Introduction .................................................................................................... 2

Background .................................................................................................... 2

Results of Inspection ....................................................................................... 6

After Border Patrol agents conduct an interview with an apprehended migrant,

collect biographic and biometric data, and run record checks, they evaluate the

short-term, typically not to exceed 72 hours,

proceedings before an immigration judge, such as Expedited Removal (ER) and

Reinstatement of Final Order of Removal, but also has discretion to detain

migrants who have a Notice to Appear (NTA) or Voluntary Departure (VR) and

who have not been paroled.

Determining which post-apprehension outcomes Border Patrol should use to

process migrants depends on a variety of factors, such as:

Patrol may give an NTA to migrants who are otherwise eligible for ER (removal

without formal proceedings) but who are pregnant, elderly, or seriously ill and

release them.

Under Title 42 of the Public Health Services Act, the Surgeon General can

prohibit the entry of people from foreign countries to avert the spread of

2021, the sectors received guidance that all Haitian, Cuban, and Venezuelan

single adults should be processed under NTA.

guidance was updated, and the sectors were instructed to process Haitian and

Venezuelan single adults under ER instead (although Cubans were still being

processed under NTA). Less than 2 weeks later, on August 4, 2021, the

guidance was updated again, and the sectors were instructed to process all

Haitians, Cubans, and Venezuelans under Warrant of Arrest (WA)/NTA. We

heard from Border Patrol officials that such frequent changes create confusion

External factors such as local prosecutorial guidance and conditions imposed

has to follow relevant guidance when it decides to refer a migrant for

example, in September 2021:

explained that the rules and conditions for removals or expulsions in sectors

along the Southwest border are affected by guidance from the Mexican

government. As described earlier, when we visited the Rio Grande Valley

sector, Mexican authorities bordering this sector did not accept family units

with children younger than age 7 for Title 42 expulsions. In contrast, when we

visited the Yuma sector, expulsions for this demographic did occur. In another

example, although Brazilian migrants were technically amenable to Title 42

expulsions, the Mexican government was not accepting Brazilians for direct

Title 42 expulsions into Mexico, and Brazil was mandating COVID-19 testing

prevented Title 42 expulsion flights back to Brazil.

The combination of multiple factors creates challenges as agents attempt to

facilities and time in custody lower than they

expulsion, Border Patrol agents only collect their biometric and biographic data

and record the information in CBP’s system of record, e3.

Several Border Patrol agents told us the CDC order allowed them to keep

migration levels manageable. We heard from one Border Patrol official in the

field that “guidance to agents on when Title 42 goes away is scarce” and that

section we describe sector capacity at the time of our fieldwork, different post-

migrants to Mexico under Title 42, mostly consisting of Honduran, Mexican,

Guatemalan, and Salvadoran migrants. However, during the time of our visit,

families with children younger than age 7 could not be expelled under Title 42.

Border Patrol agents also reported that some migrants of other nationalities

were flown to the El Paso sector, where the adjacent Mexican city of Juarez was

accepting more foreign nationals under Title 42 expulsions than Tamaulipas,

In interviews, Border Patrol agents reported that the sector’s reliance on the

NTR outcome in the spring and summer of 2021 was mostly due to the high

apprehensions of family units. As of November 2, 2021, Border Patrol sectors

ICE ERO detention, out of 27,848 migrants who were apprehended and not

expelled under Title 42.

The San Diego sector experienced the lowest volume of apprehensions of the

four sectors we examined. Below we provide specific data snapshots for the

Mexico under Title 42. Because Mexico did not accept non-Spanish speaking

migrants for Title 42 expulsions, nearly all Brazilians were processed through

the NTA outcome. As shown in Table 6, apart from Title 42 expulsions, the

most used processing outcome in the San Diego sector was NTA (24 percent).

In the San Diego sector, in the 2 weeks for which we performed this analysis,

mentioned in our San Diego sector snapshot, the Yuma sector sent 7–8 buses

daily with migrants to the San Diego, El Centro, and Tucson sectors during

this timeframe. Below we provide specific data snapshots for the Yuma sector:

migrants for Title 42 expulsions. As shown in Table 7, apart from Title 42

(34 percent) and WA/NTA (33 percent). Brazilians and Venezuelans were most

likely to be processed through either outcome. As discussed earlier, Brazilians

were not amenable to Title 42 expulsions.

As we saw with other sectors, ER was one of the less used outcomes; in the

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees