The information technology systems used by the Department of Homeland Security to track migrants from apprehension to transfer or release are ineffective to get the job done leading to manual processing and an inability to keep pace with the large numbers of individuals being apprehended, the department’s Office of Inspector General says in a recent report.
For example, the report says that the Border Patrol is able to log initial apprehension data into the e3 system but the system lacks the functionality to share data with other agencies that have a role in the migrant chain of custody, including Health and Human Services and the U.S. Marshals Service.
The IG also says the e3 system can’t move workflow to Immigration and Customs Enforcement or allow ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations officers to view Customs and Border Protection’s migrant data in its Enforce Alien Removal Module (EARM). The EARM is used to enter migrants’ case information and process removals of migrants.
“As a result of these system limitations, USBP could not move the migrant transfer process forward without manual intervention,” says the report, DHS Technology Systems Do Not Effectively Support Migrant Tracking at the Southwest Border (OIG-22-66). “This also prevented DHS from having digital access to records from the point of apprehension to release or transfer. Given there are thousands of migrants transferred each day, this gap in system functionality adversely affects DHS’ ability to keep pace with the high volume of apprehensions and the need to timely transfer individuals from USBP custody.”
Given the difficulties in sharing migrant data files electronically, DHS personnel created manual and ad hoc processes to share information about migrants between agencies. These workarounds are time consuming and inefficient, the report says, pointing out that for ICE personnel it could take up to 11 hours to get “information to make case acceptance determinations” for a single migrant.
In some cases, some Border Patrol stations with apprehended migrants shared their files in person, meaning they transported the migrants and their files to ICE for a determination on detention or release. If ICE rejected a file due to an error, USBP personnel had to return to their station with the migrant and update the e3 System, then travel back to the ICE location to review the case file, a process “which took hours and delayed transfers,” the IG says.
The IG blames the lack of effective IT systems on the “siloed approach” within DHS for creating and maintaining systems withing agencies.
“For example, both CBP and ICE individually plan, fund, develop, deploy, and maintain their own separate IT systems to carry out their distinct portion of border security roles and responsibilities,” the report says. This approach has prevented integration, automation, and real-time information sharing across the department to support the entire immigration lifecycle. Rather, CBP and ICE personnel must rely on four distinct IT systems that are not fully interoperable within the department, or with external agency partners’ IT systems (DoJ and HHS).”