Skip to content

Judicial Watch • DHS Dream Act Docs Part 5 7232011

DHS Dream Act Docs Part 5 7232011

DHS Dream Act Docs Part 5 7232011

Page 1: DHS Dream Act Docs Part 5 7232011


Number of Pages:253

Date Created:September 1, 2011

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:Taskings, parole, removal, Customs, alien, enforcement, immigration, Illegal Immigration, ACLU, obtained, DHS, security, Obama, ATF, FBI, watch, White House, department, judicial, Supreme Court, office, states, united, EPA, IRS, ICE, CIA

File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

Sent: Tuesd June 29, 2010 1:46
To: DRO Taskings
Subject: RE: Defgred Action
Just oon will you able get the rest Monday, July
,;June 29, 2010 1:44
DRO Taskings
Subgect: Deferred Action
)(E)l ()=)(7)
Looiiing the questions will not able the following- Number within (1) for each year that included work authorization- should CIS Number within (1) for each year who were military spouses Number within (1) for each year who were students Number within (1) for each year who were the for medical treatment
Acting hlel sun
Omen mine ninogn
Enforcement Rnjnmtal Operations
Fax (202) 732-3115 
Warning: This docinnam ui::L.-.525:-=niircn OFFICIAL use ONLY UNFOUO). in-4...-
underline Freedom ollnfonriatlori Act 552). in. smrod, handl
with oils policy relating FOU0 Inln none tn: public time:
wlthoul :;;.....i Iuthorlzed clal. porllon olthla upon should furnished the modln. either written
iurmallon may uxnmptlrom public release
mad, aismbuud, and disposed accordance
--Im not nan valid new Io-know 
cm. ()7)(7 (C)
Sent: Tues June 29, 2010 1:07
To: DRO Taskings
Subject: Deferred Action
Impoartance: High
Unfoiginately, spoke too soon. The House came back. email below, and must have the information below, plus more, later than Monday July 12371.
Will you able gain the information requested the necessary date?
From: jmailtc
sen Tin-qgv. June 29. 2010 12:00 Elli
20l0FOlA6052 001027
Subject: Deferred Action (h)(7)(C and discussed the amount work needed collect this data.
Unf rtunately, this very likely amendment get full committee mark-
up, which hope schedule for the week July 12. The amendment would for blanket prohibition any DHS funds being used grant deferred action for any
reason. order keep this amendment off the bill, which assume ultimately lCE best
interest, need some data about how often this happens and how successfully ICE
tracks the individuals who are granted the status. minimum, need the following: Total number deferred action decisions granted FY09 and FY08 [and
FY07 not signi cantly more work]. Number within (1) for each year that were granted part broader law
enforcement investigation prosecution Number within (1) for each year that included work authorization Number within (1) for each year who have subsequently been removed from the
country not signi cant additional work, would nice (but not necessary) have: Number within (1) for each year who were military spouses Number within (1) for each year who were students Number within (1) for each year who were the for medical treatment
Can please get commitment from you get information later than COB
Monday July 12? the Chairman cant cite gures about the reasons and success
deferred action status, will very hard oppose such amendment.
Please call discuss.
Profe sional Staff
Subcommittee Homeland Security
House Comomittee Appropriations
202 225- [v)
202-225- (f)
(W5). (h)(7l(
2010FOiA6052 001025
7/10/2010 fCTR)
Sent: Mondgy, June 14, 2010 1:52
To: DRO Tagdngs
Subject: FW: 1500hrs t0dayFN: Due Jun: Review and Comment (1300: Jun 10):
10062032 Tasking: Feedback Proposals from White House Council Women and Girls
Attachments: Feedback Matrix for Violence Against Women Preventiondoc; Final DHS Submission
WHCWG.pdf; ClSOMB External Feedback for VAWA Visas.d0c; PLCY External
Feedback for VAWA Visas.doc
This cleared. 
Au-aungunuu sun (A)
omen all Exacngvu Anoclah Dlncmr
Enlommm rmgovul opmuom
Work (202) 131
Fx(2D2)132-lung cumalml !:f:muimn that uxlmpt from public
uorcd. handled. lhnumlmd. dlutrlbnmd. and dllpnud the publll: criminal who HUI. haw
fllmlshld the m.dl.y hof
Wurnlnn: This comma. LIMCLASSIFIEDII
nlun ulldll llll Frlldolll lllfolml -ecomncn with was policy
ay, 1ne 14, 2010 1:34
Cc: DRO Easkings
Subject: **DUE 15ODhrs l:oday***FW: Due Jun: Review and Comment (1300: Jun 10): 10062032
Tasking: Feedback Proposals from white House Council Women and Girls
***DUE 1500hrs today***
Cleared IPC.
(W5): (h)(7)(C)
2010FOlA6052 001029
Taskings Correspondence Unit
Enforcement and Removal Operations
Immigration and Qisloms Enforcement
U.S. Department Homeland Security
500 12th Stree Wlshington, 20024 202-732 (l=)(7)(c)
wmnng: Tm: m.....; CLASSIFIED//F on-*1cuu.iJsE ONLY (U/IFOUO). co-min: Inform: may txempl from public
nluu under the Freedom oflnformnlinn Act 553) controlled. ...u.ea. unmmimd. mbm1,..m dnpma
Iecordnnte will: nns policy relating moo lnfnrmntiun ..... me....: Mr: other personnel who not have min need- mow without prior Apprmrll ....rim nus ponion omm report should furnished .:.. written 14, 2010 12:48
To: DRO Taski
Subject: FN: Due Jun: Review and Comme (1300: Jun 10): 10062032 Tasking: Feedback Proposals
from White House Council Women and Girls
IPC has oomments.
Thank you
Information, Policy and Communications
Enforcement and Removal Operations
lmmigralior and Customs Enforcement
warning: This dncum. ASSIFIEDIIFOR OFFICIAL us: ONLY (UIIFOUO). cone-I nnallon that may Ixumpt from public
IIIIIIO under the Fund formation stand, (I, transmitted. dlurlbulad, Ind dluposed aeeimlnnca with DHS policy nlltlng Faun NI: oubllc gum porso who not have
 IIIII IIPOI1 snnuiui
vnlld d-go-rmaw-wm-e ,..urppmvIlol
nt: Thursz gune 10, 20105130
laject: FN 10062032 Tas ng: Feedback Proposals from white House Council Women and Girls
Impqrtanoe: High
having computer and blackberry problems. due Marisa June 14, 2010 1700 hrs.
20l0FOlA6052 001030
Special Assistant
lnforma on, Policy and Communications
Office Det gtion and Removal Operations
(202) 732-
From: mailto
Sent: Thursdav, June 10. 2010 11:31
cc: DRO Taskings
Subject: 10062032 Tasking: Feedback Proposals from White House Council Women and Girls
Importance: High] Behalf DRO Taskings
Assigned Unit (s): Infromation, Policy Communications
From (Requesting Office): ICE Policy
Task Due Date: June 15, 2010 1500hrs
DRO Taskings Tracking No.: 10062032
Please provide comments the attached comment matrix ICE program progress the VAWA/1/U
proposal from the Whit House Council Women and Girls.
Note: Please pay careful attention proposals 16, 17, 18, 19.
White House Council Women and Girls March 11, 2009, President Obama signed his remarks the signing, the President underscored that the purpose the
Council ensure that each the agencies which theyre charged takes into account the needs
women and girls the policies they draft, the programs they create, the legislation they support and
that the true purpose our government ensure that America, all things are still possible for all
Point Contact: (h)(7)(
Special Assi lant Outreach and Policy
US. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Policy
US. Departn homeland Security
Taskings conespomience Unit
Detention and Removal Operations
immigration and Customs Enforcement
20l0FOlA6052 001031
U.S. Department Homeland Security
500 12th Street Washington, 20024 202~732-
Wlrllillg: This documeni Assmun//ron OFFICIAL ONLY (u//muo) conning infnn-u :..i Imy exempt public
relelu under Freedom rllntion Act u.s controllrdl iunalzd trans inribnled, and dllpnled
ntcorrhnee will: pas policy nining Form infor no! mm... her personnel who not wind need- portion ovum repo nlslml Ill: ...;: rim wriuu. 
Sent: Thursday, ]une,10, 2010 10:32
To: #ICE >
Ad.rninist ative Assistant
Thomas Associates, Inc.
Policy Management Unit
Office Detention and Removal Operations
U.S. Immigration anr% Customs Enforcement
Phone: (202) 732-
Chck visit the DRO Resource Library
20i0FOiA6052 001067 there policy place for humanitarian screening for worksite actions targeting fewer people, other non worksite actions? Speci cally, what are the protocols ICE officials follow identifying parents
primary caregivers minor children-is there humanitarian screening process for
those cases? so, who performs these screenings?
Please see below response behalf IPC:
While not speci cally Humanitarian Screening the below could interpreted
such. DROPPM Chapter 11: Removal Process: Docket Control
20t0FOA6052 001065
(d) Parole. The district director may grant arriving alien parole from
Service custody for urgent reasons signi cant public
interest, the alien demonstrates that he/she does not pose security risk, not likely abscond, and complies with any special conditions, such
posting bond. (See CFR 212.5.) You must issue any parolee Form Arrival Departure Record. DROPPM Chapter 20: Removal Process: Relief From Removal
(W7) Deportable Aliens Ordered Removed, When there are compelling when stay deemed the interest
the government, District Director may grant stay deportation
removal for such period time and under such conditions she
deems necessary. Guidance Governing the Nonimmigrant Visa
All requests for advance parole for aliens who have nonimmigrant
visa application pending the Criminal Division HQINV are
submitted the headquarters office the LEA directly HQINV with
letter detailing the purpose for the advance parole request. Approval
these requests are limited for
operational purposes identi the LEA (signi cant public interest). DROPPM Chapter 15: Removal Prgcess-Final Orders
(h)( non-criminal alien alien that not removable under the sections
mentioned above may released for Order Supervision. For guidance regarding the release alien Order Recognizance prior nal order, please refer Chapter 11. Family Unity Bene and Unlawful Presence
20t0FOlA6052 001069
Factors considered Service personnel prior exercising
prosecutorial discretion include, among others,
(including family ties the United States) and whether there legal
avenue available for the alien regularize his her status not removed
from the United States.
Discretion Cases Extreme Severe Medical Concern
07) (7)8
Aliens Arriving Into DRO Custody
The process for making discretionary decisions outlined the attached
memorandum November 2000, entitled Exercising Prosecutorial
Discretion. Field cers are not only authorized law exercise
discretion within the authority the agency, but are expected
judicious manner all stages the enforcement process. situations where staff must respond pickup request detainer
placed against adult juvenile alien with severe medical
psychiatric condition, the Field Office Director (FOD) should weigh the
appropriateness taking that person into federal custody absent
mandatory detention requirement, exceptional concern such national
security, articulable danger the community that carmot addressed the referring agency. favorable exercise discretion should
considered case-by-case basis whenever medical psychiatric
evaluation, diagnosis, treatment plan, other documentation provided
the referring agency indicates the existence extreme disease
impairment that makes detention problematic and/or removal highly
unlikely. Exercising prosecutorial discretion when considering Whether
accept these types referrals allows DRO to:
Show compassion and when appropriate.
201 0FOlA6052 001070
Prior conducting worltsite enforcement operation targeting the arrest more
than I50 persons. ICE should develop comprehensive plan identify. the
earliest possible point, any individuals arrested administrative charges who
may sole care givers who have other humanitarian concerns, including those
with serious medical conditions that require special attention, pregnant women,
nursing mothers, parents who are the sole caretakers minor children disabled seriously ill relatives, and parents who are needed support their spouses
caring for sick special needs children relatives. Where practical, the
direction the Assistant Secretary, ICE will continue implement these
guidelines all smaller worksite enforcement operations. support ICE efforts identify arrestees who should considered for
humanitarian release after processing, ICE should coordinate with the Department Health and Human Services. Division Immigration Health Services (DIHS), provide icient number personnel assess the humanitarian needs
arrestees the ICE processing site.
DIHS personnel should given prompt access all arrestees under safe and
humane conditions the day the acti the extent possible. DIHS should provided access rolling basis right after processing each arrestee.
DIHS persomrel should given the time necessary assess each anestee
individual circumstances. The purpose the assessment should detennine
whether the arrestee, the arrestee children, other people. including sick
disabled relatives, have been placed risk result the arrest, based the
illegal activity the arrestee. the greatest extent possible. the infonnation
provided the course such assessments should used exclusively for
humanitarian purposes. DIHS should also inform ICE any medical issues that
might necessitate humanitarian release additional care. If, during the course
the arrest operation processing, emergency medical condition identi ed,
ICE will ensure that arrestees receive appropriate emergency medical care. DIHS unable support ICE request for planned worksite enforcement
action, ICE should consider coordinating with appropriate state local social
service agency (SSSA) uti rzing contracted personnel provide humanitarian
screening. DIHS support for ICE worksite enforcement operations found not meet the needs standards ICE and such issues cannot resolved through
consultation between ICE and DIHS, then ICE should consider coordinating with alternative social service agency utilize contracted personnel. the event DIHS unable provide the requested support. ICE should provide
advance notice planned worltsite enforcement operation the SSSA the
appropriate jurisdiction. worksite enforcement operations, ICE will consider
This document shall not create confer any right bene any other person party.
private public.
whether such coordination appropriate. without regard whether DIHS able provide the reque support, and will make such coordination whenever
possible. While advanced noti cation large number ofstare social service
oflicials not prudent feasible for every operation, when practicable.
ICE should attempt inform the cabinet-level state ical responsible for social
services ofan impending worksite enforcement action. The noti cation should
given with sufficient advanced notice allow the SSSA identify resources that
can support the operation.
Once the SSSA has been noti ed, ICE should work with the SSSA its
role the day the enforcement operation, include proactively screening
anestees for humanitarian concerns. Humanitarian screening should occur
time and place deten-nined ICE that minimizes its impact the law
enforcement operation, provided that such screening occur within hours ofthe
enforcement action, soon practical.
DIHS representatives and any SSSA representatives who have screened arrestees
should make recommendations ICE about individuals who should released humanitarian grounds. ICE should promptly take these recommendations into
consideration when making determinations about whether arrestees will
released their own recognizance through some other alternative detention.
While ICE should take humanitarian issues raised DIHS SSSA into
consideration. these concerns will weighed against other factors. including the
arrestees criminal record. removal order and other factors that would
nomrally mandate detention. also understood that aliens who are ordered
detained ICE can seek relief before Immigration Judge, who can change
lCEs detention decision.
Detainees should not transferred out the general area until the above
assessments have been completed. addition coordination with DIHS and the relevant SSSA. when conducting
large worksite enforcement operations ICE should provide noti cation key area
nongovemmental organizations (NGOs) once operation undenrvay. ICE
should provide the N005 with the name and contact information ofan ICE
representative with knowledge the operation. This noti cation should
request that the NGOs assist ICE with identifying any humanitarian issues that are
not brought the attention ICE. all ICE law enforcement operations. ICE should provide arrestees with
adequate food and water and allow reuonable restroom access. Arraatees will
restrained when operationally necessary accordance with ICE policy.
All ICE law enforcement oflicers receive training and guidance ensure that
individuals are provided access legal counsel, consistent with principles due
process and fundamental fairness. 
This document shall not create confer any right bene any other person party.
private public.
2otnFOIA6o52.on1o72 all ICE law enforcement operations, ICE should ensure that all personnel
assigned the operation receive instntctions what steps take they accordance with existing law and procedure, during processing ICE should
provide ancstees with oral notice, and written where practical, their rst
language their right legal counsel and communication with consular oltloers.
along with list pro bono legal services the area. soon practical
processing. ICE should grant arrestees opportunity meet speak phone
with legal counsel and consular officers. ICE should facilitate all such
communication, well communication with family members, providing
free and reasonable telephone service. all ICE law enforcement operations, once ICE determines that nrrestee
will removed. ICE should give the arrcstee adequate notice and access (by
phone minimum) relatives that s/he may make plans for dependents.
the family requires assistance from SSSA. ICE should facilitate contact
providing the arrestee with contact information for the SSSA. ICE should provide
the arrestee access via telephone and, where possible. direct visits with the agency the detention facility. appropriate. ICE contacted SSSA NGO and provided with
new infomtation regarding humanitarian condition alter arrestee been
processed and detained. ICE should facilitate contact between the reporting entity
and the arrcstee. compelling cases, ICE may consider the possibility release humanitarian grounds based such newly obtained information. funherance efforts ensure that humanitarian issues are raised with ICE.
the agency should stall dedicated toll free hotline that relatives seeking
infonnation about the location family member will have reliable up-to-date
infomtation. ICE should publicize the hotline infomtation the community.
This document shall not create confer any right bene any other person party,
private public.
-*>7 *2:.
201 FOiAb0T +374
n/21/no ll:5B um: :14 PIES OFFIQE us. ueparmmu -.msu:u lmnuguion and Nwmlmunn Sc:-race
HQOPP 50/4
omaar um-iuiom sun,-an. tx.uJ.m
Sim: .6_ arnendmeaalsto Immlgn and Nalionzlily Act (INA) which liminzd
the xulhbiilxo onjndgugo pmvidnrcli (mm rzlnovll many uses, that hubezn
ingraasbd mention lJI .scnp and exercise ofxh: lmmiy-aim: and Nzlmalizaxiun Saviods
(INS Lh: Service) pmseculnrial iscraian. This memoruldum dcserfhes the principles with
which INS nerds: pnoscunariai discretion and the pvocass followed making and
moniluring discndonnry duo ans. on: are but disc nflhc
 their chai
emit 93;: gm; magma mg; N33; :2.
More speci guidance garud excmishng discraion puliwbr ptouam areas
already exisxs same insunm. and other progxarn-speci guiduzczwill mgw sgpu-ugly gam.Iptu:Iau.uddu=noucpu:nnyp::viou
gpsnggumuwpxwmusboutpanuadnx n=nam_mzna 3uppI-=naanIGumuimamh:u:e
,x.-nag and Con dhn nllnfwunnu rnuuwiu; :1: banana Imus -um ngqnnu 29.
3997113.: nIn{nn:Id1m unorimcndad Iudnux evnva Iiaa win; acanreixc afnrancumrul qlnwuuu-_n
superman myeennm bah-tun pmigxmu 05:06 many the I]:-pttpviavc chin ntcommnd rvxolauicn.
n/:1/on uzsa 1:-zaz miss OFFIC:
Memorandum for Regina Directors. ul.
sllbj cli Exercising Prcvscetunrin Discretion
Huwever, [NS uni -as 5;uld,COIliI1UC excrqisc their pmsecurorial discretion ttpprurr
can-5 during LII: 9-.-riod burnt: more speci program guitlartce issuzd. SllClHL1l utpriztctplns conoerrtin discretion sa-ves nuitibcrcrirttponanr purposes. disc. bed the Principles uffcdcral Pmscciniort. pan unhz U5. Anct-ne,vs mutual.
such pnrtctplcs previdc convenient rereruxce poinls for (he procas making prosacutorial
decisions: facililalc the task t-tfttaining new off-ca-1 the disclmge uflheir duties; contribute
more effect rnanagen-ta-it anti: Guvt:mmc:1is limited pruseeutoriri rucurcca promoting
greater cansisxency arnmtg the prosecutorial activtui-.1 ardirraunt emu: and between their
lclIVl(icS and the-INS law enforcement priorilics: make possible helm coordination
invasrigarivc and prosecutor-ial utivity enhancing the undagtanding beuvun the it1atlguj.:
and pmsucutovlal omponmlr .-mu mform the public careful proczss which
pms=ut:_:r-ial dc: ans are made.
Legil and ?olicy Background
Fresaculor-taldi:crc1iort (ht:-authority ufut agarzey charged with znforning lxw to-
decide whefhcr enforce, not mforce, the law agabsv mmqgm rm; lNs_ lik: other 1...,
enlbrcemcnl xgencrcs, his pmsectuorial discretion and exertiscs every any, Ihc
immigration context, the term zpplis not ottiy dmision issua, serve, rule Noticg
Appear (N11), but alsq broad t-artgcnfather disctaitsmry et-.fon:mtcut decisions. m:lud
among olhus: Focusing ihvasdgzt r:snu::es pan.i:ul;r olfenss canduet deciding
vtrhorrr stop. quulian. ind artcst: ntzintiirting ulim custod seeking expedited removal other formslcl ruruaul rnu.rts other than removal nrocwrttg. settling dismissing
proceeding: grtrtling def-rrred action shying nal order. tanning voluntary departure,
wiuidnwal apyliutiurt Ear tntssion. othu action lieu removing the Illcn;
pursuing appeal; and executing removal urdu,
The favonble cxcreisc pmsacumrial dlscruion means dixrcliorrzry decision not
used the full stop: oflhe INS enfarcanent and-tot-ity 2.1 pan-riltad under th: lav. Such
decisions will take dilfnent Wins, dependingon the anus p-rticulur rnnrlt.-r. but include
decisions such not issuing NTA (diseussutl more dazil bciow under !
Proceedings dexainirtn Ill placul prmuditsgs (vhcrc discretion remains despite
manchtory detention laquiran K_!). Ind Ipproyins defunsd action,
 For tuuuiau. laugh can ii-um.-ma-n. have relisd bra-uy 29010:: Prirvsillcs tzfF
Prose :-ulroo chaylel 9-11.000 I34: us. Dcylnstrtl nUu9li::l (On 1917;
run: at: Itgni cautdiffettncu. use. mum -2.: ml: only: us. onorne7: tank: l.=(rlmlxuljusIic:
syntax and (N5 cswnsib- .nrru oncnrnrvr immigntion Lwmux nu: ; nypruch wast-arterial
dirsrctoa mad this lnzwuvantvm rzlkzu (Ml ulun the Prin iplu Fuknl Ptosenrrion,
LIIZTIW iil U102 51! 177! [NS PRESS OFFICE
Mcntomtdtntt for Re; nai )tn:cturs. :1.
 reising Pro tonal Discretion
Courts recognize that prosccutaritidixcretion polls the civil. Administrative at-en:
just Lines ntnal law. Moreover. the Supreme Court has rccngnimi scvt.-rrrl
uccurum vet niuty year; Ihil agency decision not prosecute uIforI;e_ t.-acme.
through criminal process, decision gaterally committed I11 agency absolute
discretion. Itlcr Chart, 570 US. 3.7.! Iii! (W85). Both Cungr amjl the
Supreme Court have mtly rgal nned that the concept ofptuscculoritlt diseretinn applies
mstenforcerrtertt act cs. such whether place iniividtral deportation procealinge.
INA st-diam 7-12(2): Kt:-tpv 525 U-5. 47!
(1999). The discretion prvseculurini discretion mans that prusxutorial decision: ire Ilol
subject judicial review rs-venal. except utrlntely nnno-tr eircitmsuttccs. Consequently. pawufut too? that must bu: used res-ponsibly.
Its law enforcement the INS generally has prcsoctttorinl disctuion within its
Ina law enforcement regaomi tily unless that discretion hasboen clearly limited statute way that goo: beyond standard tenninnlogy. For exempt; statute directing that the INS
 shall rot-rtov: rentcvahlc xlicns would construed isclfio limit pmsecutnrial
discretion. but the specific limitation releasing cu-tai.-t tzixninal alien section 216(c)(1) 
the evidences speci con;-nsinnal ituentinn limitdiscrction not detain catain
rzrim n-al aliens remuvalurocccdings that would otherwise exist. Personnel who are unsure
whetbia the INS has diwr iun take paniculnr action should ennmlt their supervisor and
it-{gal cot_aIts:I are extent necessity. impomtrit recognize not only what prosecutorial discretion but also wtut
m_t. The doctrine prusctzulorirtl discretion applies law tatfottattcttt daisions whether. and what extcng catcrcisc the cocrI:ivcpoweraft.h Government over libotty propa1y_
xuthd (.31 law clsu when individuals have violated tit: lnw. lroseculona. dixorexion dues
not apply rmative acts ofapproval. grants oflitarellts. under statute other applicable
law that pmvidu requirements for dctcmu when the approve! should gum. For
example. the [NS has pmstzutot-Int diserotton not place removable alien pncoulinu, but does not have prosccutorial discretion approve n:It.tnii7ztlttrt application alien who ineiigiblc for that Bene until: the NA.
This nisit.-tetion not always u-.. as)v. rule apply. manyusa. INS
doeisionrnakin; rnvol both prosuzrtr.-trial decision takcor not take enforeerrtectt action.
such phcin; xlieat xunovnl pruewdings. la! decision wl-teutcr not the alien
suhsunrively eligible for bene under the INA. many mu, bene decisions involve the
exercise significant diiuetiotx which some e-nos mtjuaielally reuiewahtr: but which
not :-action.
Pmsecutetriut discretion can extend the subsnntive and jurisdictional limit;
the la_w. can never justify action that illegal tinder the snlastmtin: law pertaining, the
Munteramluttt fur Regional D-rectors. :l.
Sub} Exercising Prrtseeutnnal Discretion
ganduct. an: that whit: legxl other uotttex ts. not within lhe authority III: agengy
ofllcer taking Pmsccuturial discretion ink enforcax-tent action aces not modify fwaivg legal roquixunmu that tpply lo.ll1 li0n iu:_If, For example. mforccmmt ision
focus certain types irnmigntiun violatols for arts: and removal docs not mean that til:
may tslvalu pusm: without probable cause can rorut aI_se with iujur dic on.
Set-vftc: pmcers who are doubt whether panieulzr action oamplics with Ipplicabh:
mas. u(i0lIzl. Sl2.KllO(y. use llw ruqutrements should consult with their supervisor and ttbtairt
advice from the disrricr seetar counsel rtprcsatulive Office offienenl Counszi
the extent necessary.
Finally. exercising prosectuurial discr-:tio Q66 not lssemhe INS corttmiuugm
enforce the immigmion laws the but clout lbiiily. not invitation violate ignon;
lb: Isw. _Rzd:ct means use the [GOING have way that best weomplishes our ofadrntrtixtm-ing and calming Ute imrrugtattun laws ofth: United Slam.
Prin:ipI: Prnseculoxisl Discretion
Like all law atforchmmt gutcies. the INS has nil: esonraw. not possible
ittvesligatzutd ymsecute all irvtmigt-anion vitilations. The INShisronexly has responded this
lim Iation setting prioritis ordrr achieve variety, The: goals include
prtyrecdrtg public safety, promoting the integrity omit: legal imt-niy-.t1lon system. and deterring
violations the immigration law. Inipprqp azc ex.-.t orpr stztnorial discretion give priarity investigating,
charging. and prosecuting those ititmig.-atiun viatzrions that will have the greats: impact
achieving these goals Th: INS has used this principle the dcsiyt and cxnculinn border
en(orcerncnr strategy, refocus criminal smuggling networks. and its zoucctttration ling
hett t-gnntinx pmcasu prevent fnud. agency (outs rnaxirnizittg its impact under
upropcinle principles. nther Ihandeynlingg rumtrccs It: ran: that willdn advance (lust:
avaall tntetsts. cntcial element effective uslbrecnteut tmtxngematL
Th: Principira ofl- ndenl Prosecution availing Ihc wnduzt Altamcys use
conccntof substantial Federal interest. Allnnwy may properly decline aprosaution substantial Feds:-at Knives! would Iurvul prosecution. This pt-inciyle prqvidu
uacful -rum: rel -=::m:e use-INS, although -pplytttg pruents challenges that differ fwm
those facing US. Attorney lnparticul:-r. itnrrtisnzion exclusively Federal
responsi tltty. the upllo aha adequate nltu-nuiv= remedy under sure low not available. imm axion cue. the men.-st stage will alwzysbc Fed:-al. Therefore. must place
panxeutir errtptnsis the dcment ofsubstaxttiatity. That the overriding qnrestien. and attswdittg
requires cxunining nurnba factors that may dim: according the stag: oflhe cue.
2otnFOIA6o52.on1D7a Department Jus
Immigration and Naturalization Service
HQOPP 50/4 ice ofthe Commissioner 425 [Street
Washington. 20536
NOV 2000
and Naturalization Service
SUBJEC Exercisin Prosecutorial Discretion
Since the 1996 amendments the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which limited
the authority immigrationjudges provide relief from removal many cases, there has been
increased attention the scope and exercise the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS the Service) prosecutorial discretion. This memorandum describes the principles with
which INS exercises prosecutorial discretion and the process followed making and
monitoring discretionary decisions. Service cers are not onl authorized law but exected exercise discretion udicious manner all staes the enforcement rocess from
lannin investiations enforcin nal orders subect their chains command and the
articular resonsibilities and authori alicable their secitic osi on. exercisin this
discretion officers must take into account the rinciles described below order romote the
efficient and effective enforcement the immiation laws and the interests ustice.
More speci guidance geared exercising discretion particular program areas
already exists some instances, and other program-specific guidance will follow separately.
 For example, standards and procedures for placing alien deferred action status are provided the Standard
Oeratin Procedures for Enforcement Officers: Arres Detention Processin and Removal (Standard Operating
Procedures), Part This memomn intended provide general principles, and does not replace any previous
speci guidance provided about particular INS actions, such Supplemental Guidelines the Use
Cooperating Individuals and Con dential Informants Following the Enactment ITRRA. dated December 29,
1997. This memorandum not intended address every situation which the exercise prosecutorial discretion
may appropriate. INS personnel the exercise their duties recognize apparent con ict between any their
speci policy requirements and these general guidelines, they are encouraged bring the matter their
supervisor attention. and any con ict between policies should raised through the appropriate chain command
for resolution.
Memorandum for Regional Directors, al.
Subject: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion
However, lNS officers should continue exercise their prosecutorial discretion appropriate
cases during the period before more speci program guidance issued. tatement principles concerning discretion serves number important purposes. described the Principles Federal Prosecution, part the U.S. Attorneys manual,
such principles provide convenient reference points for the process making prosecutorial
decisions; facilitate the task training new officers the discharge their duties; contribute
more effective management die Govemment limited prosecutorial resources promoting
greater consistency among the prosecutorial activities different offices and between their
activities and the law enforcement priorities; make possible better coordination
investigative and prosecutorial activity enhancing the understanding between the investigative
and prosecutorial components; and inform the public the careful process which
prosecutorial decisions are made.
Legal and Policy Background
 Prosecutorial discretion the authority agency charged with enforcing law
decide whether enforce, not enforce, the law against someone. The INS, like other law
enforcement agencies, has prosecutorial discretion and exercises every day. the
immigration context, the term applies not only the decision issue, serve, file Notice
Appear (NTA), but also broad range other discretionary enforcement decisions, including
among others: Focusing investigative resources particular offenses conduct; deciding
whom stop, question, and arrest; maintaining alien custody; seeking expedited removal other forms removal means other than removal proceeding; settling dismissing
proceeding; granting deferred action staying final order; agreeing voluntary departure,
withdrawal application for admission, other action lieu removing the alien;
pursuing appeal; and executing removal order.
The favorable exercise prosecutorial discretion means discretionary decision not
assert the full scope the INS enforcement authority permitted under the law. Such
dec ons will take different fomis, depending the status particular matter, but include
decisions such not issuing NTA (discussed more detail below under Initiating
Proceedings not detaining alien placed proceedings (where discretion remains despite
mandatory detention requirements), and approving deferred action. For this discussion, and much else this memorandum, have relied heavily upon the Principles Federal
Prosecution, chapter 9-27.000 the U.S. Department Justice United States Attomes Manual (Oct. 1997).
There are signi cant differences, course, between the role the Attorneys offices the criminal justice
system, and INS responsibilities enforce the immigration laws. butt general approach prosecutorial
discretion stated this memorandum rellects that taken the Principles Federal Prosecution.
Memorandum for Regional Directors, al.
Subject: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion
Courts recognize that prosecutorial discretion applies the civil, administrative arena
just does criminal law. Moreover, the Supreme Court has recognized several
occasions over many years that agency decision not prosecute enforce, whether
through civil criminal process, decision generally committed agency absolute
discretion. Heckler Chane, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). Both Congress and the
Supreme Court have recently reaffirmed that the concept prosecutorial discretion applies
INS enforcement activities, such whether place individual deportation proceedings.
INA section 242(g); Reno Arab cri Com ttee, 525 U.S. 471
(1999). The discretion prosecuto scret means that prosecutorial decisions are not
subject judicial review reversal, except extremely narrow circumstances. Consequently, powerful tool that must used responsibly. law enforcement agency, the INS generally has prosecutorial discretion within its
area law enforcement responsibility unless that discretion has been clearly limited statute way that goes beyond standard terminology. For example, statute directing that the INS
 shall remove removable aliens would not construed itself limit prosecutorial
discretion, but the speci limitation releasing certain criminal aliens section 236(c)(2)
the INA evidences specific congressional intention limit discretion not detain certain
criminal aliens removal proceedings that would otherwise exist. Personnel who are unsure
whether the INS has discretion take particular action should consult their supervisor and
legal counsel the extent necessary. important recognize not only what prosecutorial discretion but also what
n_ot. The doctrine prosecutorial discretion applies law enforcement decisions whether, and what extent, exercise the coercive power the Government over liberty property,
authorized law cases when individuals have violated the law. Prosecutorial discretion does
not apply affirmative acts approval, grants bene ts, under statute other applicable
law that provides requirements for determining when the approval should given. For
example, the INS has prosecutorial discretion not place removable alien proceedings, but does not have prosecutorial discretion approve naturalization application alien who ineligible for that benefit under the INA.
This distinction not always easy, bright-line rule apply. many cases, INS
decisionmaking involves both prosecutorial decision take not take enforcement action,
such placing alien removal proceedings. and decision whether not the alien
substantively eligible for benefit under the INA. many cases, bene decisions involve the
exercise significant discretion which some cases not judicially reviewable, but which
not rosecutorial discretion.
Prosecutorial discretion can extend only the substantive andjurisdictional limits
the law. can never justify action that illegal under the substantive law pertaining the
Memorandum for Regional Directors, al.
Subject: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion
conduct, one that while legal other contexts, not within the authority the agency
officer taking it. Prosecutorial discretion take enforcement action does not modify waive
any legal requirements that apply the action itself. For example, enforcement decision
focus certain types immigration violators for arrest and removal does not mean that the INS
may arrest any person without probable cause for offense within its jurisdiction.
Service icers who are doubt whether particular action complies with applicable
constitutional, statutory, case law requirements should consult with their supervisor and obtain
advice from the district sector counsel representative the Office General Counsel
the extent necessary.
Finally, exercising prosecutorial discretion does not lessen the INS commitment
enforce the immigration laws the best our ability. not invitation violate ignore
the law. Rather, means use the resources have way that best accomplishes our
mission administering and enforcing the immigration laws the United States.
Principles Prosecutorial Discretion
Like all law enforcement agencies, the INS has nite resources, and not possible
investigate and prosecute all immigration violations. The INS historically has responded this
limitation setting priorities order achieve variety goals. These goals include
protecting public safety, promoting the integrity the legal immigration system, and deterring
violations the immigration law. appropriate exercise prosecutorial discretion give priority investigating,
charging, and prosecuting those immigration violations that will have the greatest impact
achieving these goals. The INS has used this principle the design and execution its border
enforcement strategy, its refocus criminal smuggling networks, and its concentration xing
benefit-granting processes prevent fraud. agency focus maximizing its impact under
appropriate principles, rather than devoting resources cases that will less advance these
overall interests, crucial element effective law enforcement management.
The Principles Federal Prosecution governing the conduct U.S. Attorneys use the
concept substantial Federal interest. Attorney may properly decline prosecution substantial Federal interest would served prosecution. This principle provides
useful frame reference for the INS, although applying presents challenges that differ from
those facing U.S. Attorney. particular, immigration exclusively Federal
responsibility, the option adequate alternative remedy under state law not available. immigration case, the interest stake will always Federal. Therefore, must place
particular emphasis the element substantiality. How imortant the Federal interest the
cas com other cases and riorities? That the overriding question, and answering number factors that may differ according the stage the case.
Memorandum for Regional Directors, al.
Subject: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion eneral matter INS officers decline rosecute leall suf cient
immiation case the Federal immiation enforcement interest that would served
rosecution not substantial} Except may provided speci cally other policy statements directives, the responsibility for exercising prosecutorial discretion this manner rests with
the District Director (DD) Chief Patrol Agent (CPA) based his her common sense and
soundjudgmentfl The CPA should obtain legal advice from the District Sector Counsel the extent that such advice may necessary and appropriate ensure the sound and law
exercise discretion, particularly with respect cases pending before the Executive for
Immigration Review (E0IR).5 The CPA authority may delegated the extent
necessary and proper, except that decisions not place removable alien removal
proceedings, decisions move terminate proceeding which the opinion t.he District Sector Counsel legally sufficient, may not delegated officer who not authorized
under C.F.R. 239.1 issue NTA. CPA exercise prosecutorial discretion
will not normally reviewed Regional Headquarters authority. However, DDs and CPAs
remain subject their chains command and may supervised necessary their exercise prosecutorial discretion.
Inv atians
Priorities for deploying investigative resources are discussed other documents, such
the interior enforcement strategy, and will not discussed detail this memorandum. These
previously identified prior include identifying and removing criminal and terrorist aliens,
deterring and dismantling alien smuggling, minimizing benefit fraud and document abuse,
responding community complaints about illegal immigration and building partnerships
solve local problems, and blocking and removing employers access undocumented workers.
Even within these broad priority areas, however, the Service must make decisions about how
best expend its resources.
Managers should plan and design operations maximize the likelihood that serious
offenders will identi ed. Supervisors should ensure that front-line investigators understand
that not mandatory issue NTA every case where they have reason believe that
alien removable, and agents should encouraged bring questionable cases supervisor
attention. Operational planning for investigations should include consideration appropriate
procedures for supervisory and legal review individual NTA issuing decisions. some cases even substantial immigration enforcement interest prosecuting case could outweighed
other interests, such the foreign poli the United States. Decisions that require weighing such other interests
should made the level respons within the INS the Department Justice that appropriate light the circumstances and interests involved.
 This general reference DDs and CPAs not intended exclude from coverage this memorandum other INS
personnel, such Service Center directors, who may called upon exercise prosecutorial discretion and not
report DDs CPAs, change any INS chains command. Exercising prosecutorial discretion with respect cases pending before EOIR involves procedures set forth
CFR 239.2 and Part such obtaining the court approval motion terminate proceedings.
Memorandum for Regional Directors, al.
Subject: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion
Careful design enforcement operations key element the INS exercise prosecutorial
discretion. Managers should consider not simply whether particular effort legally
supportable, but whether best advances the INS goals. compared with other possible
uses those resources. general matter, investigations that are speci cally focused
identify aliens who represent high priority for removal should favored over investigations
which, their nature, will identify broader variety removable aliens. Even operation
that designed based high-priority criteria, however. may still identify individual aliens who
warrant favorable exercise prosecutorial discretion} nanaPurs oceedins
Aliens who are subject removal may come the Service attention variety
ways. For example. some aliens are identi result INS investigations, while others are
identi when they apply for immigration bene seek admission port-of-entry. While
the context which the INS encounters alien may. practical matter, affect the Service
options, does not change the underlying principle that the INS has discretion and should
exercise that discretion appropriately given the circumstances the case.
Even when immigration cer has reason believe that alien removable and
that there suf cient evidence obtain nal order removal, may appropriate
decline proceed with that case. This true even when alien removable based his
her criminal history and when the alien served with NTA would subject mandatory
detention. The INS may exercise its discretion throughout the enforcement process. Thus, the
INS can choose whether issue NTA, whether cancel NTA prior ling with the
immigration court move for dismissal immigration court (under CFR 239.2), whether
detain (for those aliens not subject mandatory detention), whether offer alternative
removal such voluntary departure withdrawal application for admission, and whether stay order deportation.
The decision exercise any these options other alternatives particular case
requires ind idualized detennination, based the facts and the law. general matter, better exercise favorable discretion early the process possible, once the relevant
facts have been dete ed, order conserve the Service resources and recognition the
alien interest avoiding unnecessary legal proceedings. However. there often conflict For example, operations coun ails are designed identify and remove criminal aliens, high priority for the
Service, Nonetheless, investigator working county jail and his her supervisor should still consider whether
the exercise prosecutorial discretion would appropriate individual cases.
Memorandum for Regional Directors, al.
Subject: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion
between making decisions soon possible, and making them based evaluating many
relevant, credible facts possible. Developing extensive factual record prior making
charging decision may itself consume INS resources way that negates any saving from
forgoing removal proceeding.
Generally, adjudicators may have better opportunity develop credible factual record earlier stage than investigative other enforcement personnel. simply not practicable require cers the arrest stage develop full investigative record the equities each
case (particularly since the alien may not yet available the charging office), and this
memorandum does not require such analysis. Rather, what needed knowledge that the
INS not legally required institute proceedings every case, openness that possibility
appropriate cases, development facts relevant the factors discussed below the extent t.hat reasonably possible under the circumstances and the timeframe that decisions
must made, and implementation any decision exercise prosecutorial discretion.
There precise formula for identifying which cases warrant favorable exercise
discretion. Factors that should taken into account deciding whether exercise
prosecutorial discretion include, but are not limited to, the following:
lmmiation status: Lawful permanent residents generally warrant greater consideration.
However, other removable aliens may also warrant the favorable exercise discretion, 
depending all the relevant circumstances.
Lenh res enc the ted Stat The longer analien has lived the United States,
particularly legal status, the more this factor may considered positive equity.
Criminal histo: cers should take into account the nature and severity any criminal
conduct, well the time elapsed since the offense occurred and evidence rehabilitation. appropriate take into account the actual sentence fine that was imposed,
indicator the seriousness attributed the conduct the court. Other factors relevant
assessing criminal history include the alien age the time the crime was committed and
whether not she repeat offender.
Humanitarian concerns: Relevant humanitarian concems include, but are not limited to,
family ties the United States; medical conditions affecting the alien the alien family;
the fact that alien entered the United States very young age; ties one home
country (Egg whether the alien speaks the language has relatives the home country);
extreme youth advanced age; and home country conditions.
Immiation histo: Aliens without past history violating the immigration laws
(particularly violations such reentering after removal, failing appear hearing,
resisting arrest that show heightened disregard for the legal process) warrant favorable
consideration greater extent than those with such history. The seriousness any such
violations should also taken into account.
Memorandum for Regional Directors, al.
Subject: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion
Likelihood ultimatel removin the alie Whether removal proceeding would have
reasonable likelihood ultimately achieving its intended effect, light the case
circumstances such the alien nationality, factor that should considered.
Likelihood achievin enforcement oal other means: many cases, the alien
departure from the United States may achieved more expeditiously and economically
means other than removal, such voluntary retum, withdrawal application for
admission, voluntary departure.
Whether the alien eliible like] become eliible for other relief: Although not
determinative its own, relevant consider whether there legal avenue for the
alien regularize his her status not removed from the United States. The fact that the
Service cannot confer complete permanent relief, however, does not mean that discretion
should not exercised favorably warranted other factors.
Effect action future admissib it: The effect action such removal may have alien can vary for example, time-limited opposed indefinite bar
admissibility~and these effects may considered.
Current ast cooeration with law enforcement authorities: Current past cooperation
with the INS other law enforcement authorities, such the U.S. Attorneys, the
Department Labor, National Labor Relations Board, among others, weighs favor
Honorable U.S. milita service: Military service with honorable discharge should
considered favorable factor. See Standard Operating Procedures Part V.D.8 (issuing
NTA against current former member armed forces requires advance approval
Regional Director).
Communi attention: Expressions opinion, favor opposition removal, may considered, particularly for relevant facts perspectives the case that may not have
been known considered the INS. Public opinion publicity (including media
congressional attention) should not, however, used justify decision that cannot
supported other grounds. Public and professional responsibility will sometimes require
the choice unpopular course.
Resources available the INS: planning operations, the resources available the INS take enforcement actio the case, compared with other uses the resources fulfill
national regional prior ies, are appropriate factor consider, but should not
determinative. For example, when prosecutorial discretion should favorably exercised
under these factors particular case, that decision should prevail even there detention
space available.
Obviously, not all the factors will applicable every case, and any particular case one
factor may deserve more weight than might another case. There may other factors, not the list above that are appropriate consider. The decision should based the totality
the circumstances, not any one factor considered isolation. General guidance such this
cannot provide bright line test that may easily applied determine the right answer
every case. many cases, minds reasonably can differ, different factors may point different
directions, and there clearly right answer. Choosing course action difficult
Memorandum for Regional Directors, al.
Subject: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion
cases must exercise judgment the responsible officer based his her experience,
good sense, and consideration the relevant factors the best his her ability.
There are factors that may n_ot considered. Imperrnissible factors include: individual race, religion, sex, national origin, political association, activities
The officer own personal feelings regarding the individual;
The possible effect the decision the officer own professional personal
circumstances. many cases, the procedural posture the case, and the state the factual record, will
affect the ability the INS use prosecutorial discretion. For example, since the INS cannot
admit inadmissible alien the United States unless waiver available, many cases the options are more limited the admission context port-of-entry than the deportation
Similarly, the INS may consider the range options and information likely
available later time. For example, officer called upon make charging decision may
reasonably determine that she does not have sufficient, credible factual record upon
which base favorable exercise prosecutorial discretion not put the alien proceedings,
that the record cannot developed the timeframe which the decision must made, that
more infon-ned prosecutorial decision likely could made later time during the course
proceedings, and that the alien notiserved with NTA now, will difficult
impossible later.
Such dec ions must made, however, with due regard for the principles these
guidelines, and light the other factors discussed here. For example, there relief
available the alien removal proceeding and the alien subject mandatory detention general guidance factors that should not relied upon making decision whether enforce the law
against individual not intended prohibit their consideration the extent they are directly relevant
alien status under the immigration laws eligibility for bene For example, religion and political beliefs are directly relevant asylum cases and need assessed part prosecutorial detennination regarding the
strength the case, but would improper for INS officer treat aliens differently based his personal
opinion about religion belief. Political activities may relevant ground removal national security
terrorism grounds. alien nationality often directly affects his her eligibility for adjustment other relief, the
likelihood that she can removed, the availability prosecutorial options such voluntary return, and
may considered the extent these concerns are pertinent.
Memorandum for Regional Directors, al.
Subject: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion
placed proceedings, that situation suggests that the exercise prosecutorial discretion,
appropriate, would more useful the INS done sooner rather than later. would
improper for officer assume that someone else some later time will always able
make more informed decision, and therefore never consider exercising discretion.
Factors relevant exercising prosecutorial discretion may come the Service
attention various ways. For example, aliens may make requests the INS exercise
prosecutorial discretion declining pursue removal proceedings. Alternatively, there may
cases which alien asks put proceedings (for example, pursue remedy such
cancellation removal that may only available that forum). either case, the INS may
consider the request, but the fact that made should not determine the outcome, and the
prosecutorial decision should based upon the facts and circumstances the case. Similarly,
the fact that alien has requested prosecutorial discretion should not uence the analysis the case. Whether, and what extent, any request should considered also matter
discretion. Although INS officers should open new facts and arguments, attempts
exploit prosecutorial discretion delay tactic, means merely revisit matters that have
been thoroughly considered and decided, for other improper tactical reasons should
rejected. There legal right the exercise prosecutorial discretion, and (as stated the
close this memorandum) this memorandum creates right obligation enforceable law any alien any other party.
Process for Decisions
Idemizm [Suitable Cases single process exercising discretion will fit the multiple contexts which the need exercise discretion may arise. Although this guidance designed promote consistency
the application the immigration laws. not intended produce rigid uniformity among INS
officers all areas the country the expense the fair administration the law. Different
offices face different conditions and have different requirements. Service managers and
supervisors, including DDs and CPAs. and Regional, District, and Sector Counsel must develop
mechanisms appropriate the various contexts and priorities. keeping mind that better
exercise discretion early process possible once the factual record has been identified.
particular, cases where clear that statutory relief will available the immigration
hearing and where detention will mandatory, best conserves the Services resources make decision early.
Enforcement and bene personnel all levels should understand that prosecutorial
discretion exists and that appropriate and expected that the INS will exercise this authority
appropriate cases. DDs, CPAs, and other supervisory officials (such District and DDs, CPAs, and other INS personnel should also open, however, possible reconsideration decisions (either
for against the exercise discretion) based upon further development the facts.
Memorandum for Regional Directors, al.
Subject: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion
Sector Counsels) should encourage their personnel bring potentially suitable cases for the
favorable exercise discretion their attention for appropriate resolution. assist
exercising their authority, DDs and CPAs may wish convene group provide advice
difficult cases that have been identi potential candidates for prosecutorial discretion. also appropriate for DDs and CPAs develop list triggers help their
personnel identify cases early stage that may suitable for the exercise prosecutorial
discretion. These cases should then reviewed supervisory level where decision can
made whether proceed the ordinary course business, develop additional facts, recommend favorable exercise discretion. Such triggers could include the following facts
(whether proven alleged):
Lawful permanent residents;
Aliens with serious health condition;
Elderly aliens;
Adopted children U.S. citizens;
U.S. military veterans;
Aliens with lengthy presence United States years more);
Aliens present the United States since childhood.
Since workloads and the type removable aliens encountered may vary signi cantly
both within and between INS ces, this list possible trigger factors for supervisor

Sign Up for Updates!