffs for compulsory discovery.
Wood, et al., v. Reno, et al., No. 97-1229 (D.D.C.) (39-16-1385)
(Judge Emmet G. Sullivan).
This lawsuit, filed on May 30, 1997, by various legal services
organizations and individual aliens, also challenges the expedited
removal process under INA section 235(b)(1). Plaintiffs contend on
statutory, constitutional, and international law grounds that (1) the
process, as administered by defendants, creates an unreasonably high
risk of erroneous removal of United States citizens, lawful permanent
residents, and other holders of "valid visas"; (2) plaintiff
organizations have a First Amendment right to have access to aliens
during expedited removal proceedings; and (3) expedited removal
procedures may not validly be applied to unaccompanied minors.
Defendants recently submitted a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1)
and (b)(6), which was argued on January 12, 1998. Pending the
motion's outcome, the court has deferred all discovery.
Meng Li v. Robert C. Eddy, District Director, INS, No. A97-231 CV
(D. Alaska, filed June 12, 1997).
The alien is a native and citizen of China who attempted to enter the
United States as a nonimmigrant visitor at the Anchorage, Alaska,
port of entry on June 6, 1997. INS officials determined that the
alien was inadmissible under INA section 212(a)(6)(C) for having
sought to enter by fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a material
fact and, accordingly, issued an expedited removal order against her.
On June 12, 1997, the alien filed a "Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus," claiming
that she had not committed fraud and arguing on both statutory and
constitutional grounds that the court should look behind her
expedited removal order to determine whether INS officials had acted
in good faith and without pretext. On July 2, 1997, the district
court issued an order dismissing the complaint and denying the habeas
corpus petition. The district court held that the scope of review
under INA section 242(e)(2) did not permit adjudication of the
alien's statutory claim, and that she could not raise a valid
constitutional claim because she has no constitutional rights
regarding her application for admission to the United States.
Shortly after this ruling, the INS removed the alien. Her attorney
has filed a notice of appeal.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix II
The 1996 Act requires us to study the implementation of the expedited
removal process, including credible fear determinations, and report
to the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary. We address the
following aspects of the exclusion and expedited removal processes in
this report:
-- how the expedited removal process and INS procedures to
implement it are different from the process and procedures used
to exclude aliens before the 1996 Act;
-- the implementation and results of the process for making
credible fear determinations during the 7 months following April
1, 1997; and
-- the mechanisms that INS established to monitor expedited
removals and credible fear determinations and to further improve
these processes.
We also provide information on INS' and EOIR's estimates of costs to
implement the expedited removal process and the time required to
adjudicate expedited removal cases and credible fear determinations.
We did our work at INS and EOIR headquarters offices and INS field
locations at five U.S. ports of entry--two land ports and three
airports. These five locations had about 50 percent of the expedited
removal cases during the 7 months after the 1996 Act was implemented.
We judgmentally selected these 5 of about 260 staffed ports to
include a large number of entries by aliens, geographically diverse
areas, and the 2 major types of ports of entry (land ports and
airports). We selected San Ysidro (CA), as a southern land port;
Niagara Falls (NY), as a northern land port; and Miami International,
Los Angeles International, and John Fitzgerald Kennedy International
(JFK) Airports. According to INS, these ports were expected to have
large volumes of expedited removal orders and the airports were
anticipated to have a large number of the credible fear referrals.
We discussed these selections with INS officials who said that the
ports should provide us with a reasonable representation of INS'
implementation of the new law. Although we visited the Niagara Falls
land port, we included in some of our analyses, data for the entire
Buffalo district, which includes the Niagara Falls land port.
We selected the three asylum offices at which we did our
fieldwork--New York, Miami, and Los Angeles--because they conducted
credible fear interviews for four (Los Angeles, JFK, Miami, and San
Ysidro) of the five ports we visited. The Newark (NJ) asylum office
conducted credible fear interviews for the Buffalo District Office.
Because Newark was not one of the five ports we included in our
review, we decided not to increase our audit costs by adding another
location. We did our fieldwork related to EOIR at four of the
immigration courts--Wackenhut (New York City), Krome (Miami), San
Pedro (Los Angeles), and El Centro (El Centro, CA)--which held
reviews of negative credible fear determinations for aliens who
attempted entry at the ports we visited. We selected these four
courts because they were near the ports of entry included in our
review.
To get information on the processes of exclusion and removal, which
includes expedited removal and credible fear determinations, we (1)
reviewed laws and INS regulations and instructions and EOIR
procedures and instructions and (2) interviewed INS and EOIR
officials at headquarters and in the field. We also reviewed various
documentation, including the proposed and interim rules for the
procedures for the expedited removal process and the INS inspectors'
field manual; attended and watched video tapes of INS training
sessions related to the new procedures; and attended headquarters
Expedited Removal Working Group\1 meetings. During our interviews
and data gathering efforts, we identified where comparisons could be
made between exclusion and expedited removal procedures. Because of
the differences in the two processes caused by the 1996 Act and data
limitations, we could only make descriptive comparisons between the
exclusion and expedited removal processes.
Before April 1, 1997, INS would bring all applicable exclusion
charges against aliens, including aliens who attempted to enter the
United States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or who
arrived without proper documents. Therefore, our analysis of
excludable aliens (i.e., aliens whom INS found inadmissible before
April 1, 1997) included any alien who had been charged with
attempting to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or
misrepresentation or arriving without proper documents as well as any
other exclusion charge. However, under the 1996 Act, aliens can be
subject to expedited removal if INS only charges them with attempting
to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation
or arriving without proper documents. Accordingly, we included in
our analysis those aliens before April 1, 1997, who were charged with
attempting to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or
misrepresentation or arriving without proper documents as well as any
other charges. We included those aliens in our analysis even though
after April 1, 1997, INS is to only issue an expedited removal order
to aliens whom it charged with attempting to enter the United States
by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or arriving without proper
documents. We did this to provide some perspective on the number of
aliens who may have been subject to expedited removal orders before
April 1, 1997.
We limited the data on the removal of aliens before April 1, 1997, to
the airports because INS did not maintain nationwide data on the
reasons aliens were not admitted into the United States. However,
the individual airports maintained data on the reasons for aliens'
inadmissibility into the country. Therefore, we analyzed the data
for the Miami, Los Angeles, and JFK airports to determine the
dispositions (e.g., aliens allowed to withdraw their application to
enter the country or scheduled for an exclusion hearing before an
immigration judge).
To obtain data on exclusion hearings before April 1, 1997, we
analyzed EOIR data on the length of the hearing process, the number
of asylum applicants, and the hearing outcomes for those cases EOIR
received between October 1, 1995, and March 31, 1997. We included
those cases for which the alien was charged at least with attempting
to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation
or arriving without proper documents; other charges could also have
been included. We also identified the number of cases appealed to
BIA. To obtain data on removal hearings that EOIR received from INS
between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, we used the same
approach as we did for data before April 1, 1997, except that we
included in our analysis only aliens who were only charged with
attempting to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or
misrepresentation or arriving without proper documents.
To present disposition data on aliens who were subject to the
expedited removal process since April 1, 1997, we obtained data from
INS on aliens who were processed under expedited removal but were not
referred for a credible fear interview both nationwide and for the
five locations in our study.
To develop data on inspectors' completion of required forms,
background information about the aliens, and the length of the
expedited removal process from the day the alien attempted to enter
the country to the day the alien was removed, we reviewed probability
samples\2 of 434 files for aliens who entered the expedited removal
process but were not referred for a credible fear interview. This
effort consisted of five separate reviews of individuals who entered
the country between May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997, at the five
locations we visited, and who were processed through the expedited
removal process. We selected the starting date of May 1, 1997, for
our review to provide INS with 1 month (April 1997) to resolve any
initial problems in implementation; we selected the ending date of
July 31, 1997, because of the reporting date for our work. We did
these file reviews at the four ports of entry and the Buffalo
district. For the Buffalo District Office, which includes the
Niagara Falls land port, we reviewed all of the expedited removal
files for all of its ports of entry (including Niagara Falls land
port) because of the small universe of cases in the district. The
data we obtained from the files allowed us to make estimates about
all of the expedited removal cases at these locations between May 1,
1997, and July 31, 1997, that did not go on to the credible fear
determination process. We excluded minors (children under the age of
18) from our case file review because INS now generally excludes
unaccompanied minors from the expedited removal process.
To obtain estimates for the costs to INS and EOIR to implement the
expedited removal process, including the credible fear
determinations, we asked each agency to develop cost data.
Specifically, the costs we asked for were salary and benefits, travel
and per diem, materials and supplies, office space and facilities,
goods and services received, and any other significant costs incurred
to implement the procedures. In collecting the cost data, we also
obtained the basis on which the estimates were made. We did not
verify the cost data but did ask INS and EOIR to provide supporting
documentation, which we reviewed.
To obtain data on the time to adjudicate cases before and after
expedited removal, we asked INS and EOIR officials to estimate the
time required for different steps in the adjudication process for the
locations included in our study. We also included payments to
interpreter services. We had each major INS unit and EOIR prepare
time estimates using a pro forma schedule (data collection
instrument) that we prepared. For the removal estimate before April
1, 1997, we requested an average time for inspectors to process an
alien for an exclusion hearing. Because INS was no longer following
the exclusion process for aliens who attempted to enter the United
States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or who arrived
without proper documents, INS officials developed times estimated
retrospectively. For the removal time after April 1, 1997, we asked
inspections for two average times--(1) the time to process an alien
to whom an inspector issued an expedited removal order and (2) the
time for processing an alien whom inspectors had referred to an
asylum officer for a credible fear interview. We obtained estimates
from the four ports and the Buffalo District Office. We asked the
asylum offices to estimate the time related to the credible fear
interview process. We asked EOIR for the time related to the
negative credible fear review process. We did not ask EOIR to
estimate the time of the hearing process, both before and after April
1, 1997, because this process was not part of our study. In
collecting the time estimates, we also obtained the basis on which
the estimates were made. We did not verify the time estimates but
did ask INS and EOIR to provide supporting documentation, which we
reviewed. We could not obtain the total number of aliens, or the
number of aliens for the five ports we visited, who were subject to
exclusion because they attempted to enter the United States by
engaging in fraud or misrepresentation or arrived without proper
documents because such data were not available. Therefore, we could
not determine the total adjudication time before April 1, 1997.
To develop workload data related to the credible fear process that
went into effect April 1, 1997, INS provided nationwide data. These
data included the number of credible fear interviews held and the
results of the interviews. EOIR provided data from a nationwide
database on the results of the negative credible fear reviews
conducted by the immigration judges. Also, we reviewed the
immigration judges' worksheets for all cases in which they vacated
asylum officers' negative credible fear determinations, for the
period April 1, 1997, to August 31, 1997.
To determine, in part, whether it was documented that asylum officers
followed certain credible fear determination processes, we reviewed
all 84 files of negative credible fear determinations for the months
of May through July, 1997. Most of the files were reviewed at INS
headquarters in Washington, D.C. Although we are not certain that we
examined files for every negative determination within our time
period, we checked the files that we reviewed against other INS
databases, and we are confident that we have included almost all such
cases because very few discrepancies were found. As previously
discussed, we excluded minors from our case file review. We focused
our review on the negative credible fear determinations because of
the possible harm that could arise from INS' removing aliens who had
a credible fear of persecution. However, we did not assess INS'
determinations. INS field units are to send these files (as well as
a sample of positive credible fear determinations) to INS
headquarters for review by INS headquarters asylum officers. We
reviewed these files to determine if they contained documentation
that INS required and to get demographic data on the aliens.
In addition, during our field visits we observed inspectors
processing 16 aliens through the expedited removal process, asylum
officers conducting 9 credible fear interviews, and immigration
judges holding 5 negative credible fear reviews in Miami, the only
location where reviews were conducted at the time of our visit. Our
ability to make observations about what we saw 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 and
-- scheduling changes, including delays and postponement of a
credible fear interview with an asylum officer and negative
credible fear review before an immigration judge.
In addition, planning such observations had to be done in conjunction
with our field visits. Due to the limited number of interviews and
reviews we were able to observe, our observation data are not
generalizable to all aliens subject to the expedited removal process.
Furthermore, we do not know if our presence affected what took place
during our observations.
We also met and/or talked with various nongovernmental organizations
(e.g., American Bar Association, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights,
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area,
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Amnesty
International, and American Civil Liberties Union) to discuss our
methodology and to get input on the types of data we should collect
through these observations and file reviews. These organizations
provided information on their concerns about the expedited removal
process, including credible fear determinations, and provided
information about specific problems they said were encountered by
aliens during the process.
To describe INS' controls to monitor and oversee the expedited
removal process, including credible fear determinations, we
interviewed INS officials at headquarters and locations we visited
and obtained data related to these activities.
--------------------
\1 INS established a team of officials from different INS
organizations to oversee the implementation of the expedited removal
process, including credible fear determinations. (See ch. 4.)
\2 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.
EOIR'S AND INS' DATABASES THAT
WE USED AND OUR ASSESSMENT OF
THEIR RELIABILITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1
We used INS' and EOIR's databases and, where feasible and practical,
we assessed the databases' reliability.
EOIR DATABASE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.1
-- The Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review tracks
cases handled by immigration judges and appeals handled by the
BIA. 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.
To develop data on pre- and post-expedited removal cases, EOIR
officials provided us with extracts from the database that contained
records on cases EOIR received between October 1, 1995, and October
31, 1997, for which the charges against the alien included one of the
charges that would subject an alien to expedited removal. According
to an EOIR official, the data in these extracts were current as of
January 6, 1998.
To develop data on the immigration judges' negative credible fear
reviews since April 1, 1997, EOIR officials provided us with a
database extract that contained records for all open and closed
negative credible fear review cases that EOIR received as of December
17, 1997. Due to the amount of time involved, we did not assess the
reliability of the data in this database at the immigration courts we
visited.
INS DATABASES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.2
-- Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database is an interim database
that was created by the Asylum Office. The database is to track
data on the aliens subject to expedited removal who were
referred for a credible fear interview until changes could be
made to a mainframe INS database (the Asylum Pre-Screening
System) to track the expedited removal credible fear process.
Data for each case are to be keyed in at the individual asylum
offices and transmitted to headquarters on a weekly basis for
consolidation.
To develop data on the credible fear referrals and determinations,
Asylum Office officials provided us with a copy of this database,
which was current as of November 13, 1997. We spoke to staff at the
three Asylum Offices that we visited about their data entry
processes. Due to time and resource constraints, we did not perform
reliability checks on the data.
-- Deportable Alien Control System is a nationwide database that
contains data related to the arrest, detention, and
deportation/removal of illegal aliens. Data on aliens who are
issued an expedited removal order are to be entered into this
database. INS gave us a database extract, as of December 15,
1997, that contained records for all open and closed expedited
removal cases categorized as:
alien found inadmissible under expedited removal and the alien does
not express a fear of persecution or claim legal status;
alien found inadmissible under expedited removal, but alien claims
legal status and is referred to an immigration judge for a legal
status claim review; and
alien found inadmissible under expedited removal and ordered removed,
but alien failed to surrender for removal after release from
detention.
Data on aliens whom INS finds inadmissible under expedited removal
and refers for a credible fear interview are also to be entered into
this database. We did not capture data on credible fear referrals
from this database because an INS official told us that data on these
individuals are not entered into this database in a timely manner and
that the Asylum Pre-Screening Officer database is a better source for
data on credible fear referrals.
We did a limited review of Deportable Alien Control System data
reliability at the five locations we visited. As discussed in this
appendix, at these locations we did a file review of a sample of
cases of aliens that INS found inadmissible under expedited removal
and for which the alien did not express a fear of persecution. We
had INS print out data for every ninth record in the list of files we
reviewed. We compared the Deportable Alien Control System data in
the printouts for some of the fields we are presenting in this report
to the source documents in the files. On the basis of our review, we
believe the data in these fields are generally reliable.
-- Record of Intercepted Passenger System contains data on aliens
whom INS finds inadmissible at airports. INS staff at JFK
airport created the database in the 1980s to collect data on
inadmissible air passengers that the U.S. government agreed to
provide on a monthly basis to the airline industry. Each month,
headquarters staff are to receive and consolidate such data from
all of the airports, which are shared with the industry.
Before April 1, 1997, INS did not require ports to collect these data
through this database. However, a number of the larger airports did,
including Miami and Los Angeles. We limited our use of data in this
database to the three airports we visited because of the lack of
information on the reliability of the data entered by other airports
using this database. We did not perform reliability checks on the
data. However, we spoke to staff at these three ports about their
data entry and verification processes and uses of the data. The data
entry processes varied among the ports as did the amount of data
entry verification. All three of the ports used the data internally
to generate such things as workload numbers and intelligence data.
Because of time and resource constraints (including source documents
not being available at all the ports we visited) we did not perform
reliability checks on the data.
FILE REVIEW METHODOLOGY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2
The objective of our two file reviews was to obtain more detailed
information about the characteristics of individuals subject to
expedited removal and the credible fear interview and the processes
actually followed by INS in implementing the new law. The first file
review, which we conducted at the five locations 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 nationwide, was of files on aliens who went through
a credible fear interview and for whom INS determined they did not
have a credible fear of persecution. Because of concerns about the
quality of INS data, we were unable to rely exclusively on existing
databases.
We developed a data collection instrument for use in extracting
information from the INS files. All of the information was obtained
from the case files on aliens provided to us at the port of entry,
the district office, or headquarters. 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.
All of the files we reviewed were for aliens who attempted to enter
the United States between May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997. For the
first file review, we randomly selected case files (probability
samples) at each of the five locations we visited from lists provided
to us by INS of aliens who were subject to expedited removal and were
not referred for a credible fear interview. For one location
(Buffalo district), we selected all cases because of the small number
of entries during this period. The samples selected at the other
locations were large enough to allow us to make estimates with a
reasonable degree of accuracy to all individuals entering each
location during those months and who were processed through expedited
removal process. For the file review of aliens whom INS found not to
have a credible fear of persecution, we included all the files that
we could identify using a list of such aliens provided by INS. Our
results cannot be projected to other locations or to other time
frames.
Table II.1 provides a description of the sampling frames and
dispositions for the file review of aliens who were subject to
expedited removal and who were not referred for a credible fear
interview at each of the locations we visited.
Table II.1
File Review Dispositions for the Five
Locations of Aliens Who Were Subject to
Expedited Removal
Los
Buffal Angele Miam San
Disposition o JFK s i Ysidro
---------------------------------- ------ ---- ------ ---- ------
Original population 81 366 162 484 4,793
Original sample 81 97 95 102 115
Files not found 6 1 14 10 12
Files found 75 96 81 92 103
Files found ineligible\a 1 0 9 3 0
Final sample reviewed 74 96 72 89 103
Adjusted population\b 80 366 144 468 4,793
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Cases were deleted from the sample for the following reasons:
minor (less than 18 years old), stowaway, not an expedited removal
case, and sent for credible fear interview.
\b The adjusted population is our estimate of the number of eligible
cases in the original population of interest. This estimate
multiplies the original population total by the proportion of found
files that were eligible. The adjusted population is calculated as
follows:
[ (final sample reviewed) / (files found) ] x (original population)
To identify the population of aliens who attempted to enter between
May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997, who were referred for a credible fear
interview and INS found that they did not have a credible fear of
persecution, we obtained a list from INS of such individuals. We
deleted from this list aliens who were minors or stowaways or who had
been paroled into the country before May 1, 1997. INS found
additional files that met our review criteria, which we included in
our review. The total number of files we reviewed was 84.
Because we used random sampling at four of the locations (JFK
airport, Los Angeles airport, Miami airport, and San Ysidro), the
results obtained for these locations 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 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 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 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.
We did our review from November 1996 to March 1998 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
HISTORICAL DATA ON ALIENS WHO
ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE UNITED
STATES
========================================================= Appendix III
Table III.1
Nationwide Historical Data on Aliens Who
Attempted to Enter the United States
Aliens not admitted into the United States
------------------------------------------------------
Total
aliens Aliens
inspected referred
at to the
the secondary Applicatio Referred Total
primary n Inspecti to aliens
Fiscal inspection inspection withdrawn/ Paroled\ on immigratio not
year level level refused\a b deferred n judge admitted
-------- ----------- ---------- ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ----------
1992 315,093,572 10,102,035 911,040 64,991 23,425 16,488 1,015,944
1993 315,048,108 10,041,184 876,054 64,411 20,678 17,971 979,114
1994 325,615,962 10,480,736 953,320 60,318 23,131 15,187 1,051,956
1995 319,364,450 11,521,615 594,532 62,421 14,906 17,680 689,539
1996 315,453,144 8,646,978 596,813 96,746 17,472 23,350 734,381
1997\c 156,348,463 4,164,794 283,692 49,358 8,534 16,215 357,799
(part)
=========================================================================================
Total 1,746,923,6 54,957,342 4,215,451 398,245 108,146 106,891 4,828,733
99
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "Refused" refers to aliens who were inadmissible and could not
appeal their inadmissibility to an immigration judge because of the
type of visa they presented to an inspector.
\b "Paroled" refers to a procedure used to temporarily admit an
excludable alien into the United States for emergency reasons or when
the alien's admittance is in the public interest.
\c Fiscal year 1997 time frame includes October 1, 1996, through
March 31, 1997.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Table III.2
Buffalo Land Ports of Entry Data on
Aliens Attempting to Enter the United
States
Aliens not admitted into the United States
------------------------------------------------------
Total
aliens Aliens
inspected referred
at to the
the secondary Applicatio Referred
primary n Inspecti to Total
Fiscal inspection inspection withdrawn/ Paroled\ on immigratio aliens not
year level level refused\a b deferred n judge admitted
-------- ----------- ---------- ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ----------
1992\c 26,578,885 860,723 54,986 2,195 322 1,009 58,512
1993 24,750,888 845,316 55,390 2,928 324 824 59,466
1994 22,524,153 798,574 49,635 2,155 262 974 53,026
1995 20,820,252 1,394,683 43,740 2,155 128 1,154 47,177
1996 19,920,772 1,689,952 59,709 2,423 206 1,115 63,453
1997\d 8,425,797 667,015 21,708 1,380 109 479 23,676
(part)
=========================================================================================
Total 123,020,747 6,256,263 285,168 13,236 1,351 5,555 305,310
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "Refused" refers to aliens who were inadmissible and could not
appeal their inadmissibility to an immigration judge because of the
type of visa they presented to an inspector.
\b "Paroled" refers to a procedure used to temporarily admit an
excludable alien into the United States, for emergency reasons or
when the alien's admittance is in the public interest.
\c Fiscal year 1992 data do not include October 1992 because data
were not available.
\d Fiscal year 1997 time frame includes October 1, 1996, through
March 31, 1997.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Table III.3
JFK Airport Data on Aliens Attempting to
Enter the United States
Aliens not admitted into the United States
------------------------------------------------------
Total
aliens Aliens
inspected referred
at to the
the secondary Applicatio Referred
primary n Inspecti to Total
Fiscal inspection inspection withdrawn/ Paroled\ on immigratio aliens not
year level level refused\a b deferred n judge admitted
-------- ----------- ---------- ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ----------
1992\c 4,240,817 112,729 2,858 755 5,319 6,288 15,220
1993 4,648,172 121,188 3,194 816 1,286 7,369 12,665
1994 4,814,346 123,474 3,098 777 1,408 4,525 9,808
1995 5,310,229 133,783 2,778 359 1,428 3,429 7,994
1996 5,485,048 139,325 2,877 464 2,142 2,189 7,672
1997\d 2,460,233 61,247 1,232 47 854 1,059 3,192
(part)
=========================================================================================
Total 26,958,845 691,746 16,037 3,218 12,437 24,859 56,551
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "Refused" refers to aliens who were inadmissible and could not
appeal their inadmissibility to an immigration judge because of the
type of visa they presented to an inspector.
\b "Paroled" refers to a procedure used to temporarily admit an
excludable alien into the United States, for emergency reasons or
when the alien's admittance is in the public interest.
\c Fiscal year 1992 data do not include October 1992 because data
were not available.
\d Fiscal year 1997 time frame includes October 1, 1996, through
March 31, 1997.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Table III.4
Los Angeles Airport Data on Aliens
Attempting to Enter the United States
Aliens not admitted into the United States
------------------------------------------------------
Total
aliens Aliens
inspected referred
at to the
the secondary Applicatio Referred
primary n Inspecti to Total
Fiscal inspection inspection withdrawn/ Paroled\ on immigratio aliens not
year level level refused\a b deferred n judge admitted
-------- ----------- ---------- ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ----------
1992\c 2,649,935 33,858 937 5,112 970 1,674 8,693
1993 3,053,013 46,026 1,293 15,104 1,353 928 18,678
1994 3,605,086 56,297 1,691 9,732 1,537 849 13,809
1995 3,875,347 54,205 1,877 5,938 1,245 877 9,937
1996 4,279,929 53,177 2,017 8,194 1,114 826 12,151
1997\d 2,060,235 24,759 1,074 1,897 524 499 3,994
(part)
=========================================================================================
Total 19,523,545 268,322 8,889 45,977 6,743 5,653 67,262
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "Refused" refers to aliens who were inadmissible and could not
appeal their inadmissibility to an immigration judge because of the
type of visa they presented to an inspector.
\b "Paroled" refers to a procedure used to temporarily admit an
excludable alien into the United States, for emergency reasons or
when the alien's admittance is in the public interest.
\c Fiscal year 1992 data do not include October 1992 because data
were not available.
\d Fiscal year 1997 time frame includes October 1, 1996, through
March 31, 1997.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Table III.5
Miami Airport Data on Aliens Attempting
to Enter the United States
Aliens not admitted into the United States
------------------------------------------------------
Total
aliens Aliens
inspected referred
at to the
the secondary Applicatio Referred
primary n Inspecti to Total
Fiscal inspection inspection withdrawn/ Paroled\ on immigratio aliens not
year level level refused\a b deferred n judge admitted
-------- ----------- ---------- ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ----------
1992\c 3,032,792 40,183 2,088 3,178 492 1,376 7,134
1993 3,720,690 59,169 3,310 3,243 741 3,095 10,389
1994 3,776,063 62,432 3,408 4,087 1,102 3,606 12,203
1995 4,501,090 87,922 3,655 17,961 1,149 3,436 26,201
1996 4,655,623 130,970 3,087 32,885 2,186 2,412 40,570
1997\d 1,926,413 46,731 1,049 5,700 600 975 8,324
(part)
=========================================================================================
Total 21,612,671 427,407 16,597 67,054 6,270 14,900 104,821
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "Refused" refers to aliens who were inadmissible and could not
appeal their inadmissibility to an immigration judge because of the
type of visa they presented to an inspector.
\b "Paroled" refers to a procedure used to temporarily admit an
excludable alien into the United States, for emergency reasons or
when the alien's admittance is in the public interest.
\c Fiscal year 1992 data do not include October 1992 because data
were not available.
\d Fiscal year 1997 time frame includes October 1, 1996, through
March 31, 1997.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Table III.6
San Ysidro Port of Entry data on Aliens
Attempting to Enter the United States
Aliens not admitted into the United States
------------------------------------------------------
Total
aliens Aliens
inspected referred
at to the
the secondary Applicatio Referred
primary n Inspecti to Total
Fiscal inspection inspection withdrawn/ Paroled\ on immigratio aliens not
year level level refused\a b deferred n judge admitted
-------- ----------- ---------- ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ----------
1992\c 33,559,303 1,461,925 127,308 2,925 70 0 130,303
1993 36,758,143 1,715,130 119,143 2,356 41 21 121,561
1994 38,917,788 2,070,364 146,855 2,679 42 76 149,652
1995 36,787,815 2,226,104 166,629 2,917 20 3,526 173,092
1996 26,857,643 1,414,991 110,561 4,887 17 10,462 125,927
1997\d 14,181,317 703,423 44,744 5,021 10 8,018 57,793
(part)
=========================================================================================
Total 187,062,009 9,591,937 715,240 20,785 200 22,103 758,328
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "Refused" refers to aliens who were inadmissible and could not
appeal their inadmissibility to an immigration judge because of the
type of visa they presented to an inspector.
\b "Paroled" refers to a procedure used to temporarily admit an
excludable alien into the United States, for emergency reasons or
when the alien's admittance is in the public interest.
\c Fiscal year 1992 data do not include October 1992 because data
were not available.
\d Fiscal year 1997 time frame includes October 1, 1996, through
March 31, 1997.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION
REVIEW RESULTS FROM EXCLUSION AND
REMOVAL HEARINGS
========================================================== Appendix IV
Between October 1, 1995, and March 31, 1997, EOIR received 42,164
exclusion cases from INS against aliens who were at least charged
with attempting to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or
misrepresentation or arriving without proper documents.\1 The final
EOIR decision is made either by the immigration judge or by BIA if
the alien or INS appeals the immigration judge's decision. As of
January 6, 1998, 3,613 cases were pending and 38,551 cases were
completed (e.g., cases that had a final EOIR decision recorded).
In 84 percent of the 38,551 completed cases, the final EOIR decision
was that the alien was not to be admitted into the United States. In
16 percent of the completed cases, the final EOIR decision was that
the alien should not be denied entry into the United States.
However, the alien may have subsequently been denied entry into the
United States. For instance, INS initially may have brought charges
against the alien under the wrong type of proceeding. If INS
subsequently filed charges under the correct proceeding, the final
EOIR decision under that proceeding may be to deny the alien entry
into the United States.\2
As of January 6, 1998, aliens had appealed the immigration judges'
decision to BIA in 1,397 cases, INS had appealed the decision in 180
cases, and another 15 cases were appealed by both the alien and INS
or were referred by the immigration judge. Of these 1,592 cases,
1,003 were still pending, 178 aliens were to be admitted, 406 aliens
were to be removed, and 5 aliens were permitted to withdraw their
applications.
Approximately 8 percent of the 42,164 aliens whose cases EOIR
received between October 1, 1995, and March 31, 1997, applied for
asylum before the immigration judge.
As seen in table IV.1, the length of time to complete a case (for the
38,527 cases for which there was a completion date recorded) varied
from 30 days or less for 26,117 (67.8 percent) of the cases, to 721
to 810 days for 44 cases (0.1 percent).\3 As of January 6, 1998,
3,637 cases did not have a completion date.
Table IV.1
Elapsed Days From Date EOIR Received the
Case to Date EOIR Completed the Case
Percentage
Number of of
completed completed
Elapsed days cases cases
---------------------------------------- ------------- -------------
0-30 26,117 67.8
31-60 2,014 5.2
61-90 1,484 3.9
91-180 3,611 9.4
181-270 2,397 6.2
271-360 1,505 3.9
361-450 664 1.7
451-540 361 0.9
541-630 230 0.6
631-720 100 0.3
721-810 44 0.1
======================================================================
Total 38,527 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of data in EOIR's Automated Nationwide System
for Immigration Review database.
For these 42,164 exclusion cases, 13,910 (33 percent) of the aliens
were not detained during the hearing process, while 26,814 (64
percent) were in detention as of the most recent proceeding, and
1,440 (3 percent) were not in detention as of the most recent
proceeding but had been detained at some point during the hearing
process.
As seen in table IV.2, the nationality of the alien for over half the
cases received by EOIR between October 31, 1995, and March 31, 1997,
was Mexican.
Table IV.2
The 10 Most Common Nationalities of
Aliens Who Were Scheduled for Exclusion
Hearings
Percentage
Number of
of exclusion
Nationality aliens cases
------------------------------------------------ ------ ------------
Mexico 24,532 58.2
Cuba 2,905 6.9
Haiti 2,127 5.0
Nationality unknown 1,318 3.1
China 1,312 3.1
Canada 1,246 3.0
India 628 1.5
Jamaica 478 1.1
Sri Lanka 410 1.0
Pakistan 399 0.9
Other\a 6,809 16.1
======================================================================
Total 42,164 99.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
\a "Other" includes aliens of 176 different nationalities and 6
aliens who were "stateless".
Source: GAO analysis of data in EOIR's Automated Nationwide System
for Immigration Review database.
--------------------
\1 These are cases against aliens who presented themselves for
admission at ports of entry.
\2 Additionally, in nine cases the decision was that the alien should
be allowed to depart from the United States voluntarily.
\3 A discrepancy exists between the number of cases for which there
was a final EOIR decision recorded and the number of cases for which
there was a completion date recorded. The discrepancy is due to
missing data within these fields in the database.
AFTER APRIL 1, 1997, REMOVAL
HEARING DATA
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:0.1
Between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, EOIR received 1,996
removal cases from INS against aliens whose only charges were for
attempting to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or
misrepresentation or arriving without proper documents.\4 The final
EOIR decision is made either by the immigration judge or by BIA if
the alien or INS appeals the immigration judge's decision. As of
January 6, 1998, 942 cases were completed (e.g., cases that had a
final EOIR decision recorded), and the remaining 1,054 cases were
pending. Of the completed cases, EOIR decided not to admit the alien
50 percent of the time or to allow the alien to voluntarily depart in
3 percent of the cases. In 47 percent of the cases, the decision was
that the alien should not be denied entry into the United States on
the basis of the set of charges presented for these proceedings.
As of January 6, 1998, the alien had appealed the immigration judge's
decision to BIA in 83 cases, and INS had appealed the decision in 5
cases. Of these cases, 80 were still pending, and BIA found the
alien was to be admitted in 4 cases and found the alien was to be
removed in 4 cases.
For 1,996 cases received between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997,
691 aliens applied for asylum before the immigration judge.
Table IV.3 shows that as of January 6, 1998, 37 percent of the cases
EOIR received between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, and for
which there was a completion date recorded, had been completed within
30 days. As of January 6, 1998, 1,060 cases did not have a
completion date.\5
Table IV.3
Elapsed Days From Date EOIR Received the
Case to Date EOIR Completed the Case
Percentage
Number of of
completed completed
Elapsed days cases cases
---------------------------------------- ------------- -------------
0-30 348 37
31-60 175 19
61-90 174 19
91-180 212 23
181-270 27 3
======================================================================
Total 936 101
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
Source: GAO analysis of data in EOIR's Automated Nationwide System
for Immigration Review database.
After April, 1, 1997, 615 (31 percent) of the 1,996 aliens were not
detained during the hearing process, while 820 (41 percent) were in
detention as of the most recent proceeding, and 561 (28 percent) were
not in detention as of the most recent proceeding but had been
detained at some point during the hearing process.
The most common nationality of aliens in these removal proceedings,
as shown in table IV.4, was Cuban.
Table IV.4
The 10 Most Common Nationalities of
Aliens Who Were Scheduled for Removal
Hearings
Percentage
Number of
of removal
Nationality aliens cases
------------------------------------------------ ------ ------------
Cuba 265 13
China 257 13
Sri Lanka 216 11
Mexico 198 10
Albania 69 3
Somalia 64 3
Haiti 60 3
India 51 3
Nigeria 50 3
Pakistan 48 2
Other\a 718 36
======================================================================
Total 1,996 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "Other" includes aliens of 112 different nationalities. It also
includes 14 aliens for which the nationality was unknown and 1 alien
who was "stateless". Thirty of the countries of nationality had only
1 case.
Source: GAO analysis of data in EOIR's Automated Nationwide System
for Immigration Review database.
--------------------
\4 These would include cases for aliens who presented themselves for
admission at ports of entry who were found not to be admissible but
who were found to have a credible fear of persecution. It would also
include cases for the Cuban nationals who are not subject to
expedited removal and aliens who entered the United States without
inspection and who subsequently came in contact with INS and were
placed in removal proceedings as inadmissible aliens.
\5 A discrepancy exists between the number of cases for which there
was a final EOIR decision recorded and the number of cases for which
there was a completion date recorded. The discrepancy is due to
missing data within these fields in the database.
DESCRIPTION OF THE VIOLATIONS THAT
SUBJECT ALIENS TO EXPEDITED
REMOVAL
=========================================================== Appendix V
The violations under the 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
�212(a)(6)(C)(i)); (2) obtained a benefit under federal or state law
by falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen (INA �212(a)(6)(C)(ii)); or
(3) were not in possession of valid entry documents (INA �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, that is, 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, that is, 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 INS training
materials of situations which would fall under this basis of
inadmissibility are: 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 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 as reflected on their visa. If the alien fails to
establish that he or she is entitled to the nonimmigrant visa
that the alien is presenting, 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).
INS FORMS USED DURING THE
EXPEDITED REMOVAL PROCESS
========================================================== Appendix VI
Figure VI.1: Record of Sworn
Statement in Proceedings under
Section 235 (b)(1) of the Act
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Figure VI.2: Information about
Credible Fear Interview
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Figure VI.3: Record of
Determination/Credible Fear
Work Sheet
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
ADDITIONAL DATA ON ALIENS WHO WERE
CHARGED UNDER THE EXPEDITED
REMOVAL PROVISION
========================================================= Appendix VII
Following are data on aliens who attempted to enter the United States
between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, and who were processed
under the expedited removal provision but were not referred for a
credible fear interview or a legal status claim review. The data are
presented nationwide and for the five locations in our review. The
data for the airports include cases for aliens entering through
seaports for those locations.
Table VII.1
Gender of Aliens Processed Under the
Expedited Removal Provision Between
April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997
Male alien Female alien
-------------- --------------
Total
aliens
Percen Percen proces
Location Number t Number t sed
---------------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Nationwide 16,658 60 11,116 40 27,774
Buffalo district 151 77 46 23 197
JFK airport 589 65 313 35 902
Los Angeles airport 218 63 128 37 346
Miami airport 572 55 464 45 1,036
San Ysidro 7,089 60 4,744 40 11,833
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of INS data from the Deportable Alien Control
System.
Table VII.2
Age Range of Aliens Processed Under the
Expedited Removal Provision Between
April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997
Age range of aliens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 17 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 and older
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Lo
ca
ti Numbe Perce Numbe Perce Numbe Perce Numbe Perce Numbe Perce
on r nt r nt r nt r nt r nt Total
-- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------
Na 426 2 11,98 43 10,44 38 4,143 15 761 3 27,759
t 1 8 \a
i
o
n
w
i
d
e
Bu 1 \b 42 21 87 44 55 28 12 6 197
f
f
a
l
o
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
JF 36 4 189 21 400 45 240 27 30 3 895
K
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
Lo 23 7 100 29 128 37 80 23 14 4 345
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
Mi 29 3 208 20 397 38 343 33 59 6 1,036
a
m
i
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
Sa 76 \b 5,575 47 4,406 37 1,506 13 270 2 11,833
n
Y
s
i
d
r
o
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
\a For 15 cases, the data on age were missing.
\b Indicates less than 1 percent of the total aliens processed in the
district.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data from the Deportable Alien Control
System.
Table VII.3
The 10 Most Common Countries of
Citizenship for Aliens Processed Under
Expedited Removal Nationwide Between
April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997
Number
of Percentage
Country of citizenship aliens of aliens
-------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------
Mexico 24,311 87.5
Jamaica 354 1.3
Canada 247 0.9
Colombia 227 0.8
Guatemala 196 0.7
Dominican Republic 193 0.7
Ecuador 179 0.6
Brazil 168 0.6
China 148 0.5
Peru 137 0.5
Other\a 1,614 5.8
======================================================================
Total 27,774 99.9\b
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "Other" is comprised of 120 countries, 31 of which had only 1
case.
\b Total does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data from the Deportable Alien Control
System.
Table VII.4
The 11 Most Common Countries of
Citizenship for Aliens Processed Under
Expedited Removal at the Buffalo
District Between April 1, 1997, and
October 31, 1997
Number
of Percentage
Country of citizenship aliens of aliens
-------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------
Canada 76 38.6
Pakistan 11 5.6
Jamaica 9 4.6
India 7 3.6
Somalia 6 3.0
Guyana 5 2.5
Philippines 5 2.5
United Kingdom 5 2.5
Israel 4 2.0
Sudan 4 2.0
Mexico 4 2.0
Other\a 61 31.0
======================================================================
Total 197 99.9\b
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "Other" is comprised of 42 countries, 29 of which had only 1 case.
\b Total does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data from the Deportable Alien Control
System.
Table VII.5
The 10 Most Common Countries of
Citizenship for Aliens Processed Under
Expedited Removal at the JFK Airport
Between April 1, 1997, and October 31,
1997
Number
of Percentage
Country of citizenship aliens of aliens
-------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------
Jamaica 93 10.3
Dominican Republic 92 10.2
Ecuador 79 8.8
Brazil 65 7.2
China 51 5.7
Pakistan 42 4.7
Israel 28 3.1
Peru 26 2.9
India 25 2.8
Philippines 24 2.7
Other\a 377 41.8
======================================================================
Total 902 100.2\b
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "Other" is comprised of 70 countries, 28 of which had only 1 case.
\b Total does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data from the Deportable Alien Control
System.
Table VII.6
The 10 Most Common Countries of
Citizenship for Aliens Processed Under
Expedited Removal at the Los Angeles
Airport Between April 1, 1997, and
October 31, 1997
Number
of Percentage
Country of citizenship aliens of aliens
-------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------
Mexico 140 40.5
China 48 13.9
Guatemala 34 9.8
El Salvador 22 6.4
Bolivia 21 6.1
Philippines 17 4.9
Peru 8 2.3
Pakistan 6 1.7
India 5 1.4
Korea 5 1.4
Other\a 40 11.6
======================================================================
Total 346 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "Other" is comprised of 20 countries, 5 of which had only 1 case.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data from the Deportable Alien Control
System.
Table VII.7
The 10 Most Common Countries of
Citizenship for Aliens Processed Under
Expedited Removal at the Miami Airport
Between April 1, 1997, and October 31,
1997
Number
of Percentage
Country of citizenship aliens of aliens
-------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------
Jamaica 149 14.4
Colombia 145 14.0
Venezuela 71 6.9
Guatemala 62 6.0
Honduras 62 6.0
Costa Rica 58 5.6
Brazil 56 5.4
Peru 55 5.3
Dominican Republic 50 4.8
Ecuador 43 4.2
Other\a 285 27.5
======================================================================
Total 1,036 100.1\b
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "Other" is comprised of 35 countries, 10 of which had only 1 case.
\b Total does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data from the Deportable Alien Control
System.
Table VII.8
The 10 Most Common Countries of
Citizenship for Aliens Processed Under
Expedited Removal at the San Ysidro
Between April 1, 1997, and October 31,
1997
Number
of Percentage
Country of citizenship aliens of aliens
-------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------
Mexico 11,777 99.5
Guatemala 13 0.1
El Salvador 8 0.1
Honduras 5 \a
Colombia 4 \a
Belize 3 \a
Brazil 3 \a
Peru 3 \a
Costa Rica 2 \a
Nicaragua 2 \a
Other\b 13 0.1
======================================================================
Total 11,833 99.8\c
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Indicates less than 1 percent of the aliens processed in the
district.
\b "Other" is comprised of 13 countries, all of which had only 1
case.
\c Total does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data from the Deportable Alien Control
System.
Following are data from our review of a sample of files on aliens who
attempted to enter the country between May 1 and July 31, 1997, and
were processed through the expedited removal procedures but were not
referred for a credible fear interview. For tables VII.9 through
VII.13, we based the percentages on the adjusted populations of our
case file review for the five locations we visited. See appendix II
for a discussion of our case file review methodology. As shown in
table II.1, the adjusted case file population for (1) Buffalo was 80,
(2) JFK was 366, (3) Los Angeles was 144, (4) Miami was 468, and (5)
San Ysidro was 4,793.
Table VII.9
Languages Used in Secondary Interviews
Between May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997,
Either by the INS Inspector or an
Interpreter on the Basis of File Reviews
in the Buffalo District
Percen
Language t
-------------------------------------------------------------- ------
English 82
French 9
All others 8
======================================================================
Total 99\a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Total does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: GAO file review.
Table VII.10
Languages Used In Secondary Interviews
Between May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997,
Either by the INS Inspector or an
Interpreter on the Basis of File Reviews
at the JFK Airport
Percen
Language t
-------------------------------------------------------------- ------
English 45
Spanish 31
Portuguese 5
Russian 5
French 4
Mandarin 4
All others 5
======================================================================
Total 99\a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Total does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: GAO file review.
Table VII.11
Languages Used in Secondary Interviews
Between May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997,
Either by the INS Inspector or an
Interpreter on the Basis of File Reviews
at the Los Angeles Airport
Percen
Language t
-------------------------------------------------------------- ------
Spanish 81
English 10
Chinese/Mandarin 7
Tagalog 3
======================================================================
Total 101\a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Total does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: GAO file review.
Table VII.12
Languages Used in Secondary Interviews
Between May 1, 1997, and July 31, 1997,
Either by the INS Inspector or an
Interpreter on the Basis of File Reviews
at the Miami Airport
Percen
Language t
-------------------------------------------------------------- ------
Spanish 65
English 34
Creole 1
======================================================================
Total 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO file review.
In San Ysidro, Spanish was the only language used in secondary
interviews between May 1 and July 31, 1997, by either the INS
inspector or an interpreter on the basis of our case file reviews.
Table VII.13
INS Charges Against Aliens Who Were
Processed Under the Expedited Removal
Procedures Between May 1, 1997, and July
31, 1997
Percentage of cases by location
-------------------------------------
Buffal
o JFK Miami Los
distri airpo airpo Angeles San
Violation ct rt rt airport Ysidro
----------------------------------------- ------ ----- ----- ------- ------
Willful misrepresentation of material 77 76 72 61 68
fact--6(C)(i)
False claims to U.S. citizenship-- 10 9 33 18 27
6(C)(ii)
Immigrant not in possession of valid, 51 93 89 52 41\a
unexpired visa, reentry permit, border
crossing card and a valid passport or
other travel document--7(A)(i)(I)
Immigrant with visa issued without 3 3 3 0 0
compliance with section 203 of the INA-
-7(A)(i)(II)
Nonimmigrant not in possession of 33 48 3 1 0
passport valid for at least 6 months
beyond period of initial admission--
7(B)(i)(I)
Nonimmigrant not in possession of valid 10 54 2 1 0
nonimmigrant visa or border crossing
card--7(B)(i)(II)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See appendix V for a more detailed description of these
charges.
\a The sampling error for this estimate is 10.03 percent.
Source: GAO file review.
ADDITIONAL DATA ON ALIENS WHO HAD
A CREDIBLE FEAR INTERVIEW
======================================================== Appendix VIII
Following are data on aliens who attempted to enter the United States
between April 1, 1997, and October 31, 1997, and had a credible fear
interview. The data are presented nationwide and for the eight
asylum offices.
Table VIII.1
Gender of Aliens Who Had a Credible Fear
Interview and Attempted to Enter the
United States Between April 1, 1997, and
October 31, 1997
Male Female Total
------------ ------------ ------------
Numbe Perce Numbe Perce Numbe Perce
Location r nt r nt r nt
---------------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Nationwide 762 69 346 31 1,108 100
Arlington 26 74 9 26 35 100
Chicago 63 78 18 22 81 100
Houston 73 78 21 22 94 100
Los Angeles 170 68 81 32 251 100
Miami 100 64 57 36 157 100
New York 193 75 64 25 257 100
Newark 89 66 45 34 134 100
San Francisco 48 49 51 52 99 101\a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentage does not add to 100 due to rounding.
Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.
Table VIII.2
Age Range of Aliens Who Had a Credible
Fear Interview and Attempted to Enter
the United States Between April 1, 1997,
and October 31, 1997
1 to 17 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 and older Total
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------
Numbe Perce Numbe Perce Numbe Perce Numbe Perce Numbe Perce Numb Perce
Location r nt r nt r nt r nt r nt er nt
----------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Nationwide 93 9 311 29 426 40 225 21 22 2 1,07 101\a
7
Arlington 6 17 8 23 17 49 1 \\3 3 9 35 101\a
Chicago 10 12 23 28 30 37 17 21 1 1 81 99\a
Houston 5 6 29 33 37 43 14 16 2 2 87 100
Los Angeles 38 15 62 25 89 36 53 22 5 2 247 100
Miami 5 3 53 34 67 43 29 19 3 2 155 101\a
New York 16 6 87 35 92 37 52 21 5 2 252 101\a
Newark 2 2 28 22 61 48 33 26 3 2 127 100
San Francisco 11 12 21 23 33 36 26 29 0 0 91 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.
Table VIII.3
The 12 Most Common Countries of
Citizenship for Aliens Who Had a
Credible Fear Interview and Attempted to
Enter the United States Between April 1,
1997, and October 31, 1997
Number
of Percentage
Country of citizenship aliens of aliens
-------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------
Sri Lanka 189 17
China 178 16
Albania 76 7
Haiti 76 7
Nigeria 53 5
Somalia 45 4
Mexico 41 4
Pakistan 38 3
Guatemala 35 3
Yugoslavia 29 3
India 24 2
El Salvador 23 2
Other\a 301 27
======================================================================
Total 1,108 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "Other" is comprised of 67 countries, 24 of which had only 1 case.
Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.
Table VIII.4
The Six Most Common Countries of
Citizenship for Aliens Who Had a
Credible Fear Interview With the
Arlington Asylum Office and Attempted to
Enter the United States Between April 1,
1997, and October 31, 1997
Number
of Percentage
Country of citizenship aliens of aliens
-------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------
Albania 11 31
Nigeria 6 17
Somalia 3 9
China 2 6
Sierra Leone 2 6
Zaire 2 6
Other\a 9 26
======================================================================
Total 35 101
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
\a "Other" is comprised of nine countries, all of which had only one
case.
Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.
Table VIII.5
The Six Most Common Countries of
Citizenship for Aliens Who Had a
Credible Fear Interview With the Chicago
Asylum Office and Attempted to Enter the
United States Between April 1, 1997, and
October 31, 1997
Number
of Percentage
Country of citizenship aliens of aliens
-------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------
Sri Lanka 15 19
Somalia 11 14
Albania 9 11
China 7 9
India 6 7
Nigeria 6 7
Other\a 27 33
======================================================================
Total 81 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "Other" is comprised of 14 countries, 7 of which had only 1 case.
Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.
Table VIII.6
The Seven Most Common Countries of
Citizenship for Aliens Who Had a
Credible Fear Interview With the Houston
Asylum Office and Attempted to Enter the
United States Between April 1, 1997, and
October 31, 1997
Number
of Percentage
Country of citizenship aliens of aliens
-------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------
Guatemala 15 16
Cuba 12 13
Mexico 11 12
El Salvador 6 6
Nigeria 6 6
Honduras 5 5
Sri Lanka 5 5
Other\a 34 36
======================================================================
Total 94 99
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
\a "Other" is comprised of 20 countries, 10 of which had only 1 case.
Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.
Table VIII.7
The Six Most Common Countries of
Citizenship for Aliens Who Had a
Credible Fear Interview With the Los
Angeles Asylum Office and Attempted to
Enter the United States Between April 1,
1997, and October 31, 1997
Number
of Percentage
Country of citizenship aliens of aliens
-------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------
China 72 29
Sri Lanka 37 15
Mexico 28 11
Pakistan 16 6
El Salvador 14 6
Guatemala 11 4
Other\a 73 29
======================================================================
Total 251 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "Other" is comprised of 34 countries, 19 of which had only 1 case.
Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.
Table VIII.8
The Eight Most Common Countries of
Citizenship for Aliens Who Had a
Credible Fear Interview With the Miami
Asylum Office and Attempted to Enter the
United States Between April 1, 1997, and
October 31, 1997
Number
of Percentage
Country of citizenship aliens of aliens
-------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------
Haiti 70 45
Sri Lanka 29 19
Guatemala 7 5
Albania 5 3
Colombia 5 3
Lebanon 4 3
Peru 4 3
Yugoslavia 4 3
Other\a 29 18
======================================================================
Total 157 102
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
\a "Other" is comprised of 17 countries, 9 of which had only 1 case.
Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.
Table VIII.9
The Seven Most Common Countries of
Citizenship for Aliens Who Had a
Credible Fear Interview With the Newark
Asylum Office and Attempted to Enter the
United States Between April 1, 1997, and
October 31, 1997
Number
of Percentage
Country of citizenship aliens of aliens
-------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------
Albania 26 19
Sri Lanka 19 14
Nigeria 11 8
China 10 8
Somalia 9 7
Pakistan 6 5
Zaire 6 5
Other\a 47 35
======================================================================
Total 134 101
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
\a "Other" is comprised of 28 countries, 19 of which had only 1 case.
Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.
Table VIII.10
The Eight Most Common Countries of
Citizenship for Aliens Who Had a
Credible Fear Interview With the New
York Asylum Office and Attempted to
Enter the United States Between April 1,
1997, and October 31, 1997
Number
of Percentage
Country of citizenship aliens of aliens
-------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------
Sri Lanka 57 22
Albania 25 10
China 20 8
Yugoslavia 19 7
Nigeria 17 7
Somalia 17 7
Ghana 12 5
Pakistan 12 5
Other\a 78 30
======================================================================
Total 257 101
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
\a "Other" is comprised of 31 countries, 16 of which had only 1 case.
Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.
Table VIII.11
The Two Most Common Countries of
Citizenship for Aliens Who Had a
Credible Fear Interview With the San
Francisco Asylum Office and Attempted to
Enter the United States Between April 1,
1997, and October 31, 1997
Number
of Percentage
Country of citizenship aliens of aliens
-------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------
China 61 62
Sri Lanka 26 27
Other\a 11 11
======================================================================
Total 98 99
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
\a "Other" is comprised of 8 countries, 5 of which had only 1 case.
Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Pre-Screening Officer Database data.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IX
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:1
James M. Blume, Assistant Director
Mary Lane Renninger, Evaluator-in-Charge
Charity J. Goodman, Senior Evaluator
Carolyn S. Ikeda, Senior Evaluator
Barry Jay Seltser, Supervisory Social Science Analyst
Barry L. Reed, Senior Social Science Analyst
Bonita J. Vines, Senior Computer Specialist
Michael H. Little, Communications Analyst
Charlotte A. Moore, Communications Analyst
Ailsa Wei-Tan Chang, Intern
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:2
Jan B. Montgomery, Assistant General Counsel
Ann H. Finley, Senior Attorney
LOS ANGELES FIELD OFFICE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:3
Janet Fong, Senior Evaluator
Lisa G. Shibata, Evaluator
*** End of document. ***