FY 2015 ICE Immigration Removals

This report summarizes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations’ (ERO) Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 removal activities. ICE shares responsibility for enforcing the Nation’s immigration laws with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). In executing its enforcement duties, ICE focuses on two core missions: 1) the identification and apprehension of criminal aliens and other priority aliens located in the United States; and 2) the detention and removal of those individuals apprehended in the interior of the United States as well as those apprehended by CBP officers and agents patrolling our nation's borders. ICE is committed to smart immigration enforcement, preventing terrorism, and combatting the illegal movement of people and goods.

This report analyzes ICE’s FY 2015 ERO removal statistics to demonstrate how the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) enforcement priorities positively impact our communities. In executing these responsibilities, ICE has prioritized its limited resources on the identification and removal of threats to national security, border security, and public safety, as outlined in Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson’s November 20, 2014 memorandum entitled Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants​.

The nature and scope of ICE’s civil immigration enforcement is impacted by a number of factors, including: 1) the level of cooperation from state and local law enforcement partners; 2) the level of illegal migration 1; and 3) changing migrant demographics.

The Department’s clearer and more refined civil immigration enforcement priorities, which ICE began implementing in FY 2015, placed increased emphasis and focus on the removal of convicted felons and other public safety threats over non-criminals. To further build on the prioritization of convicted criminals and enlist the support of the many state and local jurisdictions that were not cooperating with ICE, DHS ended Secure Communities and replaced it with the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP). With the implementation of PEP, which became fully operational in July 2015, ICE has engaged in expansive efforts to encourage state and local law enforcement partners to collaborate with ICE to ensure the transfer and removal of serious public safety threats.

Because of the many factors described above, there were fewer removals in FY 2015 than there were in FY 2014. More detailed statistics contained in this report also show that an increased percentage of those removals involve convicted criminals and other priorities as a result of ICE’s targeted focus on the most significant threats to national security, public safety, and border security.2 Indeed, 98 percent of individuals that ICE removed in FY 2015 met ICE’s civil immigration enforcement priorities. As these new enforcement priorities continue to take hold, and state and local cooperation increases, ICE expects continued progress in ensuring its resources are appropriately focused in keeping our Nation safe and secure.

Figure 1

Removals Overview

• ICE conducted 235,413 removals.
• ICE conducted 69,478 removals of individuals apprehended by ICE officers (i.e., interior removals) (Figure 2).

• 63,539 (91%) of all interior removals were previously convicted of a crime.

• ICE conducted 165,935 removals of individuals apprehended at or near the border or ports of entry.3
• 59% of all ICE removals, or 139,368, were previously convicted of a crime.

• ICE conducted 63,539 interior criminal removals.
• ICE removed 75,829 criminals apprehended at or near the border or ports of entry.

• 98 percent of all ICE FY 2015 removals, or 230,715, met one or more of ICE’s stated civil immigration enforcement priorities.4
• Of the 96,045 individuals removed who had no criminal conviction, 94 percent, or 90,106, were apprehended at or near the border or ports of entry.5
• The leading countries of origin for removals were Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.
• 1,040 individuals removed by ICE were classified as suspected or confirmed gang members.6

Figure 2

Conclusion

Over the course of FY 2015, ICE has improved its ability to target individuals who threaten public safety and national security as demonstrated by the fact that 98 percent of individuals that ICE removed met ICE’s civil immigration enforcement priorities. As these revised enforcement priorities continue to take hold, and state and local cooperation increases, ICE expects continued progress in ensuring its resources are appropriately focused in keeping our nation safe and secure.

1 As measured by the number of apprehensions by CBP. | return to text

3 Approximately 94 percent of these individuals were apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol agents and then processed, detained, and removed by ICE. The remaining individuals were apprehended by CBP officers at ports of entry. | return to text

4 As defined in the November 20, 2014 DHS memorandum, Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants Memorandum | return to text

5 ICE defines criminality via a recorded criminal conviction obtained by ICE officers and agents from certified criminal history repositories. The individuals described above include recent border crossers, fugitives from the immigration courts, and repeat immigration violators. | return to text

6 Gang affiliation is documented based upon alert codes entered by a deportation officer. | return to text

Focus on Convicted Criminal Aliens

ICE has continued to increase its focus on identifying, arresting, and removing convicted criminals in prisons and jails, and also at-large arrests in the interior.8 In FY 2015, ICE sustained the improved quality of its removals by focusing on serious public safety and national security threats. ICE increased the percentage of removals of convicted criminal by 3 percent over FY 2014. In FY 2015, ICE removed 139,368 convicted criminals, which represented 59 percent of total ICE removals.

In FY 2015, under the new CIEP framework (Table 2), 98 percent of all removals of convicted criminals fell into one of the revised enforcement priorities and 81 percent of removals of convicted criminals were ICE’s highest priority, CIEP Priority 1.9

This strong alignment with the CIEP Priorities, shown in Figure 3, exemplifies ICE’s continued focus on targeted enforcement.

Figure 3

In addition to the increase in the percentage of ICE removals that were of convicted criminals, ERO’s interior enforcement activities led to an increase in the percentage of ICE’s interior removals (i.e., individuals apprehended by ICE officers and agents in the interior) that were of convicted criminals. This percentage grew from 82 percent in FY 2013 to 91 percent in FY 2015, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4

There were 69,478 interior removals in FY 2015, with 93 percent of those removals falling into one of the CIEP priorities, as shown in Figure 5. This further demonstrates ICE’s focus on smarter, public safety-oriented enforcement.

Figure 5

8 Federal court rulings, such as Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013), continued to challenge ICE’s interior operations. Rodriguez applies throughout the Ninth Circuit, the federal court jurisdiction with the largest number of individuals in removal proceedings. It allows individuals who previously would have been detained without bond, to seek release on bonds from immigration judges. Their cases are then transferred from the relatively expedited detained court docket to the slower non-detained court docket, thereby decreasing the number of overall removals in a given year. | return to text

9 The remaining 2 percent of convicted criminal removals who fell under Unknown Priority cannot be statistically reported under the new CIEP priorities. Unknown Priority is a reflection of those cases in which a priority has not been assigned. Most of these cases with unknown priority reflect cases that were processed before CIEP was implemented (i.e., Prior to January 2015); the rest simply did not have the priority data flags or other supporting data to definitively support statistical reporting. | return to text

Level of Cooperation from State and Local Law Enforcement Partners 

The enactment of numerous state statutes and local ordinances reducing and/or preventing cooperation with ICE, in addition to federal court decisions which created liability concerns for cooperating law enforcement agencies, led an increasing number of jurisdictions to decline to honor immigration detainers in FY 2015. From January 2014, when ICE began tracking declinations of immigration detainers through June 2015 (before the July 2015 implementation of PEP), state and local law enforcement agencies declined 16,495 immigration detainers, resulting in convicted criminals being released back into U.S. communities with the potential to re-offend, notwithstanding ICE’s request for those individuals. Moreover, these releases further constrained ICE’s civil immigration enforcement efforts because it required ICE to expend additional resources to locate and arrest convicted criminals who were at-large rather than transferred directly from jails into ICE custody, drawing resources away from other ICE enforcement efforts.   

In July 2015, ICE implemented PEP and began using revised forms, the I-247D detainer form and the I-247N, a request for notification form. Each of the 24 ICE field office directors, whose areas of responsibility includes at least one location that does not honor detainers, are in ongoing discussions with their law enforcement partners in order to tailor PEP in each location to best meet the communities’ needs. 

Additionally, to facilitate state and local cooperation, Secretary Johnson, Deputy Secretary Mayorkas, and Director Saldaña have met with elected and law enforcement officials in some of our largest jurisdictions, including Los Angeles, New York City, and Florida. DHS and ICE officials also regularly engage with senior law enforcement officials from across the nation through various associations and task forces. This robust engagement is producing results. Counties like Los Angeles, Alameda, San Diego, Fresno, San Mateo, Sonoma, and Monterey in California are now working with ICE through PEP. Today, many law enforcement agencies, including previously uncooperative jurisdictions, are now cooperating with ICE through PEP. 

Changing Migrant Demographics

Changing migrant demographics also impacted ICE removal operations, as illegal entries by Mexicans continued to decrease while those by Central Americans continued to increase. More time, personnel resources, and funding are required to complete the removal process for nationals from Central America and other non-contiguous countries as compared to Mexican nationals apprehended at the border. This is because removals of non-Mexican nationals require ICE to use additional detention capacity, more time and effort to secure travel documents from the host country, and to arrange air transportation to remove the individual to the home country. Additionally, many Central American nationals are asserting claims of credible or reasonable fear of persecution. Such cases require a careful adjudication and, therefore, take longer to process.

FY 2015 Executive Action Priorities

Priorities and Sub-Priorities reflect Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson’s Memorandum on November 20, 2014, effective January 5, 2015 titled Polices for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants. The priorities are as follows:

Priority 1 (threats to national security, border security, and public safely)

• P1a: aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, or who otherwise pose a danger to national security;
• P1b: aliens apprehended at the border or ports of entry while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States;
• P1c: aliens convicted of an offense for which an element was active participation in a criminal street gang, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 521(a), or aliens not younger than 16 years of age who intentionally participated in an organized criminal gang to further the illegal activity of the gang;
• P1d: aliens convicted of an offense classified as a felony in the convicting jurisdiction, other than a state or local offense for which an essential element was the alien's immigration status; and
• P1e: aliens convicted of an “aggravated felony,” as that term is defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act at the time of the conviction.

Priority 2 (misdemeanants and new immigration violators)

• P2a: aliens convicted of three or more misdemeanor offenses, other than minor traffic offenses or state or local offenses for which an essential element was the alien’s immigration status, provided the offenses arise out of three separate incidents;
• P2b: aliens convicted of a “significant misdemeanor,” which for these purposes is an offense of domestic violence; 1 sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or driving under the influence; or if not an offense listed above, one for which the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90 days or more (the sentence must involve time to be served in custody, and does not include a suspended sentence);
• P2c: aliens apprehended anywhere in the United States after unlawfully entering or re-entering the United States and who cannot establish to the satisfaction of an immigration officer that they have been physically present in the United States continuously since January 1, 2014; and
• P2d: aliens who, in the judgment of an ICE field office director, USCIS district director, or USCIS service center director, have significantly abused the visa or visa waiver programs.

Priority 3 (other immigration violations)

• P3: aliens are those who have been issued a final order of removal on or after January 1, 2014. Aliens described in this priority, which are not also described in Priority 1 or 2, represent the third and lowest priority for apprehension and removal.

PB: aliens of Federal Interest (field office director’s approval required).