Immigration: Actions Needed to Strengthen USCIS's Oversight and Data Quality of Credible and Reasonable Fear Screenings

Individuals apprehended by DHS and placed into expedited immigration proceedings are to be removed from the country without a hearing in immigration court unless they express an intention to apply for asylum, or a fear of persecution, torture, or return to their country. Those with such “fear claims” are referred to USCIS for a credible fear screening. Individuals who have certain criminal convictions or who have a reinstated order of removal and claim fear are referred for a reasonable fear screening. Those with negative outcomes can request a review by EOIR's immigration judges. GAO was asked to review USCIS's and EOIR's processes for fear screenings.

This report examines (1) USCIS and EOIR data on fear screenings, (2) USCIS policies and procedures for overseeing fear screenings, and (3) USCIS and EOIR processes for workload management. GAO analyzed USCIS and EOIR data from fiscal years 2014 through mid-2019; interviewed relevant headquarters and field officials; and observed fear screenings in California, Texas, and Virginia, where most screenings occur.

Data from the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) indicate that their credible and reasonable fear caseloads generally increased from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2018.

USCIS's caseloads nearly doubled during this timeframe—from about 56,000 to almost 109,000 referrals for credible and reasonable fear screenings. Further, the credible fear caseload was larger in the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019 alone than in each of fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Referrals to USCIS for reasonable fear screenings also increased from fiscal years 2014 through 2018. USCIS asylum officers made positive determinations in 71 percent of all credible and reasonable fear screenings between fiscal years 2014 and the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019. The outcomes of the remaining screenings were generally split evenly (14 percent each) between negative determinations or administrative closures (such as if the applicant was unable to communicate).

EOIR's caseload for immigration judge reviews of USCIS's negative credible and reasonable fear determinations also increased between fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2018. EOIR's immigration judges reviewed about 55,000 cases from fiscal year 2014 through the third quarter of 2019 (the most recent data available), and judges upheld USCIS's negative determinations in about three-quarters of all reviews.

USCIS has developed various policies and procedures for overseeing credible and reasonable fear screenings in accordance with the regulations governing those screenings, such as interview requirements and mandatory supervisory review. USCIS provides basic training for new asylum officers and other training at individual asylum offices that includes credible and reasonable fear. The training at asylum offices includes on-the-job training for officers newly-assigned to credible and reasonable fear cases and ongoing weekly training for incumbent officers—some of which includes credible and reasonable fear. However, USCIS asylum offices do not all provide additional pre-departure training before officers begin screening families in person at DHS's family residential centers. Asylum Division officials told GAO that additional training for asylum officers before they begin screening such cases is important—in particular, credible fear screenings at these facilities represent about one-third of USCIS's caseload. Almost all USCIS asylum offices send officers to the family residential centers, including those offices with small fear caseloads at the local level. Some asylum offices provide pre-departure training to officers being sent to screen families, but such training is inconsistent across offices. By comparison, officials from the Chicago and New York offices stated they do not provide formal pre-departure training, but rather direct or recommend that officers review Asylum Division guidance and procedures on family processing independently before they travel. Officials from two other offices stated they rely on the training asylum officers may receive throughout the year related to credible and reasonable fear, which can vary. Providing pre-departure training, in addition to USCIS's basic training for new asylum officers, would help USCIS ensure that officers from all asylum offices are conducting efficient and effective fear screenings of families.

Further, consistent with regulation, USCIS policy is to include any dependents on a principal applicant's credible fear determination if the principal applicant receives a positive determination, resulting in the principal and any dependents being placed into full removal proceedings with an opportunity to apply for various forms of relief or protection, including asylum. For example, a parent as a principal applicant may receive a negative determination, but his or her child may receive a separate positive determination. In the interest of family unity, USCIS may use discretion to place both the parent and child into full removal proceedings rather than the parent being expeditiously ordered removed in accordance with the expedited removal process. However, USCIS's case management system does not allow officers to record whether an individual receives a determination on his or her case as a principal applicant, dependent, or in the interest of family unity. Without complete data on all such outcomes, USCIS is not well-positioned to report on the scope of either the agency's policy for family members who are treated as dependents, pursuant to regulation, or USCIS's use of discretion in the interest of family unity.

USCIS and EOIR have processes for managing their respective credible and reasonable fear workloads. For example, USCIS uses national- and local-level staffing models to inform staffing allocation decisions. USCIS also sets and monitors timeliness goals for completing credible and reasonable fear cases. Although USCIS monitors overall processing times, it does not collect comprehensive data on some types of case delays, which officers told us can occur on a regular basis. Asylum officers whom GAO interviewed stated that certain delays could affect the number of credible or reasonable fear cases they can complete each day. Collecting and analyzing additional information on case delays would better position USCIS to mitigate the reasons for the delays and improve efficiency. EOIR has developed processes for immigration courts and judges to help manage its workload that include performance measures with timeliness goals for credible and reasonable fear reviews. EOIR data indicate that about 30 percent of credible and reasonable fear reviews are not completed within the required timeframes. EOIR officials said they plan to implement an automated tool in early 2020 to monitor court performance, including the credible and reasonable fear performance goals. Because implementation of the automated tool is planned for early 2020, it is too soon to know if EOIR will use the tool to monitor adherence to the required credible and reasonable fear review time frames or if it will help EOIR understand reasons for case delays.

GAO is making four recommendations, including that USCIS provide additional pre-departure training to USCIS asylum officers before they begin screening families, systematically record case outcomes of family members, and collect and analyze information on case delays. DHS concurred with GAO's recommendations.

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border  Protection (CBP) has reported a significant increase in recent years in  apprehensions of noncitizen adults and family units who claim an  intention to apply for asylum, a fear of persecution or torture, or a fear of  return to their country. CBP may place apprehended adults and family  units into full or expedited removal proceedings before an immigration  court, consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act. In full removal  proceedings, they may apply for various forms of relief or protection,  including asylum. U.S. immigration law provides that noncitizens  physically present within the United States, whether or not at a  designated port of entry, may be granted asylum if they are found to be  unable or unwilling to return to their home country because of past  persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of  their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or  political opinion (referred to as “protected grounds”). If they are  precluded from obtaining asylum based on, for example, past convictions  of certain crimes, but their life or freedom would be threatened based on  the protected grounds or they would potentially be tortured if removed,  they may also seek withholding of removal.

If noncitizens are placed into expedited removal proceedings instead of  full removal proceedings, they are to be ordered removed from the United  States without further hearing before an immigration judge unless they  indicate either (1) an intention to apply for asylum or (2) a fear of  persecution or torture, or a fear of return to their country (referred to  throughout this report as making a “fear claim”). In such cases, they are  referred to DHS’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for  a credible fear screening by an asylum officer. If they have been issued a  final administrative removal order after conviction for an aggravated  felony or have a prior order of removal that is reinstated, and express a  fear of return, they are referred to an asylum officer for a reasonable fear  screening. USCIS data indicate that its credible fear caseload nearly  doubled from fiscal years 2015 to 2016 (approximately 48,000 to 91,000  cases) and generally remained at that level through fiscal year 2018.  Further, USCIS reported that it received more than 105,000 credible fear  cases in fiscal year 2019.

Through these screenings, USCIS makes a determination about whether  these individuals have a credible or reasonable fear of persecution or  torture if returned to their country and the likelihood they can establish in  a hearing before an immigration judge that these threats exist. If USCIS  determines that the individual has a credible fear of persecution or torture,  he or she will be placed into full immigration proceedings. If the individual  receives a negative determination, he or she can request a review of that  determination by an immigration judge within the Department of Justice’s  (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

We were asked to review DHS’s and DOJ’s processes for screening  noncitizens who arrive at the southwest border expressing an intention to  apply for asylum, a fear of persecution or torture, or a fear of return to  their country, and the resources needed to carry out these screenings  within applicable time frames. This report discusses (1) what USCIS and  EOIR data show about the credible fear and reasonable fear processes,  (2) the extent to which USCIS has policies and procedures for overseeing  credible fear and reasonable fear screenings, and (3) the extent to which  USCIS and EOIR have processes for managing their respective credible  fear and reasonable fear-related workloads.

For these objectives, we interviewed DHS and DOJ officials. Specifically,  we interviewed officials from CBP’s Border Patrol and Office of Field  Operations (OFO); ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations; USCIS’s  Asylum Division; and EOIR. We conducted site visits at Border Patrol  stations and OFO ports of entry in Arizona, California, and Texas; ICE  single adult and family residential centers in California and Texas; and  USCIS asylum offices in Texas and Virginia, from September 2018 to  April 2019. During these site visits, we interviewed Border Patrol, OFO,  ICE, USCIS, and EOIR officials and observed credible and reasonable  fear interviews, among other activities. To select these locations, we  reviewed USCIS data on credible and reasonable fear cases in fiscal year  2018, and identified specific locations that received the vast majority of  cases during that year. We also considered the geographical proximity of  multiple CBP and ICE facilities to maximize observations. Our  observations during site visits are not generalizable to all Border Patrol,  OFO, ICE, USCIS, or EOIR operations, but provided us the opportunity to  learn more about policies and procedures for credible and reasonable  fear.

To address the first objective, we reviewed record-level data from USCIS  and EOIR. For USCIS, we reviewed record-level data from USCIS’s  automated case management system to identify the number,  characteristics, and outcomes of credible and reasonable fear cases  between fiscal year 2014 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2019  (the most current data available from USCIS at the time of our review).  For EOIR, we reviewed data on immigration judge reviews of credible and  reasonable fear cases posted on its public website. We also requested  data from EOIR on credible and reasonable fear reviews for those  individuals detained in ICE’s family residential centers. Further, we  reviewed EOIR data on credible and reasonable fear reviews from fiscal  year 2014 through the third quarter of 2019 (the most current data  available from EOIR at the time of our review). To assess the reliability of  USCIS and EOIR data, we completed a number of data reliability steps,  including (1) performing electronic testing for obvious errors in accuracy  and completeness, such as running logic tests; (2) reviewing information  about the data and systems that produced them, such as relevant training  materials for USCIS officers who use agency data systems; and (3)  discussing data entry issues and data limitations with USCIS and EOIR  officials. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable to describe the  number, outcomes, and characteristics of credible and reasonable fear  cases.

To address the second objective, we reviewed USCIS policy documents,  training materials, and other guidance documents, such as procedures  manuals for credible and reasonable fear. In particular, we reviewed  USCIS Asylum Division quarterly training reports for fiscal year 2018 to  analyze the weekly training activities in each asylum office for each week  of the reporting quarter. We also reviewed asylum officer training  materials, reports from the Asylum Division’s periodic quality assurance  reviews of credible and reasonable fear cases at individual asylum offices  conducted between November 2017 and May 2018, and USCIS guidance  on processing families in credible and reasonable fear cases. In addition,  we conducted interviews with USCIS headquarters and asylum office  officials, and we observed asylum officers screening credible and  reasonable fear cases. We compared USCIS policies and procedures to  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government related to  developing competent individuals qualified to carry out assigned  responsibilities, ongoing monitoring activities and evaluation of results,  and obtaining high quality data.

To address the third objective, we reviewed USCIS and EOIR documents  and data and conducted interviews with USCIS and EOIR officials, to  evaluate the extent to which USCIS and EOIR have processes for  managing their respective credible and reasonable fear-related  workloads. For USCIS, we reviewed policy documents, training materials,  and other guidance documents related to USCIS’s staffing allocation  model for the credible and reasonable fear workload. In addition, we  analyzed record-level USCIS data to calculate processing times and case  delays for credible and reasonable fear cases from fiscal year 2014  through the second quarter of fiscal year 2019. We also reviewed  USCIS’s publicly-reported data on credible fear processing times during  this time period. We compared USCIS policies and procedures to  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government related to  obtaining data on a timely basis for management to use for effective  monitoring and processing data into high quality information. For EOIR,  we reviewed required time frames for EOIR’s review of USCIS’s credible  and reasonable fear determinations; data that EOIR has publicly reported  about its workload and case adjudications; and policy documents, such  as EOIR’s 2018 memorandum on case priorities. In addition, we analyzed  summary data on EOIR’s credible and reasonable fear review processing  times for fiscal year 2014 through the third quarter of fiscal year 2019 (the  most current data available at the time of our review) and compared  EOIR’s processing times with required time frames. To assess the  reliability of the data, we reviewed documentation on USCIS’s and EOIR’s  data systems, interviewed knowledgeable officials, and conducted  electronic testing of USCIS’s record-level data for obvious errors. We  determined that the USCIS and EOIR data we reviewed on credible and  reasonable fear workloads and processing times were sufficiently reliable  to describe credible and reasonable fear processing times and case  delays. For more information about our scope and methodology, see  appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2018 to February  2020 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Within CBP, Border Patrol is responsible for securing U.S. borders and  apprehending individuals arriving at the border between ports of entry.  Also within CBP, OFO is responsible for inspecting travelers and cargo  seeking to enter the United States through ports of entry and encounters  or apprehends individuals determined to be inadmissible to the country.  Upon apprehension of individuals at or between ports of entry, Border  Patrol agents and OFO officers generally decide whether to (1) place  apprehended adults and family units into expedited removal proceedings,  or (2) initiate full immigration proceedings, according to CBP officials. If  agents or officers place individuals into expedited removal proceedings,  CBP will transfer them to DHS’s U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement (ICE) for longer-term detention (see appendix II for more  information on eligibility, screening standards, and possible screening  outcomes for credible and reasonable fear cases). Noncitizen adults  and family units may make a fear claim in CBP custody at any point after apprehension, and during the pendency of their expedited removal  proceedings in ICE custody (see appendix III for data on apprehensions  of noncitizens placed into expedited removal who claimed fear of  returning to their country, along with other characteristics of their cases).

ICE is generally responsible for referring any fear claims to USCIS for a  fear screening after individuals enter detention. If USCIS makes a  negative determination and the determination is either not reviewed by an  immigration judge, because the noncitizen has declined immigration  judge review, or, if reviewed, is upheld by a reviewing immigration judge,  ICE is then responsible for removing the person from the country.

Within USCIS, the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations  Directorate (RAIO) is to provide, among other things, services for people  who are fleeing oppression, persecution, or torture or facing urgent  humanitarian situations. RAIO is made up of two divisions: the Asylum  Division and the International and Refugee Affairs Division. USCIS’s  Asylum Division is responsible for, among other responsibilities,  adjudicating affirmative asylum applications—that is, claims made at the  initiative of the individual who files an application for asylum with  USCIS—and screening credible and reasonable fear cases. As of March  2019, USCIS had 546 asylum officers on board and eligible to screen  credible and reasonable fear cases (out of 745 authorized positions).  Asylum officers screen cases at the Asylum Prescreening Center in  Arlington, Virginia, and eight asylum offices nationwide. USCIS  established the Asylum Pre-Screening Center in fiscal year 2016 to  provide additional support for the credible and reasonable fear caseload.  As of April 2019, the Asylum Pre-Screening Center and the Arlington  asylum office together had jurisdiction over 27 ICE detention centers  across the United States.

EOIR is responsible for conducting immigration court proceedings,  appellate reviews, and administrative hearings to fairly, expeditiously, and  uniformly administer and interpret U.S. immigration laws and regulations.  As of September 30, 2019, 442 immigration judges presided over EOIR’s  63 immigration courts nationwide. In addition to removal proceedings,  immigration judges also conduct certain other types of hearings, such as  the review of negative credible fear determinations. Table 1 provides  additional information about DHS’s and DOJ’s roles in the credible and  reasonable fear processes.

In July 2019, USCIS made several changes to its credible fear screening  processes in response to an interim final rule implementing a new  mandatory bar to asylum, known as the “third country transit bar.” Under  the interim final rule, noncitizens who enter, attempt to enter, or arrive in  the United States across the southern land border on or after July 16,  2019, after transiting through at least one country outside their country of  citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence en route to the  United States, must be found ineligible for asylum unless they  demonstrate that they fall under an exception to the third country transit  bar.

USCIS’s and EOIR’s Credible and Reasonable Fear Caseloads Generally Increased from Fiscal Years 2014 through 2018, and a Majority of USCIS Screening Outcomes were Positive

USCIS’s Credible and Reasonable Fear Caseload Nearly Doubled from Fiscal Years 2014 through 2018

As shown in table 2, USCIS’s credible and reasonable fear caseloads  nearly doubled from fiscal year 2014 (over 56,000 referrals to USCIS) to  fiscal year 2018 (almost 109,000 referrals)—the most recent full year of  USCIS data available at the time of our analysis. From fiscal year 2014  through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019, referrals to USCIS for  credible fear screenings comprised about 89 percent of all credible and  reasonable fear referrals. The number of referrals for credible fear  screenings in the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019 alone was larger  than the total number of referrals in each of fiscal years 2014 and 2015.  Referrals for reasonable fear screenings also increased from fiscal years  2014 to 2018, and comprised between 9 and 15 percent of all referrals  during that time period. Appendix III contains additional information on the  characteristics of credible and reasonable fear applicants from fiscal year  2014 through March 2019.

A Majority of Credible and Reasonable Fear Referrals to USCIS from Fiscal Year 2014 through the First Two Quarters of Fiscal Year 2019 Resulted in Positive Determinations

As shown in figure 1, USCIS asylum officers made positive  determinations in about 71 percent of all credible and reasonable fear  screenings between fiscal years 2014 and the first two quarters of fiscal  year 2019. The remaining credible and reasonable fear screenings were  almost evenly divided between negative determinations and  administrative closures (approximately 14 percent each) with a small  remainder of screenings pending resolution (0.1 percent). Individually,  from fiscal year 2014 through the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2019,  USCIS asylum officers made positive determinations in nearly 77 percent  of all credible fear screenings; officers made positive determinations in  about 30 percent of reasonable fear screenings.

Regarding credible fear screenings specifically, the percentage of positive  determinations ranged from about 73 to 80 percent of total credible fear  cases completed each year from fiscal year 2014 through the first two  quarters of fiscal year 2019 (see fig. 2).

Regarding reasonable fear screenings, as shown in figure 3, outcomes  for reasonable fear cases from fiscal year 2014 through the first two  quarters of fiscal year 2019 were generally split evenly each year among  positive determinations (from 28 to 32 percent), negative determinations  (from 29 to 35 percent), and administrative closures (from 35 to 42  percent).

EOIR Reviewed Over 50,000 USCIS Credible Fear Decisions from Fiscal Year 2014 through the First Three Quarters of Fiscal Year 2019; Immigration Judges Upheld Most Decisions

EOIR’s credible and reasonable fear workload increased by about 16  percent—from about 8,100 reviews to about 9,400 reviews each year— between fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2018. According to EOIR data,  from fiscal year 2014 through the third quarter of 2019 (the most recent  data available at the time of our analysis), EOIR’s immigration judges, at  the noncitizens’ requests, reviewed about 55,000 cases in which USCIS  asylum officers made a negative credible or reasonable fear  determination (see figure 4). Approximately 10 percent of these reviews  were for individuals detained at the Karnes, Dilley, or Berks family  residential centers.

As shown in figure 4, immigration judges upheld USCIS’s negative  credible and reasonable fear determinations in 77 percent of all reviews  judges conducted from fiscal year 2014 through the third quarter of fiscal  year 2019. During this time period, immigration judges vacated (or  overturned) 22 percent of USCIS’s negative determinations—meaning,  judges found that those individuals had a credible or reasonable fear, as  appropriate. As a result, individuals found to have a credible fear were to  be placed in full removal proceedings and individuals found to have a  reasonable fear were to be placed into more limited removal proceedings  to consider the applicants’ eligibility for withholding of removal or deferral  of removal. Immigration judges upheld 45 percent of USCIS’s negative  determinations and vacated 54 percent of USCIS’s negative  determinations for individuals in ICE’s Dilley, Karnes, or Berks family  residential centers.

In addition, EOIR publicly reports data on the outcomes of removal cases  across immigration courts that originated with a positive credible fear  determination. EOIR reported that, from fiscal years 2014 through  March 2019, immigration judges completed about 135,000 cases that  began with a positive credible fear determination. Individuals in about  75,800 of the completed removal cases filed applications for asylum (56  percent). In about 59,200 of the completed removal cases (44 percent),  individuals did not file an asylum application. However, as previously  described, individuals who have received positive credible fear  determinations may apply for other forms of relief or protection besides  asylum, such as withholding of removal, and those applications are not  represented in the statistics on EOIR’s website.

Further, EOIR officials told us that, for data reporting purposes, each  member of a family who receives a Notice to Appear before an  immigration judge is counted as one EOIR removal case and each  removal case may or may not include an asylum application. However, for  a number of immigration applications before the court, including asylum  and the related screening for credible fear, a spouse or child (defined as  an unmarried natural or legally adopted child under 21 years of age) may  be included as a dependent on a principal’s application and derive lawful  immigration status from the principal applicant if the application is  granted. As previously discussed, individuals detained in family  residential centers—including individuals who could be eligible  dependents for credible fear screening and asylum application  purposes—comprise a substantial proportion of those who receive  positive credible fear determinations. As such, according to EOIR  officials, each family member would not be expected to file a separate  asylum application. For example, a mother and her two children whose  removal cases originated with a positive credible fear screening would  comprise three removal cases in EOIR’s publically reported data, but it is  likely that only the mother’s case would include an application for asylum,  with her children as dependents on that application. For those removal  cases in which the noncitizen applied for asylum, immigration judges  granted asylum in about 19,300 cases (25 percent of the 75,800  completed removal cases with an asylum application).

USCIS Has Policies and Procedures for Overseeing Credible and Reasonable Fear Screenings, but Gaps in Training, Quality Assurance, and Family Processing Exist

USCIS Has Policies and Procedures for Managing and Overseeing the Credible and Reasonable Fear Screening Process, Including Requiring Supervisory Review of All Cases

USCIS has developed various policies and procedures related to  managing and overseeing credible and reasonable fear cases in  accordance with the regulations governing credible and reasonable fear  screenings, including setting requirements for interview procedures,  background and security checks, and supervisory review. In particular,  USCIS has a Credible Fear Procedures Manual and a Reasonable Fear  Procedures Manual that outline the procedures officers are to follow in  screening these cases.

Interview procedures. As of July 2019, an asylum office is to wait a  minimum of one full calendar day from the applicant’s arrival at an ICE  detention facility before conducting a credible fear interview; an asylum  office is to wait 48 hours after an initial orientation on the reasonable fear  process before a reasonable fear interview, according to USCIS policy.  However, both credible and reasonable fear interviews generally occur at  least 48 hours after the applicant’s arrival at a detention facility, according  to USCIS officials. Asylum officers may conduct credible and  reasonable fear interviews either in-person or on the phone. Asylum  officers are to arrange the assistance of an interpreter, generally  connected over the phone, if the applicant is unable to proceed effectively  in English pursuant to regulation. Asylum officers are to verify and  document that applicants have received and understood information  regarding the credible or reasonable fear process before they begin  asking substantive questions during the interview about the applicant’s  claim.

According to USCIS documents and officials, during the interview, asylum  officers are to elicit all information relevant to a credible or reasonable  fear claim, and regulation requires they conduct interviews in a non- adversarial manner. For example, asylum officers are to ask applicants  questions to determine whether they can establish a credible or  reasonable fear of persecution based on their race, religion, nationality,  membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. In addition,  asylum officers are to ask applicants questions to determine whether they  can establish a credible or reasonable fear of torture if returned to their  home country. During our observations of in-person and telephone  interviews, we observed asylum officers asking questions to ensure they  fully explored any aspect of the claim related to a protected ground that  could result in a positive determination. For example, we observed  asylum officers asking applicants separate questions about each  protected ground, even if the applicant had not previously expressed they  were harmed because of their political beliefs or race.

USCIS policy notes the applicant’s credibility is dependent on various  factors such as comparing information provided during the interview with  that previously provided in the applicant’s sworn statement to Border  Patrol or OFO when initially apprehended. If asylum officers identify an  issue with the applicant’s credibility, they are to inform the applicant of the  concerns and ask the applicant for his or her perspectives. During our site  visits, we observed asylum officers questioning applicants on  inconsistencies, in a non-adversarial manner, between information  provided during the interview as compared to the applicant’s sworn  statements to Border Patrol agents upon apprehension. At the end of the  interview, asylum officers are to provide a verbal summary of the material  facts of the applicant’s claim, and provide an opportunity for the applicant  to make any corrections or additions. We observed asylum officers  providing such summaries in all but one of the interviews that we  observed in full.

According to USCIS policy, asylum officers are to record key information  about the applicant’s claim, as well as specific details of the  determination, on required forms that serve as the official record of the  credible or reasonable fear screening. In addition, asylum officers use a  “checklist” to record more detailed legal analysis related to the applicant’s  claim. Asylum officers also generally type notes during interviews in a  question and answer format, capturing each question and follow-up  question they ask, and each response the applicant provides. We  observed asylum officers documenting interviews in this way during all of  the interviews where we observed the asylum officer in person.

Background and security checks. USCIS policy requires asylum  officers to ensure certain background and security checks are conducted.  If security checks or information discovered during the interview raises  concerns related to fraud, public safety, or national security, asylum  officers are to refer the case to USCIS’s Fraud Detection and National  Security Directorate (FDNS) for assistance. FDNS officials told us the  short time frames in the credible and reasonable fear process, among  other factors, make direct involvement in individual cases less likely than  in other caseloads at USCIS, such as affirmative asylum cases. As  such, the scope and extent of FDNS investigations into credible and  reasonable fear cases is limited relative to other USCIS caseloads. FDNS  data indicate that asylum officers referred approximately 1,400 total  credible and reasonable fear cases to FDNS between fiscal years 2017  and 2018. Of those, 13 cases resulted in a formal finding, called a  Statement of Finding. FDNS officials told us referrals from asylum  officers on credible and reasonable fear cases typically result in FDNS  conducting research related to an applicant’s criminal history or travel  patterns. FDNS may refer this information, in turn, to ICE to reference in  the applicant’s removal proceedings, as appropriate. In contrast,  according to FDNS officials, a fraud referral in the affirmative asylum  context may result in a more formal finding of fraud in a Statement of  Finding.

Supervisory review. USCIS oversight of credible and reasonable fear  cases includes a required supervisory review of each case after an  asylum officer makes a positive or negative determination. USCIS  officials said supervisors are to review cases for legal sufficiency and  accuracy, including a review of the screening checklist and the asylum  officer’s supporting interview notes. According to officials, supervisors are  to communicate the results of their review to the asylum officer informally  (e.g., via email or in-person discussion) for small issues, such as an  administrative error, or through a formal write-up for larger issues, such  as if the asylum officer’s legal analysis was insufficient and requires a  second interview with the applicant.

USCIS Provides Initial Training on Credible and Reasonable Fear to New Asylum Officers and Asylum Offices Are Required to Provide Ongoing On-the-Job Training

USCIS oversight of credible and reasonable fear cases includes basic  training for new asylum officers and ongoing training for incumbent  officers at asylum offices; these trainings include information specific to  credible fear and reasonable fear screenings. As of the time of our  review, the initial training program for asylum officers is comprised of two  main components:

Distance Training. New asylum officers participate in 3 weeks of self- paced RAIO Directorate and Asylum Division distance training in their  respective asylum offices. During distance training, asylum officers  are expected to participate in webinars, read the training materials  and complete exercises and quizzes in preparation for residential  training. The Asylum Division distance training includes course  readings on credible and reasonable fear, and observations of  credible and reasonable fear interviews.

Residential Basic Training. Asylum officers participate in a 6-week  residential basic training program, which includes 3 weeks of training  in issue areas common across USCIS’s Refugees, Asylum, and  International Operations Directorate, as well as three weeks of  Asylum Division-specific training. In the first 3-week session, courses  include classroom instruction, practical exercises, and interviewing  exercises on a variety of topics and skills relevant to multiple areas of  USCIS’s work, such as on affirmative asylum and refugee  adjudications. The legal topics and skills covered in this initial training  include eligibility for asylum, an applicant’s nexus to protected  grounds, and eliciting testimony, among others. The second 3-week  session focuses on division-specific policy, procedure, and law related  to asylum adjudications and screenings. For example, the 3-week  session includes training on the affirmative asylum process, and  multiple mock affirmative asylum interviews, among others, as well as  2 days of training specific to credible and reasonable fear cases.  These 2 days include practical exercises; one mock credible fear  interview exercise; and formal presentations on interviewing skills and  security checks in a credible fear context, forms required for credible  and reasonable fear, and on the Convention against Torture. At the  end of the 6-week residential training course, new asylum officers  must pass final exams with a score of at least 70 percent. We  reviewed a version of the exam and found that it included questions  specific to credible and reasonable fear screenings.

Asylum Division officials said the 9 combined weeks of distance and  residential basic training constitute the minimum amount of formal training  required for asylum officers to effectively screen credible and reasonable  fear cases. However, Asylum Division officials said it is important for  individual asylum offices to provide additional, on-the-job training to new  officers assigned to screen credible and reasonable fear cases,  specifically. Asylum officers screen credible and reasonable fear cases  under shorter time frames and with less corroborating documentation  compared to affirmative asylum cases. As such, Asylum Division officials  told us that officers accustomed to adjudicating affirmative asylum cases  may need to adjust to the shorter time frames required in credible and  reasonable fear cases. For example, some asylum offices have  developed formal presentations on local policies and procedures, or  provide officers with an opportunity to observe other officers conducting  credible or reasonable fear interviews and gradually increase the number  of cases they screen per day. Given their caseloads, the Houston and  Arlington asylum offices provide 3 and 4 weeks of additional credible and  reasonable fear training for new asylum officers, respectively. By  comparison, the San Francisco and Newark asylum offices provide 1  week of training on credible and reasonable fear procedures for new  asylum officers and Los Angeles provides 2 days of such training,  according to officials.

For incumbent asylum officers, USCIS policy requires asylum offices to  allocate four hours per week for formal or informal training. The training  can range from classroom instruction by a training officer, to individual  study time that asylum officers can use to review case law, research  country conditions affecting asylum applicants, or read new USCIS  procedures and guidance. Individual asylum offices design their weekly  training programs based on the types of cases their office generally  receives, according to Asylum Division officials. The Asylum Division  requires training officers to track the date and topic of each weekly training session and report that information to Asylum Division  headquarters on a quarterly basis. Our analysis of fiscal year 2018  quarterly training reports for all asylum offices and sub-offices indicates  that offices with larger credible and reasonable fear caseloads generally  provided more weekly trainings on these topics. For example, Houston  and Arlington conducted seven or more weekly training sessions on  credible and reasonable fear screenings in fiscal year 2018. By  comparison, two offices with smaller credible and reasonable fear  caseloads—Newark and New York—conducted one or fewer weekly  sessions on credible and reasonable fear (see app. III for credible and  reasonable fear workload data by asylum office).

In addition to this training program for asylum officers, USCIS trains  officers from outside the Asylum Division to screen credible and  reasonable fear cases, including refugee officers and others. Refugee  officers receive some of the same basic training as asylum officers, as  they participate in the same RAIO distance training and RAIO Directorate  residential training. Refugee officers do not participate in Asylum Division  distance training or residential training. As a result, USCIS provides  refugee officers with 3 days of training on screening credible fear cases  before they can begin screening cases. We reviewed training materials  for the refugee officer training, and found the sessions are similar to  Asylum Division residential training sessions on credible fear screening.

In addition, some materials provide information and guidance on the  differences between adjudicating refugee cases and screening credible  fear cases. Officials said refugee officers generally screen credible fear  cases, including at the family residential centers, only if they are detailed  to the Houston and Arlington asylum offices. Both Houston and Arlington  provide refugee officers detailed to their offices with 1-2 weeks of  additional training on credible fear screening, similar to the procedural  training they provide to new asylum officers. At both offices, trainings  include formal presentations or exercises on legal concepts and  procedures specific to credible fear, credible fear interview observations,  and a gradual increase in the number of cases refugee officers screen  each day.

Pre-departure Training for USCIS Asylum Officers Screening Family Units at ICE Family Residential Centers Is Inconsistent Across Asylum Offices

Although all new asylum officers receive basic training on the credible  and reasonable fear screening process and may also receive on-the-job  training in their home offices, not all offices provide additional pre- departure training to asylum officers before they begin screening cases  for family units at ICE family residential centers. Credible fear screenings  at ICE’s family residential centers, in particular, represent a significant  percentage—about 34 percent—of all credible fear cases asylum officers  screened from fiscal year 2014 though the second quarter of fiscal year  2019. As discussed previously, asylum offices with relatively small  credible and reasonable fear local caseloads generally provide less on- the-job training throughout the year on credible and reasonable fear.  However, almost all asylum offices send officers to the family residential  centers in Texas for in-person interviews, including those offices with  small credible and reasonable fear caseloads at the local level. Asylum  Division officials said they require asylum offices to send a specific  number of asylum officers—a number in proportion to the size of the  office—with the largest offices sending the most officers to the family  residential centers each year. For example, in fiscal year 2018, Newark,  Los Angeles, Houston, and Chicago sent the most officers to the family  residential centers, as shown in figure 5 below.

At least two asylum offices provide pre-departure training to asylum  officers being sent to ICE’s family residential centers. To support officers  who are more accustomed to adjudicating affirmative asylum cases, the  Los Angeles asylum office provides pre-departure training for officers  before they travel to the family residential centers. In Los Angeles,  officers observe credible and reasonable fear interviews and gradually  increase to a full caseload of credible or reasonable fear cases at their  home office, according to officials. In San Francisco, officers receive pre- departure training highlighting procedures unique to the family residential  centers or to processing family units in credible and reasonable fear.  Specifically, San Francisco pre-departure training includes a formal  presentation on family residential center procedures, including discussion  of challenges officers may experience, according to officials. By  comparison, officials from the Chicago and New York offices told us they  do not provide formal pre-departure training but rather direct or  recommend that officers review Asylum Division guidance and  procedures on family processing independently before they travel.  Officials from two other offices told us they rely on the training asylum  officers may receive throughout the year related to credible and  reasonable fear, which can vary, as previously discussed.

Asylum officers also noted inconsistent pre-departure training prior to  their temporary duty during our February 2019 visits to two Texas family  residential centers in Dilley and Karnes. For example, some asylum  officers we interviewed said they screened credible and reasonable fear  cases at their home office in preparation for their assignment. Others said  they reviewed procedures independently on family processing in credible  and reasonable fear cases. Officers from one asylum office said they  relied primarily on an email from USCIS support staff located at the family  residential centers to learn about screening family cases.

Asylum officers are to review the procedures on family processing in  credible and reasonable fear before they arrive at the family residential  centers, according to officials. However, there is no minimum amount of  pre-departure training, or required content for such training, that all  asylum offices are to provide before officers begin screening family units.  Asylum Division officials acknowledged that training on screening of  family units for credible and reasonable fear varies by asylum office and  noted that offices have been given discretion to determine what, if any,  pre-departure training to provide on screening family units. Arlington and  Houston asylum office officials stated that inconsistent asylum officer  training on credible and reasonable fear cases negatively impacts  efficiency at the family residential centers. Specifically, these officials  noted that asylum officers who typically adjudicate affirmative asylum  applications benefit from training on key differences between credible  fear, reasonable fear, and affirmative asylum. For example, officials said  more training could reduce administrative errors in applicants’ paperwork,  and changes needed during supervisory review, both of which occur more  often for officers with less experience and training, according to officials.  Further, officials said asylum officers less experienced in credible and  reasonable fear may not be able to handle a full caseload at the family  residential centers when they first arrive. As a result, Houston officials  said they may spend the first week of a 2-week assignment providing  additional support to inexperienced officers as they gradually increase to  a full caseload.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states  management should demonstrate a commitment to recruit, develop, and  retain competent individuals. The standards also note that competence is  the qualification to carry out assigned responsibilities, and requires  relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities, which are gained largely from  professional experience, training, and certifications. As previously noted,  Asylum Division officials told us additional training for asylum officers  before they begin screening cases at the family residential centers is  important. Officials also said their intention is to balance such training  against the need for rapid deployment, in some cases. Although  additional training may not be feasible before every deployment, providing  asylum officers additional pre-departure training before they begin  screening credible and reasonable fear cases for family units would better  prepare officers and help ensure efficient and effective case processing at  ICE’s family residential centers.

USCIS Conducts Various Quality Assurance Reviews of Credible and Reasonable Fear Cases, but Does Not Document Results in a Consistent Manner

USCIS relies primarily on two quality assurance reviews for assessing  quality of credible and reasonable fear cases, but does not document the  results of one of these reviews in a consistent manner.

Annual, Asylum Division-wide reviews. The Asylum Division conducts  division-wide quality assurance reviews on a random sampling of credible  fear, reasonable fear, or affirmative asylum cases selected proportionally  from asylum offices nationwide. To do so, the Asylum Division works in  collaboration with the RAIO Directorate. The reviews occur each year,  and rotate between a sampling of credible fear cases, reasonable fear  cases, and affirmative asylum cases.

For credible and reasonable fear reviews, USCIS randomly selects a  specified number of cases after supervisory review, but before officers  serve determinations to the applicant. Reviewers use a checklist to  identify and track quality issues arising in each reviewed case, such as  accurate data entry, appropriate legal analysis, asylum officer notes that  reflect a skilled interview, and others. The review process for each case  includes two lines of review. If the two reviewers come to different  conclusions, they discuss any differences in their reviews and reach  consensus about how to score the case. USCIS records the results of  these reviews in a document that lays out the numbers and percentages  of errors in areas covered in the review checklist. For example, for the  2018 review of credible fear cases, the document states asylum officer  notes did not reflect a skilled interview in an estimated 58 percent of  cases. For most of these cases, the reason for the error that reviewers  noted was insufficient follow-up questions. USCIS officials said while the  sample across asylum offices is generalizable with respect to the credible  or reasonable fear caseloads nationwide, the samples taken from each  asylum office are not large enough to draw conclusions about trends at  individual asylum offices. Officials said they rely on periodic reviews to  identify trends by asylum office.

Periodic, asylum office reviews. In addition to the Asylum Division-wide  quality assurance reviews, the Asylum Division began conducting periodic  reviews at asylum offices in November 2017. As of November 2019, the  Asylum Division had conducted periodic reviews of credible and  reasonable fear cases or affirmative asylum adjudications at some  asylum offices, as well as a review of credible and reasonable fear cases  at the family residential centers. For periodic reviews, the Asylum Division  selects cases over a period of several weeks. For example, based on the  Asylum Division’s draft standard operating procedures for the periodic  reviews, an asylum office may send two to four credible and reasonable  fear cases every day for several weeks to reach the required total number  of cases. According to the draft standard operating procedures, Asylum  Division reviewers are to use a reviewer checklist, modeled off the  checklist used for the Asylum Division-wide reviews, as a starting point for  what factors to review.

However, USCIS does not document the results of the periodic reviews in  a consistent manner. We reviewed the reports resulting from six periodic  reviews conducted at the Arlington, Chicago, Miami, and Houston asylum  offices, the New Orleans sub-office, and the family residential centers.  We found that all reports included information on strengths and  weaknesses, and some reports further organized analysis into additional  categories. For example, some reports had analysis on details related to  procedures, eliciting testimony, and issues related to fraud detection and  national security. Other reports included analysis of specific trends in  persecution cases and in Convention against Torture cases. Some  reports also included analysis on legal sufficiency, applicant country of  origin, determination outcomes, and others. According to the draft  standard operating procedure, reviewers are to note trends, common  errors, and collect samples to create a deliverable, such as a short report  or other deliverables, for the asylum office at the end of the review.  However, the Asylum Division has not provided guidance on what specific  information is important to include in reports resulting from periodic  reviews in order to track trends within an asylum office over time, or  across asylum offices.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states  management should establish and operate monitoring activities to  oversee the internal control system and evaluate the results.  Management should document the results of ongoing monitoring and  separate evaluations to identify internal control issues, and should use  this evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the internal control  system. Asylum Division officials told us the primary purpose of the  periodic reviews is to collect information about current, office-specific  trends, and provide timely support in the form of training sessions and  other guidance. Further, the Asylum Division historically has not used the  periodic reviews to compare one office to another, though they have  sometimes noted issues from these reviews requiring similar guidance  across multiple offices. Documenting the results of periodic reviews in a consistent manner would help the Asylum Division identify trends and  provide support across asylum offices.

The draft standard operating procedures for the periodic review provides  general directions for reviewers to share information on trends to asylum  office personnel, such as strengths, weaknesses, and other developing  trends. However, the draft standard operating procedures do not specify  requirements for documenting the results of these reviews. Asylum  Division officials told us the periodic review standard operating  procedures are in draft form, and that they may provide more specific  guidance on aspects of the reviews in the future. However, officials also  said they are not planning any changes or additions to the standard  operating procedure as of September 2019. More specific guidance on  requirements for documenting results would better position USCIS to  track trends in a consistent manner for credible and reasonable fear  reviews within and across asylum offices.

USCIS Does Not Systematically Record Case Outcomes When Screening Family Members for Credible Fear

By regulation, dependents, specifically a spouse or child, of a noncitizen  (referred to as the “principal applicant”) can be included in the applicant’s  credible fear determination if the dependent (1) arrived in the United  States concurrently with the principal applicant, and (2) desires to be  included in the principal applicant’s determination. However, any  noncitizen may have his or her credible fear determination made  separately, if he or she expresses such a desire.

USCIS policy is to include any dependents on a principal applicant’s  credible fear determination if the principal applicant receives a positive  determination, resulting in both the principal applicant and any  dependents being issued a Notice to Appear for full removal  proceedings. For example, USCIS may process credible fear cases  together for family units detained at ICE’s family residential centers,  including children as dependents on a parent’s case, or issuing a Notice  To Appear for the parent and children in the interest of family unity (see  figure 6). We observed asylum officers at the family residential centers asking principal applicants whether they were apprehended with any  family members. If yes, asylum officers asked for the names and dates of  birth of those family members, and recorded the information in their typed  notes. For parents who received a positive determination, we observed  asylum officers including the child on the parent’s case as a dependent.

Further, if a parent receives a negative credible fear determination, and  his or her child receives a positive credible fear determination, USCIS  may issue a Notice to Appear to the child as a positive credible fear  determination and to the parent in the interest of family unity. In that case,  because a parent could not be a “dependent” of a child under the  regulation, USCIS policy is to use its discretion to issue a Notice to  Appear to both the child receiving a positive determination and the parent  he or she arrived with, in the interest of family unity, even though the  parent initially received a negative determination. Issuing the parent and  child a Notice to Appear places them into full removal proceedings where  they can apply for multiple forms of relief or protection before an  immigration judge, including asylum, rather than being expeditiously  ordered removed in accordance with the expedited removal process. The  exercise of this discretion to issue a Notice to Appear to both the child  receiving a positive determination and the parent he or she arrived with in  the interest of family unity is limited to cases in which the children are  under the age of 18 because, according to the policy, family unity  interests are more compelling when the child is a minor.

USCIS data indicate that asylum officers screened more than 141,000  credible fear cases at ICE’s four family residential centers between fiscal  years 2014 and the first two quarters of 2019 (see table 3). In addition,  USCIS data indicate that positive credible fear determination rates are  higher at the family residential centers—87 percent compared with the  nationwide rate of 77 percent from fiscal year 2014 through the second  quarter of fiscal year 2019 (see app. III for data on reasonable fear cases  screened at ICE’s family residential centers).

Asylum officers are to record individual case outcomes for all family  members in USCIS’s automated case management system. However,  Asylum Division officials said their system does not allow asylum officers  to record whether an individual receives a credible fear determination as  a principal applicant, dependent, or in the interest of family unity. Instead,  asylum officers are to record positive determinations in the USCIS case  management system for both (1) dependents on the basis of the principal  applicant’s positive case, and (2) parents with negative determinations,  on the basis of their child’s positive case. USCIS does record more  specific information related to outcomes for family units in the family  members’ individual hardcopy alien files, but this information is not readily  available in an automated manner.

USCIS’s case management system allows asylum officers to record  family relationships—that is, officials stated that asylum officers are to  record who is a principal applicant, and who is a spouse, child, parent, or  sibling of the principal applicant. According to USCIS officials, asylum  officers are to record a parent who receives a positive credible fear  determination as the principal applicant, and record any children as a  child. Further, asylum officers are to link known family members’ cases in  the system, but adding a description of the family relationship is up to  asylum officers’ discretion. However, the system does not allow officers to  record whether an applicant’s determination stems from his or her own  case, or from a family member’s case. As a result, USCIS does not  maintain automated data in a readily accessible manner on outcomes for  family members in a manner that indicates whether (1) an eligible family  member received a positive determination as a dependent on a principal  applicant’s positive case or (2) whether a parent was issued a Notice to  Appear based on his or her child’s positive determination, after the parent  received a negative determination.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that  management should process obtained data into quality information that  supports the internal control system. Quality information is appropriate,  current, complete, accurate, accessible, and provided on a timely basis.  Although USCIS data indicate that positive credible fear determination  rates are higher at the family residential centers compared to rates of  positive credible fear determinations across all detention facilities, USCIS  officials stated the higher rates result from the ability to (1) include  children under 18 on a parent’s positive credible fear determination, and  (2) record all family members as positive in the system when USCIS uses  its discretion in the interest of family unity. USCIS officials told us that  systematically recording all outcomes of credible fear screenings for family members in a more complete manner would require changes to  their case management system; according to Asylum Division officials,  they are continually exploring options to improve the system’s  capabilities. Without complete data in its case management system on all  outcomes of credible fear screenings at family residential centers, USCIS  is not well-positioned to report on the scope of either the agency’s policy  for family members who are treated as dependents, pursuant to  regulation, or USCIS’s use of discretion in the interest of family unity.

USCIS and EOIR Have Processes for Managing Credible and Reasonable Fear Workloads, but USCIS Does Not Have Complete Data on Case Delays

USCIS Makes Staffing Allocation Decisions Based on National and Local Staffing Models

USCIS manages its credible and reasonable fear workloads using  national- and local-level staffing models to inform staffing allocation  decisions. Specifically, USCIS has an agency-wide staffing model to  allocate staff to different workload categories, including credible and  reasonable fear workloads, for each upcoming fiscal year.

Asylum Division headquarters officials stated they collaborate with  USCIS’s Office of Performance and Quality, USCIS administrative  offices, and local asylum offices to develop the national staffing model.  Headquarters officials said the national staffing model is intended to  allocate staff for each workload category for the upcoming fiscal year.

They begin working on the staffing model in June for any given year in  anticipation of resource decisions the agency will make before a new  fiscal year begins, usually in September or October. According to officials,  the national staffing model for credible and reasonable fear is based on  historical case receipt and workload data, historical staffing data and  future staffing workload forecasting data, bi-weekly reports on staffing and  workload data, and observations from asylum offices submitted to  headquarters, among other things.

The Asylum Division also maintains staffing models that guide local  staffing deployment, according to headquarters officials. Asylum offices  make local staffing allocation decisions in collaboration with the Asylum  Division at headquarters. Headquarters officials stated they consider  several factors in allocating staff specifically for the credible and  reasonable fear workloads for local asylum offices. Such factors include  workload projections, available facilities and planned facilities projects,  and existing workforce and vacancy levels (table 4 shows the number of  asylum officers authorized and on board for each asylum office in March  2019). In addition, headquarters officials said they work with local asylum  offices to review the number of credible and reasonable fear case  receipts and current staffing allocations by asylum office on a daily basis.  Headquarters officials stated they change staffing allocation as necessary  to address changes in credible or reasonable fear case receipts.

In the Houston and Arlington asylum offices, in particular, officials stated  they review headquarters data on workload projections to assign  personnel to the credible and reasonable fear workloads for their offices.  For example, officials in the Houston office said they look at the projected  credible and reasonable fear workload to determine the number of  officers they may need. Houston office officials said they assign officers  based on officer availability, considering factors such as leave or training  schedules. Similarly, a senior official responsible for staffing in the  Arlington office said they look at the projected numbers of credible and  reasonable fear cases, as well as the location of the cases, to determine  the target number of officers assigned to a specific workload. Once they  set targets for the number of officers needed, a senior official responsible  for staffing in the Arlington office said they assign personnel based on a  number of factors, including officer preferences, seniority, and locations  with the greatest need.

Although USCIS uses national and local staffing models for determining  staffing needs and allocating staff at and across field offices, senior  Asylum Division officials stated that predicting future workload for credible  fear cases is challenging. Moreover, headquarters officials told us that  USCIS’s credible fear workload projections have been off by as much as  50 percent when comparing projected and actual credible fear workload  volume in recent years. For example, the USCIS projections for credible  fear cases in fiscal year 2015 were 78,485, but actual case receipts  totaled 48,052. More recently in fiscal year 2018, USCIS projected  70,000 credible fear case receipts, but actual case receipts totaled  99,035. Headquarters officials stated that a variety of external factors— unpredictable changes in country conditions, and CBP and ICE decisions  to either place individuals in expedited removal or issue Notices to  Appear before an immigration judge—make it difficult to project this  workload. Furthermore, headquarters officials stated the volume of  credible fear cases can fluctuate on a weekly basis, while reasonable fear  projections have been fairly accurate, since the number of reasonable  fear cases has remained relatively stable in recent years.

To manage its workload of credible and reasonable fear cases, USCIS  relies on a flexible workforce to respond to fluctuations in cases, in  addition to asylum officers who generally screen credible and reasonable  fear cases. For example, USCIS pulls asylum officers from affirmative  asylum adjudications and uses overtime hours to handle surges in  credible and reasonable fear case receipts, according to officials. Senior  Asylum Division officials stated they do not receive staffing increases to  account for lost or stopped work in other workload categories, such as  affirmative asylum, that result from surges in credible fear case receipts.  They stated surges in credible and reasonable fear case receipts may  require immediate staff redeployment from the affirmative asylum  workload. As a result, asylum offices have sometimes canceled planned  affirmative asylum interviews and have prioritized credible and  reasonable fear screenings over affirmative asylum cases, which have  significantly contributed to the current backlog in pending affirmative  asylum cases, according to headquarters officials. As previously  discussed, asylum offices across the country also send officers on details  to ICE’s family residential centers to conduct credible and reasonable fear  screenings.

In addition, the Asylum Division headquarters tracks the number of  asylum officers assigned to the credible and reasonable fear workload,  among other workload categories such as affirmative asylum, through  biweekly reports received from local asylum offices. Headquarters  officials told us they use the reports to respond to specific requests for  information about Asylum Division staffing allocation. For example,  Congress may request information on the number of USCIS personnel  working on credible fear cases for a particular time period, according to  headquarters officials, so they maintain these reports to fulfill such  requests.

Specifically, with regard to the biweekly reports, asylum offices record the  number of asylum officers assigned to credible and reasonable fear cases  for each day in the 2-week pay period. The resulting biweekly reports  are spreadsheets with 15 tabs, one tab for each day in a pay period and  one tab summarizing the pay period, with 26 separate spreadsheets for  each year per asylum office. Headquarters officials stated the biweekly  reports are manually compiled and may contain errors, but the biweekly  reports have historically provided the overall number of personnel  performing credible and reasonable fear work for any particular date or  pay period. As of October 2019, headquarters officials said they are  developing automated software that will track information similar to that  collected in the biweekly reports, which will allow more systematic  analysis of the staffing data that the current biweekly reports contain.

USCIS Monitors Credible and Reasonable Fear Processing Times to Help Manage Its Workload

USCIS sets and monitors timeliness goals for completing credible and  reasonable fear cases.

Monitoring timeliness goals for credible fear cases. USCIS monitors  credible fear processing times by setting timeliness goals for completing  credible fear cases and those goals have changed over time. USCIS  regulation does not require that credible fear cases be completed in a  specific time frame; however, Asylum Division headquarters officials said  they have used timeliness goals to help monitor their credible fear  workload. In addition, case delays may occur for credible fear cases  (discussed further below). Specifically, from fiscal year 2009 through the  first quarter of fiscal year 2018, USCIS used a 14-day goal to monitor  credible fear case processing times. In other words, USCIS monitored  the extent to which officers completed credible fear cases within 14  calendar days of USCIS receiving referral documents from ICE and  created an electronic file for the case in their case management system.  According to our analysis, USCIS completed at least 81 percent of  credible fear cases in 14 or fewer days for each fiscal year from 2014 to  2017—the last full fiscal year under the 14-day goal (see table 5).

In February 2018, USCIS lowered its credible fear processing time goal to  10 days. USCIS completed 68 percent of credible fear cases in 10 or  fewer days between February and September 2018.

Monitoring timeliness requirements for reasonable fear cases.  USCIS monitors reasonable fear processing times by setting a 10-day  goal. Pursuant to regulation, asylum officers are to conduct reasonable  fear interviews and make a determination within 10 days of receiving a  referral from CBP or ICE with an indication that the individual has made a  fear claim, absent exceptional circumstances. Additionally, a 2015  settlement agreement in the Alfaro-Garcia v. Johnson case (“Alfaro- Garcia” Settlement Agreement) requires USCIS to achieve an average  national reasonable fear determination period of no more than 10 court  days (i.e. business days), calculated on a monthly basis, for cases in  which individuals are detained by DHS. For reasonable fear cases  subject to this settlement agreement that take longer than 20 court days  to complete, asylum offices are to notify the Chief of the Asylum Division  in writing and provide an explanation for the delay. Further, USCIS must  provide class counsel in the Alfaro-Garcia case a notice and remedial  plan of action for cases that exceed 20 days that are subject to that  settlement agreement.

Consistent with USCIS policy and the Alfaro-Garcia settlement  agreement, officers may pause the clock for reasonable fear cases— and thus case processing times—in the following limited circumstances:  the applicant or the applicant’s representative requests to defer the  reasonable fear interview;  the applicant refuses to participate in the reasonable fear interview or  accept service of a reasonable fear determination; or exceptional circumstances.

USCIS pauses processing times for detained reasonable fear cases by  recording the dates when the case was paused and when processing  resumed, once the basis for pausing the clock no longer exists. Asylum  Division headquarters officials said pauses in reasonable fear case  processing times are separate from case delay reasons, but case delays  may occur for reasonable fear cases. In our case processing time  analysis of USCIS data, we excluded approximately 13 percent of  reasonable fear cases that had at least one pause in case processing  time from our analysis because, in conducting our analysis, we could not  systematically confirm the appropriate order of dates for those cases. As  shown in table 6, our review of USCIS data for cases that did not include  pauses found that USCIS completed at least 91 percent of reasonable  fear cases within 10 or fewer court days from fiscal year 2016 to the  second quarter of fiscal year 2019.

USCIS Does Not Have Complete Data on Reasons for Case Delays

Although the Asylum Division monitors overall processing times for  credible and reasonable fear cases, it does not collect comprehensive  data in its case management system on some types of case delays. For  example, USCIS tracks whether cases are delayed for certain reasons  related to the individual—such as if he or she has a medical condition that  prevents the asylum officer from conducting the interview, if the individual  requests that the interview be rescheduled, or if the individual is detained  in a remote location. In addition, USCIS’s system can track if cases are  delayed for logistical or resource constraints. Specifically, asylum officers  may select “lack of resources” as one case delay reason in the system.  However, this field in the system does not allow officers to distinguish  more specific types of delays—such as a lack of space in detention  facilities for officers to screen fear cases, telephones not working  properly, and other types of delays—which officers told us occur on a  regular basis.

Asylum officers we interviewed in the Arlington and Houston offices  stated that logistical delays could affect the number of credible or  reasonable fear cases they can complete each day. Specifically, some  asylum officers said they have experienced delays up to 30 minutes  waiting for phone lines to work properly at detention facilities. Moreover,  supervisors we interviewed in the Arlington office stated telephone and  interpreter delays could add 20 or 30 minutes per case, resulting in a  cumulative delay that could affect an officer’s productivity for any given  day. Moreover, supervisors in the Arlington office said it is challenging to  identify the appropriate number of cases to assign to officers because the  number depends on whether or not disruptions occur. Asylum officers in  Arlington said they are expected to conduct a certain number of credible  or reasonable fear screenings per day, but expectations for completing  their assigned cases may be tempered by circumstances such as  interpreter availability or if there are issues at the detention facility,  including physical space shortfalls or difficulty in locating the individual at  the facility. Similarly, asylum officers in Houston said they are expected  to complete a certain number of credible or reasonable fear cases per  day, but supervisors understand that they may face logistical challenges  such as interpreter or telephone issues.

In addition to system limitations in tracking case delay reasons, Asylum  Division headquarters officials said their case management system does  not have the capability to track how long case delays may last. Our  analysis of USCIS data from fiscal year 2014 through the second quarter  of fiscal year 2019 indicates that 21,528 credible fear cases and 6,724  reasonable fear cases had delays. USCIS’s system can calculate the  number of days for each credible and reasonable fear case—in other  words, the total processing time for each case—and the system can  produce daily reports noting these overall processing times. However,  officials in the Houston office told us they must investigate individual  cases on an ad hoc basis to understand how long cases have been  delayed during processing. Specifically, officials in the Houston office said  they maintain weekly “late reports” using information from USCIS’s case  management system that show pending credible and reasonable fear  cases with the longest processing times and that they must spend time  researching cases on the report to determine the length of the delays.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  management should obtain data on a timely basis so that they can be  used for effective monitoring. These standards also state that  management should process the obtained data into quality information  that supports the internal control system. As previously discussed,  USCIS’s case management system does not track specific logistical  reasons for any delays in credible and reasonable fear cases, which  affect the number of cases an officer can complete in a day. Furthermore,  USCIS’s system can calculate the number of processing days for each  credible and reasonable fear case. However, the system cannot track  how long a case delay lasts. Headquarters officials said they evaluate the  usefulness of their system, and consider options for improvements or  changes, on an ongoing basis. However, as of October 2019, they stated  they did not have plans for significant changes to the system to track  more specific case delay reasons. Collecting additional information in its  automated case management system on case delays would provide  USCIS with more readily available information and analyzing such data  could help USCIS identify case delay reasons relevant in the current  environment for officers conducting fear screenings and better position  USCIS to mitigate the reasons for the delays and improve efficiency in  case processing.

EOIR Has Processes to Manage the Credible and Reasonable Fear Review Workload and Is Developing a Tool to Monitor Adherence to Required Review Processing Times

EOIR has developed processes for immigration courts and judges to help  manage its workload related to credible and reasonable fear reviews. As  previously discussed, in the event of a negative outcome of their credible  or reasonable fear screening, noncitizens can request a review of  USCIS’s negative determination by an immigration judge. The  Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, and regulation require that  such reviews occur within certain time frames. Specifically,  immigration judge reviews of negative credible fear determinations are  to be conducted no later than 7 days after referral from USCIS, to the  maximum extent practicable, and  immigration judge reviews of negative reasonable fear determinations  are to be conducted within 10 days of referral, in the absence of  exceptional circumstances.

EOIR officials told us that increased resources, beginning in fiscal year  2015, and a faster process for hiring immigration judges have allowed  EOIR to increase the number of immigration judges. As of September 30,  2019, EOIR reported that it had 442 immigration judges on board,  including 173 judges hired in fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019. EOIR  reports that the number of immigration judges has increased each year  from fiscal year 2015 through fiscal year 2019. EOIR officials told us that  they plan to hire an additional 100 judges in fiscal year 2020.  Additionally, EOIR officials told us that they prioritize credible and  reasonable fear reviews and that these reviews can generally be  accommodated within EOIR’s existing resources—specifically, by finding  efficiencies within judges’ existing schedules to add credible or  reasonable fear review hearings or by conducting hearings via video  teleconferencing (VTC). EOIR officials also said that credible and  reasonable fear reviews for individuals in ICE’s family residential centers  comprise a small portion of EOIR’s overall workload.

According to EOIR officials, each ICE detention facility is assigned to the  jurisdiction of an immigration court, and the workload for credible and  reasonable fear reviews is managed locally by the court to which each  detention facility is assigned. ICE officers are to initiate the immigration  judge’s review by filing a request with the appropriate immigration court.  Some courts are co-located with ICE detention facilities in which the  detainee requesting the credible or reasonable fear review is housed.  EOIR officials said that reviews in those locations are typically heard in  person by immigration judges assigned to that facility, and that the court  finds room in the judge’s regular calendar to hear credible and reasonable  fear reviews. For individuals in detention facilities without a co-located  immigration court, including ICE family residential centers, immigration  judges typically conduct credible and reasonable fear reviews via VTC.  Judges conducting credible or reasonable fear reviews via VTC may be  located in any immigration court in the United States. According to EOIR  officials, the Assistant Chief Immigration Judge for each court is  responsible for managing the court’s workload, including seeking support  from judges outside the court in circumstances where there are too many  cases for the court’s assigned judges. EOIR officials told us that the use  of VTC technology—which is available in all courtrooms—provides  flexibility to the courts in balancing workloads related to credible and  reasonable fear reviews, among other workloads.

In addition, EOIR officials stated that judges’ credible and reasonable fear  workload is impacted, in particular, by immigration enforcement priorities  and USCIS credible or reasonable fear determinations. For example, if  DHS places more noncitizens into expedited removal proceedings who  subsequently express fear or intent to apply for asylum, EOIR’s related  workload might increase. In addition, because immigration judges do not  review USCIS’s positive credible fear determinations, if USCIS’s  screenings result in more negative determinations, EOIR’s caseload  related to credible or reasonable fear reviews might increase.

As of January 2018, EOIR has performance measures that include  timeliness goals for credible and reasonable fear reviews, and these  timeliness goals align with the required credible and reasonable fear  review time frames. However, EOIR data we reviewed indicate that about  30 percent of credible and reasonable fear reviews are not completed  within the required time frames. Specifically, EOIR’s memorandum on  Case Priorities and Immigration Court Performance Measures states that  100 percent of credible fear reviews should be completed within seven  days of an asylum officer’s negative determination and that 100 percent  of reasonable fear reviews should be completed within 10 days of the  filing of a negative reasonable fear determination. Further, according to  EOIR officials, courts are to assign credible and reasonable fear reviews  to a judge within 48 hours of receipt of the request from ICE, and  immigration judges are to complete such reviews within 24 hours after  they are assigned.

EOIR officials said their automated case management system maintains  data on the date when courts receive a request from ICE for an  immigration judge review, the date the review is assigned to a judge, and  the date the review takes place. EOIR headquarters officials told us that  they monitor the extent to which judges are completing reviews within 24  hours after they are assigned using an automated immigration judge  performance dashboard, which allows officials to review this performance  measure for all judges combined, for individual courts, or for individual  judges. Further, EOIR officials told us that if courts are scheduling  credible and reasonable fear reviews within 48 hours after receipt and  judges are completing reviews within 24 hours after they are assigned,  they expect that EOIR should be meeting the required time frames (7  days after ICE’s referral for credible fear reviews and 10 days after ICE’s  referral for reasonable fear review) for conducting credible and  reasonable fear reviews.

EOIR data we reviewed indicate that, from fiscal year 2014 through June  2019, approximately 28 percent of credible fear and 36 percent of  reasonable fear reviews exceeded the required time frames, as shown in  table 7 below.

As previously discussed, the Immigration and Nationality Act and  regulation allow for some flexibility with regard to the required credible  and reasonable fear review time frames. Specifically, credible fear  reviews are to be completed within 7 days, to the maximum extent  practicable, and reasonable fear reviews are to be completed within 10  days, absent exceptional circumstances. EOIR officials we spoke with  said there are a variety of court, judge, or applicant-related reasons that  reviews could exceed the required time frames. For example, case file  documentation sent from USCIS to the court may be incomplete. Further,  a detention facility may have a medical quarantine that restricts court  proceedings for a certain period of time.

EOIR headquarters officials told us that, as of October 2019, they review  weekly reports that include the median processing times for completed  credible and reasonable fear reviews. For example, according to one  weekly report from October 2019, the median completion time for credible  fear reviews was 7 days. These reports also include information about  the average and median number of days pending per case, for those  credible and reasonable fear reviews that are not complete. For example,  the weekly report we reviewed from October 2019 showed that EOIR had  553 pending credible fear reviews that week, with a median of 7 days  pending and an average of 18 days pending. While these weekly reports  allow EOIR headquarters officials to monitor some information about their  credible and reasonable fear workload, they do not provide information to  EOIR officials about the proportion of EOIR’s credible and reasonable  fear reviews that are completed within the required time frames, or  whether any reviews are delayed for reasons within the limits set out in  the law or regulation.

EOIR officials said they plan to implement an automated court operations  dashboard in early 2020 which is to, among other things, monitor court  performance against the performance goals EOIR established in January  2018, including the credible and reasonable fear performance goals. This  automated dashboard is to be similar to the immigration judge  performance dashboard, which EOIR implemented in early 2019.  According to EOIR, the court operations dashboard is intended to  operationalize EOIR’s performance measures—including completion of  100 percent of credible fear reviews with 7 days and 100 percent of  reasonable fear reviews within 10 days—by providing court staff with daily  alerts and warning notices to help court administrators prioritize the  scheduling of cases based on the performance measures. This  prioritization, combined with EOIR’s monitoring of judge performance to  ensure that credible and reasonable fear reviews are completed within 24  hours after they are scheduled, should provide EOIR officials with  sufficient information to monitor EOIR’s adherence to the required  credible and reasonable fear review time frames. Because  implementation of the court operations dashboard is planned for early  2020, it is too soon to know if EOIR will use the dashboard to monitor  adherence to the required credible and reasonable fear review time  frames or if it will help EOIR understand reasons for delays in those  cases that take longer than 7 or 10 days.

The number of credible and reasonable fear cases has increased since  fiscal year 2014, and USCIS policies and procedures require completion  of those cases within short time frames. The Asylum Division provides  training for credible and reasonable fear cases to new asylum officers in  basic training, given the differences between these screenings and  affirmative asylum adjudications. However, not all offices provide  additional training on screening such cases at the family residential  centers. Ensuring that all asylum offices provide such training, in addition  to basic training for new officers, would better prepare them to screen  those cases efficiently and effectively. In addition, USCIS relies on its  periodic quality assurance reviews to assess the quality of credible and  reasonable fear cases across asylum offices. Developing and  implementing more specific guidance on requirements for documenting  the results of its periodic quality assurance reviews would better position  the agency to track trends for credible and reasonable fear reviews  across asylum offices. USCIS data show that positive credible fear  determination rates are higher at the family residential centers than they  are nationwide, in part because USCIS’s automated case management  system does not track whether an individual receives a credible fear  determination as a principal applicant, dependent, or in the interest of  family unity. Without systematically recording credible fear determinations  involving family members, USCIS may not have complete data on  credible fear determination rates, and the agency may not be in a position  to report on the scope of its policy for family members in the credible fear  process.

Asylum officers have experienced logistical delays that can affect the  number of credible and reasonable fear cases they complete each day.  Although USCIS tracks some of these delays in its case management  system, the system does not distinguish between specific reasons for  logistical case delays, such as telephones nor working properly or lack of  space at detention facilities for officers to screen cases. Furthermore,  USCIS’s system can calculate the number of processing days for each  credible and reasonable fear case. However, the system cannot track  how long case delays last. By collecting and analyzing additional  information on case delays, including specific reasons for delays and how  long they last, USCIS can identify relevant case delays for officers  conducting fear screenings. Moreover, analyzing specific case delay  information could help USCIS mitigate reasons for case delays and  improve efficiency in case processing.

We are making the following four recommendations to USCIS:  The Director of USCIS should ensure that, in addition to USCIS’s basic  asylum officer training, all asylum offices provide pre-departure training  on the credible and reasonable fear processes before their officers begin  screening cases at the family residential centers. (Recommendation 1)

The Director of USCIS should develop and implement more specific  guidance on requirements for documenting results of Asylum Division  periodic quality assurance reviews. (Recommendation 2)

The Director of USCIS should ensure asylum officers systematically  record in USCIS’s automated case management system if individuals  receive credible fear determinations as principal applicants, dependents,  or in the interest of family unity, pursuant to regulation or USCIS policy.  (Recommendation 3)

The Director of USCIS should collect and analyze additional information  on case delays, including specific reasons for delays and how long they  last, that asylum officers may face when screening credible and  reasonable fear cases. (Recommendation 4)

We provided a draft of this report to DHS and DOJ for review and  comment. DHS provided formal, written comments, which are reproduced  in full in appendix IV. DHS also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. DOJ told us they had no comments on the  draft report. DHS concurred with our recommendations and described  actions planned or underway to address them. For example, regarding  our recommendation that all USCIS asylum offices provide officers with  pre-departure training on credible and reasonable fear before they  officers begin screening cases at family residential centers, DHS stated  that USCIS plans to develop a standardized pre-departure training and  provide this training to all asylum officers prior to their deployment to the  family residential centers. In addition, regarding our recommendation that  USCIS ensure that asylum officers record in their automated case  management system if individuals receive credible fear determinations as  principal applicants, dependents, or in the interest of family unity, DHS  noted USCIS will explore ways to modify its case management system to  ensure that asylum officers record such data and train officers on any  subsequent system changes.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney  General, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at  no charge on GAO’s website at https://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We were asked to review processes for screening noncitizens who arrive  at the southwest border expressing an intention to apply for asylum, a  fear of persecution or torture, or a fear of return to their country, and the  resources needed to carry out these screenings within applicable time  frames by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S.  Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Department of  Justice’s (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). This  report discusses (1) what USCIS and EOIR data show about the credible  fear and reasonable fear processes, (2) the extent to which USCIS has  policies and procedures for overseeing credible fear and reasonable fear  screenings, and (3) the extent to which USCIS and EOIR have processes  for managing their respective credible fear and reasonable fear-related  workloads.

To address all three objectives, we interviewed USCIS headquarters  personnel from the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations  Directorate (RAIO) and RAIO’s Asylum Division who are responsible for  managing USCIS’s credible and reasonable fear screening processes.  We also interviewed officials from USCIS’s Fraud Detection and National  Security Directorate (FDNS), which is responsible for leading USCIS’s  efforts to detect and deter immigration benefit fraud and help detect  national security and public safety threats. We conducted site visits at two  of USCIS’s eight asylum offices—Houston, Texas and Arlington,  Virginia—in April 2019. We selected these asylum offices based on the  relatively large size of their credible and reasonable fear caseloads in  fiscal year 2018—the most recent, complete data available at the time of  our review. During these visits, we conducted in-person, semi-structured  interviews with asylum officers, supervisory asylum officers, training  officers, FDNS immigration officers, and asylum office management.  During these interviews, we discussed topics related to data quality,  supervisory review, training, quality assurance, family processing, and  resource allocation. While the views expressed in these interviews do not  represent those of all Houston and Arlington asylum office officials, they  provide valuable insights from stakeholders who have experience with  credible and reasonable fear policies and procedures. In addition, we  collected written responses from the remaining six asylum offices on the  same topics.

Further, we conducted site visits to U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement (ICE) adult detention centers and family residential centers.  Specifically, we visited single adult detention facilities in San Diego,  California (September 2018), and Port Isabel and Pearsall, Texas  (October 2018 and February 2019, respectively). We selected these ICE  single adult facilities based on their geographic proximity to various CBP  field locations we visited (discussed below). In addition, in February 2019,  we visited ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations field office in San  Antonio, Texas, as well as ICE’s South Texas Family Residential Center  in Dilley, Texas, and Karnes County Residential Center in Karnes, Texas.  We selected these two ICE family residential centers for field visits  because they accounted for more credible and reasonable fear referrals  to USCIS than any other single adult detention facility or family residential  center. We also selected them to examine unique aspects of ICE and  USCIS processing of credible and reasonable fear claims made by  members of family units.

During these visits to USCIS asylum offices and ICE detention facilities,  we observed USCIS asylum officers conducting credible or reasonable  fear screenings of single adults and family unit members either in person  or via telephone. In total, we observed more than 20 credible and  reasonable fear interviews across our site visits. Our observations are not  generalizable to all USCIS asylum offices conducting credible and  reasonable fear screenings, but provided us the opportunity to learn more  about how USCIS personnel conduct interviews, make fear  determinations, process these cases, and coordinate with ICE officials.

For additional context about how noncitizens are apprehended at the  border, processed into expedited or full immigration removal proceedings,  transferred to ICE, and ultimately referred to USCIS for credible and  reasonable fear screenings, as appropriate, we interviewed headquarters  personnel from DHS’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP)  Office of Field Operations (OFO) and U.S. Border Patrol (Border Patrol)  who are responsible for apprehending noncitizens at or between U.S.  ports of entry. In addition, we conducted site visits at CBP facilities in  California and Texas from September 2018 to October 2018. In  California, we visited Border Patrol’s San Diego sector headquarters and  Imperial Beach station, and OFO’s San Ysidro port of entry. In Texas, we  visited CBP’s Central Processing Center and McAllen Border Patrol  station in McAllen, Texas; Border Patrol’s Fort Brown, Weslaco, and  Harlingen stations; and OFO’s Hidalgo and Brownsville ports of entry.  During these visits, we interviewed Border Patrol and OFO officials and  observed how CBP personnel processed apprehended individuals and,  as appropriate, documented whether those individuals expressed an  intention to apply for asylum, a fear of persecution or torture, or a fear of  return to their country. To select these locations, we assessed CBP data  on Border Patrol and OFO apprehensions along the southwest border  and targeted specific locations that saw the greatest increase in the  number of apprehensions of individuals from fiscal year 2016 to 2017. As  noted previously, we also considered the geographical proximity of  multiple CBP and ICE facilities to maximize observations. Our  observations during site visits are not generalizable to all Border Patrol  and OFO operations along the southwest border, but provided us the  opportunity to learn more about policies and procedures for processing  noncitizens into removal proceedings and documenting any fear claims.

To address the first objective, we obtained and analyzed data and  documentation from USCIS and EOIR. Regarding USCIS, we analyzed  record-level data from USCIS’s automated case management system  from fiscal year 2014 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2019  (March 2019)—the most recent time period for which complete data were  available at the time of our review. We analyzed these data to identify  the number, characteristics, and outcomes of credible and reasonable  fear cases. According to USCIS officials, USCIS’s system creates a  unique number, or “case ID” for each case. USCIS officials told us that a  previous system used a different identifier for each case—the individual’s  Alien number (or “A-number”)—and did not use a “case ID” field. USCIS  transitioned from its previous system to its current system in February  2018 and, according to USCIS officials, cases originally opened prior to  the transition to the new system may have been re-opened under the  same “case ID” number in the new system. As part of our data reliability  testing, we checked for unique “case ID” numbers by searching for  duplicate values and determined the data did not have duplicate values  for “case ID” numbers. For our analysis of USCIS data specifically for ICE  detention facilities and family residential centers, we only included  credible and reasonable fear cases for detained individuals. To assess  the reliability of USCIS data, we completed a number of steps, including  (1) performing electronic testing for obvious errors in accuracy and  completeness, such as running logic tests; (2) reviewing existing  information about the data and the systems that produced them, such as  relevant training materials for USCIS officers who use the system; and (3)  discussing data entry issues and data limitations with USCIS officials. We  determined the data were sufficiently reliable to describe the number,  outcomes, and characteristics of credible and reasonable fear cases.

Regarding EOIR, we reviewed data on immigration judge reviews of  credible and reasonable fear cases posted on its public website.  Specifically, we reviewed EOIR data on credible and reasonable fear  reviews from fiscal year 2014 through June 2019—the most recent,  complete data available at the time of our review. We also obtained and  analyzed summary data from EOIR on credible and reasonable fear  reviews for those individuals detained in ICE’s family residential centers.  We analyzed the data to determine the outcomes of all credible and  reasonable fear reviews and compared the outcomes of all reviews with  the outcomes of reviews at ICE’s family residential centers. Finally, we  reviewed EOIR data on the outcomes in immigration court for those  completed removal cases that began with a positive credible or  reasonable fear determination. In addition, we interviewed immigration  judges and other court personnel serving both detained and nondetained  dockets from EOIR’s Otay Mesa Immigration Court and San Diego  Immigration Court in California, and from EOIR’s Harlingen Immigration  Court in Texas. We also observed two immigration judge reviews of  negative credible fear determinations. Our observations are not  generalizable to all immigration judge reviews, but provided us the  opportunity to learn more about EOIR’s processes.

We interviewed EOIR officials about their data entry and management  practices for credible and reasonable fear reviews. We determined that  the data EOIR provided, much of which they report publicly on their  website, are sufficiently reliable for analyzing the number and duration of  credible and reasonable fear reviews that are received, completed, and  pending.

To provide additional context on the numbers, characteristics, and  outcomes of CBP apprehensions, we obtained and analyzed record-level  data on all apprehensions by Border Patrol and OFO from fiscal year  2014 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2019. We also obtained  and analyzed record-level data on ICE detentions from fiscal year 2014  through fiscal year 2018 (see app. III for the results of our analyses). To  assess the reliability of Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE data, we completed  a number of data reliability steps, including (1) performing electronic  testing for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, such as running  logic tests; (2) reviewing existing information about the data and systems  that produced them, such as relevant training materials for Border Patrol  agents and OFO, and ICE officers who use agency data systems; and (3)  discussing data entry issues and data limitations with Border Patrol, OFO,  and ICE officials. We also received demonstrations on the data systems  from Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE officials at headquarters and in the  field. As described below, we determined that the data are sufficiently  reliable for providing information on the numbers, characteristics, and  outcomes of CBP apprehensions and ICE detentions.

Border Patrol data. For our analysis of Border Patrol data, we used  “apprehensions” as our unit of analysis, instead of the number of  individuals apprehended, because an individual may have been  apprehended multiple times in the same year. We identified a small  number of Border Patrol apprehension records that had the same date of  apprehension and unique identifier (“A-number”). It is possible that these  apprehension records represented one apprehended individual that  Border Patrol agents processed as two apprehensions. These records  comprised less than one percent of the more than 2.3 million  apprehension records we analyzed. We included these apprehension  records in our analysis because Border Patrol considers them unique  apprehensions and because their small number did not materially affect  our analysis.

In addition, Border Patrol did not systematically track family relationships  in its data systems until fiscal year 2016, as we have previously reported.  Therefore, our analysis of Border Patrol apprehensions of family unit  members processed under expedited removal proceedings is for fiscal  years 2016 through the first two quarters of 2019.

Further, according to Border Patrol officials, Border Patrol did not record  reasonable fear cases in its automated data system before April 2016.  Therefore, we are reporting the number of reasonable fear cases  recorded by the Border Patrol in its automated system from fiscal year  2017 (the first full year for which Border Patrol recorded this information in  its system) through the second quarter of fiscal year 2019. We did not  include the 860 reasonable fear cases that Border Patrol recorded in its  automated system for fiscal year 2016, since this number represents only  partial-year data. According to Border Patrol officials, prior to April 2016,  these reasonable fear cases would likely have been recorded under other  case dispositions in their automated system, such as one indicating the  reinstatement of a prior removal order.

We determined that Border Patrol data are sufficiently reliable to describe  the numbers and demographic characteristics of individuals and family  unit members apprehended from fiscal year 2014 through the second  quarter of fiscal year 2019.

OFO data. For our analysis of OFO data, we used “apprehensions” as  our unit of analysis, instead of the number of individuals apprehended.

We excluded approximately 13 percent of all apprehension records  (including single adults, unaccompanied alien children, and parents and  children that arrived as part of a family unit) from our analyses because  we could not confirm an A-number for those apprehensions. Among the  apprehension records missing an A-number, 44 percent were cases in  which OFO officers paroled the individuals and, according to OFO  officials, officers are not required to assign an A-number to these  individuals. In addition, 47 percent of the records with a missing A- number were cases that involved the individual withdrawing their  application for admission into the United States, in which OFO officers  have discretion whether to assign an A-number. According to OFO  officials, additional records with missing A-numbers may be due to data  entry errors or problems with the data system saving this information in  the database that OFO used to pull the data. Finally, we collapsed  182,266 apprehension records into 86,597 apprehension records  because we determined that they were duplicate records for the same  individual and the same apprehension, based on factors such as alien  number, birth date, and date and time of apprehension.

As a result, we determined that we could not present precise figures for  analyses that include OFO data and instead provided approximations  throughout the report. We rounded all data and figures on OFO  apprehensions down to the hundreds place and described relevant data  using modifiers such as “at least” because of possible missing  information.

In addition, according to OFO officials, OFO does not capture information  in its automated data system on individuals who were processed under  expedited removal with a reasonable fear claim. OFO officials stated that,  since OFO has historically processed a relatively small number of such  apprehensions, it does not collect automated data on reasonable fear  claims.

With the previously-described modifications, we determined that OFO  data are sufficiently reliable to generally describe the numbers and  demographic characteristics of individuals and family unit members  apprehended from fiscal year 2014 through the second quarter of fiscal  year 2019.

ICE data. To report on ICE detentions of adults and family unit members,  we obtained and analyzed ICE detention data from fiscal years 2014 to  2018, the most current data available at the time of our review. The ICE  data we obtained contained information on whether adults and family  members booked-in to an ICE detention facility had a fear claim recorded  in ICE’s data system as of the date our data were pulled. Specifically,  we divided our analysis of ICE detention data into two parts. First, we  obtained data on all individuals (all adults and children without  consideration of any family relationships) detained from fiscal year 2014  through fiscal year 2018. Second, we obtained data specifically on family  unit members apprehended by CBP and housed at the four ICE family  residential centers from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2018.

Regarding our analysis of family unit members who made a fear claim in  one of ICE’s family residential centers, we excluded less than one percent  of all detention records from our analyses because we could not confirm a  unique identifier for the individual. In addition, for individual family unit  members who were detained more than once in a fiscal year, we included  the most recent record for the individuals in our analyses to report on the  most recent information available about each individual. This accounted  for less than one percent of all detention records in our time period of  analysis.

We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to describe the  numbers of individuals (adults and family unit members) who were  apprehended by CBP and recorded by ICE as having made a credible  fear claim.

To address our second objective, in addition to our aforementioned  interviews and site visits, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations  governing the credible and reasonable fear screening process. We  collected and analyzed documentation on key USCIS oversight  mechanisms related to credible and reasonable fear screenings— supervisory review, asylum officer training, and quality assurance  reviews. In particular, we reviewed the Credible Fear Procedures Manual,  and the Reasonable Fear Procedures Manual, standard operating  procedures, training and quality assurance records and materials, and  guidance on conducting credible and reasonable fear screenings for  families in ICE detention.

Specifically, we reviewed USCIS asylum officer basic training materials  from RAIO and the Asylum Division, and training materials for officers  from outside the Asylum Division who screen credible and reasonable  fear cases. In particular, we reviewed USCIS Asylum Division quarterly  training reports for fiscal year 2018 and used them to analyze the weekly  training activities in each asylum office for each week of the reporting  quarter. We compared RAIO and Asylum Division training materials with  federal internal control standards related to developing competent  individuals qualified to carry out assigned responsibilities. We also  reviewed documents associated with the quality assurance reviews that  the Asylum Division conducted, including those reviews conducted in  collaboration with RAIO. Specifically, we reviewed standard operating  procedures, reviewer checklists, and resulting reports and analysis for  three RAIO nationwide reviews of credible and reasonable fear cases and  for the six periodic reviews of credible and reasonable fear cases the  Asylum Division conducted at asylum offices and at the family residential  centers between November 2017 and May 2018. We compared these  policy documents and their role in providing oversight of the credible and  reasonable fear process against federal internal control standards related  to ongoing monitoring activities and evaluation of results. We also  reviewed USCIS standard operating procedures, requirements, and  training materials for processing family members, and corresponding data  on applicant family relationships. We then compared the procedures,  requirements and data against federal internal control standards related  to obtaining high quality data.

To address our third objective, we reviewed USCIS and EOIR documents  and data, and interviewed relevant officials to evaluate the extent to which  USCIS and EOIR have process for managing their respective credible  and reasonable fear-related workloads.

USCIS. In particular, we reviewed USCIS documentation and spoke with  officials from Asylum Division headquarters and local asylum offices  regarding the Asylum Division’s staffing allocation model for the credible  and reasonable fear workload. In addition, we obtained and analyzed  record-level data from USCIS’s automated case management system to  identify processing times and case delays for credible and reasonable  fear cases between fiscal year 2014 through the second quarter of fiscal  year 2019 (March 2019). We included cases that had a fear determination  that was served or an administrative closure for both detained and  nondetained individuals.

In this report, we present information on both credible and reasonable  fear case receipts and analysis of processing times for the cases using  the “clock-in” date recorded in USCIS’s automated case management  system. However, while USCIS relies on the “clock-in” date to track case  processing times, according to an Asylum Division official USCIS tracks  and reports the number of credible and reasonable fear case receipts  based on the date cases are input into, or “created” in, its automated  system. According to the official, these “created” and “clock-in” dates are  often the same, but can differ slightly. Therefore, the number of case  receipts tracked and reported by USCIS may differ slightly from those  presented in this report.

Regarding credible fear cases, we determined case processing times by  calculating the difference between the beginning and end dates for  credible fear cases. We considered credible fear case processing times  for detained individuals to begin on the day when USCIS receives referral  documents and records a “clock-in” date in the automated case  management system, as noted previously. For nondetained individuals,  the clock starts for credible fear cases when a USCIS asylum office  conducts the interview for a credible fear screening. We used the  starting clock date for detained and nondetained individuals provided by  USCIS for our analysis. We considered credible fear case processing  times to end on the day when cases either had a fear determination that  was served or an administrative closure. We included credible fear  cases that had a fear determination that was served or an administrative  closure for detained and nondetained individuals. We also reviewed  USCIS’s publicly-reported data on credible fear processing times during  this time period.

Regarding reasonable fear cases, we used USCIS data to count the  number of processing days and percent of cases completed in certain  time intervals. We determined reasonable fear processing times by  calculating the difference between the beginning and end dates for  reasonable fear cases. We considered reasonable fear case processing  times for detained individuals to begin on the day when USCIS receives  referral documents and records a “clock-in” date in the automated case  management system, as noted previously. For nondetained individuals,  the clock starts for reasonable fear cases when a USCIS asylum office  conducts the interview for a reasonable fear screening. We used the  starting clock date for detained and nondetained individuals provided by  USCIS for our analysis. We calculated reasonable fear processing times  in court days by excluding weekends and federal holidays. USCIS may  also pause the clock when processing reasonable fear cases in certain  circumstances. We excluded approximately 13 percent of reasonable  fear cases that had at least one pause in case processing time from our  analysis because in conducting our analysis we could not systematically  confirm the appropriate order of dates for those cases. We considered  reasonable fear case processing times to end on the day when cases  either had a fear determination that was served or administrative  closure. We also included reasonable fear cases that were served a  fear determination or received an administrative closure for detained and  nondetained individuals.

To identify the reasons for delays in credible and reasonable fear cases  during the time period of our analysis, we identified the fields that  USCIS’s case management system tracks for case delays related to the  credible and reasonable fear workload. In addition, we reviewed USCIS’s  manuals and documentation on its case management system. We  compared USCIS’s recording and tracking of data on case delays to  federal internal control standards related to obtaining data on a timely  basis for management to use for effective monitoring and that data should  be processed into high quality information. We determined that the  USCIS data we reviewed on credible and reasonable fear processing  times and case delays were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

EOIR. To evaluate EOIR’s process for managing its credible and  reasonable fear-related workload, we interviewed EOIR officials about  their practices to manage the credible and reasonable fear workload,  including immigration judge hiring, oversight of credible and reasonable  fear review processing times, infrastructure requirements for credible and  reasonable fear reviews, and the use of video teleconferencing by judges  to conduct credible and reasonable fear reviews. We reviewed publicly  available data about EOIR’s workload and case adjudications, including  data about the number of credible and reasonable fear reviews EOIR  judges completed and data about judges hired from fiscal year 2014  through fiscal year 2019. We also reviewed guidance documents, such as  EOIR’s 2018 Case Priorities and Performance Measures memorandum,  which established performance measures for credible and reasonable  fear reviews. In addition, we used EOIR data to analyze the timeliness of  EOIR’s completion of credible and reasonable fear reviews and compared  EOIR’s processing times for fiscal year 2014 through the third quarter of  fiscal year 2019 with required time frames. By reviewing documentation  on EOIR’s case management system and interviewing officials with  knowledge about EOIR’s case management system and the methodology  used to calculate the publicly-reported data, we determined that the EOIR  data we reviewed on credible and reasonable fear review processing  times and outcomes was sufficiently reliable for analyzing the number of  credible and reasonable fear reviews completed and pending, and the  duration of the reviews.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2018 to February  2020 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis  for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Eligibility, Screening Standards, and Possible Screening Outcomes for Credible and Reasonable Fear Cases

This appendix provides detailed information on eligibility, screening  standards, and possible screening outcomes for both credible fear and  reasonable fear cases. Noncitizens placed into expedited removal who  make fear claims will be referred to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration  Services (USCIS) for a credible fear screening by an asylum officer or, if  the individual has been issued a final administrative removal order after  conviction for an aggravated felony or has a prior order of removal that is  reinstated, and expressed a fear of return, for a reasonable fear  screening. Table 8 below describes the eligibility and screening  standards, as well as the potential outcomes for USCIS’s credible fear  screening cases. Similarly, table 9 details eligibility, screening standards,  and potential outcomes for reasonable fear screening cases.

Appendix III: Data on Noncitizens Apprehended, Detained, and Screened for Credible or Reasonable Fear by Department of Homeland Security

If noncitizens are placed into expedited removal proceedings instead of  full removal proceedings, they are to be ordered removed from the  United States without further hearing before an immigration judge unless  they indicate either an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of  persecution or torture or a fear of return to their country (referred to  throughout this appendix as making a “fear claim”). This appendix  provides information on the number and dispositions (such as full removal  proceedings or expedited removal proceedings, among others) of  noncitizens who were apprehended by the Department of Homeland  Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) U.S.  Border Patrol (Border Patrol) and Office of Field Operations (OFO) at or  between U.S. ports of entry from fiscal year 2014 through the second  quarter of fiscal year 2019. It also includes U.S. Immigration and  Customs Enforcement (ICE) data on detentions of noncitizens who made  a credible fear claim. For cases in which noncitizens were referred to  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a fear screening,  this appendix also provides additional information on the characteristics of  these cases, including their country of origin, age, gender, whether they  had representation, and location of their screenings.

Case Dispositions for Border Patrol Apprehensions of Noncitizens from Fiscal Years 2014 through the First Two Quarters of Fiscal Year 2019

As shown in table 10, Border Patrol apprehensions totaled more than 2.3  million from fiscal year 2014 through the second quarter of fiscal year  2019. Further, Border Patrol data indicate that agents processed about  687,000 (or 30 percent) for full immigration proceedings and nearly  931,000 (or 40 percent) under expedited removal proceedings. For those  apprehensions that agents processed under expedited removal, more  than 197,000 (approximately 9 percent of total apprehensions) included a  credible fear claim made in Border Patrol custody. As also shown in table  10, during fiscal years 2017 through the first two quarters of 2019, Border  Patrol apprehended more than 10,000 additional noncitizens who made  reasonable fear claims.

As shown in figure 7, the number of Border Patrol apprehensions of  individuals who were placed into expedited removal proceedings with a  credible fear claim increased from more than 16,000 apprehensions in  fiscal year 2014 to more than 51,000 in fiscal year 2018. These  apprehensions of individuals claiming fear ranged from 3 percent to 13  percent of total apprehensions during these fiscal years.

Characteristics of Noncitizens Apprehended by Border Patrol Processed Under Expedited Removal Who Claimed Fear

Border Patrol data include various characteristics of each apprehension  such as age, gender, and whether a noncitizen was a member of a family  unit. For example, of the nearly 208,000 apprehensions processed under  expedited removal with a credible or reasonable fear claim during fiscal  years 2014 through the first half of fiscal year 2019, approximately  166,000 (or 80 percent) were adults age 18 and above with the remaining  42,000 (or 20 percent) encompassing children age 17 and under (see  table 11).

Of the nearly 208,000 apprehensions processed under expedited removal  with a credible or reasonable fear claim during fiscal years 2014 through  the first half of fiscal year 2019, approximately 117,000 (or 56 percent)  were male and the remaining 90,000 (44 percent) were female (see table  12).

As shown in table 13, for fiscal years 2016 through the first two quarters  of 2019, Border Patrol apprehended nearly 456,000 noncitizens who were  members of families. Of these, Border Patrol processed more than  120,000 (or 26 percent) under expedited removal proceedings. Nearly  71,000 apprehensions during this time period (15 percent of total family  unit members apprehended and 59 percent of those placed in expedited  removal) included a credible fear claim.

Case Dispositions for OFO Apprehensions from Fiscal Years 2014 through the First Two Quarters of Fiscal Year 2019

From fiscal year 2014 through March 2019, OFO apprehensions at ports  of entry totaled at least 546,900. Of these 546,900 apprehensions, OFO  officers placed at least 193,500 (or 35 percent) into expedited removal  proceedings. For those in expedited removal proceedings, OFO data  indicate that at least 104,600 apprehensions included a credible fear  claim in OFO custody (19 percent of total apprehensions). In addition,  OFO issued Notices to Appear before an immigration judge for full  immigration proceedings to at least 167,400 (or 31 percent) of the  approximately 546,900 total apprehensions (see figure 8).

As shown in figure 9, the number of OFO apprehensions in expedited  removal proceedings with a credible fear claim generally increased over  this time period from at least 11,600 apprehensions in fiscal year 2014 to  at least 27,000 in fiscal year 2018 (the last full year of data available at  the time of our analysis). In addition to this overall increase, the  percentage of OFO’s total apprehensions placed into expedited removal  proceedings with a credible fear claim also increased. Specifically, these  apprehensions increased from about 17 percent of all apprehensions in  fiscal year 2014 to about 26 percent in fiscal year 2018.

Characteristics of Noncitizens Apprehended by OFO and Placed into Expedited Removal Proceedings with a Credible Fear Claim

OFO apprehension data include various characteristics such as age,  gender, and whether an apprehension involved a member of a family unit.  For example, as shown in table 14, of the approximately 104,300 OFO  apprehensions with credible fear claims, at least 78,500 (or 75 percent)  were adults age 18 and above with about 25,700 (or 25 percent) of the  remaining credible fear claims encompassing children age 17 and under.  Also, for each year during this period, the percentage of adults versus  children was generally consistent with this overall percentage with the  exception of fiscal year 2019, for which the partial year’s data show that  about 98 percent of those apprehensions processed under expedited  removal with a credible fear claim were adults.

In addition, for fiscal years 2014 through the first two quarters of fiscal  2019, at least 56,500 (or 54 percent) of these apprehensions involving a  fear claim were male and at least 47,400 (or 45 percent) were female  (see table 15). Also, for each year during this period, the number of males  and females were almost evenly split with the exception of fiscal year  2019, for which the partial year’s data show a larger proportion of males  claiming fear.

As shown in table 16, for fiscal years 2016 through the first two quarters  of 2019, OFO had a total of at least 144,100 apprehensions involving  members of family units. Of these approximately 144,100  apprehensions, OFO placed at least 39,100 (27 percent) into expedited  removal proceedings of which at least 32,900 (about 23 percent of total  family unit members apprehended and approximately 84 percent of those  placed in expedited removal) claimed a credible fear of returning to their  country.

Number of Individuals in ICE Detention with a Credible Fear Claim, Fiscal Years 2014 through 2018

The number of individuals in expedited removal proceedings detained in  ICE facilities with a credible fear claim increased from fiscal years 2014 to  2018. Specifically, as shown in table 17, ICE data indicate that the  number of individuals in expedited removal proceedings with a recorded  credible fear claim while in ICE detention increased from about 37,000 (or  9 percent) in fiscal year 2014 to about 99,000 (or 26 percent) in fiscal  year 2018. The period of greatest percentage increase was from fiscal  years 2015 to 2016 when the percentage of individuals in expedited  removal proceedings with a credible fear claim while in ICE custody  increased from approximately 15 percent to 25 percent.

For fiscal years 2014 through 2018, the majority of family unit members in  ICE’s four family residential centers had a credible fear claim (81  percent), as demonstrated in table 18. The number of family unit  members with a fear claim ranged from approximately 69 percent in fiscal  year 2015 to 88 percent in fiscal year 2018.

For fiscal years 2014 through 2018, slightly more than half of all family  unit members in ICE’s four family residential centers with a credible fear  claim were children under the age of 18 (55 percent). As also shown in  table 19, the division between adults and children with fear claims varied  little each year.

Nationalities of Noncitizens Referred to USCIS for Credible or Reasonable Fear Screenings from Fiscal Year 2014 through the First Two Quarters of Fiscal Year 2019

As shown in Figure 10, the majority of credible fear cases referred to  USCIS for screening from fiscal year 2014 through the first two quarters  of fiscal year 2019 had applicants who were nationals of El Salvador,  Honduras, Guatemala, or Mexico. Citizens of these countries accounted  for 74 percent of all credible fear cases during this time period  (approximately 306,000 referrals).

As shown in table 20, El Salvador had the most credible fear referrals to  USCIS each year from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2017.  However, beginning in fiscal year 2018, Honduras accounted for the most  credible fear referrals to USCIS among these four countries.

As shown in Figure 11, applicants from the countries of Mexico,  Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala accounted for all but  approximately 7 percent of the reasonable fear cases screened by USCIS  for fiscal years 2014 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019.  Overall, Mexican nationals accounted for the largest number of  reasonable fear cases among these four countries (33 percent of total  reasonable fear cases).

As shown in table 21, Mexico had the most reasonable fear referrals to  USCIS each year from fiscal years 2014 through the first two quarters of  fiscal year 2019.

Outcomes of USCIS Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Screenings Based on the Presence of Representation at the Applicant’s Interview

As table 22 shows, noncitizens making credible fear claims who had  representation present at their interviews with asylum officers more often  received positive determinations of fear by the asylum officer. Overall,  during this time period, the number of positive determinations in cases  with representation was nearly 10 percentage points greater than those  without representation.

As table 23 shows, similar to credible fear cases, noncitizens making  reasonable fear claims who had representation present at their interviews  with asylum officers more often received positive determinations of fear  by the asylum officer. Overall, during this time period, the number of  positive determinations in cases with representation was over 20  percentage points greater than those without representation.

ICE Detention Facilities and Family Residential Centers Making the Most Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Referrals to USCIS for Screening During Fiscal Years 2014 through the First Two Quarters of Fiscal Year 2019

As table 24 shows, two of ICE’s family residential centers (Dilley and  Karnes family residential centers) accounted for the highest number of  credible and reasonable fear referrals, among the top five facilities  making these referrals, from fiscal years 2014 through the first two  quarters of fiscal year 2019.

Reasonable Fear Referrals to USCIS from ICE’s Family Residential Centers, and Related Positive Outcomes, During Fiscal Years 2014 through the First Two Quarters of Fiscal Year 2019

As shown in table 25, reasonable fear screenings for those in ICE family  residential centers comprised 6 percent of all such cases referred to  USCIS during this same period with the percentage of positive  determinations (77 percent) higher than that for all reasonable fear cases  nationwide (30 percent).

Number of Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Cases Screened, by USCIS Asylum Office, for Fiscal Years 2014 through the First Two Quarters of Fiscal Year 2019

As shown in table 26, the Houston asylum office screened two-thirds (67  percent) of credible fear cases from fiscal year 2014 through the first two  quarters of fiscal year 2019. Also, over this same time period, USCIS’s  Los Angeles asylum office screened the second most credible fear cases  (11 percent). However, since fiscal year 2018, USCIS’s Asylum Pre- Screening Center has screened the second most credible fear cases after  Houston.

As shown in table 27, the Houston asylum office screened nearly half  (approximately 45 percent) of reasonable fear cases from fiscal year 2014  through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019. Also, over this same  time period, USCIS’s Los Angeles asylum office screened the second  most reasonable fear cases (12 percent). However, since fiscal year  2018, USCIS’s Asylum Pre-Screening Center has screened the second  most reasonable fear cases after Houston.

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Kathryn Bernet (Assistant  Director), Michael Harmond (Analyst-in-Charge), Hiwotte Amare, Miranda  Cohen, Benjamin Crossley, Michele Fejfar, Cynthia Grant, Jan  Montgomery, Heidi Nielson, Mary Pitts, Adam Vogt, and Jessica Walker  made key contributions to this work.

Noncitizens apprehended by DHS may be removed from the U.S. without an immigration hearing unless they express an intent to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution or torture.

Such “fear claims”—108,780 in FY2018—are referred to DHS’s immigration services agency, which determines whether there is a credible fear of persecution or torture, also known as a “positive determination.”

The agency screens family members individually but certain members can share positive determinations, or the agency may decide to keep them together. But, it doesn’t record complete data on all such results. We recommended it do so to better report on screenings.