Immigration Enforcement: Actions Needed to Better Handle, Identify, and Track Cases Involving Veterans

Throughout U.S. history, noncitizens have served in the U.S. Armed Forces. Although the Immigration and Nationality Act allows noncitizen service members to acquire citizenship, some veterans may not apply or may not satisfy all eligibility criteria. If the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines that a noncitizen veteran is potentially removable, the veteran may be subject to administrative immigration enforcement and removal. ICE, among other things, is responsible for identifying and removing aliens who violate U.S. immigration law.

GAO was asked to review issues related to the removal of noncitizen veterans. This report examines (1) the extent to which ICE has developed and implemented policies for handling and tracking cases of potentially removable veterans; (2) how federal agencies facilitate the naturalization of noncitizen service members and veterans, and what is known about the number who have applied for naturalization; and (3) how removal affects veterans' eligibility for and access to VA benefits and services. GAO reviewed documentation, met with agency officials, analyzed available data on veterans placed in removal proceedings, and conducted a review of removed veterans' alien files. GAO also analyzed data on military naturalization applications.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has developed policies for handling cases of noncitizen veterans who may be subject to removal from the United States, but does not consistently adhere to those policies, and does not consistently identify and track such veterans. When ICE agents and officers learn they have encountered a potentially removable veteran, ICE policies require them to take additional steps to proceed with the case. GAO found that ICE did not consistently follow its policies involving veterans who were placed in removal proceedings from fiscal years 2013 through 2018. Consistent implementation of its policies would help ICE better ensure that veterans receive appropriate levels of review before they are placed in removal proceedings. Additionally, ICE has not developed a policy to identify and document all military veterans it encounters during interviews, and in cases when agents and officers do learn they have encountered a veteran, ICE does not maintain complete electronic data. Therefore, ICE does not have reasonable assurance that it is consistently implementing its policies for handling veterans' cases.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have policies facilitating the naturalization of noncitizen service members and veterans, and provide informational resources to noncitizen service members seeking naturalization. The number of military naturalization applications received by USCIS declined sharply from fiscal years 2017 to 2018, resulting in a decreased number of applications approved in fiscal year 2018. USCIS and DOD officials attributed this decline to several DOD policy changes that reduced the number of noncitizens joining the military .

Citizenship status, including removal history, does not affect a veteran's eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits and services. However, living abroad affects eligibility for certain VA benefits and services. Veterans living abroad may also experience challenges accessing certain benefits and services, such as slower disability claim processing.

GAO recommends that ICE (1) ensure consistent implementation of its existing policies for handling veterans' cases; (2) develop a policy or revise its current policies to identify and document veterans; and (3) collect and maintain complete data on veterans in removal proceedings or who have been removed. DHS concurred with GAO's recommendations.

Throughout U.S. history, noncitizens have served in the U.S. Armed  Forces. Between fiscal years 2013 and 2018, more than 44,000  noncitizens enlisted in the military, according to Department of Defense  (DOD) data. Although special provisions of the Immigration and  Nationality Act (INA) allow noncitizens who serve in the military to acquire  U.S. citizenship, some veterans may not apply or may not satisfy all  eligibility criteria. If at any time the Department of Homeland Security  (DHS) determines that a noncitizen veteran is potentially removable, the  veteran may be subject to administrative immigration enforcement and  removal from the United States.

Within DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is  responsible for identifying, apprehending, detaining, litigating charges of  removability against, and removing aliens who are in the United States in  violation of U.S. immigration law. DHS’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration  Services (USCIS) is responsible for adjudicating applications and  petitions for immigration benefits, including naturalization applications  from U.S. military service members and veterans seeking U.S.  citizenship. DOD establishes policies governing noncitizens’ eligibility to  join the military and assists noncitizen service members who wish to  naturalize. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers benefits and services, such as health care and disability benefits, to veterans of  the U.S. military.

You asked us to review issues related to the removal of noncitizen  veterans. This report addresses (1) the extent to which ICE has  developed and implemented policies for handling and tracking cases of  potentially removable veterans, and what is known about the number and  characteristics of veterans who have been placed in removal proceedings  or removed; (2) how, if at all, federal agencies facilitate the naturalization  of noncitizen service members and veterans, and what is known about  the number of those individuals who have applied for naturalization; and  (3) how, if at all, removal affects veterans’ eligibility for and access to VA  benefits and services.

To evaluate the extent to which ICE has developed and implemented  policies for handling and tracking cases of potentially removable veterans,  and what is known about the number and characteristics of veterans  placed in removal proceedings or removed, we reviewed ICE’s policies  and procedures related to veterans and compared them to criteria in  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We  interviewed officials from ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations  (ERO), Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), and Homeland  Security Investigations (HSI) to discuss the extent to which ICE agents  and officers apply these policies when encountering potentially removable  veterans. We analyzed record-level data from OPLA’s Principal Legal  Advisor Network (PLAnet) and ERO’s ENFORCE Alien Removal Module  (EARM) databases to identify veterans who were placed in removal  proceedings or removed from fiscal years 2013 through 2018. We  selected this timeframe because 2013 is the first year for which data from  PLAnet are available, according to ICE officials, and 2018 was the most  recent full year of data at the time of our review. For the approximately  250 veterans OPLA data indicated were placed in removal proceedings  and the 92 veterans ERO data indicated had been removed from that  population, we reviewed ICE documents about the content and structure  of PLAnet and EARM, and completed data entry and duplicate record  checks. We also discussed the possible limitations of these data with ICE  officials to determine the data’s reliability. We determined that the OPLA  and ERO data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of describing what  is known about the approximate number of veterans placed in removal  proceedings or removed.

For the 92 veterans ERO data indicated had been removed, we reviewed  the veterans’ alien files to assess the extent to which ICE agents and  officers who handled the cases adhered to ICE’s policies governing the  handling of cases involving potentially removable veterans. We also  identified the characterization of their military discharge, the  circumstances that led to them being placed in removal proceedings, and  their immigration history, including whether they had previously applied  for naturalization or other immigration benefits, such as asylum. We also  analyzed summary-level data from VA on the number of those veterans  who had service-connected disabilities, including post-traumatic stress  disorder or traumatic brain injury.

To describe how federal agencies facilitate the naturalization of noncitizen  service members and veterans and what is known about the number of  those individuals who applied for naturalization, we reviewed USCIS  procedures governing military naturalizations. We also reviewed DOD  accession policies for noncitizen service members, including eligibility and  screening requirements. We interviewed USCIS and DOD officials about  their efforts to facilitate the naturalization of noncitizen service members  and veterans. We analyzed summary-level data from USCIS’s  BenefitsMart database on the number of noncitizen service members and  veterans who applied for naturalization, the number of such applications  USCIS approved, and USCIS’s average application processing times for  military naturalizations from fiscal years 2013 through 2018. We  assessed the reliability of these data by interviewing USCIS officials,  reviewing USCIS documents about the design of the BenefitsMart and  Computer-Linked Application Information Management System 4  (CLAIMS-4) databases, and reviewing USCIS training for employees who  enter information into CLAIMS-4. We determined that the data were  sufficiently reliable for reporting what is known about the number of  service members and veterans who applied for naturalization.

To describe how, if at all, removal affects veterans’ eligibility for and  access to VA benefits, we reviewed VA’s policies related to managing  benefit claims from veterans living abroad, such as VA’s claim-processing  model for regional offices and foreign case management policies. We  visited VA’s Pittsburgh Regional Office, where we observed VA staff  reviewing and processing claims from veterans living abroad, and  interviewed VA officials about their processes for managing such claims.  We selected the Pittsburgh Regional Office because it is the VA Regional  Office responsible for processing claims from veterans living abroad. We  analyzed summary-level data from VA’s Veterans Benefits  Administration’s Corporate Database and Veterans Health  Administration’s Eligibility and Claims Processing System on the number  of disability benefit claims and requests for reimbursement received from  veterans living abroad from fiscal years 2013 through 2018, VA’s average  processing times, and the agency’s disposition of those claims. To  assess the reliability of these data, we reviewed VA documentation on the  design of these databases and interviewed VA officials who oversee the  processing of claims for veterans living abroad. We determined that the  data were sufficiently reliable for reporting the number and average  processing time of claims VA completed and received from veterans living  abroad.

We also interviewed officials from selected veterans service organizations  (VSOs) on the extent to which veterans living abroad face challenges  accessing VA benefits. These VSOs included the American Legion,  AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars.  We selected these VSOs based on the relevance of their missions and  the extent to which they have published materials on removed veterans.  We also interviewed the director of the Deported Veterans Support  House, a nonprofit organization that assists veterans placed in removal  proceedings or removed. We also reviewed VA and Department of State  (State) policies and interviewed VA and State officials to describe the  coordination between VA and State for administering VA benefits abroad.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2018 to June 2019 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.

In most cases, a noncitizen must be a LPR to enlist in the U.S. Armed  Forces. Special provisions of the INA authorize the naturalization of  current and recently discharged service members. Qualifying military  service includes active or reserve service in the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine  Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard, or service in a National Guard unit. A  person who has served honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces for 1 year  during peacetime may be eligible to apply for naturalization. In addition,  during designated periods of hostilities, such as World War I and World  War II and the current global war on terrorism, members of the U.S.  Armed Forces who serve honorably in an active duty status, or as  members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve, are eligible to  apply for naturalization without meeting any minimum required period of  service.

DOD determines if a service member meets the qualifying service  requirement by certifying Form N-426, Request for Certification of Military  or Naval Service, or by issuing Forms DD-214, Certificate of Release or  Discharge from Active Duty, NGB-22, National Guard Report of  Separation and Record of Service, or an equivalent discharge document.  The information provided in those forms determines whether or not the  service member completed all requirements for honorable service,  including whether the service member served honorably and, if he or she  has separated from service, whether his or her separation was under  honorable conditions.

In order to naturalize, a member of the U.S. Armed Forces must also  meet the requirements and statutory qualifications to become a citizen.  Specifically, he or she must demonstrate good moral character and have  sufficient knowledge of the English language, U.S. government, and  history. Additionally, an applicant must show attachment to the principles  of the Constitution and favorable disposition toward the good order and  happiness of the United States. However, qualified members of the U.S.  Armed Forces are exempt from other naturalization requirements,  including application fees and requirements for continuous residence and  physical presence in the United States.

DOD also has authority to expand military recruiting to certain  nonimmigrants and other lawfully present aliens. Beginning in December  2008, the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI)  program allowed certain U.S. nonimmigrant visa holders, asylees,  refugees, and individuals with Temporary Protected Status to enlist in the  military if they possessed medical, language, and other types of skills  deemed vital for military operations. DOD ended the MAVNI program in  fiscal year 2016, citing counterintelligence concerns. Between 2008 and  2016, 10,400 individuals enlisted in the U.S. military through the MAVNI  program, according to DOD data.

DHS is responsible for arresting, detaining, litigating charges of  removability against, and removing foreign nationals who are suspected  and determined to be in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration  laws. Trial attorneys from ICE’s OPLA represent the U.S. government as  civil prosecutors in immigration court removal proceedings. ICE’s ERO is  responsible for arresting and detaining potentially removable foreign  nationals pending the outcome of their immigration court cases and  removing individuals subject to an immigration judge’s final order of  removal. ICE’s HSI is responsible for investigating a range of domestic  and international activities arising from the illegal movement of people  and goods into, within, and out of the United States.

Individuals may be subject to removal for a wide variety of reasons,  including entering the United States illegally, staying longer than their  authorized period of admission, being convicted of certain crimes, or  engaging in terrorist activity. LPRs are foreign nationals under U.S.  immigration law and therefore may be subject to immigration enforcement  and removal from the United States for reasons such as controlled  substance violations or conviction of an aggravated felony.

Both HSI agents and ERO officers may encounter potentially removable  individuals and are to decide whether to issue them a charging document,  known as a NTA, ordering the individual to appear before an immigration  judge to respond to removal charges. If the judge finds that the  respondent is removable and not otherwise eligible for relief, the judge  will issue an order of removal, subjecting the respondent to removal by  ERO once the order is administratively final.

The VA is responsible for administering benefits and services, such as  health care and disability compensation, to veterans in the United States  and abroad, including veterans who have been removed from the United  States. VA pays monthly disability compensation to veterans for  disabilities caused or aggravated by military service, known as service- connected disabilities. Veterans with service-connected disabilities may  also be eligible for other VA benefits and services, such as job training.

VA staff in regional offices process disability compensation claims. After a  veteran submits a disability claim to VA, a VA Veterans Service  Representative reviews the claim and assists the veteran with gathering  relevant evidence, such as military service records, medical  examinations, and treatment records from VA medical facilities and  private providers. If necessary to provide support to substantiate the claim, VA will provide a medical examination, known as a Compensation  and Pension (C&P) exam, to obtain evidence of the veteran’s disabilities  and their connection to military service. Within the United States, medical  providers who work for the Veterans Health Administration often conduct  these exams. VA also contracts with private firms to perform these  exams. Outside the United States, VA contracts with private firms to  perform exams in 33 countries. In countries where VA contractors do not  perform exams, VA coordinates with State staff at embassies and  consulates to schedule exams with private providers.

Once VA receives the claim evidence, a Rating Veterans Service  Representative evaluates the claim and determines whether the veteran  is eligible for benefits, and if so, assigns a percentage rating. After a  rating is assigned, VA provides VSO staff assisting a veteran with a claim  up to 48 hours to review the claim decision prior to finalizing the decision.  A Veterans Service Representative then determines the amount of the  award, if any, and drafts a decision notice. A senior Veterans Service  Representative then reviews and authorizes the award for release to the  veteran. See figure 1 for details on the 5 phases of VA’s disability  compensation claims process. From fiscal years 2013 through 2018, VA  received over 8.9 million disability compensation claims from over 3.9  million veterans and awarded over $20.2 billion in benefits, according to  VA data.

ICE Does Not Consistently Adhere to Its Policies for Handling Cases of Potentially Removable Veterans and Does Not Consistently Identify and Track Such Veterans

ICE Has Developed Policies for Handling Cases of Potentially Removable Veterans, but Does Not Consistently Adhere to Those Policies

ICE has developed policies that govern the handling of cases involving  potentially removable veterans. When HSI agents and ERO officers learn  that they have encountered a veteran, these policies require they conduct  additional assessments, create additional documentation, and obtain  management approval in order to proceed with the case. Specifically, in  June 2004, ICE’s Acting Director of Investigations issued a memo giving  the HSI Special Agent in Charge (SAC) in each field office the authority to  approve issuance of a NTA in cases involving current service members or  veterans. Similarly, in September 2004, ICE’s Acting Director of  Detention and Removal Operations issued a memo giving the ERO Field  Office Director (FOD) in each field office the authority to approve  issuance of a NTA in cases involving current service members or  veterans. In order to issue a NTA to a veteran, the SAC and FOD must  consider, at a minimum, the veteran’s overall criminal history, evidence of  rehabilitation, family and financial ties to the United States, employment  history, health, and community service. The SAC and FOD must also  consider factors related to the veteran’s military service, such as duty status (active or reserve), assignment to a war zone, number of years in  service, and decorations awarded. To authorize issuance of the NTA, the  SAC and FOD are to complete a memo to include in the veteran’s alien  file and update ICE’s EARM database with a brief overview of the facts  considered.

Additionally, in November 2015, ICE’s Director issued a policy  establishing ICE’s procedures for investigating the potential U.S.  citizenship of individuals encountered by ICE. The policy states that  prior military service is one of several indicators that an individual could  be a U.S. citizen. Therefore, before issuing a NTA to a veteran or  anyone with an indicator of potential U.S. citizenship, the ICE component  that first encounters the individual (either HSI or ERO) is to conduct a  factual examination, legal analysis, and a check of all available DHS  systems, such as USCIS’s Person-Centric Query Service, to assess  whether the individual is a U.S. citizen. ERO or HSI (whichever  conducted the factual examination) and OPLA’s Office of Chief Counsel  must jointly prepare a memorandum that assesses the individual’s  citizenship status and recommends a course of action, then submit that  memorandum for review and approval by ICE headquarters. The policy  also requires that a copy of the memorandum be placed in the individual’s  alien file.

Our analysis of removed veterans’ alien files found that ICE does not  consistently follow these policies. Specifically, ICE policies require  agents and officers to document the decision to issue a NTA to a veteran,  but do not require agents and officers to identify and document veteran  status when interviewing potentially removable individuals. Our analysis  found that ICE did not satisfy the 2004 requirement for FOD approval in  18 of 87 (21 percent) cases that OPLA’s check box indicated involved  veterans who were placed into removal proceedings and ERO data  indicated had been removed from fiscal years 2013 through 2018. Our  analysis also found that ICE did not meet the requirements of the 2015  policy requiring elevation to headquarters in 26 of the 37 cases (70  percent) of the cases for which the policy applied. Further, in December  2018 HSI officials told us that HSI has not been adhering to either the  2004 or the 2015 policies because they were unaware of the policies prior  to our review. HSI officials stated that they do not distinguish between  veterans and nonveterans when conducting administrative or criminal  investigations or when deciding whether to issue a NTA. ERO officials  stated that the absence of documentation in the alien file does not  necessarily indicate that officers did not adhere to the policies; however,  as noted above, the policies specifically require ICE to add  documentation to the alien file. Because ICE did not consistently follow  these policies, some veterans who were removed may not have received  the level of review and approval that ICE has determined is appropriate  for cases involving veterans. Taking action to ensure consistent  implementation of its policies for handling cases of potentially removable  veterans, such as issuing guidance or providing training, would help ICE  better ensure that potentially removable veterans receive appropriate  levels of review and consideration prior to the initiation of removal  proceedings.

ICE Has Not Developed a Policy to Identify and Document All Military Veterans It Encounters

ICE has not developed a policy to identify and document all military  veterans it encounters. According to ERO officials, when ERO officers  encounter an individual, they interview that individual and complete the  Form I-213, “Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien,” which documents  information on, among other things, the individual’s country of citizenship  and most recent employer. Officials stated that ERO officers would  generally learn about the individual’s veteran status during that interview.  However, ICE does not have a policy requiring agents and officers to  specifically ask about and document veteran status. According to ERO  officials, ERO does not need such a policy because ERO’s training for  new officers, the Basic Immigration Enforcement Training Program,  instructs officers to ask about veteran status when interviewing potentially  removable aliens. The Basic Immigration Enforcement Training Program  includes one lesson plan and one practice exercise stating that the I-213  “Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien” should include information on  military service, as applicable. The lesson plan also includes a list of  mandatory questions that ERO officers must ask in every encounter with  an alien; however, that list of mandatory questions does not include any  questions about military service. Further, the I-213 “Record of  Deportable/Inadmissible Alien” does not have a specific field to indicate  veteran status, and ERO’s cover sheet that supervisors use to review the  legal sufficiency of NTAs does not contain information about veteran  status.

For cases processed by HSI, HSI officials stated that agents would  generally learn about the individual’s veteran status through the initial  interview or through background checks or other information obtained in  the course of an HSI investigation. However, during the course of our  review, HSI officials stated that there was no policy requiring agents to  ask about or document veteran status because, as discussed above, HSI  does not handle veterans’ cases differently from other cases.

Without mechanisms in place to identify and document veterans, ICE is  not positioned to determine whether or not individuals it encounters are  potentially veterans and for which individuals the 2004 and 2015 policies  discussed above for handling cases of potentially removable veterans  should be applied. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government state that management should design control activities—that  is, the policies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms that enforce  management’s directives to achieve the entity’s objectives. ICE officials  told us that the 2004 and 2015 policies are intended to provide guidance  and direction to ICE agents and officers for handling cases of potentially  removable veterans. ICE officials believe that these policies could be  updated with additional guidance to agents and officers to ask about and  document veteran status during interviews of potentially removable  individuals. Without developing and implementing a new policy or revising  its 2004 and 2015 policies to require agents and officers to ask about and  document veteran status, ICE has no way of knowing whether it has  identified all of the veterans it has encountered and, therefore, does not  have reasonable assurance that it is consistently implementing its policies  and procedures for handling veterans’ cases.

ICE Does Not Maintain Complete Electronic Data on Veterans Who Have Been Placed in Removal Proceedings or Removed

Because ICE has not developed a policy to identify and document all  military veterans it encounters, ICE does not maintain complete electronic  data on veterans who have been placed in removal proceedings or  removed. In the instances in which ICE agents and officers learn that they  have encountered a veteran, none of the three ICE components who  encounter veterans—ERO, OPLA, and HSI—maintain complete  electronic data on the veterans they identify. ERO does not have a  specific field for tracking veterans in its database, EARM. According to  ERO officials, ERO officers can note veteran status on the Form I-213,  “Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien,” but ERO does not have the  ability to electronically search those notes to identify all of the veterans it  has encountered. ERO officials stated that they do not maintain data on  veteran status because they do not specifically target veterans for  enforcement operations. OPLA has a check box tracking veteran status in  its database, PLAnet, but the field is not mandatory. PLAnet also  includes a case notes section, where an OPLA attorney may choose to  document veteran status information. OPLA officials stated that the  reliability of the veteran status box and case notes depends on the  diligence of the attorney inputting the case information into PLAnet. HSI  officials stated that they do not track veteran status at all because, as  discussed above, veteran status does not affect their handling of cases.

Our analysis of removed veterans’ alien files identified limitations with the  only electronic data on veteran status ICE maintains—OPLA’s check box  in the PLAnet database. Specifically, though OPLA’s check box indicated  that all 87 of the aliens whose files we reviewed were veterans, we found  that 8 of the 87 individuals (9 percent) did not serve in the U.S. Armed  Forces, according to the information in their alien files. After reviewing  these cases, OPLA officials stated that the individuals were incorrectly  designated as veterans due to human error. OPLA officials stated that  OPLA does not require attorneys to systematically track veteran status  information in PLAnet because the database is not intended to be a data  repository, but rather serves as a case management system for OPLA  attorneys. OPLA officials stated that the official record of the alien’s case  is the paper alien file.

Because ICE does not maintain complete electronic data on potentially  removable veterans it encounters, ICE does not know exactly how many  veterans have been placed in removal proceedings or removed, or if their  cases have been handled according to ICE’s policies. Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management uses  quality information to make informed decisions and evaluate the entity’s  performance in achieving key objectives and addressing risks. Quality  information is appropriate, current, complete, accurate, accessible, and  provided on a timely basis. While tracking veteran status in the paper  alien file may allow ICE to review whether a specific individual is a  veteran, it does not provide the type of complete and accessible  electronic data that would allow the agency to systematically evaluate its  performance in adhering to its policies. Maintaining complete electronic  data on veterans it encounters would assist ICE in determining the extent  to which the agency has adhered to its policies for handling cases  involving potentially removable veterans. For example, ICE could obtain  quality information through a mandatory field, such as a check box to  track veteran status.

Available Data Indicate that Approximately 250 Veterans Were Placed in Removal Proceeding or Removed from the United States from Fiscal Years 2013 through 2018

Based on the limited information available in OPLA’s PLAnet database,  approximately 250 veterans were placed in removal proceedings or  removed from the United States from fiscal years 2013 through 2018. As  noted above, ICE does not maintain complete electronic data on veterans  it encounters. While OPLA’s PLAnet includes some data on veterans who  have been placed in removal proceedings, because the entry of veteran  status data in PLAnet is not mandatory, there could be additional  veterans who were placed in removal proceedings or removed during the  timeframe of our review who were not noted in PLAnet or included in our  analysis, as discussed below.

We reviewed the data that were included in PLAnet on veterans who  were placed in removal proceedings from fiscal years 2013 through 2018  and identified approximately 250 military veterans. This includes those  individuals for whom the check box indicating veteran status was checked  in PLAnet but, as noted above, does not represent complete data on all  possible veterans placed in removal proceedings during the time period  we reviewed. Among the approximately 250 individuals who were noted  in PLAnet as veterans in removal proceedings, the most common  countries of nationality were Mexico (about 40), Jamaica (about 30), El  Salvador (about 10), Trinidad and Tobago (about 10), Germany (about  10), and Guatemala (about 10). At the end of fiscal year 2018, about 115  had been ordered removed, about 25 had been granted relief or  protection from removal by an immigration judge, and about 5 had their  cases administratively closed. The remainder of the cases were still  open as of November 2018.

From fiscal year 2013 through 2018, ERO had removed 92 of the  approximately 250 military veterans from the United States, of which 90  were foreign nationals with one or more criminal convictions, according to  ERO data. Nine of the removed veterans had service-connected  disabilities recognized by VA, including four removed veterans who had  service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder. Based on our review  of the alien files of 87 of the individuals that OPLA’s check box indicated  were veterans and ERO indicated had been removed, we identified the  following characteristics:

26 veterans (30 percent) received an honorable discharge; 26 (30  percent) received a general discharge under honorable conditions; 13  (15 percent) received an other than honorable discharge; 8 (9  percent) received an uncharacterized discharge; 3 (3 percent)  received a bad conduct discharge; 2 (2 percent) received a  dishonorable discharge; 8 (9 percent) had no evidence of military  service in their alien file; and 1 (1 percent) did not have a discharge  characterization listed in the alien file.

74 veterans (85 percent) were LPRs, 6 (7 percent) were citizens of  the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau  who enlisted under the Compact of Free Association, 6 (7 percent) did  not have evidence of lawful status, and 1 (1 percent) was a recipient  of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

26 veterans (30 percent) had previously applied for naturalization with  USCIS; 3 of whom submitted multiple applications. Seventeen of  those naturalization applications were denied by USCIS, 9 were  administratively closed, and 2 were withdrawn.

68 veterans (78 percent) were ordered removed because of at least  one aggravated felony conviction, while the remaining 19 (22 percent)  were ordered removed for non-aggravated felony convictions. Of the  convictions ICE cited on the 87 veterans’ NTAs: 32 veterans had  drug-related convictions; 20 had convictions related to sexual abuse,  of which 18 involved minors; 21 had convictions related to homicide,  assault, or attempted homicides or assaults; 16 had theft-related  convictions; and 9 had convictions related to firearms, explosives, or  explosive material.

USCIS and DOD Have Policies Facilitating the Naturalization of Noncitizen Service Members and Veterans; the Number of Service Members Applying for Naturalization Has Decreased

USCIS and DOD Have Policies Facilitating the Naturalization of Noncitizen Service Members and Veterans

USCIS and DOD have policies facilitating the naturalization of noncitizen  service members and veterans, and both agencies provide informational  resources to noncitizen service members seeking naturalization. USCIS  facilitates the application and naturalization process for current and  recently discharged members of the U.S. Armed Forces through a  dedicated Military Naturalization Unit, which processes military  naturalization applications and assists field officers with administrative  naturalization tasks overseas, among other things. USCIS interviews and  naturalizes active-duty service members abroad at certain U.S.  embassies, consulates, and military installations. To provide information  to noncitizen service members and veterans, USCIS maintains a toll-free  “Military Help Line” and an e-mail box exclusively for members of the  military and their families and publishes an “Immigration 101”  presentation for relevant stakeholders, including DOD personnel on  military bases. In addition, USCIS provides DOD with a checklist of  required documents for military naturalization applications and  communication guidelines for naturalization application inquiries,  according to USCIS officials.

DOD determines whether a service member meets the qualifying service  requirement for naturalization by certifying whether the service member  has served “honorably,” and if he or she has separated from service,  whether their separation was under honorable conditions. Additionally,  according to DOD officials, every military installation generally designates  a naturalization advisor within its Legal Services Office. The advisor,  among other things, assists service members with preparation of their  naturalization application packets and serves as an intermediary with  USCIS staff. For example, at many Army installations, the Army  Community Services Office typically performs this function.

The Number of Noncitizen Service Members Applying for Naturalization Declined by 72 Percent from Fiscal Years 2017 to 2018

Although USCIS approved military naturalization applications at a fairly  consistent rate from fiscal years 2013 through 2018, the number of  applications received declined sharply from fiscal years 2017 to 2018,  resulting in a decrease in the number of service members approved for  naturalization in fiscal year 2018. From fiscal years 2013 through 2018,  USCIS received 54,617 military naturalization applications; USCIS  approved 46,835 (86 percent) and denied 3,410 (6 percent). Applicants’  most common countries of nationality were the Philippines (6,267 or 11  percent), Mexico (5,760 or 11 percent), Jamaica (3,510 or 6 percent),  China (3,213 or 6 percent), and the Republic of Korea (2,982 or 5  percent). While the number of military naturalization applications was  relatively stable between fiscal years 2013 and 2017, applications  declined by 72 percent from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2018, from  11,812 in fiscal year 2017 to 3,291 in fiscal year 2018, as shown in figure  2. As a result of this decline in applications, the number of service  members approved for naturalization also declined, from 7,303 in fiscal  year 2017 to 4,309 in fiscal year 2018.

USCIS and DOD officials attributed the decline in military naturalization  applications to several DOD policy changes. First, DOD suspended the  MAVNI program in September 2016, which reduced the number of  noncitizens joining the military. According to DOD officials, due to  counterintelligence concerns, DOD suspended the program at the end of  fiscal year 2016 and decided not to renew the program in fiscal year  2017. Second, in October 2017, DOD issued policies expanding  background check requirements for LPR and MAVNI recruits. The  policies specify that LPRs must complete a background check and  receive a favorable military service suitability determination prior to  entering any component of the U.S. Armed Forces. According to DOD  officials, due to backlogs in the background check process, these new  recruits were delayed in beginning their service, and officials stated that it  may take DOD up to a year to complete enhanced requirements for  certain recruits. DOD officials stated that they believe background check  backlogs will decrease by the end of fiscal year 2019 and, as a result, the  number of noncitizen service members eligible to apply for naturalization  will increase. Third, in October 2017, DOD increased the amount of time  noncitizens must serve before DOD will certify their honorable service for  naturalization purposes. Under the new policy, noncitizens must  complete security screening, basic military training, and serve 180 days  for a characterization of service determination. Previously, DOD granted  that determination in as little as a few days of service.

USCIS made several changes to its military naturalization processes in  response to or in tandem with DOD’s policy changes. First, in July 2017,  USCIS determined that the completion of DOD background checks was  relevant to MAVNI recruits’ eligibility for naturalization. USCIS thus began  requiring currently-serving MAVNI recruits seeking military naturalization  to complete all required DOD background checks before USCIS  interviewed them, approved their applications, or administered the Oath  of Allegiance to naturalize them. Second, in January 2018, USCIS  ended its initiative to naturalize new enlistees at basic training sites. This  initiative, known as the “Naturalization at Basic Training Initiative”, began  in August 2009 as an effort to conduct outreach to new enlistees at the  Army’s five basic training sites and provide noncitizen enlistees an  opportunity to naturalize prior to completion of basic training. Because of  DOD’s October 2017 policy change increasing the amount of time  noncitizens must serve before they are eligible for a characterization of  service determination, noncitizen service members no longer meet the  requirements for naturalization while they are completing basic training.  As a result, USCIS closed naturalization offices in Fort Sill, Fort Benning,  and Fort Jackson.

USCIS’s processing time for military naturalizations also increased, from  an average of 5.4 months in fiscal year 2017 to 12.5 months in fiscal year  2018, according to USCIS data. USCIS officials attributed this increase to  the backlog in DOD background checks for MAVNI recruits, as well as an  increased volume of naturalization applications from non-military  applicants.

Removal Alone Does Not Affect Eligibility for VA Benefits and Services, but Living Abroad Affects Eligibility and Access to Certain Benefits and Services

Removal Alone Does Not Affect Eligibility for VA Benefits and Services; Veterans Living Abroad are Eligible for Fewer Benefits and Services than Those Living In the United States

Citizenship status, including immigration enforcement or removal history,  does not affect a veteran’s eligibility for VA benefits and services,  according to VA officials. As a result, veterans who have been removed  by ICE are entitled to the same VA benefits and services as any other  veteran living abroad.

Although being removed for violation of immigration law does not in and  of itself affect eligibility for VA benefits and services, living abroad affects  eligibility for certain benefits and services, as shown in table 1. These  differences pertain to all veterans living abroad, including both veterans  who have been removed by ICE and veterans who choose to reside  abroad.

Removed veterans may face additional obstacles in receiving certain  benefits for which they are otherwise eligible because they may be barred  from traveling to the United States. For example, a removed veteran may  not be able to attend a hearing to appeal a VA disability rating decision  because VA conducts those hearings exclusively in the United States.  Additionally, a removed veteran may not be able to obtain certain  Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment services if the veteran is  unable to travel to the United States for medical referrals and case  management.

Veterans Living Abroad Face Challenges Accessing Certain Benefits and Services

Veterans living abroad, including removed veterans, may experience  challenges accessing certain benefits and services, including slower  disability claim processing and Foreign Medical Program (FMP) claim  reimbursement, difficulties related to the scheduling and quality of C&P  exams, and difficulties communicating with VA.

Claims and Reimbursement Processing Timeliness

According to VA officials, VA’s processing time for disability  compensation claims for veterans living abroad (foreign claims) has  improved since fiscal year 2013. For example, in fiscal year 2013, VA  processed foreign claims in an average of 521 days and in fiscal year  2018, VA’s processing time for foreign claims decreased to an average of  131 days. However, as of September 2018, VA was not meeting its  timeliness goal of 125 days for processing foreign claims and VA took an  average of 29 days longer to process foreign claims than domestic  claims. VA officials attributed the longer processing times for foreign  claims to unreliable foreign mail systems and issues with retrieving and  translating foreign records, among other things. From fiscal years 2013  through 2018, VA received disability compensation claims from 26,858  veterans living abroad and awarded over $85 million in benefits,  according to VA data.

According to VA officials, VA’s processing time for health care claims  reimbursements to veterans or their medical providers for treatment of  service-connected conditions through FMP has also improved. For  example, in October 2018, FMP was processing 53.8 percent of claims in  40 days compared to 70 percent of claims in 40 days in March 2019.  However, as of March 2019, VA was not meeting its timeliness goal to  process 90 percent of claims reimbursements through FMP in 40 days.  FMP officials attributed these delays to the loss of four staff positions in  April 2017, as well as FMP assuming responsibility for claims from the  Philippines in October 2017. To improve FMP’s processing timeliness,  FMP officials stated that VA funded three new full-time equivalent  positions for fiscal year 2019. From fiscal years 2013 through 2018, VA  reported receiving 373,916 claims reimbursements from veterans and  providers living abroad and awarding over $169 million in claims  reimbursements.

According to both VA and VSO officials, veterans living abroad, including  removed veterans, face challenges related to the scheduling and quality  of C&P exams. As previously noted, veterans living abroad do not receive  C&P exams from VA medical providers, but may receive exams from  either a VA contractor or, in countries where VA does not have  contractors, from a private provider scheduled by the U.S. embassy or  consulate. From fiscal years 2013 through 2018, VA completed over  27,000 exams abroad through contractors and 6,800 exams through U.S.  embassies and consulates, according to VA data.

For contract exams, as of March 2019, VA had contractors in 33 countries  and U.S. territories. This included Mexico, Germany, Belize, Canada, the  Dominican Republic, the Federated States of Micronesia, the United  Kingdom, the Philippines, Thailand, Costa Rica, Korea, and Poland,  which were among the most common countries of nationality for removed  veterans in our analysis. VA officials stated that contract C&P exam  locations are determined by historical and pending claims data. Moreover,  VA contractors abroad are generally located near military installations or  areas in which VA determined there is a large veteran population.

For embassy-scheduled exams, both VA and VSO officials told us that  the effectiveness of coordination between VA and the embassies varies  by country. For example, VA staff told us that they have been unable to  schedule exams through embassies in Iraq or Afghanistan. State officials  told us that processes for scheduling C&P exams and communicating  with VA vary depending on the location, activity, and size of the embassy  or consulate. State officials also told us that access to specialized  providers to conduct exams, including mental health or audio exams,  depends on the location of the embassy or consulate.

In addition, both VA and VSO officials told us that veterans who receive  embassy-scheduled exams from private providers abroad may receive  lower-quality exams than veterans who live in the United States. For  example, providers abroad may misinterpret VA exam requirements due  to language barriers or unfamiliarity with U.S. medical terminology. These  providers also do not have access to veterans’ service records, and  therefore cannot assess whether a particular condition is service- connected. For these reasons, VA officials told us that VA staff submit  C&P exams completed by private providers abroad to the VA Medical  Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for an additional medical opinion.  According to VA officials, VA is improving the scheduling and quality of  C&P exams by expanding the number of countries where veterans may  receive exams from VA contractors.

Veterans Living Abroad Face Challenges Communicating with VA

According to VA and VSO officials, veterans living abroad experience  challenges communicating with the VA. For example, staff from all four  VSOs we interviewed stated that unreliable foreign mail systems and  differences in time zones make it challenging for veterans to  communicate with the VA, particularly because VA uses paper mail to  communicate with veterans living abroad. In addition, VA and VSO  officials also told us that veterans living abroad may face challenges  applying for and managing their benefits through an online portal  maintained by VA and DOD, eBenefits. VA requires veterans to register  for a “premium account” in order to access all of the functions of  eBenefits, such as applying for benefits online and checking the status of  a claim, among other things. To be eligible for a “premium account,”  veterans must first verify their identity with DOD. If the veteran provides  valid government identification (e.g. driver’s license) and documentation  of a financial account (e.g. checking account), DOD may be able to verify  the veteran’s identity through an online registration process and VA may  be able to verify the veteran’s identity by telephone. If a veteran is unable  to verify their identity in this manner, the veteran must verify their identity  in-person at a VA regional office in the United States. Therefore, removed  veterans who cannot travel to the United States would not be able to  obtain a “premium account” if they had not previously registered prior to  their removal. VA officials stated that these processes are intended to  ensure compliance with National Institute of Standards and Technology  guidance for online credentialing.

Throughout U.S. history, noncitizens have contributed to the United  States through service in the Armed Forces. Through its policies, ICE has  established that these noncitizen veterans warrant special consideration  in the event that they become subject to immigration enforcement and  removal from the United States. However, because ICE did not  consistently adhere to these policies, some veterans who were removed  may not have received the level of review and approval that ICE has  determined is appropriate for cases involving veterans. Moreover, without  developing and implementing a new policy or revising its 2004 and 2015  policies to require ICE agents and officers to ask about and document  veteran status while interviewing potentially removable individuals, ICE  has no way of knowing whether it has identified all of the veterans it has  encountered and, therefore, does not have reasonable assurance that it  is consistently implementing its policies and procedures for handling  veterans’ cases. Further, maintaining complete electronic data on  veterans it encounters would also allow ICE to better assess whether ICE  has adhered to its policies for handling cases involving potentially  removable veterans.

We are making the following three recommendations to ICE:

The Director of ICE should take action to ensure consistent  implementation of ICE’s policies for handling cases of potentially  removable veterans. (Recommendation 1)

The Director of ICE should develop and implement a policy or revise  its current polices to ensure that ICE agents and officers identify and  document veteran status when interviewing potentially removable  individuals. (Recommendation 2)

The Director of ICE should collect and maintain complete and  electronic data on veterans in removal proceedings or who have been  removed. (Recommendation 3)

We provided a copy of this report to DHS, VA, DOD, and State for review  and comment. DHS provided written comments, which are reproduced in  full in appendix I and discussed below. DHS, VA, and DOD also provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. State  indicated that it did not have any comments on the draft report.

In its comments, DHS concurred with our three recommendations and  described actions planned to address them. With respect to our first  recommendation that ICE should ensure consistent implementation of its  policies for handling potentially removable veterans, DHS concurred  stating that ICE plans, among other things, to update its guidance and  training materials to include information about military service. With  respect to our second recommendation that ICE should develop and  implement a policy or revise its current policies to ensure agents and  officers identify and document veteran status when interviewing  potentially removable individuals, DHS concurred, stating that ICE plans  to review and clarify existing guidance on the issuance of NTAs to  veterans. DHS also concurred with our third recommendation that ICE  collect and maintain complete and electronic data on veterans in removal  proceedings or who have been removed. Specifically, DHS stated that  ICE plans to add data elements for veteran status to its existing systems.  The actions described above, if implemented effectively, should address  the intent of our recommendations.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of  Veterans Affairs, the Acting Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State,  and other interested parties. In addition, this report is available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://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 Office  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of our report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff  Acknowledgements Error! No text of specified style in document.

In addition to the contact named above, Meg Ullengren (Assistant  Director), Ashley Davis, Eric Hauswirth, Khaki LaRiviere, Sasan J. “Jon”  Najmi, Claire Peachey, Mike Silver, Natalie Swabb, and James Whitcomb  made key contributions to this report.

Noncitizens who serve in the U.S. military may be eligible for citizenship. If a noncitizen veteran violates immigration law, Immigration and Customs Enforcement may seek to remove the veteran from the country. However, ICE policies require it to take additional steps prior to removal actions, such as considering their service record.

We found ICE did not consistently follow these policies from 2013-2018. ICE also does not maintain complete electronic data on these veterans. As a result, ICE does not know how many veterans have been placed in removal proceedings or removed.

We recommended that ICE collect and maintain data on veterans.