United States

H U M A N

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

R I G H T S

Non-Citizens Deported Mostly for Nonviolent Offenses

W A T C H

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)
Non-Citizens Deported Mostly for Nonviolent Offenses

Copyright © 2009 Human Rights Watch
All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
ISBN: 1-56432-468-0
Cover design by Rafael Jimenez
Human Rights Watch
350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor
New York, NY 10118-3299 USA
Tel: +1 212 290 4700, Fax: +1 212 736 1300
hrwnyc@hrw.org
Poststraße 4-5
10178 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 30 2593 06-10, Fax: +49 30 2593 0629
berlin@hrw.org
Avenue des Gaulois, 7
1040 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: + 32 (2) 732 2009, Fax: + 32 (2) 732 0471
hrwbe@hrw.org
64-66 Rue de Lausanne
1202 Geneva, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 738 0481, Fax: +41 22 738 1791
hrwgva@hrw.org
2-12 Pentonville Road, 2nd Floor
London N1 9HF, UK
Tel: +44 20 7713 1995, Fax: +44 20 7713 1800
hrwuk@hrw.org
27 Rue de Lisbonne
75008 Paris, France
Tel: +33 (1)43 59 55 35, Fax: +33 (1) 43 59 55 22
paris@hrw.org
1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel: +1 202 612 4321, Fax: +1 202 612 4333
hrwdc@hrw.org
Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org

April 2009

1-56432-468-0

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)
Non-Citizens Deported Mostly for Nonviolent Offenses
I. Overview .................................................................................................................................. 1
II. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 8
To the President of the United States.....................................................................................8
To the United States Congress ...............................................................................................8
To the Department of Homeland Security...............................................................................9
III. Methodology........................................................................................................................ 10
IV. US Deportation Law Fails to Protect Human Rights ............................................................... 12
Human Rights at Stake during Deportations for Criminal Conduct ........................................ 12
1996 Immigration Laws Withdrew Human Rights Protections ............................................... 16
V. Analyzing the ICE Dataset ..................................................................................................... 19
Aggregate Data.................................................................................................................... 19
Total number of persons deported on criminal grounds 1997-2007 ............................... 19
Nationalities deported .................................................................................................. 21
Countries receiving deportees ....................................................................................... 22
Data on Immigration Status ................................................................................................. 23
Data deficiencies .......................................................................................................... 23
Most common immigration statuses among deportees ................................................. 24
Legal versus illegal immigration status.......................................................................... 25
Data on Criminal Conduct forming Basis for Deportations .................................................... 27
Data deficiencies .......................................................................................................... 27
Background on criminal conduct forming basis for deportations ................................... 29
Types of crime forming basis for deportations ............................................................... 32
Crime Data Combined with Immigration Status .................................................................... 34
Data deficiencies .......................................................................................................... 34
The Seriousness of Criminality within All Immigration Status Categories .............................. 37
Immigration status: Legally present .............................................................................. 37
Immigration status: Expedited removal pending credible fear ....................................... 40
Immigration status: Illegally present ............................................................................. 41

VI. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 43
Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................... 44
Appendix A: Frequency Table for Criminal Offense Codes .......................................................... 45
Appendix B: Amended FOIA Request and Final Correspondence Received ................................. 49
Appendix C: Detailed Descriptions of Criminal Conduct within Each Offense Category .............. 55
Appendix D: Letter to ICE Raising Data Discrepancies ............................................................... 59
Appendix E: Most Common Offenses by Immigration Status .....................................................62

I. Overview
A 2007 Human Rights Watch report found that non-citizens who have lived in the United
States for decades, including lawful permanent residents (persons with “green cards”), have
been summarily deported from the country for criminal conduct, including minor crimes. The
deportations occur after the non-citizen has finished serving his or her criminal sentence.
They have had devastating effects upon many American families, hence the title of that 2007
report, “Forced Apart: Families Separated and Immigrants Harmed by United States
Deportation Policy.”1 The laws allowing for these deportations (or “removals”)2 were passed
in 1996 and went into effect 12 years ago, in April 1997.
This report reveals for the first time exactly which kinds of non-citizens have been deported
from the United States between 1997 and 2007 under these laws, and for what types of
crimes. Our analysis is based on data Human Rights Watch obtained in August 2008 from US
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), after a two-and-a-half-year battle under the Freedom of Information Act,
described in detail in the appendix to “Forced Apart.” We requested these data (the “ICE
data” or the “ICE dataset”) to better document the human rights violations, including
impacts upon families, that occur in the course of these deportations. We also sought the
data so that policymakers and the public could be better informed about ICE’s use of its
enforcement powers and resources. In fiscal year 2007 alone, the agency spent $2.24 billion
on identification, detention, and removal of non-citizens, and a minimum of $300 million of
that total was specifically earmarked for deportations on criminal grounds.3
One finding that overarches all others in this report is that ICE is failing to keep accurate data
on deportations from the United States. Among the many data deficiencies we have
identified, of primary concern is that ICE has kept the worst quality records about the
population with the most pressing rights issues at stake during deportation: legally present
non-citizens. When these members of the community of the United States are deported, their
absence is felt because shops close, entrepreneurs lose their business partners, tax
1

Human Rights Watch, Forced Apart: Families Separated and Immigrants Harmed by United States Deportation Policy, vol. 19,
no. 3(G), July 2007, http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/07/16/forced-apart-0.
2

Throughout this report, we use the term “deportation” and “removal” interchangeably to refer to a government’s policy to
remove a non-citizen from its territory. We note that the terms had different meanings under earlier versions of US
immigration law, and that now all such governmental actions are referred to in US law as “removals.” Nevertheless, for ease of
reading and simplicity we use the more commonly understood term “deportation” wherever possible.
3

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Fact Sheet: Fiscal Year 2008,”
December 28, 2007, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/pi/news/factsheets/2008budgetfactsheet.pdf (accessed March 20, 2009).

1

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

revenues are lost, and, most tragically, US citizens and lawful permanent residents are
forced to confront life without their fathers, mothers, children, husbands, or wives. The data
reveal that ICE has kept records on the criminal conduct forming the basis for removal from
the United States for only 10.7 percent of non-citizens who were legally in the United States
prior to their deportation. By contrast, ICE has kept records on the criminal conduct forming
the basis for removal for 62.6 percent of non-citizens who were illegally present. When we
raised our concerns with ICE about this enormous gap in data, including the possibility that
individuals were being deported wrongfully and in violation of their human rights, ICE
responded by explaining that it has updated its computer system and that ICE’s “future data
will provide more accurate and consistent information.”4
While we look forward to these future improvements in ICE’s data management, this
explanation was not responsive to our expressed concern that some portion of the hundreds
of thousands of people deported over the past 10 years were potentially removed from the
country without legal basis and in violation of international human rights law. Between 1997
and 2007, 897,099 non-citizens were deported from the United States after serving their
criminal sentences. Twenty percent were legally in the country, often living legally in the US
for decades, before they were deported. It is this group of legally present non-citizens who
experience some of the most egregious human rights violations in being deported from the
United States. Legally present non-citizens hold the strongest claims against summary
deportation as a violation of their fundamental rights to live as a family, to maintain
longstanding ties to their country of primary residence, and refugees’ rights to protection
from return to persecution.
Our analysis of the ICE data also disproves the popular belief that the agency focuses almost
exclusively on deporting undocumented (or illegally present) non-citizens with violent
criminal histories. In reality, 72 percent of those who were deported between 1997 and 2007
for whom we have crime data were expelled from the United States for non-violent offenses.
Of those for whom we have crime data who were legally in the country, the number is even
higher: 77 percent of those legally present non-citizens were banished from the United
States, often permanently, for non-violent offenses. Only 23 percent of those legally present
non-citizens were deported for a violent or potentially violent offense.
When specific crimes are examined, the results are even more telling. The top four crimes
forming the basis for deportation of all types of non-citizens from the United States were:
4

Letter from James T. Hayes, Jr., director, Office of Detention and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, to Human Rights Watch, February 2, 2009.

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

2

entering the United States illegally (comprising 24 percent of all deportees for whom we
have crime data), driving under the influence of alcohol (7.2 percent), assault (5.5 percent),
and immigration crimes (for example, selling false citizenship papers) (5.5 percent). In
addition to these “top four,” the relatively minor crimes for which non-citizens were most
frequently deported include: marijuana possession (2.2 percent), traffic offenses (1.5
percent), and disorderly conduct (0.4 percent). Of course, non-citizens were also deported
for more serious violent crimes, including robbery (2.2 percent) and aggravated assault (1
percent). But contrary to popular belief and fear-mongering about criminal behavior by noncitizens, a tiny minority, just 0.3 percent, were deported for any form of intentional homicide.
The laws put in place in 1997 were both more punitive—expanding the types of crimes that
can permanently sever a non-citizen’s ties to the United States—as well as more restrictive,
meaning that there are fewer ways for non-citizens to appeal for leniency. Hearings that used
to occur in which a judge would consider non-citizens’ ties to the United States, including
their family relationships, business or property ownership, tax payments, and service in the
US armed forces prior to deportation, were discontinued in 1997 for those convicted of any of
a long list of crimes. No matter how long an individual has lived in and contributed to the
United States and no matter how much his or her spouse and children depend on that
individual for their livelihood and emotional support, there are no exceptions available.
A retired immigration judge shared the frustration he felt when he was unable to prevent
deportation because of the strict requirements of the new laws:
My 30-year career with the Department of Justice has been exciting and
stimulating. Each case I hear is a life story. I have been able to grant refuge to
persons who have a genuine fear of persecution. I have been able to unite or
re-unite families. On the other hand, in many cases I have had to deal with
the frustration of not being able to grant relief to someone because of the
precise requirements of the statute, even though on a personal level he
appears to be worthy of some immigration benefit.5
This judge is lamenting the fact that ever since the laws were changed, his hands have been
tied: Once he determines that the person before him is a non-citizen, and determines that
the non-citizen has committed any one of a long list of crimes, the hearing ends and that
non-citizen, who by law must already have served his or her criminal sentence, must be
ordered deported. In addition, once the non-citizen is found to have been convicted of a
5

James P. Vandello, “Perspective of an Immigration Judge,” Denver University Law Review, vol. 80 (2003), p. 775.

3

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

crime that prevents him or her from raising any defenses against removal under immigration
law, deportation is required. While the non-citizen can appeal this decision, his or her ties to
the United States, including close family relationships, cannot be weighed by a higher court.
Judges’ inability to protect family relationships in deportation decisions is a prime concern
of Judge Harry Pregerson in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In his
dissent to a 2007 decision deporting the parents of four US citizen children, Judge Pregerson
reiterated a theme of several of his dissents when he wrote:
As I have said before, “I pray that soon the good men and women in our
Congress will ameliorate the plight of families like the [petitioners] and give
us humane laws that will not cause the disintegration of such families.”6
Given the restrictive nature of the law, it is perhaps not surprising that we can reasonably
estimate that at least one million spouses and children have faced separation from their
family members due to these deportations. The ICE data show that of the total number of
non-citizens deported on criminal grounds, 20 percent (179,038) were legally in the country,
73 percent (655,581) were illegally in the country, and 7 percent (62,480) were in an
unknown status. We assume that those in the legally present category were likely to have
developed family relationships inside the United States prior to their deportations. For the
other categories, Table 1 illustrates our estimates of the family members affected by these
deportations. The estimates contained in this table are based on findings by the Pew
Hispanic Center and the US Census Bureau.
As Table 1 shows, we estimate that 1,012,734 family members, including husbands, wives,
sons, and daughters, have been separated from loved ones by deportations on criminal
grounds since 1997.

6

Memije v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007)(Pregerson, J., dissenting). Citing to Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423
F.3d 1006, 1015 (9th Cir.2005)(Pregerson, J., dissenting). See also Salviejo-Fernandez v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir.
2006)(Pregerson, J., dissenting)(disagreeing with the majority's legal analysis and its “harsh conclusion that removal is
appropriate for” petitioner, who “was admitted as a lawful permanent resident on August 20, 1969” and who together with his
wife has “two United States citizen children who are now thirty-two and twenty-seven years old. After thirty-seven years in
this country, [petitioner] is threatened with removal from the country that he has called home for more than two-thirds of his
life.”).

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

4

Table 1: Estimated Number of Family Members Separated by Deportation
A

B

C

D

E

Immigration
Status

Individuals
Deported on
Criminal
Grounds

Individuals with
at least one US
citizen or legally
present child or
spouse7

Remainder
Individuals8

Family
members
other than
deportee9

Spouses other
than deportee
in families
without
children10

Illegally present

655,581

196,674

458,907

479,884

45,890

Legally present

179,038

179,038

N/A

436,852

N/A

Unknown

62,480

18,744

43,736

45,735

4,373

962,471

50,263

Subtotal Number of Family Members Separated by Deportations
Total Number of Family Members Separated by Deportation

1,012,734

To be sure, the non-citizens discussed in this report are being deported for a reason—they
have violated the criminal laws of the United States, making them subject to deportation
after they have finished serving their criminal sentences. However, as the data reported here
show, many of these non-citizens are a far cry from the worst and most violent offenders. Of
those who were legally in the country before their criminal conduct, 77 percent were
ultimately deported for non-violent crimes. Some of these non-citizens have been forced into
permanent exile for non-violent misdemeanor offenses, even if they served a short sentence
with a perfect record of good conduct.
Until now, ICE has not made the data in this report available to the public or to lawmakers.
Instead, for reasons that are unclear, in its regular press updates the agency always
highlights its deportations of violent criminals, but keeps vague the other categories of noncitizens deported. For example, in a September 2008 press release, ICE touted its
deportation of 1,157 “criminal aliens, immigration fugitives, and immigration violators” after
7

For non-legally present, column A x 30 percent. Jeffrey S. Passel, “The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant
Population in the U.S.,” Pew Hispanic Center, March 7, 2006, p. 8, figure 7, http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf
(accessed March 25, 2009)(showing that of 6.6 million illegally present families, 1,960,000, or 30 percent, had at least one
legally present or US citizen child).
8

Column B subtracted from column A.

9

Column B x 2.44. The 2000 US Census found that 6.3 million households had a foreign-born non-citizen householder. A
“householder” is “usually the household member or one of the household members in whose name the housing unit is owned
or rented.” U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of the Foreign Born Population in the United States: 2000, December 2001, p. 430. The
Census Bureau found that these 6.3 million households had an average household size of 3.44 persons. Ibid., p. 4; U.S.
Census Bureau, “Table FB1-Profile of Selected Demographic and Social Characteristics for the Non-U.S. Citizen Population,”
Census 2000 Special Tabulations (STP-159), 2000. We estimate that this average household size holds true for the foreignborn non-citizens being deported from the United States for criminal offenses (that is, deportee plus 2.44 relatives in each
household).
10

Column C x 10 percent. Passel, “The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.,” p. 8,
figure 7(showing that 10 percent of illegally present families lived in couples without children).

5

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

an “enforcement surge” in California. In the press release, the agency chose to describe the
crimes of two individuals who had already been deported once, but had since returned to
the US: a 41-year-old man from Mexico with prior convictions for “lewd acts involving a
child,” “battery,” and “making a terrorist threat,” and another Mexican national deported for
“selling heroin.” ICE failed to give such detailed information for the 1,155 other non-citizens
deported during the same California operation.11 ICE has made numerous other public
announcements highlighting the violent crimes forming the basis for deportations, and
underplaying the less violent and more minor offenses.12
This report seeks to end the secrecy surrounding the deportation from the United States of
non-citizens after they have served their criminal sentences. We hope to set the record
straight about what kinds of non-citizens are being deported and for what types of crimes.
We are grateful to ICE for finally providing to us the data we requested, albeit after a twoand-a-half-year wait, and after making the implausible and alarming assertion that providing
a response to our request would cause statistical reporting by the agency to “virtually grind
to a halt.”13
We urge ICE to provide similar information to the public and to policymakers on an annual
basis going forward. Undoubtedly, a better informed public and government will result in

11

“ICE Arrests More Than 1,000 in Largest Special Operation Yet Targeting Criminal Aliens and Illegal Alien Fugitives in
California,” Office of the Press Secretary, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Public Affairs, September 29, 2008,
http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0809/080929losangeles.htm (accessed March 25, 2009).

12

See, for example, “Colorado ICE Fugitive Operations Teams Arrest 45 Aliens,” Office of the Press Secretary, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement Public Affairs, January 20, 2009, http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0901/090130denver.htm (accessed March
20, 2009)(focusing on 3 out of 28 “criminal aliens,” all of whom were deported for sexually assaulting children); “ICE
Removed More Than 3,000 Criminal Aliens, Status Violators from South Texas During June,” Office of the Press Secretary,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Public Affairs, July 11, 2005 (announcing the deportation of 562 “criminal aliens,” ICE
presumably chose to highlight three deportees who were removed for “aggravated assault,” “drug trafficking,” and “lewd and
lascivious acts on a child”); “Philadelphia ICE Deports 144 Criminals,” Office of the Press Secretary, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Public Affairs, June 22, 2005 (announcing the deportation of “144 criminals,” highlighting three non-citizens who
were deported for sex offenses or stalking, and referring to “other individuals” who were deported for “crimes such as
homicide, heroin and cocaine smuggling, fraud, weapons offenses, sexual assault, prostitution, and extortion”); “ICE Removes
758 Criminal Aliens from 5-State Area During July,” Office of the Press Secretary, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Public
Affairs, August 15, 2006, www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/060815neworleans.htm (accessed May 30,
2007)(highlighting the deportation of two men: a Brazilian who was convicted for assault with a deadly weapon, domestic
assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm; and a Jamaican who was deported for “unnatural acts upon a child; providing
obscene materials to minors; assault and battery; breaking and entering, larceny and possession of a controlled substance”;
the agency did not describe the crimes of the 756 other immigrants deported during the same ICE operation). Despite these
many examples, in late 2008 and early 2009 there are some ICE press releases that report in somewhat more detail: See, for
instance, “ICE Arrests 117 Florida Residents in Targeted Immigration Fugitive Operation,” Office of the Press Secretary,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Public Affairs, February 3, 2009, http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0902/090203miami.htm
(accessed March 20, 2009), noting deportees’ “criminal histories that spanned from assault, battery, DUI, aggravated battery,
trespassing, larceny, burglary, resisting arrest, soliciting prostitution, cocaine possession, marijuana possession, molestation
and transporting narcotics.”
13

Letter from Margaret M. Elizalde, Supervisory Program Analyst, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to Human Rights
Watch, January 11, 2007.

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

6

better US immigration policies—an outcome that is in the interests of the people and
government of the United States.

7

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

II. Recommendations
To the President of the United States
•

•

Encourage Congress to amend US immigration law to ensure that prior to deportation,
all non-citizens have access to a hearing before an impartial adjudicator, weighing
the non-citizen’s interest in remaining in the United States against the US interest in
deporting the individual. At a minimum, ensure that such hearings are available to
every legally present non-citizen as well as all refugees and asylum seekers.
Until US immigration laws are so amended, instruct Immigration and Customs
Enforcement to focus its enforcement resources on deportations of undocumented
non-citizens convicted of serious, violent crimes in the United States.

To the United States Congress
•

•

Amend immigration laws to provide access (as was the case prior to 1997) to a
balancing hearing before an impartial adjudicator in which a non-citizen’s interest in
remaining in the United States is weighed against the US interest in deporting the
individual. In the reinstated balancing hearings, ensure that the following are
weighed in favor of the non-citizen remaining in the United States:
o Family relationships in the United States,
o Hardship family members will experience as a result of deportation,
o The best interests of any children in the family,
o Legal presence in the United States,
o Length of time in the United States,
o Period of time after the conviction during which the non-citizen has remained
conviction-free (evidence of rehabilitation),
o Investment in the community of the United States through business
enterprises, military service, property ownership, and/or tax payments, and
o Lack of connection to the country of origin.
Amend US immigration law to ensure that deportees are protected from return to
persecution unless they have been convicted of a particularly serious crime and are
dangerous to the community of the United States, within the meaning of the 1951
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention).

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

8

To the Department of Homeland Security
•

Publish annual statistics that reveal what criminal convictions form the basis for all
removals from the United States on criminal grounds, the immigration status (“lawful
permanent resident,” “asylee,” etc.) of all persons removed on criminal grounds, and
whether non-citizens removed have nuclear family relationships with US citizens or
lawful permanent residents.

9

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

III. Methodology
When Human Rights Watch commenced research for our 2007 report “Forced Apart,” we sent
a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request together with Boston College Law School on
March 15, 2006 to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to answer basic questions about
the legal status of those deported for crimes (for example, how many were green card
holders, how many had other immigration statuses in the US, and how many were
undocumented), the nature and seriousness of the criminal convictions forming the basis for
deportations (for example, how many convicted of shoplifting, how many of homicide), and
the family relationships of those deported (for example, how many had US citizen or lawfully
present spouses and children).
Human Rights Watch delayed publication of “Forced Apart” for one year while we waited to
receive a response to our FOIA request. Unfortunately, that response did not come in time,
and we had to publish our initial findings without the requested data. The history of ICE’s
non-responsiveness to our repeated requests (which can be viewed in the appendix to
“Forced Apart”)14 suggests at best a lack of commitment to transparency and the goals of the
FOIA legislation; at worst it suggests deliberate stonewalling.
After two-and-a-half years of administrative wrangling, including an assertion by the agency
that providing a response to our request would cause statistical reporting by the agency to
“virtually grind to a halt,”15 and with the assistance of pro bono counsel, we ultimately
amended our request and finally received a response on August 13, 2008.16
Upon receipt of the data, we began analysis. The data were first imported into statistics
software, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 14.0, which was used for
all statistical analysis. Data were then organized and cleaned, removing empty variable sets
resulting from redactions by ICE (these redacted variables included individual identifiers
such as names and identification numbers). Included in the dataset are the individual’s
nationality; the country to which he or she was deported; the date of deportation; the
individual’s immigration status; and crime codes indicating up to five crimes that the
14

Human Rights Watch, Forced Apart, appendix, http://www.hrw.org/en/node/10856/section/10.

15

Letter from Margaret M. Elizalde, supervisory program analyst, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to Human
Rights Watch, January 11, 2007.
16

A compact disk with some data was received by Human Right Watch in March 2008; however, despite repeated requests we
did not receive a complete dataset or the codebooks necessary to translate the codes contained in the dataset until August
2008.

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

10

individual was arrested for or convicted of (we do not know conclusively from these data
whether every non-citizen was convicted of the crime listed by ICE), and which formed the
basis for the deportation of the individual from the United States. Unfortunately, despite our
request for additional information, the dataset did not include information about the marital
status or next of kin of the deported individual. The agency claimed that with regard to these
data, “ICE does not track this information and therefore, has no records responsive to this
portion of your request.”17
We grouped and coded crime data based on descriptions and categories from the National
Crime Information Center (NCIC) codebook. We assigned each crime to one of six categories
by cross-referencing with the NCIC codebook and ranked them from most to least serious:
“offenses involving violence against persons,” “non-violent general offenses with potential
to cause harm,” “non-violent drug offenses,” “non-violent general offenses,” “non-violent
immigration offenses,” and “non-violent theft offenses.” When individuals in the dataset
were deported for more than one crime, the deportee’s most serious crime was used for
analysis.
The immigration status of each individual in the dataset was decoded using an immigration
code database provided by ICE. We then grouped each of the immigration statuses into three
general categories: “illegally present,” “legally present” (of which there are four subcategories), and “unknown.”
Variables were created to allow for grouping of individuals. Cases were grouped based on
the types of crimes committed, the nature of these crimes (violent versus non-violent), and
the individual’s immigration status. The main statistical analysis was conducted by running
basic descriptive statistics, namely frequencies. Cross-tabulations were also conducted to
compare groups. Examples of these cross-tabulations include examining the types of crimes
for which individuals holding specific immigration statuses were deported. In specific cases
illustrating data deficiencies, regression analysis was used to compare groups of deportees.

17

Letter from Catrina M. Pavlik-Keenan, FOIA Director, ICE, Department of Homeland Security, to Human Rights Watch, March 7,
2008.

11

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

IV. US Deportation Law Fails to Protect Human Rights
Human Rights at Stake during Deportations for Criminal Conduct
Deportation, though not technically recognized under US law as a form of punishment, is a
coercive exercise of state power that can cause a person to lose her ability to live with close
family members in a country she may reasonably view as “home.” Most deportees are barred,
either for decades or in many cases for the rest of their lives, from ever reentering the United
States. A governmental decision to deprive a person of connection to the place she
considers home raises serious human rights concerns. Human rights law at a minimum
requires that the decision to deport be carefully considered, with all relevant impacts and
potential rights violations weighed by an independent decision maker. Unfortunately, the US
fails to do this on a daily basis.
Human rights law recognizes that the privilege of living in any country as a non-citizen may
be conditional upon obeying that country’s laws. Non-citizens facing deportation for crimes
have broken the laws of the United States by engaging in criminal conduct, although they are
only placed in deportation proceedings after they have finished serving their criminal
punishment. Contrary to popular belief, not all have broken the immigration laws of the
United States through their presence in the country. In other words, many of these noncitizens are legally present. Human rights law and the US constitution afford the most
protection to those non-citizens who were lawfully present in the country before their
criminal conduct.
Under international human rights instruments, there is a consistent body of interpretation
and precedent that a country may not summarily withdraw the privilege of lawful presence
without weighing the harm to the human rights of the non-citizens it allowed to enter. In
other words, non-citizens must have a full and fair deportation hearing—one that allows the
court to carefully weigh any arguments against a particular non-citizen’s deportation,
including any rights that might be violated as a result of that deportation.18 The rights at
stake when a legally present non-citizen faces deportation are weighty ones.19
18

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the United States ratified in 1992, states in article 13
(to which the United States has entered no reservations, understandings, or declarations), “An Alien lawfully in the territory of
a State Party to the present covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with
law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons
against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or
a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority” (emphasis added). International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted December 16, 1966, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc.
A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force March 23, 1976. Ratifications and Reservations for the International

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

12

First and foremost, at stake for many legally present non-citizens is the fundamental right to
live together with close family members, including minor children. The international human
right to family unity finds articulation in numerous human rights treaties.20 The concept is
also incorporated in the domestic law of the United States.21
In addition, the principle of proportionality is threatened when legally present non-citizens
face the permanent consequence of deportation for petty crimes such as shoplifting,
possessing stolen property, or simple possession of small amounts of narcotics. The idea
that infringements upon rights must be proportional is explicitly included in the domestic
law of many countries around the world, including the United States outside of the

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&id=322&chapter=4&lang=en (accessed March 25, 2009). The UN
Human Rights Committee, which monitors state compliance with the ICCPR, has interpreted the phrase “lawfully in the
territory” to include non-citizens who wish to challenge the validity of the deportation order against them. In addition, the
Human Rights Committee has made this clarifying statement: “[I]f the legality of an alien’s entry or stay is in dispute, any
decision on this point leading to his expulsion or deportation ought to be taken in accordance with article 13…. An alien must
be given full facilities for pursuing his remedy against expulsion so that this right will in all the circumstances of his case be
an effective one.” UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 15, paras 9 and 10. Similarly, article 8(1) of the American
Convention on Human Rights, which the United States signed in 1977, states, “Every person has the right to a hearing, with
due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by
law … for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” American Convention on
Human Rights “Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica,” art. 8(1), General Information on the Treaty,
http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/Sigs/b-32.html (accessed March 25, 2009). Applying this standard, the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights has stated that deportation proceedings require “as broad as possible” an interpretation of due
process requirements and include the right to a meaningful defense and to be represented by an attorney. Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights – Report No. 49/99 Case 11.610, Loren Laroye Riebe Star, Jorge Alberto Barón Guttlein and
Rodolfo Izal Elorz v. Mexico, April 13, 1999, Section 70-1. For a more detailed discussion of the international human rights laws
that provide for the legal protections summarized in this footnote, see Human Rights Watch, Forced Apart, pp. 45-81.
19

For a detailed legal analysis of the human rights laws at issue in this context, see Human Rights Watch, Forced Apart, pp.
45-81.
20

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in article 16(3), “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of
society and is entitled to protection by society and the State,” and in article 25(2), “Motherhood and childhood are entitled to
special care and assistance.” Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted December 10, 1948, G.A. Res. 217A(III), U.N. Doc.
A/810 at 71 (1948). The ICCPR states in article 17(1) that no one shall be “subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with
his privacy, family, home or correspondence,” and in article 23 that “[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of
society and is entitled to protection by society and the state” and that all men and women have the right “to marry and to
found a family.” The right to found a family includes the right “to live together.” UN Human Rights Committee, “Protection of
the Family,” General Comment 19, the right to marriage and equality of the spouses, art. 23, July 27, 1990. As the international
body entrusted with the power to interpret the ICCPR and decide cases brought under its Protocol, the Human Rights
Committee has explicitly stated that family unity imposes limits on states’ power to deport. Winata v. Australia,
Communication No. 930/2000, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/72/D/930/2000 (2001).
21

For example, the US Supreme Court has held that the “right to live together as a family” is an important right deserving
constitutional protection, and an “enduring American tradition.” Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 500, 503, n.12
(1977)(plurality). See also Linda Kelly, “Preserving the Fundamental Right to Family Unity: Championing Notions of Social
Contract and Community Ties in the Battle of Plenary Power Versus Aliens’ Rights,” Villanova Law Review, vol. 41, pp. 729-730
(1996)(discussing various non-immigration areas of law in which the Supreme Court has stressed the importance of legal
protections for family unity and family life); and Nancy Morawetz, “Symposium: Understanding the Impact of the 1996
Deportation Laws and the Limited Scope of Proposed Reforms,” Harvard Law Review, vol. 113, pp. 1950-1951 (2000)(discussing
instances of members of Congress and the INS expressing the importance of family in the immigration context).

13

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

immigration context.22 Bodies such as the European Union and the United Nations Human
Rights Committee have applied proportionality when analyzing states’ decisions to infringe
on important rights, including in the context of deportation. The European Union has decided
that before deporting a long-term resident alien, states must consider factors such as
duration of residence, age, consequences for the deportee and his or her family, and links
with the expelling and receiving countries.23 The Human Rights Committee has explained, in
the context of the prohibition of arbitrary interference with family rights, that “[t]he
introduction of the concept of arbitrariness is intended to guarantee that even interference
provided for by law should be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the
Covenant and should be, in any event, reasonable in the particular circumstances.”24
Moreover, under human rights law, the state power of deportation should be limited if it
infringes upon an individual’s right to a private life, which includes his or her ties to the
country of immigration (separate and apart from any family ties).25 Therefore, the noncitizen’s ties to the United States should at least be weighed before the decision to deport
becomes final. The US Supreme Court stated in Landon v. Plasencia that “once an alien
gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent
residence his constitutional status changes accordingly.”26 Despite this accepted
constitutional maxim, a non-citizen’s ties to the United States, including length of residence,
military service, and business, educational, and community contributions and connections
that are separate from family relationships, are often not considered under US law when he
or she faces deportation because of a criminal conviction.

22

For example, the United States Supreme Court uses “strict scrutiny” to examine state policies based on race, by balancing
the right to be free from discrimination against any compelling governmental interest in the policy under consideration. See,
for example, Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003); Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
23

Council of the EU – Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals
who are long-term residents, art. 12.
24

UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 16, the right to respect of privacy, family, home and correspondence, and
protection of honour and reputation, art. 17, August 4, 1988.
25

Article 17 of the ICCPR provides that “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy ...
home or correspondence…. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” The
Human Rights Committee has explained that this “guarantee[s] that even interference provided for by law should be in
accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant and should be, in any event, reasonable in the particular
circumstances.” UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 16, para. 4, 1988. Further, the committee has stated that the
term “home” “is to be understood to indicate the place where a person resides or carries out his usual occupation.” Ibid., para.
5. Therefore, the right to protection against arbitrary interference with privacy and home encompasses those relationships
and ties that an immigrant develops with the community outside of her family. For example, the Inter-American Commission
has found that the right encompasses “the ability to pursue the development of one’s personality and aspirations, determine
one’s identity, and define one’s personal relationships.” Maria Eugenia Morales De Sierra v. Guatemala, Session Nº 4/01,
Case 11.625 (Jan. 19, 2001), http://www.cidh.org/women/guatemala11.625.htm. English translation at:
www.cidh.org/women/guatemala11.625aeng.htm (both accessed March 20, 2009)(emphasis added).
26

Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 33 (1982).

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

14

Finally, human rights law requires that even a person convicted of serious crimes must have
a hearing to ensure that deportation will not return that person to a country where his or her
life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of
a particular social group, or political opinion. This principle of nonrefoulement places well
recognized limits on states’ powers to deport refugees. The 1967 Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees, to which the United States is a party, binds parties to abide by the
provisions of the Refugee Convention, including that no state “shall expel or return
(‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or
freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion.”27
Given the imperative of protecting refugees from return to places where they would likely be
persecuted, refugee law permits a very narrow exception to nonrefoulement, which only
applies in extremely serious cases. Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention states that
nonrefoulement may not be claimed by a refugee “who, having been convicted by a final
judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that
country.” Procedures must be in place to ensure careful application of this narrow
exception.28
The determination of a particularly serious crime cannot be merely rhetorical: It requires that
the crime in question be distinguished from other crimes. The United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has defined such a crime as a “capital crime or a very
grave punishable act.”29 Also, to comply with the Refugee Convention, a government must
separately assess the danger the individual poses to the community: “A judgment on the
27

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention), 189 U.N.T.S. 150, entered into force April 22, 1954, art. 33.

28

The Refugee Convention and Protocol require that a refugee should be “allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to
appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the
competent authority.” Refugee Convention, art. 32(2). UNHCR’s Executive Committee has explained that deporting a refugee
under article 33(2) “may have very serious consequences for a refugee and his immediate family members … [and therefore
should only happen] in exceptional cases and after due consideration of all the circumstances.” UNHCR Executive Committee,
Conclusion No. 7 (1977). The exceptions to nonrefoulement in article 33(2) were intended to be used only as a “last resort”
where “there is no alternative mechanism to protect the community in the country of asylum from an unacceptably high risk of
harm.” James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees under International Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
2005), p. 352. Therefore, an individualized determination must occur before deportation in compliance with article 33(2),
during which states must weigh two elements: that a refugee has been convicted of a particularly serious crime and that she
constitutes a danger to the community.
29

UNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967
Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva: UNHCR, January 1992), para. 155. Note that the requirement that the crime
must be a “capital crime or a very grave punishable act” was a description of what constitutes a “‘serious’ non-political crime”
for the purposes of article 1F. The “particularly serious crime” exception in article 33(2) is presumed to require that the
individual refugee be even more dangerous in order to fall under this exception. See Sir Elihu Lauterpacht & Daniel Bethlehem,
UNHCR, “Opinion: The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement,” June 20, 2001, para. 147 (“Article 33(2)
indicates a higher threshold than Article 1F … ”).

15

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

potential danger to the community necessarily requires an examination of the circumstances
of the refugee as well as the particulars of the specific offence.”30 Unfortunately, US law falls
short of these standards, which are binding on the United States because of its ratification
of the Refugee Protocol.31
When Congress changed deportation laws in the mid-1990s, it broke with international
human rights standards in ways never before attempted in the United States.

1996 Immigration Laws Withdrew Human Rights Protections
Not every possible argument against deportation is important enough to call into question
the legitimacy of a hearing that denies such arguments’ consideration. For example, a noncitizen who for reasons of personal predilection prefers the economic opportunities and
climate in one country to another could not legitimately challenge his hearing under human
rights law if he was prevented from making this argument as a defense to deportation.
However, some defenses implicate very important and fundamental rights that non-citizens
should be able to raise in their deportation hearings in the United States, including the right
to family unity, proportionality, longstanding ties to a country, and the likelihood of
persecution upon return. Since the United States does not allow for a hearing that weighs
these concerns, the human right to raise defenses to deportation is undermined.
Prior to implementation of the new 1996 laws in 1997, there were several means by which
immigration judges could weigh such factors in hearings before ordering an individual
deported from the United States on criminal grounds. Most important among these were the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 244 waiver of deportation; the INA 212(c)

30

UNHCR, “Nationality Immigration and Asylum Bill 2002: UNHCR comments relating to serious criminals and statutory
review,” para. 3 (2002); UNHCR, Handbook, p. 157 (“The fact that an applicant convicted of a serious non-political crime has
already served his sentence or has been granted a pardon or has benefited from amnesty is also relevant.”).
31

The less protective standard used by the United States is known as “withholding.” Withholding states that protection may
not be claimed by a refugee who “having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime is a danger to the
community of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. Section 1231 (b)(3)(B)(ii). A subsequent section states that for purposes of
interpreting this clause, “[A]n alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony (or felonies) for which the alien has been
sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of at least 5 years shall be considered to have been convicted of a
particularly serious crime. The previous sentence shall not preclude the Attorney General from determining that,
notwithstanding the length of sentence imposed, an alien has been convicted of a particularly serious crime.” 8 U.S.C. Section
1231 (b)(3)(B). As this Section states, in addition to all refugees convicted of aggravated felonies with five year sentences, the
Attorney General has statutory authority to send to persecution refugees with sentences of less than five years. In a decision
under this statutory authority, the Attorney General has issued the blanket statement that aggravated felonies with sentences
of less than five years “presumptively constitute particularly serious crimes,” meaning that the non-citizen would have the
difficult burden of overcoming the Attorney General’s presumption that his or her crime was “particularly serious” in
deportation proceedings. In re Y-L, Immigration & Nationality Laws Administrative Decisions, vol. 23, decision 270 (B.I.A.
2002).

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

16

waiver of deportation; and a waiver known as “withholding.” Each of these three waivers
was narrowed or eliminated in 1996.
First, the 244 waiver allowed deportation to be suspended for non-citizens of good moral
character who had been present in the United States for a minimum of seven years, and
whose deportation would result in extreme hardship to themselves or to their citizen or
lawful permanent resident spouses, parents, or children.32 It was replaced by Congress in
1996 with the narrower 240A(a) waiver, which is only available to lawful permanent
residents who are convicted of a specific category of crimes known as “crimes of moral
turpitude” (described below). This waiver is only available to people who have resided in the
United States for a minimum seven years, and whose rehabilitation since their crimes and
whose ties to the United States make their presence in the country in the best interests of
the United States. It is also a very difficult waiver to obtain, as illustrated by the Mark
Ferguson case (described in Chapter V, subsection “Background on criminal conduct forming
basis for deportations”). Moreover, the 240A(a) waiver is not available to anyone convicted
of an “aggravated felony”—which despite its name includes crimes that are neither the most
serious nor violent, as well as some that are not even felonies. For example, despite the
plain meanings of the words “aggravated” and “felony,” this category includes some
misdemeanor crimes, even though misdemeanors are generally less serious and involve less
violence than felonies.
Second, Congress completely eliminated the 212(c) waiver, which previously allowed lawful
permanent residents living in the US for at least seven years to seek discretionary relief from
deportation by showing that negative factors (such as the seriousness of their crimes) were
outweighed by positive ones (such as family ties and evidence of rehabilitation).
Third, amendments to the withholding waiver made it impossible for any non-citizen
convicted of an aggravated felony with a minimum five-year sentence to obtain refugee
protection from deportation to a country where she would face persecution, which violates
the Refugee Convention.
Human rights law requires a fair hearing in which fears of persecution, proportionality, family
ties, and other connections to a non-citizen’s host country are weighed against that
country’s interest in deporting him. Unfortunately, with the elimination of several forms of
relief in 1996, that is precisely what US immigration law fails to do. Therefore, the United
States is far out of step with international human rights standards and the practices of other
32

8 U.S.C. Section 1254 (1986).

17

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

nations, particularly nations that it considers to be its peers. Many other constitutional
democracies require deportation hearings to weigh such defenses to deportation in their
domestic practices. In fact, in contrast to the United States, all of the governments in
Western Europe (except Luxembourg) offer non-citizens an opportunity to raise family unity,
proportionality, ties to a particular country, and/or other human rights concerns prior to
deportation.33
The ICE data presented in this report allow us to illustrate with stark numbers just how many
non-citizens are being deported without the necessary protections of these important rights.

33

See Human Rights Watch, Forced Apart, pp. 48-50.

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

18

V. Analyzing the ICE Dataset
Aggregate Data
Total number of persons deported on criminal grounds 1997-2007
The dataset Human Rights Watch acquired from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
agency of the US Department of Homeland Security in August 2008 contained information on
897,099 people who were deported on criminal grounds between April 1, 1997, and August 1,
2007.34
In those 10 years and 4 months, deportations occurred each and every day, representing
3,775 individual days in which non-citizens were loaded onto buses or planes and removed
from the United States. Figure 1 below reveals the number of persons deported during each
calendar year (including partial years) for which we have data. As the figure shows, there has
been an almost consistent annual increase in the number of deportations for criminal
conduct. In 1998, the first year for which we have complete data, 72,482 non-citizens were
deported on criminal grounds. Whether due to stepped-up enforcement,35 or simply
reflecting annual non-citizen population growth, by 2006 the number had increased 42
percent from its 1998 level, to 103,163 deportees.

34

Aggregate numbers of non-citizens deported on criminal grounds have been published by DHS on its website for many
years. The figures for 1997 through 2006 (the most recent year for which data are available through these sources), show that
a total of 768,345 non-citizens were removed on criminal grounds during that period.

35

There has been much speculation about an increase in the use of immigration enforcement powers by ICE officials since the
September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. While the dataset does reveal an increase in the number of non-citizens
deported on criminal grounds since September 11, 2001, it is difficult to know how much of this is attributable to increased
enforcement motivated by the terrorist attacks, and how much to other initiatives by ICE to increase enforcement more
generally. In the 53 months between April 1, 1997, and September 10, 2001, 340,882 people were deported on criminal
grounds—a monthly average of 6,431. In the 71 months between September 11, 2001 and August 1, 2007, 556,217 people were
deported—a monthly average of 7,834. Before September 11 an average of 210 people were deported per day; after September
11 an average of 259 were deported per day. Of the 100 days with the highest number of deportations, 99 occurred after
September 11, 2001.

19

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

Figure 1: Total Deportations on Criminal Grounds Based on ICE Dataset

These aggregate numbers suggest significant data management problems at ICE. In Table 2
below we compare the dataset that ICE supplied to Human Rights Watch with data published
by the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics annually in its Yearbook of Immigration
Statistics.36 The table only includes years for which we have complete data. There is a
significant discrepancy between these two sources regarding the number of non-citizens
deported from the US on criminal grounds. Assuming the ICE dataset provided privately to
Human Rights Watch is correct, the public DHS Yearbooks of Immigration Statistics are
failing to account for between 5.6 percent and 14.3 percent of deportees.
Table 2: Comparing DHS Dataset Provided to HRW with Agency Publications37

Year
1998

Number Deported on
Criminal Grounds in
DHS Publications
62,108

Number Deported on
Criminal Grounds in ICE
Dataset Provided to HRW
72,482

Difference
10,374

Percent of Cases
missing from DHS
Publications
14.3

1999

71,188

78,781

7,593

9.6

2000

73,065

82,190

9,125

11.1

2001

73,545

80,710

7,165

8.9

36

See, for example, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, “2007 Yearbook of Immigration
Statistics,” http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2007/ois_2007_yearbook.pdf (accessed March 20,
2009).
37

Due to rounding, for Table 2 and all subsequent tables, numbers may not add up to 100 percent.

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

20

Year
2002

Number Deported on
Criminal Grounds in
DHS Publications
72,818

Number Deported on
Criminal Grounds in ICE
Dataset Provided to HRW
82,660

Difference
9,842

Percent of Cases
missing from DHS
Publications
11.9

2003

82,822

93,172

10,350

11.1

2004

91,508

99,971

8,463

8.5

2005

91,725

99,087

7,362

7.4

2006

97,365

103,163

5,798

5.6

Nationalities deported
Individuals representing 184 different nationalities were deported after serving their
sentences for criminal convictions between April 1, 1997, and August 1, 2007. Mexicans were
by far the largest national group, representing 78.2 percent or 701,700 of those deported,
which is not surprising since individuals of Mexican national origin represent the largest
percentage—27.9 percent (or 11.5 million)—of the 37.5 million persons in the foreign-born
population in the United States.38 The vast majority of deportees on criminal grounds (97.1
percent of the total) can be grouped into 25 nationalities, each of which had more than
1,000 deportations, or an average of over 100 deportations per year. Online Appendix F
presents the full list of nationalities deported.39
Table 3: Nationalities with Greater than 1,000 Deportees
Nationality

Frequency

Percent

Cumulative
Percent

1

Mexico

701,700

78.2

78.2

2

Honduras

27,594

3.1

81.3

3

El Salvador

27,348

3.0

84.3

4

Dominican Republic

22,935

2.6

86.9

5

Guatemala

20,463

2.3

89.2

6

Colombia

14,862

1.7

90.9

7

Jamaica

14,501

1.6

92.5

8

Canada

5,618

0.6

93.1

9

Brazil

4,118

0.5

93.6

10

Haiti

3,946

0.4

94.0

11

Nicaragua

3,595

0.4

94.4

12

Philippines

3,138

0.3

94.7

38

Pew Hispanic Center, “Tabulations of the 2006 US Census American Community Survey,” January 2008, Table 7,
http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/foreignborn2006/Table-7.pdf (accessed March 26, 2009).
39

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/appendixf.pdf.

21

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Nationality

Frequency

13

Nigeria

2,712

0.3

95.0

14

Ecuador

2,707

0.3

95.3

15

Peru

2,532

0.3

95.6

16

UK

2,437

0.3

95.9

17

Trinidad and Tobago

2,357

0.3

96.2

18

Guyana

1,747

0.2

96.4

19

Venezuela

1,323

0.1

96.5

20

Belize

1,240

0.1

96.6

21

China

1,217

0.1

96.7

22

Panama

1,181

0.1

96.8

23

South Korea

1,157

0.1

96.9

24

Pakistan

1,049

0.1

97.0

25

India

1,038

0.1

97.1

Countries receiving deportees
There were 1,845 non-citizens in the dataset who were deported from the United States on
criminal grounds for whom ICE failed to record data on the country to which they were sent.
The dataset also includes 149 individuals deported to the USSR, a country that by 1997 (the
earliest date of deportations included in the data) had not existed for over five years.40 There
are also eight deportees in the dataset labeled as having been deported to the US,
indicating a clear data management error.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, the deportee was returned to his or her country of
nationality. However, a total of 3,194 deportees were deported to a country other than that
listed as their country of nationality. This may represent individuals with dual citizenship,
but the ICE dataset only provided one nationality for each person deported, perhaps leaving
off the individual’s second country of nationality. It may also point to a pattern of deporting
people to places to which they hold no citizenship ties. Individuals representing 133
different nationalities were deported to a country other than their country of nationality.
Countries with the greatest numbers of citizens deported to other countries or territories
were Canada (992), the UK (400), Mexico (220), the Netherlands (186), and France (124).41
40

It is possible that the ICE data here reflected only available passport data and not actual country of return; USSR passports
remained valid for years beyond the demise of the Soviet Union, pending the transfer to national passports in ex-Soviet
countries.
41

Human Rights Watch wrote to the governments of the United States, Canada, France, Mexico, the Netherlands, and the
United Kingdom between January 13 and March 10, 2009, raising our concerns about these removals and asking for additional
information. On March 18, 2009 we received a response from the government of Mexico, indicating that some of the

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

22

Data on Immigration Status
Data deficiencies
Although there have been occasional cases in which ICE erroneously deported US citizens
from the United States, the vast majority of individuals deported for criminal conduct are in
fact non-citizens.42 However, non-citizens in the United States are assigned one of a wide
variety of immigration statuses, which determines the legality of their presence in the
country and under what terms and conditions they may remain. Thus, the immigration status
of each person deported must be known in order to fully understand what rights and
interests he or she may have.
It is of particular concern that there are 62,480 individuals, representing 7 percent of the
total, in the ICE dataset with an “unknown” immigration status (which includes individuals
coded as “other,” “unknown or not reported,” or “withdrawal,” as well as those with no
immigration status code). This is of concern because immigration status determines what an
individual’s rights are in the deportation process. We have no way of knowing whether the
agency simply failed to document their status and enter it into its data management system,
or whether the agency truly was unable to place each of these non-citizens in an immigration
status category.
In the deportation process, all procedures, penalties, and possible defenses to deportation
stem from an individual’s immigration status. This means that with respect to 62,480
persons, there are serious concerns as to whether human rights, immigration, and/or
constitutional law violations occurred in these individuals’ deportation cases. It is possible
that ICE recorded many non-citizens’ immigration status as “other” because it lacked
sufficient documentation to confirm their immigration status. The fact that 18 percent, or
11,246 of the deportees in the “unknown” category (which includes persons coded as
“other”) had been convicted of false citizenship may corroborate this hypothesis for at least
a segment of the total. However, we note that ICE was able to record nationalities for all
deportees in the “unknown” immigration status category.

information Human Rights Watch shared in our letter “undoubtedly has serious human rights implications” (“sin duda alguna
tiene serias implicaciones en el ámbito de los derechos humanos”) but that the Mexican government has “no knowledge of
any case similar to those mentioned” [by Human Rights Watch, that is, cases in which Mexican citizens were deported to a
third country] (“Hasta el momento no se tiene conocimiento de algún caso de las dimensiones como el que usted menciona.”).
Letter from Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo, undersecretary for multilateral affairs and human rights, Department of Foreign
Relations, Government of Mexico, to Human Rights Watch, March 18, 2009. As of this writing, we have not received a response
from the United States, Canada, France, the Netherlands, or the United Kingdom.
42

“Deported U.S. Citizen is Returned to Family,” Associated Press, August 8, 2007.

23

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

Most common immigration statuses among deportees
In total, the people deported on criminal grounds in the dataset held 84 different
immigration statuses. However, the vast majority (98.4 percent of the total) held one of six
statuses (see Table 4; see Online Appendix G for a frequency table for all immigration
statuses).43 A majority of deportees, 73 percent or 655,145, held the immigration status of
“without inspection,” meaning that they entered the country without being inspected by an
immigration official at a border crossing or another port of entry.
Table 4: Six Most Common Immigration Statuses
Immigration Status
Without Inspection

Immigrant

Unknown
Parolee

Visitor for Pleasure
Expedited
Removal Alien

Definition
These individuals entered the United States without
being inspected by a US border official at a border
crossing or another port of entry (that is, an airport or a
seaport).
These individuals are lawful permanent residents, or
green card holders. The lawful permanent resident status
allows for an unlimited lawful presence in the United
States, allows these individuals to work legally, and
allows for eventual citizenship through naturalization.
Coded as “other,” “withdrawal,” or “unknown or not
reported” by ICE.
These individuals have been granted time-limited, but
renewable, permission to remain in the United States.
Parolee status is granted under the discretion of the
Attorney General and often, though not always, is
accompanied by legal permission to work in the United
States. The Cubans who entered the United States
through the Mariel boatlift in 1980 are an example of
parolees.
These are non-citizens legally inside the United States
until the expiration of their time-limited tourist visas.
These are non-citizens who have been subject to an
expedited process because they have been apprehended
within 100 miles of the border, or have arrived at a port of
entry without valid entry documents and have made a
request for asylum from persecution or protection against
return to torture. They have permission to remain in the
United States until their claims have been heard in the
expedited removal hearings process.

Total

43

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/appendixg.pdf.

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

24

Frequency

Percent

655,145

73.0

87,844

9.8

62,480

7.0

29,530

3.3

26,312

2.9

21,333

2.4

882,644

98.4

Legal versus illegal immigration status
We have placed all 84 immigration statuses into one of six categories based on the legality
of the non-citizen’s presence in the United States. A table provided at Online Appendix H
provides an explanation of legality for each of these 84 immigration statuses.44 The 179,038
individuals (constituting 20 percent of the total number of non-citizens in the dataset) who
were legally present in the US and were subsequently deported on criminal grounds after
serving their criminal sentences are of particular importance from a human rights
perspective, as this group (as emphasized in Chapter IV) has the strongest rights claims
against summary deportation.
This group is also worth close examination because such an examination counters alarmist
and ill-informed statements giving the impression that deportation policies focus exclusively
on people who are illegally in the country and who commit violent crimes. An example of
such a claim was made by Representative Steve King (R-Iowa), citing statistics without
sources:
[I]f we would have enforced our domestic laws so when people violated
immigration laws internally, domestically; if we did those things, then we
wouldn't have illegal aliens in America to commit the crimes. And that would
equate and extrapolate down to 12 fewer murders every day, 13 fewer people
that die at the hands of negligent homicide, primarily the victims of drunk
drivers, at least 8 little girls that are victims of sex crimes on a daily basis,
and that number could be well higher than that … This is a slow-rolling, slowmotion terrorist attack on the United States costing us billions of dollars and,
in fact, thousands of lives, and we have an obligation to protect the American
people, and that means seal and protect our borders.45
Not only do the deportation laws sweep up people legally and illegally present alike, most of
those deported have not committed violent offenses, as will be demonstrated below.46
Similarly, Bill O’Reilly often lumps criminality and illegal presence together in his Fox News
television show, The O’Reilly Factor. In May 2007, with reference to several incidents of
criminal investigations of non-citizens, he said, “The problem of criminal illegal aliens is now
at a tipping point in the USA,” and that there is “anarchy” in the immigration zone, with the
44

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/appendixh.pdf.

45

Representative Steve King (R-Iowa), “Comparing the Statistics,” Statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, May 3,
2006, http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/ia05_king/sp_20060503_stats.html (accessed March 20, 2009).

46

See discussion in subsection “Types of Crime forming Basis for Deportations,” below.

25

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

government “doing little.”47 In fact, the government appears to be doing more than targeting
“criminal illegal aliens.” The totals presented in Table 5 below show that at least one-fifth of
those deported under these laws were in the US legally.
Table 5: Legality of Immigration Status
Status

Frequency

Percent

Illegally Present

655,581

73.1

Legally Present

179,038

20.0

Unknown

62,480

7.0

Total

897,099

100.0

We have further analyzed the “legally present” category to highlight the differences within
this category between individuals with time limits on their stays within the US and those
with adjustable or renewable statuses. As Table 6 reveals, nearly half, or 89,426 of those
with a “legally present” immigration status had no time limits on their stay. Thirty-one
percent of those with a “legally present” immigration status had a finite time limit on their
stay. It is unknown how many of these individuals had overstayed their visa at the time of
arrest or deportation. The other 18.9 percent of those in the “legally present” immigration
status category had time limits but had either a renewable or adjustable status that would
have enabled them to change their status if the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration found
in their favor.
Table 6: Legality of Immigration Status
Immigration Status

Frequency

Percent

Illegally Present
Legally Present, no time limit on stay, renewable/adjustable
status

655,581

73.1

89,426

10.0

Legally Present, with time limit on stay
Legally Present, with time limit on stay, but
renewable/adjustable status
Legally Present, with time limit on stay, but can adjust status if
court finds in favor

55,728

6.2

32,813

3.7

1,071

0.1

Unknown

62,480

7.0

Total

897,099

100.0

47

Bill O’Reilly, “The Problem of Criminal Illegal Aliens is Now at the Tipping Point,” The O’Reilly Factor, Fox News, May 9, 2007,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270974,00.html (accessed March 20, 2009).

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

26

Of those with a “legally present” immigration status, 49 percent held the immigration status
of “immigrant,” which means that the individual was a lawful permanent resident or a
“green card” holder, a status with no time limit on stay in the United States. Table 7 displays
the eight most common immigration statuses in the “legally present” category, comprising
96.5 percent of all legally present non-citizens.
Table 7: Individuals in “Legally Present” Immigration Status Category (n>1,000)

Immigration Status
Immigrant

Frequency
87,844

Percent of
those in
“Legally
Present”
category
49.1

Parolee

29,530

16.5

65.6

Visitor for Pleasure
Expedited
Removal Alien
Visitor for
Business
Student
Visitor without
Visa 90 days
Refugee

26,312

14.7

80.3

21,333

11.9

92.2

2,848

1.6

93.8

1,913

1.1

94.9

1,758

1.0

95.9

1,038

0.6

96.5

Cumulative
Percent
49.1

Legality of Status
Legally present, no time limit on stay,
renewable / adjustable status
Legally present, with time limit on stay,
but renewable / adjustable status
Legally present, with time limit on stay
Legally present, with time limit on stay
Legally present, with time limit on stay
Legally present, with time limit on stay
Legally present, with time limit on stay
Legally present, no time limit on stay,
renewable / adjustable status

Data on Criminal Conduct forming Basis for Deportations
Data deficiencies
The ICE dataset contained up to five criminal conviction codes for each individual non-citizen.
In total, non-citizens in the dataset were arrested for 356 distinct crimes (see Appendix A for
a frequency table of criminal offense codes). We categorized all of these crimes into one of
six categories, by cross-referencing with the National Crime Information Center codebook:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Offenses involving violence against persons,
General offenses with potential to cause harm,
Non-violent drug offenses,
Non-violent general offenses,
Non-violent immigration offenses, and
Non-violent theft offenses.

27

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

These categories were ranked for level of seriousness. Out of the entire dataset, 24 percent
(or 215,308 cases) had data for more than one crime committed. When individuals in the
dataset were convicted of more than one crime, we used the deportee’s most serious crime
for our analysis.
Surprisingly, 395,272 (44 percent) of the cases contain no crime data. We are concerned
about this result for much the same reason we are concerned to find 7 percent of cases
containing no immigration status information. Obviously, each non-citizen’s criminal
conduct is an extremely important factor in determining his or her rights and defenses to
deportation under US immigration law. Moreover, we are particularly disturbed because the
dataset provided to us was specifically produced by ICE in response to our request for
“individual level case-by-case records for each non-citizen removed on criminal grounds”
(see Appendix B for our amended request letter to ICE). We defined “non-citizen removed on
criminal grounds” through reference to the 40 sections of the Immigration and Nationality
Act that enumerate all types of criminal conduct that can render someone subject to
deportation from the United States. The failings evident in the ICE data management
system—particularly when data were produced in response to a request for records
specifically about deportees with criminal conduct, and nevertheless no information about
criminal conduct was recorded for 44 percent of cases—should be of serious concern to both
the Department of Justice and Congress, and inquiry should be made as to whether
individuals have been deported without regard to criminal record.
Our concerns about the lack of crime data prompted us to write to ICE on October 3, 2008,
presenting these data deficiencies and offering the agency an opportunity to provide us with
any explanations or clarifications (see Appendix D). The agency responded to our concerns
in a letter dated February 2, 2009, stating, “we can report that ICE is in the process of
improving its data management systems to more consistently record criminal conviction
codes (NCIC codes) for all aliens removed from the United States with criminal convictions.”
The letter goes on to explain that the previous data management system was retired in
August 2008 and replaced with a new system that ICE officers have attended trainings on, a
“Data Quality and Integrity Unit” has been set up, and internal policy guidance on data entry,
including on criminal history, was distributed to ICE staff through December 2008.48

48

Letter from James T. Hayes, Jr., director, Office of Detention and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, to Human Rights Watch, February 2, 2009.

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

28

Background on criminal conduct forming basis for deportations
Under US immigration law there are two broad categories of criminal conduct that can form
the basis for an individual’s deportation: aggravated felonies and crimes of moral turpitude.
Many types of crime fit under these two broad headings. Since immigration law was changed
in 1996, aggravated felonies include the following broad categories of crime:
•
•
•

any crime of violence (including crimes involving a substantial risk of the use of
physical force) for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year,
any crime of theft (including the receipt of stolen property) or burglary for which the
term of imprisonment is at least one year, and
illegal trafficking in drugs, firearms, or destructive devices.49

The following specific crimes are also listed as aggravated felonies:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

murder,
rape,
sexual abuse of a minor,
illicit trafficking in a controlled substance, including a federal drug trafficking offense,
illicit trafficking in a firearm, explosive, or destructive device,
federal money laundering or engaging in monetary transactions in property derived
from specific unlawful activity, if the amount of the funds exceeded $10,000,
any of various federal firearms or explosives offenses,
any of various federal offenses relating to a demand for, or receipt of, ransom,
any of various federal offenses relating to child pornography,
a federal racketeering offense,
a federal gambling offense (including the transmission of wagering information in
commerce if the offense is a second or subsequent offense) that is punishable by
imprisonment of at least one year,
a federal offense relating to prostitution,
a federal offense relating to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or trafficking in
persons,
any of various offenses relating to espionage, including protecting undercover
agents or classified information, sabotage, or treason,
fraud, deceit, or federal tax evasion, if the offense involves more than $10,000,

49

Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 101(a)(43), subsections (B)(C)(F)(G); 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(43), subsections
(B)(C)(F)(G).

29

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

•
•
•

•
•

•
•

•

alien smuggling, other than a first offense involving the alien’s spouse, child, or
parent,
illegal entry or reentry of an alien previously deported on account of committing an
aggravated felony,
an offense relating to falsely making, forging, counterfeiting, mutilating, or altering a
passport or immigration document if (1) the term of imprisonment is at least a year
and (2) the offense is not a first offense relating to the alien’s spouse, parent, or
child,
failure to appear for service of a sentence, if the underlying offense is punishable by
imprisonment of at least five years,
an offense relating to commercial bribery, counterfeiting, forgery, or trafficking in
vehicles with altered identification numbers, for which the term of imprisonment is at
least one year,
an offense relating to obstruction of justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, or
bribery of a witness, for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year,
an offense relating to a failure to appear before a court pursuant to a court order to
answer to or dispose of a charge of a felony for which a sentence of two years’
imprisonment or more may be imposed, and
an attempt or conspiracy to commit one of the foregoing offenses.50

While some of these aggravated felonies would seem to be severe offenses for which
deportation is an appropriate punishment, in practice it is not always clear cut. For example,
Ramon H.51 (a pseudonym) is originally from Mexico. He married a United States citizen,
Pamela H. (a pseudonym), in 1990. In February 1993 Ramon pled guilty to lewd or lascivious
acts with a minor. After his plea, he completed his sentence of probation, according to his
probation officer, “in an exemplary fashion.”52 Ramon H. applied to adjust his status to that
of a lawful permanent resident through his US citizen wife in 1996, but in 2001 the
Department of Homeland Security informed him that he was deportable for his criminal
conviction, and he was placed in removal proceedings in August 2004.
The circumstances of Ramon H.’s crime were later described by his niece Kelda in a sworn
affidavit that she submitted during his deportation hearing. Kelda explained that during a
family gathering, her uncle Ramon patted her “lightly on the butt … for no apparent

50

Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 101(a)(43), subsections (A)-(U); 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(43), subsections (A)-(U).

51

This illustrative case example also appeared in our 2007 report, Forced Apart , pp. 20-21, 61-62.

52

Letter from Dick Tschinkel, Los Angeles County Probation Department, October 15, 2004, on file with Human Rights Watch.

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

30

reason.”53 Kelda mentioned the incident to a friend at school, who in turn told a teacher, and
the school called the police, resulting in Ramon H.’s conviction and order of deportation.
Ricardo S. also faced separation from his US citizen wife and two children because of an
aggravated felony drug conviction.54 He was ordered deported because of a conviction for
possession with intent to distribute of a small amount of heroin, for which he was advised
by a defense attorney to plead guilty, and in return he received no jail time but was ordered
to pay a fine of $500 and serve two years probation, which he completed without incident.
Ricardo S. had no other criminal convictions and worked in construction in the Chicago area.
His conviction was brought to the attention of the immigration authorities because he and
his US citizen wife, who were married in 2001, applied to adjust Ricardo S.’s status to that of
a lawful permanent resident. Looking back on his one conviction, Ricardo S. said,
I feel bad about it because of my family. If I was by myself, without my wife or
any children, it would have been a lot different. But I feel real bad for them….
Maybe if they would have caught me with a ton of drugs [I could understand
them wanting to deport me], or if I ever murdered somebody. But it was the
only one…. I wish that [when he applied for his green card] they would have
just told me I didn’t qualify. I have kids who are citizens and a wife who is a
citizen but I wish they would have just let me continue working to support my
family….55
Non-citizens are also deportable if they are convicted of a “crime involving moral turpitude”
within five or in some cases 10 years after they enter the United States and their crime
carries a sentence of one year or longer.56 A non-citizen is also deportable if she is convicted
of two or more crimes of moral turpitude at any time after admission.57 In 1997 Congress did
not change the crimes considered to meet the definition of “moral turpitude.” However, it
did make it more difficult for non-citizens with convictions for crimes of moral turpitude to
defend against deportation.

53

Affidavit of Kelda O. (pseudonym), submitted in opposition to Ramon’s deportation, October 15, 2004, on file with Human
Rights Watch.

54

Human Rights Watch interview with Ricardo S. (pseudonym), Chicago, Illinois, February 3, 2006. This illustrative case
example also appeared in our 2007 report, Forced Apart, pp. 21-22.

55

Ibid.

56

8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and (II).

57

8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii).

31

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

For example, Mark Ferguson, a native of the United Kingdom who had lived in the United
States lawfully as a green card holder since the age of three, was convicted of two or more
crimes of moral turpitude for “mooning” (showing his nude buttocks to) women.58 Ferguson
testified that in the past he had mooned a woman about once every six months, but was
under psychiatric treatment for the practice, and under treatment had not reoffended for two
years. He submitted expert testimony that he was not sexually aroused by the practice, had
an “unusually low” chance of reoffending, and had strong family connections to the United
States, including because he was a primary caregiver for his deceased sister’s children. The
Board of Immigration Appeals found that although he was statutorily eligible for waiver
(“cancellation of removal”) under INA Section 240A, cancellation of Ferguson’s removal
would not be in the interests of the United States. On appeal, the court found that it had no
power to review that discretionary decision.59

Types of crime forming basis for deportations
Human Rights Watch analyzed the 356 crime codes provided to us by ICE and classified each
into one of six categories. Appendices C and E provide more details on the crimes that fit
within each of these categories. Table 8 and Figure 2 provide information on the frequency
with which individuals were deported from the US for crimes falling into each of these six
categories.
Table 8: Total Cases, including Cases with No Crime Data
Crime Category Forming Basis for Deportation
No Crime Data

Frequency
395,272

Percent
44.1

Non-Violent Immigration Offense

170,536

19

Non-Violent Drug Offense

122,180

13.6

71,289

7.9

68,346

7.6

Non-Violent Theft Offense

38,655

4.3

Non-Violent General Offense

30,821

3.4

Total

897,099

100

Non-Violent General Offense with Potential to
Cause Harm
Offense involving Violence Against Persons

58

This illustrative case example also appeared in our 2007 report, Forced Apart, p. 23.

59

Ferguson v. Attorney General of the United States, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 3100 (3d Circuit, February 9, 2007).

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

32

Figure 2: Crime Category Forming Basis for Deportation (excluding cases with no crime data)

If we combine “general offenses with potential to cause harm” with “offenses involving
violence against persons” to create a “violent offenses” category, we see in Table 9 and
Figure 3 that the vast majority of deportees for whom we have crime data (72.2 percent) were
deported for non-violent crimes; only 27.8 percent were deported for violent or potentially
violent offenses.
Table 9: Violent v. Non-Violent Offenses
Offense Type

Frequency

Non-Violent Offense

362,192

72.2

Violent or Potentially Violent Offense

139,635

27.8

Total

501,827

100.0

33

Percent

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

Figure 3: Violent v. Non-violent Offenses

Crime Data Combined with Immigration Status
Data deficiencies
Examining all 897,099 cases by the legality of the individual’s immigration status and the
offense for which he or she was deported can give a general sense of the types of noncitizens being deported from the United States for different kinds of crimes. It is significant
that only 5.8 percent of legally present non-citizens in the data set were listed as deported
for a violent or potentially violent offense. However, it is of serious concern that 74.8 percent
of those listed in the data set as legally present were deported without any crime data
recorded. This raises the question as to whether there is a serious problem in data recording
practices, or deportation practices, or both. Without accurate crime data, we must also raise
the possibility that some of these people were unlawfully deported in violation of both US
and international human rights law. Moreover, without accurate crime data, the US public
and government cannot know exactly how many legal, long-term residents or other legally
present non-citizens have been deported from the United States for crimes that are petty or
serious.
Non-citizens who are legally present are the group most likely to have serious human rights
claims against summary deportation, and while they represent 20 percent of all those
deported, they (disproportionately) represent 33.9 percent of all those deported without
crime data. ICE failed to record any crime data for 94.9 percent of lawful permanent residents
(actual green card holders). Our concern with the failure to record crime data is not a mere

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

34

question of poor recordkeeping: It is based on the fact that for those non-citizens who were
legally in the country, certain criminal convictions would form the only legal basis for their
deportations, raising the question as to whether these people were deported unlawfully.
Thirty-seven percent of illegally present individuals recorded in the dataset as deported also
do not have any crime data. (Although this too raises serious questions about the data
management capacities of ICE, one possible explanation for at least some of these
omissions is that these individuals were deported solely on the basis of their undocumented
status, but without any allegations or evidence of criminal conduct. However, if this were the
case, it still poses the question why these hundreds of thousands of persons were included
in a dataset specifically produced to contain only data relevant to persons deported on
criminal grounds.) While illegally present individuals account for 73 percent of all those
deported, they (disproportionately) account for 89 percent of all individuals deported for a
violent or potentially violent offense. It is possible that these percentages may be skewed
because of the large number of cases in all immigration status categories without crime data.
Nonetheless, using the ICE data, it appears that illegally present individuals are deported for
violent or potentially violent offenses at a greater rate than legally present individuals (see
below, section “The Seriousness of Criminality within All Immigration Status Categories”).
There is clearly a difference between how well crime data are recorded for individuals with
different immigration statuses. The disparity is at its greatest when we examine those who
are illegally present—those with a “without inspection” or “stowaway” immigration status
code—versus those who are legally present. Those holding an “illegally present”
immigration status code are actually one of the groups with the greatest probability of
having their criminal conduct documented. In the entire dataset, 56 percent of deportees
had crime data. For illegally present non-citizens, this number increases to 62.6 percent.
The trend reverses for those in the “legally present” category. Only 25.2 percent of cases
with a “legally present” immigration status have crime data.
We chose to do further analysis on the data corresponding to the three legally present
immigration statuses of “immigrant,” “parolee,” and “refugee.” This is because the
deportations of persons in these categories raise the greatest human rights concerns:
“immigrant” (because they are lawful permanent residents), “parolee” (because they are
legally in the country, in most cases for humanitarian reasons), and “refugee” (because they
are legally in the country due to fears of persecution at home). Unfortunately, we have
discovered that these three immigration statuses of most concern have even less accurate

35

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

crime data. As shown in Table 10 below, only 5.1 percent of those with an “immigrant” status,
9.4 percent of “refugees,” and 27.5 percent of “parolees” have crime data.
Table 10: ICE Management of Crime Data

Cases Included
“Immigrant” status code
“Parolee” status code
“Refugee” status code

Percent of
cases with
crime data
5.1
27.5
9.4

Percent of
cases without
crime data
94.9
72.5
90.6

Frequency of cases
with no crime data
83,391
21,398
940

Immigrant, Parolee, and Refugee combined

10.7

89.3

105,729

All Immigration statuses in “Legally Present”
category
“Without Inspection” Immigration Status Code
“Unknown” status code
All Cases

25.2
62.6
73.8
56.0

74.8
37.4
26.2
44.0

133,918
244,990
16,364
395,272

If, as was requested by Human Rights Watch, the dataset recorded everyone deported for
some sort of criminal conduct, ICE systematically failed to record crime data for those who
were legally in the country (especially those in the “immigrant,” “parolee,” and “refugee”
categories). The extent of the difference in how often crime data were recorded between this
group and the illegally present group implies that there is some sort of institutional
dysfunction at work. In fact, these three types of legally present deportees combined were 14
times less likely to have crime data recorded than illegally present deportees.60
The immigration status category of “unknown” is also particularly problematic. As noted
above, individuals in this category held one of three immigration statuses, “other,”
“unknown or not reported,” or “withdrawal.” Of these individuals, 26.2 percent have no
crime data, meaning there were 16,364 people deported for a criminal offense for whom we
not only do not know their immigration status, but ICE also made no record of the crime for
which they were deported. This “double unknown” of immigration status and criminal
offense highlights extraordinary gaps in ICE data management.

60

Deportees holding the three immigration statuses of “refugee,” “immigrant,” or “parolee” were placed in one “legally
present combined” category, and illegally present deportees were placed in a second category. We ran a logistic regression
odds ratio test to see whether there is a significant difference in the recording of crime data between the two categories.
Using the presence of crime data as the output variable, the test leaves no doubt that there is a statistically significant
difference between the two categories’ likelihood of having their crime data recorded by ICE (chi squared = 119008.69, z=270.81 (p > .000). The odds ratio provided by this test proves with 95 percent certainty that illegally present deportees were
between 13.7 and 14.2 times more likely to have crime data recorded than those in the “legally present combined” category.

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

36

The Seriousness of Criminality within All Immigration Status Categories
By removing all cases without crime data in the ICE dataset, we see that the vast majority of
deportees were deported for a non-violent offense. In total, across all immigration status
categories, more than two-thirds of those for whom we have crime data were deported for a
non-violent crime—70.5 percent were deported for a non-violent offense and 29.5 percent
were deported for a violent or potentially violent offense.
As Figure 4 shows, illegally present non-citizens were more likely to have been deported for a
violent or potentially violent offense and less likely to have been deported for a non-violent
offense than legally present non-citizens. Since the laws allowing for these deportations
were passed with a clear focus on those responsible for violent offenses, the higher
percentages of deportation for violent offenses among undocumented persons raises the
important policy question why enforcement resources are not focused exclusively upon
persons present in the United States in an undocumented or illegal status, who were also
involved in serious, violent criminal offenses.
Figure 4: Criminality by Immigration status

Immigration status: Legally present
Although the “legally present” immigration status category represents 20 percent of all
cases, it (disproportionately) represents 33.9 percent of all cases with no crime data. As
noted above, of those in the “legally present” category, 74.8 percent have no crime data.

37

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

It is both confusing and problematic that the crime code most frequently recorded for the
“legally present” category was “illegal entry” (see Appendix E). This implies that even
though these non-citizens were in the country with a legal immigration status, they were
convicted of the crime of “illegal entry.” We can only speculate as to why this would be the
case. It may be that a person who originally was allowed to enter the country in a legal status
was subsequently discovered to have falsified information that retroactively made his or her
entry illegal, or that his or her legal status did not permit multiple trips out of the US, making
any subsequent entry “illegal,” although it seems unlikely that either of these scenarios
would have occurred in more than 10,000 cases. Alternatively, it may be the case that these
anomalies are due, once again, to data management failures by ICE.
Nevertheless, for deportees in the “legally present” category for whom we do have crime
data, it is significant that 77 percent of them were deported for non-violent offenses, as
shown in Figure 4. A more detailed description of those offenses is provided in Appendix E.
Immigration status: Lawful permanent resident
Representing 49 percent of those in the “legally present” category, 87,844 individuals hold
the immigration status of “immigrant,” which is the status for persons in the United States
as lawful permanent residents (green card holders). As noted above, the vast majority, 94.9
percent, of those with an “immigrant” status have no crime data: Although these noncitizens have been afforded the most “privileged” immigration status available in the United
States by immigration authorities, no one seems to have recorded the underlying criminal
basis for their deportation.
Although only 5 percent of individuals holding an “immigrant” status and recorded in the
dataset as deported have crime data, this still allows us to examine the criminal convictions
of 4,453 non-citizens in this status grouping, which is valuable to analyze because of the
sheer numbers involved. Table 11 shows that of this subgroup of “immigrant” status with
crime data, the large majority, or 68 percent, were deported from the United States for nonviolent offenses. Appendix E gives more detailed information on the criminal conduct
forming the basis for deportations of persons in the “immigrant” status category.

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

38

Table 11: Immigration Status “Immigrant” —Type of Crime (excluding cases with no crime
data)
Non-Violent Offense
Violent or Potentially Violent Offense
Total

Frequency

Percent

3,031
1,422
4,453

68.1
31.9
100.0

Immigration status: Parolee
The immigration status of “parolee” is used for individuals who have been granted timelimited but renewable permission to remain in the United States. “Parolee” status is granted
at the discretion of the Attorney General and often, though not always, is granted to persons
with humanitarian reasons for not being able to return to their home countries. In addition, it
is often, though not always, accompanied by legal permission to work in the United States.
The ICE dataset contained no crime data for 21,398, or 72.5 percent, of all parolees. For those
who do have crime data, in 79.5 percent of cases a non-violent crime formed the basis for
their deportation from the United States, as shown in Table 12. Appendix E gives more detail
on the most common crimes forming the basis for deportations of parolees.
Table 12: Immigration Status “Parolee” —Type of Crime (excluding cases with no crime data)
Non-Violent Offense
Violent or Potentially Violent Offense
Total

Frequency
6,466
1,666
8,132

Percent
79.5
20.5
100.0

Immigration status: Refugee
There were 1,038 deportees with the immigration status of “refugee.” Refugees may apply
for legal permanent residence in the United States after one year of residence. Refugees, like
immigrants and parolees, are individuals with serious human rights interests at stake when
they are facing deportation on criminal grounds (US obligations in this regard, as a party to
the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, are discussed in Chapter IV). Again, the
vast majority of refugees deported, 90.6 percent, did not have crime data recorded by ICE.
As is perhaps obvious, the deportations of refugees on criminal grounds raise serious
human rights concerns because their removals from the United States raise questions of life
and death. Unfortunately, due to the restrictive laws put in place in the United States in 1997,
refugees facing deportation on criminal grounds are often barred from raising their fears of
persecution during their deportation hearings. The crimes for which some have been
deported are not serious enough to deprive the person of refugee status under the Refugee

39

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

Convention, and therefore in accordance with refugee law they should be protected from
return. Nevertheless, because US law does not allow them to raise these fears in a
deportation hearing, an unknown number of them in fact may have been returned to places
where they were subjected to persecution. US law does allow for persons to raise concerns
that they will face a real risk of torture prior to deportation, regardless of their criminal
conviction.
However, there are many refugees who fear persecution but not torture—for example, an
outspoken member of the political opposition might fear being imprisoned without trial if he
were deported, which is a form of persecution but not torture. The United States is regularly
violating these refugees’ rights by deporting them for criminal convictions without first
providing a fair hearing on their fears of persecution, and protecting them from return if
those fears are proved valid. Table 13 shows that 62 percent of refugees for whom we have
crime data were deported under such perilous conditions for a non-violent offense, and 38
percent were deported for a violent or potentially violent offense. Appendix E gives more
details on the most common offenses forming the basis for the deportations of refugees
from the United States.
Table 13: Immigration Status “Refugee” —Type of Crime (excluding cases with no crime data)
Non-Violent Offense
Violent or Potentially Violent Offense
Total

Frequency
61
37
98

Percent
62.2
37.8
100.0

Immigration status: Expedited removal pending credible fear
The immigration status of “expedited removal pending credible fear” raises concerns similar
to those presented by refugees. Persons holding this immigration status can be considered
applicants for refugee status, since they were placed in summary removal procedures, but
pending a credible fear interview. Credible fear interviews are the first step that persons who
flee to the United States because of a fear of persecution must undergo.
While the persons in this category did not have their status resolved prior to the time of
deportation from the United States, it can be assumed that they all raised fears of
persecution with immigration authorities, and that for some percentage those fears were
well-founded, making them genuine refugees. Table 14 shows that 76.7 percent of these
people for whom we have crime data were deported for non-violent offenses. Appendix E
gives more detail on the most common offenses forming the basis for the deportations of
persons awaiting their credible fear interviews.

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

40

Table 14: Immigration Status “Expedited Removal Pending Credible Fear” —Type of Crime
(excluding cases with no crime data)
Non-Violent Offense
Violent or Potentially Violent Offense
Total

Frequency
622
189
811

Percent
76.7
23.3
100.0

Immigration status: Illegally present
For this report, the 436 deportees with the immigration status of “stowaway” were combined
with those with the “without inspection” immigration status to make up the “illegally
present” category.61
Of all cases in the ICE dataset, 73 percent (or 655,145) of the deported non-citizens held the
immigration status of “without inspection,” meaning that they entered the country in an
undocumented status without being inspected by an immigration official at a port of entry.
Of these individuals recorded in the dataset as deported, 244,804, or 37.4 percent, do not
have crime data. Of all cases without crime data, 61.9 percent have the immigration status of
“without inspection.” In contrast to the other instances described above, in which ICE’s
failure to include crime data is of serious concern, the failure to include crime data for those
who entered without inspection may have a plausible explanation (as discussed above,
subsection “Types of crime forming basis for deportations”): these non-citizens could have
been deported simply on the basis of their undocumented status alone.
In fact, of those non-citizens with an illegally present immigration status who do have crime
data, 24.1 percent, or 98,940, were convicted of the crime of “illegal entry.” In other words,
not only were these persons ordered deported because they entered the United States in an
undocumented status, which is enough under US law to deport them, but in addition, they
were convicted of the federal crime of “illegal entry” and sentenced to criminal punishment
prior to their removal. Tables 15 and 16 show the types of crimes and general categories of
offenses for persons illegally in the country and subsequently deported after criminal
conduct.

61

We recognize that some additional persons with time-limited legal statuses, currently grouped in the legally present
category, may have overstayed their visas, thereby transforming their status from legally present to illegally present.
Nevertheless, the ICE dataset recorded these persons as continuing to hold a legal, albeit time-limited status. In addition, if
they had simply overstayed their visas, they could have been deported for that reason alone and there would be no reason to
include them in a dataset of individuals deported on criminal grounds. For these reasons, we have grouped all such persons in
the legally present category.

41

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

Table 15: Offenses in Illegally Present Immigration Status Category
Violent vs. Non-Violent Offense
Non-Violent Offense

Frequency
286,382

Percent
43.7

No Crime Data

244,990

37.4

Violent or Potentially Violent Offense

124,209

18.9

Total

655,581

100.0

Table 16: Crime Categories, Illegally Present Immigration Status (excluding cases with no
crime data)
Crime Category
Non-Violent Immigration Offense

Frequency
124,201

Percent
30.2

Non-Violent Drug Offense

102,933

25.1

64,678

15.8

59,531

14.5

Non-Violent Theft Offense

32,127

7.8

Non-Violent General Offense

27,121

6.6

Total

410,591

100.0

Non-Violent General Offense with Potential to Cause
Harm
Offense Involving Violence Against Persons

For those people with crime data and an illegally present immigration status, 69.7 percent
were deported for a non-violent offense. Individuals with a “without inspection” immigration
status were most often deported for a non-violent immigration crime. In fact, 98,940
individuals holding this status were deported for the non-violent immigration crime of
“illegal entry.” Appendix E shows the 10 most common offenses forming the basis for the
deportation of those with an illegally present immigration status.
Of those with an unknown immigration status, 49.7 percent were convicted of one of three
immigration offenses. This may imply that they were in the United States illegally, despite
ICE’s failure to record an immigration status for them. Appendix E provides more detail on
the most common criminal offense codes for people in the unknown immigration status
category.

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

42

VI. Conclusion
In 1996, when Congress passed the harshest immigration laws in decades, its attention was
focused on deporting non-citizens who were involved in serious, violent crimes. What is less
clear is whether Congress understood that the sweeping laws it passed would affect people
involved in minor non-violent criminal conduct, and that those laws would be applied not
only to undocumented persons, but also to those who had been living legally in the United
States, in many cases for decades.
The data analyzed in this report show that irrespective of what Congress intended, legally
present non-citizens are being deported most often for non-violent offenses, after duly
serving their criminal sentences. In fact, one-fifth of all deportations made in the 12 years the
laws have been in effect have been of legally present non-citizens. And, because these
deportations are mandatory and happen in a summary fashion, there are almost no checks
on whether they make sense.
In a time of fiscal crisis, the facts presented here raise the question whether Congress made
the right choice in marshalling ICE’s enforcement resources ($2.2 billion in 2007) to focus on
minor non-violent offenses and legally present non-citizens, not least because these
deportations raise serious human rights concerns. In fact, due to the deportations on
criminal grounds described in this report, we estimate that at least 1 million family members,
including husbands, wives, sons, and daughters, have been separated from loved ones
since 1997. The secrecy surrounding these deportations and the egregious deficiencies in
ICE data management may help to explain why there has been little attention paid to
ensuring ICE does not violate the rights of non-citizens during deportations, or to ensuring
that ICE’s budget is well spent. Now, with more detailed information, the US government can
take another look at whether legally present non-citizens who have already served their
criminal punishments should be subjected to the additional penalty of deportation with few
safeguards for their rights. Human Rights Watch urges Congress and the Executive to take
that second look.

43

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

Acknowledgments
This report was jointly authored by Alison Parker, deputy director of the US Program of
Human Rights Watch, and Brian Root, consultant to the US Program. The report was edited
by David Fathi, director of the US Program at Human Rights Watch; Dinah PoKempner,
general counsel; and Ian Gorvin, senior program officer. Layout and production were
coordinated by Grace Choi, publications director, Fitzroy Hepkins, mail manager, and Abigail
Marshak, US Program associate.
We would like to thank Dan Kanstroom at Boston College Law School for originally joining
with Human Rights Watch to request these data from ICE, and we would like to thank ICE for
providing us the data, albeit after a two-and-a-half-year delay. For assistance with our FOIA
request we would like to thank pro bono counsel Ethan Strell and Catherine Sheehy of the
law firm of Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP. We would also like to thank Courtney McDermed of
the law firm of Van Der Hout, Brigagliano and Nightingale, LLP, for her review of the
immigration status categories presented in this report, and Stephanie Goldsborough, Esq.
for her expert review of this report.

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

44

Appendix A: Frequency Table for Criminal Offense Codes
Note: Only most serious crime included when deportee was convicted of more than one offense.
Remainder of table (displaying remaining 1.7 percent of deportations) is available at Online
Appendix I.62 Cumulative total may not add up due to rounding.
Cumulative
Criminal Offense Code
Frequency
Percent
Percent
NO CRIME DATA
395,272
44.1
44.1
ILLEGAL ENTRY
121,099
13.5
57.6
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR
36,429
4.1
61.6
ASSAULT
27,802
3.1
64.7
63
27,727
3.1
67.8
IMMIGRATION
64
25,643
2.9
70.7
DANGEROUS DRUGS
COCAINE – POSSESSION
20,885
2.3
73.0
COCAINE – SELL
18,599
2.1
75.1
FALSE CITIZENSHIP
15,232
1.7
76.8
65
12,725
1.4
78.2
CRUELTY TOWARD WIFE
ROBBERY
11,135
1.2
79.4
MARIJUANA – POSSESSION
11,063
1.2
80.7
BURGLARY
9,402
1.0
81.7
MARIJUANA – SELL
8,317
0.9
82.6
TRAFFIC OFFENSE
7,336
0.8
83.5
WEAPON OFFENSE
7,051
0.8
84.2
LARCENY
6,954
0.8
85.0
AMPHETAMINE – POSSESSION
6,492
0.7
85.7

62

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/appendixi.pdf.

63

“Immigration” is an offense category in the NCIC dataset that is used for those instances in which the police officer chooses
to write in detail what the crime is, but the detailed description most likely comports with one of the offenses for which there
is a more specific code. For example, in the 2000 codebook, there were three other immigration offenses: “illegal entry,”
“false citizenship,” and “alien smuggling.” So, if the officer chooses to describe the fact that someone, for example, provided
12 Guatemalans with false citizenship papers, he could use the crime code “immigration” and write in that description, but
alternatively he could have simply recorded the crime code for false citizenship.
64

“Dangerous Drugs” is an offense category in the NCIC dataset that is used for those instances in which the police officer
wants to write in detail what the drug crime is. Officers are supposed to indicate a code separate from the catch-all of
dangerous drugs in order to specify which drug was at issue in the crime. Dangerous drugs therefore includes all of the drugs
that are separately listed with different offense codes: hallucinogens (not including marijuana), heroin, opium or derivative,
cocaine, synthetic narcotics, marijuana, amphetamines, and barbiturates, and also possession of narcotic equipment. See
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, “NCIC 2000 Code Manual,” Washington, DC,
http://www.leds.state.or.us/OSP/CJIS/docs/ncic_2000_code_manual.pdf (accessed March 20, 2009 ).

65

“Cruelty Toward Wife” is an offense category used for the subcategory of domestic violence crimes, including
misdemeanors, committed against an individual’s spouse causing physical and/or mental suffering. See, for example, 8 C.F.R.
Section 204.2(c)(1)(vi). In some states, it may also include the failure to make court-ordered alimony payments.

45

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

Criminal Offense Code

Frequency

Percent

SMUGGLING ALIENS

6,478

0.7

Cumulative
Percent
86.5

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT – WEAPON

5,412

0.6

87.1

HEROIN – SELL

4,496

0.5

87.6

AMPHETAMINE – SELL

4,061

0.5

88.0

VEHICLE THEFT

3,926

0.4

88.5

SEX ASSAULT

3,751

0.4

88.9

HEROIN – POSSESSION

3,476

0.4

89.3

FRAUD

3,472

0.4

89.6

MARIJUANA – SMUGGLING

3,322

0.4

90.0

SEX OFFENSE – AGAINST CHILD – FONDLING

2,942

0.3

90.3

SIMPLE ASSAULT

2,840

0.3

90.7

FORGERY

2,836

0.3

91.0

TRESPASSING

2,487

0.3

91.3

SEX OFFENSE

2,417

0.3

91.5

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS

2,255

0.3

91.8

DRUGS – HEALTH OR SAFETY

2,251

0.3

92.0

CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPON

2,172

0.2

92.3

COCAINE

2,160

0.2

92.5

DISORDERLY CONDUCT

2,157

0.2

92.8

HIT AND RUN

1,963

0.2

93.0

NARCOTIC EQUIP[MENT] – POSSESSION

1,889

0.2

93.2

PROBATION VIOLATION

1,861

0.2

93.4

66

67

CRUELTY TOWARD CHILD

1,830

0.2

93.6

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT – FAMILY – STRONG ARM

1,810

0.2

93.8

SYNTH[ETIC] NARCOTIC – POSSESSION

1,672

0.2

94.0

1,631

0.2

94.2

UNAUTHORIZED USE OF VEHICLE

1,617

0.2

94.3

SHOPLIFTING

1,572

0.2

94.5

FAMILY OFFENSE

68

66

The separate category of “Cocaine” from “Cocaine – Sell/Possession/Smuggling” exists to provide the police officer with a
space to write in detail what the crime is, but the detailed description most likely comports with one of the offenses for which
there is a more specific code. For example, if the officer chooses to describe the fact that someone smuggled 10 kilograms of
cocaine in his automobile trunk, he could use the crime code “cocaine” and write in that description, but alternatively he
could have simply recorded the crime code for “cocaine – smuggling.”

67

“Cruelty Toward Child” is an offense category used for the subcategory of domestic violence or child welfare crimes,
including misdemeanors, committed against a child causing physical and/or mental suffering. See, for example, 8 C.F.R.
Section 204.2(c)(1)(vi). In some states, it may also include the failure to make court-ordered child support payments, and a
variety of violations of child neglect statutes. See, for example, California Penal Code, Chapter 2, “Abandonment and Neglect
of Children,” Sections 270-273.75.
68

“Family Offense” is an offense category used for the subcategory of domestic violence or child welfare crimes, including
misdemeanors, committed against a spouse or child.

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

46

Criminal Offense Code

Frequency

Percent

POSSESSION OF WEAPON

1,565

0.2

Cumulative
Percent
94.7

RESISTING OFFICER

1,452

0.2

94.9

MARIJUANA

1,450

0.2

95.0

HOMICIDE

1,443

0.2

95.2

FRAUD – IMPERSONATION

1,427

0.2

95.3

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY

1,427

0.2

95.5

SYNTH[ETIC] NARCOTIC – SELL

1,385

0.2

95.6

COCAINE – SMUGGLING

1,286

0.1

95.8

69

KIDNAPPING

1,127

0.1

95.9

FAILURE TO APPEAR

1,070

0.1

96.0

STOLEN VEHICLE

1,017

0.1

96.2

PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES

989

0.1

96.3

OBSTRUCT POLICE

972

0.1

96.4

CARRYING PROHIBITED WEAPON

968

0.1

96.5

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT – NONFAMILY – WEAPON

936

0.1

96.6

RAPE – STRONG ARM

893

0.1

96.7

PROSTITUTION

848

0.1

96.8

FIRING WEAPON

847

0.1

96.9

DAMAGE PROPERTY

824

0.1

97.0

CRIMES AGAINST PERSON

824

0.1

97.1

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT – GUN

767

0.1

97.1

INTIMIDATION

749

0.1

97.2

AMPHETAMINE – MANUFACTURE

745

0.1

97.3

AMPHETAMINE71

731

0.1

97.4

STOLEN PROPERTY

716

0.1

97.5

FRAUD – FALSE STATEMENT
HOMICIDE – NEGLIGENT MANSLAUGHTER –
VEHICLE

715

0.1

97.5

627

0.1

97.6

70

72

69

The separate category of “Marijuana” from “Marijuana – Sell/Possession/Smuggling” exists to provide the police officer
with a space to write in detail what the crime is, but the detailed description most likely comports with one of the offenses for
which there is a more specific code. For example, if the officer chooses to describe the fact that someone smuggled 10
kilograms of marijuana in his automobile trunk, he could use the crime code “marijuana” and write in that description, but
alternatively he could have simply recorded the crime code for “marijuana – smuggling.”
70

“Rape – Strong Arm” is an offense category used to describe the crime of rape committed with the use of force.

71

The separate category of “Amphetamine” from “Amphetamine – Sell/Possession/Smuggling” exists to provide the police
officer with a space to write in detail what the crime is, but the detailed description most likely comports with one of the
offenses for which there is a more specific code.

72

The separate category of “Stolen Property” from “Receiving/Possession Stolen Property” exists to provide the police officer
with a space to write in detail what the crime is, but the detailed description most likely comports with one of the offenses for
which there is a more specific code.

47

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

Criminal Offense Code

Frequency

Percent

POSSESSION FORGED (IDENTIFY OBJECT)

617

0.1

Cumulative
Percent
97.7

HEROIN – SMUGGLING

609

0.1

97.8

MAKING FALSE REPORT
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT – POLICE OFFICER –
STRONG ARM73
SEX ASSAULT – CARNAL ABUSE
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT – NONFAMILY – STRONG
ARM74
STATUTORY RAPE – NO FORCE

561

0.1

97.8

558

0.1

97.9

513

0.1

97.9

506

0.1

98.0

501

0.1

98.0

HEROIN

466

0.1

98.1

POSSESSION STOLEN PROPERTY

434

0.0

98.1

ARSON

419

0.0

98.2

PROPERTY CRIMES

406

0.0

98.2

FLIGHT TO AVOID (PROSECUTION, ETC.)

406

0.0

98.3

73

“Aggravated Assault – Police Officer – Strong Arm” is an offense category used to describe the crime of aggravated assault
against a police officer with the use of force.
74

“Aggravated Assault – Nonfamily – Strong Arm” is an offense category used to describe the crime of aggravated assault
against an individual not a member of the accused’s family with the use of force.

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

48

Appendix B: Amended FOIA Request and Final Correspondence Received

49

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

1_

Date 01
criminal grounds;
of birth of non-dllzen
non-citizen removed on criminai

2_ Gender of non-dtizen
criminal grounds;
non-Litizen removed on criminai
J- Countly
remllved on
on criminal grounds;
grounds;
Country or countries of origin of non-citizen removed

4- Immigration
Immigration status of non-citizen removed;
5law forming the basis for
for the
the removai
removalllr
5 Criminal wnvictions
convictions under state or federal iaw
or
deportation order;
6_ State or federal criminal
dtations for the cri
ui minai
minal convictions
convictfllns forming
furming the
the
criminai code statutory citations
basis for removal or deportation;
7- State or federal criminal sentence imposed on non-Litizen
non-dtizen convicted
convicted of
of state
state or
or federal
lederal
offense that furmed
formed the basis for removal of deportation;
g_
8

Length llftime
of time served for criminal sentence;

9- Date federal uiminal
criminal grounds;
grounds;
criminai custody ended for non-citizen removed on criminai
10_ Date final order of removal or deportation was executed;
11_
removal or deportation;
11. Federal statutory citation for basis of removal
12_
ll_

federai immigration
immigration custody of non-citizen removed or deported
Date federal
deported commenced;
commenced;

13 Any affirmative defenses to removal or deportation
13_
deportatilln appiications
applications for
fur discretionary
discretionary reiief
relief
nds;
raised by the non-citizen removed or deported on criminai
uiminal grou
grounds;
which removal
removai or deportation on criminal grounds was effectuated;
14_ Date on whith
effectuated;
15_ The country to which the non-citizen was removed or deported;
Kin data, indicating whether the non-Litizen
16_ Next of kin
non-citizen removed or deported
deported had
had aa child
child or
or
parent and the immigration status of the child or
Of parent; and
and
1] Marital
Maritai status data.
data, indicating whether the non-citizen removed
17_
remllved had
had aa spouse
spouse and
and the
the
immigration status of that spouse_
immigratilln
ICE denied my request fur
for the following reasons
ICE
reasons:
ijij

for items
items 1-5 and 14-15.
14-15, fulfilling the request would
fur
wlluld place a significant
significant burden
burden on
on ICE
ICE
empkJyees and would cause statistical reporting to other parts of
of the
the government
government to
to
"virtually grind to a halt" The denial letter asserts that someone
somenne would
wlluld have
have to
III
dewiop a method for querying the agency's databases
deveillp
databa,es to
til find this
this information
infurmation
custom ized computer code, results would
requiring writing customized
wlluld need to
to be
be converted
converted into
into
a readable format, and presenting the results would require "dedication
"dedicatilln of
01 an
an
to develop
dewlop a training program
empkJyee to
prngram and provide this training
tlaining to
III Human
Human Rights
Rights
Watch";

iij
iij

for request
request numbers
numbers 6-9
6-9 and
and 11-13,
fur
11-13. these
these requests
requests fall
fall within
within the
the purview
purview of
of other
other
state
or
federal
agencies;
and
state or federal agendes; and

iii)
iiij

for request
request number
number 13,
13, such
such information
fur
informatilln is
is on~
on~ Kept
kept in
in individual
individual fiies
files (not
(nllt
electronicaHy), and
and requiring
requiring that
electronically),
that soml'{)ne
soml't1ne individual~
individually search
search the
the fiies
files isis an
an
"unreasonably burdensome
burdensome request~
"unreasonably
request" on
on the
the agency_
agency_

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

50

ICE did not
numbl'rs 10,
10. 16,
16. and
and 17.
17.
oot provide
prO'lide a reason for denying request numbers
The
that most
most of
of the
the information
information requested
requested isis filed
filed electronica
e!l"(tronicaHy,
II~, and
and
The denial
denial (eller
letter ac~now(edges
ac~nowledges that
a prl'\lious
Department of Homeland Security
Security had
had said
said that
that the
the records
records specified
specified
prl"lious communication from the Di'partment
could be provided.
rel:ords. For
For records
records maintained
maintained
provided, and provided a cost estimate for the retrieval of these records.
electronically.
bask informaHon
information concerning
concerning the
the
electronicaily, it defies plausibility that querying ICE's databases for basic
all ICE statistical reporting.
reporting. Indeed,
Indeed. inin respo
response
nse toto aa
agency's core responsibilities W{)uld
would "grind to a ha It" all
similar fOlA request.
Revil'W of the Department
Department of
ofJustice
Justice prO'llded
provided
request, the Executive Office for Immigration Review
Human Rights Watch promptl~
disk with responsiw
responsive records
records.
promptf; and without charge a computer dis~
Moreover, ICE dtes
exemption
from the fOlA statute inin its
its denial
denial letter.
leller. When
When denying
denying
cites no specific exem
ption from
a request, an agency must give reasons,listing
applicable
exemptions pertaining
pertaining to
to those
those
reasons, listing the applica
ble statutory exemptions
'j'jl(a)(6)(A)(i) The denial letter meref;
reasons. 5'j U.s.CA § 551(a)(6)(A)(l).
merely asserted the
the "unduly
"unduly burdensome"
burdensome" nature
nature of
of
the request.
request
fOlA requires disclosure of all records tha t are reasonably described,
described,s'j U.s.CA
U.S.CA §§SSl{a){])(A),
551(a)t:3l(A).
and the statute does not indude
"burdensome" See
See Sears
Sears v.v.
include an exemption for requests that are "burdensome"
Gottschalk,
reasonabl~ describes
describes the
the requested
requested
Gollschal~, SOl
SOl Fld Ill, 126
116 (4th Cir. 1974) (Where a fOlA request reasonabf;
not confer judicial
judicial discretion
discretion to
to balance
balance its
its
items.
items, the burden on the agency is irrelevantl
irrell"lantl fO IA "does not
dictates against the administrative
administratiw burdens of disclosure"
ustice,
disclosure." Tax AIlalysts
Malysts v.v. Unites
Unites States
States Oep't
Oep't of
ofIIustice,
dinates
1060, 1067 (O.L
(O.c. Cir. 1989). An agency can argue that a request isis "unduf;
845 Fld 1060.
"unduly burdensome"
burdensome" onf;
only ifif
the requestor did not reasonably
~ Public
Public Citizen
Citlzen yy Dep't
Dep't of
of Education,
Educatipn,
reasonabf; describe the records sought Stt
192 F. Supp. 2d
Id 1,
O.c 20031. Hen',
192
1.66 (D. D.C.I003).
Here, the request is narrowlv
narrowl~ tailored and
and reasonabf;
reasonably describes
describes the
the
records
re<
ords sought with specificity, and the denial letter did not
not state that the
the records
records sought
sought were
were not
not
reasonably described. The fact that records are not
not indexed in a manner consistent
consistent with
with the
the request
request isis not
not
a sufficient explanation as to why a search is unduf;
unduly burdensome. See The
The Nation
Nation Magazine
Magazine v.v. US
US
Customs Service, 937 F. Supp. 39, 44 (0
(0. O.c.
O.L 1996).
1996). In addition, I haw
have repeatedf;
repeatedly offered
offered to
to wor~
work with
with the
the
re-format the request to ma~e
agency to narrow the request or re·formatthe
make record retrieval
retrieval easier.
easier. The
The agency's
agency's
blan~et assertion that complying
compf;ing with the request would be unduf;
blan~et
unduly burdensome
burdensome isIs aa legally
legally insuffi
insufficient
cient
for denying
denving the request.
request
basis for
fOlA exemptions cited in the denial letter, this
Since there were no FOIA
this appeal
appeal cannot
cannot address
address the
the
for the denial
denia I with more specificity. Iem
phasile that
plausible,
reasons lor
Iemphasile
that itit is unreasonable
unreasonable and
and im
implausible,
howl"ler, for ICE to assert that it maintains no disdosable re<ords
however,
rl"(ords or data on
on remO'ials
removals and
and deportaHons
deportatkms of
of
particularly those based on criminal grounds.
non·citizens, particularly
As stated above, Iwould prefer to WQr~
W{)r~ with the agency in order to
to resolve
resolve this
this matter
matter.
based on information in the denial letter and my ongoing conversations
conversations with
with ICE
ICE staff,
staff. II
propose narrowing our request in order to show our good faith.
faith. For each non·citizen
non·citizen remO'ied
removed on
on criminal
criminal
grounds' from the U.S., from April 1.
I, 1997 until the present,
present,lIrequest,
request. on an
an expedited
expedited basis,
basis. individual
individual
11"11'1 case·by·case
case-by·case records
records disclosing
disclosing for
level
for each
each individual:
individual:

Mcordinglv,
Accordingl~.

"""old,· ",....,

.,,,.,n..

'Th<t ..rm
..rm ").....,...
'r~ on
"imin.1 rround,' ~...n, .oy.,,«"t"
I , ..,~unllry
d.porllM, ~i.1
01
'n.e
0<1 crimtn,1
tlJj'v=rt. . 0<O<r
.,der 01,<:11,,,,1,
of,.""",,1. d<vort"ion,
d<:>orto'ioo. v:>«l:t<d _
'ern<W.~
",'unt.l,,<!eporll1re,
<!eni,lof
0<
1j ~;./ ari~
ari~ nl
or out
""t oIlht
of 1~.• foIlowinr
foI m<'lJi "",tion,
".diom 0I1ht
01 <!It Unitt<!
Unit..St".,
st"..cOOt
coOt:

I... prnry Pro<<<l<O
Pr_'" Sll'",
Sll"" ., o<oi,1
",oi.1 <i
01 onllJ)Oi
onj o.wli<ation
'""pen"
i<.olioo for
fo< di"m.....
di><r<tiO<lO'I' l<l:.l

uS'CaX,WJl; 8SU.H.!
U.H. i 118,(aX,X8l>
lla,laX2XS\ 8au.s.c
a u.s.c
a u.s.c
SSusc
USc. !i uS,CaX>J(.IXi);
U.5.C!i lla:r(.x,x<),
118J(aX>X<), au.s.c
8 USc. §l1a:r(aX,XO}'
§ "82{aX,)(D);8
USc. i! uS'CaX,m
uS,CaXJXE}.!
USc.§l1S2{.X,XHl;
§ l1!12(.X,),1!)-,
uS,C.X,)(lj; 8au.s.c
lla~ Su.s.c
SSusc
U. H. !i uS2{.);,)1);
U.S.C §I llMaXM\
S u. H. !i uS,C.XJXlOO);
"S,C.lW\llx;); au.s.c
! U.~c. I§ lla:r(aJW(DXi);
l:8*XlXDXi}o au.s.c
8 U.S.C i! lla:r(.XJXE);
118:r(.XJ)(EJ, Su.s.c
S U.S.c. ii uS,CaXJXF);
"SJ(.XJXf).
Susc
i
llS,CaX6X£)(i};
a
usc
§ua:r(aX,o)AA
a
U.H.
i
lla:r(.x.OX<);
a
U.H.
i
lla,(.x,o)(ll},
a
U.H.
i
lla,(.x,oXf);
au.s.c
S U.H. ! u8,(o)(6X£Xj},! U.S.C § U8J(.XlO)W; 8 U.U.! 118:r(oX,oll<); 8 U.U.! 118'(o)(Io)(O); 8 U.5.L! 118,(.)(loXf);! U.5.C
i122i\.X®
[d<port.bl.
b!,
<xdud.b\<l,
au.s.c
§mi\aX(I(E)(i)
(,""'ft!il\l
p<opl.l,
a
U.H.
I'"
i\aX,WJl;
SU.s.c
imi\.X2)(.()('');
!m](.X»(A) Icl<oorlab\t ~!( txdudal>!<l, 8 U.S.C §m7\.X(J(f)(i) [>rr<I:CI! il\l 0<0 pl.); 8 U.S.C §m](.;O:,XAXij; S USC !m](.X:»Al(".j;S
!
usc
§mi\.)(:<)(A)(ii i);!
i); a USC
usc §mI\oXi)(A,'(1>j;
§mi\a)(,WI>j; a8 usc
»(8); aU
.s.c i12'i\WX<},
U.S.
C. §m](.X>lWii
U.S.c §mi\.)(
§m](.)(oJ)(8);
8 U.5.L
§m](aX>X<), a
8 u.s.c
U.S.c imi\')(2XD},
!ml\o~XD);au.s.c
8 U.S.C 1"",aX,XEJ,
§uZ/(aX,XE),

51

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

I.1. Country or countries
non·dlizen removed on criminal grounds;'
grounds,'
wuntries of origin of non·citizen
2. Immigration status of the non-dtizen
removed (LPR, undocumented,
undocumented, etc)
etc) on
on uiminai
criminai
non·Litizen removed
grounds;'
3.

Four digit NCI(
removed on
on criminal
criminal
NCIC crime
uime cooe(s)
wde(s) relating
reiating to crime(s) the non-citizen removed
grounds was arrested or con~icted
of; I
convicted of;'

4. Next of
non-citizen removed or deported
deported on
on uiminai
criminal
of ~in
Kin data, indicating whether the non·citizen
grounds had a child
status of that child
child or
or parent
parent (I.e.
(Le.lPR,
chiid or parent and the immigration status
LPR,
u.s. citizen, etc_);
etcJ; and'
55

Marital
or deported
deported on
on criminal
criminal
Maritai status data, indicating whether the non-citizen removed or
grounds had a spouse and the immigration status of that spouse (Ie
(i.e.lPR,
U.S_ citizen,
citizen,
LPR, US
etc.)'
etc)"

For
I also ask that
lhat all fees associated
associated with
with this
this request
rl'quest
For the reasons detailed in my
mv initial request Ialso
be
be waived
waived pursuanl
pursuant to 'j U.s.CA
USCA § 'j'j2(a)(4XAJ(iji).
'j'j2(a)(4XA)(iii).
Thank
any queslKJns, Imay
may be
be
Thank you for your
j'Our prompt attention 10
to this matter. Should you
vou have anvquesHons,1
reached
100 Bush
Bush Street,
Street, Suite
Suite
reached at:
at 415-362-3l46
415.362-3246 My
MV postal
postai address is the following: Human Rights Watch, 100
1812, San
San Francisco, California,
Califomia, 94104.
1812,
Sinceref! yours,
yours,
Sincerely

Alison Parker,
Parker, Esq_
Esq.
Alison
Senior Researcher
Researcher
Senior

Cc:
Cc:
Catherine Papoi, Esq. (via emaiO
Catherine
Director, Departmental
Departmentai Disclosure & FOIA
Director,
Deputy Chief
Chief FOIA Officer
Deputy
u.S. Department
Department of Homeland Security
u.s.
Washington, DL lO'jl8
lO'jl8
Washington,
u.s.c §mlloXJl
i12>";IlU) [Jol><
iiol'" <Io<"""'nt>~
<io<um<nnl, !SU.H_
S12>n:aX4lW, !s usc
u.s.c S",";a)lU(llJ,
i12>";IX4XD)-, S! U.H.
8s usc
u.s.c Smll'X4XA);
Sm}(a)A18}, s8 usc
U.5.'_ §m;r(oJWt)l);
u.s. C S12>";aliAJ(E),
Su'lIaXa)(!}. S! U.H
U.S.C
im";IX~8s U.H.
U.5.C. S>,,..{eX,},!
S>,,..(eX,), S U.s.c
u.s.c §US4'~X');!
§,,54'~X* S usc
U.5.C. S"y,ajeXJ);
S u.s.c
S usc §1\J4li).
§mll'Xom
Suy,alem!
U.S.C S'\lJ;
§1\H;!
§1\JoIli).
'Thi"oo<>pood,
to fl<m"".
II... no. Jl in
in th<
til<ari~1
"'lJt,t
'T!In<or,...
pond, to
orjzinotr••
p.,l
no.
•
Thi,
oon<>porMl,
to
it...
no.
6
in
!h<
ari~ nol '«lIJ<>I, ""kh >OO(hl til< ·i,I:oI. or f«j.,ol <riminol eo<!< ,U!u""l' d!otioo, lor th< <rim i,,1
• TO:, cont,pond, 10 i!«n flO. 6 in til< ""~ nol ItqU.,t, ""i,h ""'(Ilt tIit "[.im.or t.d<1ol crimj..1cod< ,,,tu""Y <It..J on, lor tn< ,rimi",,1
'Thi"OfJt'>jXIne, to
to ~<m
Iltm no..1I ill
in tIit
til<orI(ino1
"'lJt>l.
'Ti:i,,~,
orip.1 "'l"",t.

,:01.,

,0<TYi<ti00, Iormi"l
Iorminlth<
bui, blor """",lor
"""",I or d<;»rt"i""."
d<pootolion." Tht
Th< d<1Iiallt""
d<rIiol """ ,m., 'hit
<OI1YK'"''''
tIit bui,
,hot IU',
IU', dltlbo.",
dmi>o,.., lracl
track"tho
"to. Joor-<li~l
Iour-d;c;t Notion., Crim<
Cri"",
Inform.lion c.ol..
ConlO' ,nm.<odt
erim<,oo. ",Joti"lto.
",~li"llo a <rim<
<rim< ,n
In ,lion
Ii., mtj'''
ml\' b< 1fT<>..'"
InIo<m,~iOIl
,r=ttO or,~
or<<>fI'tirnO "C"
oL_" "'<orOinr~,1
A<,ordinr~,1 modif.«ith<
modlf.«ltlit '«l""l
" .. "",t to
to oonlonn
<XInfonnloth<
lotlit
dall IC[
ICE ~"'~,on<odeI
~",~eonc«l., ~ m.in"in,
dat,
it mlin"i",.
'Thi"""",pood, to
to II... no. 16 in!h< ari~nal '''It:<>l
'Ti:i"~ponrl,
~"" "".16 in til<
....t.
Thi> "'IT""",,"'
<or,.,pood, to
loit<1n
110.'/ m
in tht
lilt oristntl
orisi".1 ,tqUO>!
'«lIJ'"
•• Thi,
it>m no.•/

""rnal '...

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

52

/la_"

u.s. Dq>ootm..,t
0..,0..elll_l...
s.curil:U.S.
or
nom.l.nd SO<UC~1

~l' 1S\tOOl, NW
~~JS~NW

w..,,~ DC
DC 2tl~)ri
mJ.6
Woohi"l\\<I<I,

.. ~
(~,
_
~g
""••,

.,.

U.S. Immigration
u.s,

and Customs
Customs
Enforcement
Enforcement

Masch
March 7, 2008
Ms.
Ms. Allison ParUr,
Parker, EJq.
Esq.
Human
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
111 Floor
350 Fifth AValllC,
Avenue, 34
34l!l

New
New York, NY lOllS-3299
10118-3299
Request
Request 2006FOlA22074
20l)(jFOIA22074

Parker;
Dear Ms. Par'«r.
This is in rtference
reference to your letter dated Febrnary
This
February 26,
26. 2007,
2007, appealing
appealing the
the Immigration
Immigration and
and

Customs Enforcc:roent's
Enforcement's (ICE) response to
Cus10ms
~ your Freedom
Fr«oom oflnformation
ofInforrnation Act
Act (FOIA)
(FOIA) requcsl
request.
determination that
that there
lhere are
are no
no records
records responsive
responsive to
to
Specifically, you are appealing ICE's determination
your requesr.
request.
yo~
A search in the Detention and Removal Operations office
A
office located
Iocaled infonnation
infnmuuion responsive
responsh'e to
10
1-3 of
ofyour
items 1·3
)'Our amended FOIA
FOlA request asking for
for the
the following:
fullowina:
For each
cach oon-citiz.c:n
non~itizcn removed on crimiRll!
criminal grounds
grounds from
from the
the United
United States
States of
of America,
America., from
from
the present, you requested individual level
April I, 1997 until thc
level case-by-case
case-by-ease records
reconl.s disclosing
disclosing
each individual:
for each
1)
I)
2)
3)
3)

4)
5)
5)

County or countries of origin of non-citizen
oon-citizen removed
removed on
on criminal
criminal grounds.
lVOunds.
the non-citizen removed (LPR,
Immigration status
Sla1Us of
oflhe
(LPR, undocumented,
undocumented, etc.)
etc.) on
on
criminal grollllds.
grounds.
criminal
Four digit
Four
digit NCIC
NCIC crime
crime code(s)
code(s) relating
feillting to
to crime(s)
crimc(s) the
the non-citizen
oon-citizen removed
removed on
on
criminal grounds was arrested or
convicted
of.
()r convicted of.
Next of kin data,
dow, indicating whethcr
whctha the
the non-eitizen
noo-<:itizcn removed
removed or
ordeported
dcponc.'d on
on
criminal grounds had
parent and
und the
the immigration
immigration status
status ofthat
of thatchild
child or
or
criminlll
had aII child or parent
parent (i.e. LPR, U.S. citizen, ere.).
etc.).
Marital status data, indicating whether the
non-citi:l.en removed
removed or
ordeported
deported on
on
the non-citizen
criminal grounds
criminal
grounds had
had aa spouse
spouse and
and the
the immigration
immigration status
status of
ofthat
UUlI spouse
spouse(Le,
(Le. LPR,
LPR,
U.S.
U.S. citizen,
citizen, etc.)
etc.)

The information
The
infornuttion has
has been
been reviewed
[eviewed and
and II determined
determined that
that the
the information
information will
will be
bereleased
released in
in
pan
pursuant to
to 55 U.S.C.
pan pursuant
U.S.C. 552
552 (b)(2)
(bX2) low,
low, (b)(6)
(b)(6) and
and (b)(7)(C)
(bX7)(C) of
ofthe
the FOIA.
FOTA.

ww... .ic~.gov

53

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

Information
Infonnation isis beinr;
being witbhcld
withheld a:I'
lIS dc:saibed
described bdow.
below.
rOlA
~ pI'~nel
~llNrun
YOU EumpCioa
El<l'llIptioll 2(law)
2{low) pmuds
protects iafi:nnatioa
iof<nnation ~Iieabk
applicable 10
kl ioumal
internal administrative
matters
to
no public inte:resl
ialetell in
ia !he
tbe
10 Ibc
the CXklllllwll.
eJllC:DI thai lk
the information is
is of.
ofa tdaliYC:1y
rr;lati~lybivWIaIIIn
lriviallWUre aad
and there
~ is 00
document

""......

ioformarm

J"OlA
aocIliJni_
rlb!hE.u:of
YOlA t-ptiol
EsempdOD 6(i Cliempts
exemplS Iium
&om di.sc:losR
discl~ pcnaaac:1
penonnel or IMdicaI
medical fiIcs
files and
simil« files
Ihe releaKof
..lIicb
o(peI1Ol\I.l pl\-.e)'.
requires. bUanciag
be....... of
oCtile
....lIicb WOllId
would a.IIJII:
caO!ie'I eIawty
deBl1y UIlWIJTlDtIed
unwamnted iavasion
invasioo ofpenonal
privacy. This requires.
the
p;lblie'J
tod:ltcbureapirut
[77wtypa
o/~-'Ior
public's ript
rigbtlO
disclo5uJe against the iodMdal'J.
individual's rigllt priYtty.
privacy. I~
typu oftJoamte,ts
t:mdIor
~
~ eutijlt:;tlln.
anijimlu. dmu
tlmu
br/unnution tiD",
that _ 1ttNr
hi:lve writJf1reld
",iJJrkld ftl}'corLI'.lsf
-.yromi3/ oflHnJl
ofbirdt Urfijic«o,
cmijicotu. narurrJllmtion
(itzllU,
,,~. ~ ~
. dales
dau:$ oj
ofhinh,
blnh, or
or nJriolU
WIrioIo otJwr
0Ihv doc>nntnlS
docwwlfll andIOT
ard'or
IIuIlU, IOdd
:JOf;iaisu:wily
S«IIrily~,
~.
nr}QntDtiott
_Idttndf'D"IONJIl.)
ptnCMd.] The privaey
privlley ink:rc:sla
interests of
of!he
dle
brjontdioll M/OItpf
N/wtgi1rg ttl
to QQ tJrrd
driNpry
party rJta1...,
/hot (l1y consilknd
individuals
Illy minimal
minia:lal public interESt
~ in
ill di5c1o:swl:
dbc\o$w-e of
ofthe
the:
individuals in
in the
the ~nts
ra:ords ~
you hne
have ~
requested out\O'righ
outweigh lilly
infonnatkln.
ia tha
thIt. infonnatkln
infonnatton does DO(
n<M faclCl"
flCtOt into
Imo the
!be
infonnatioa. Any
ADy private
private illleresl
interesl you
you may have
na~ in
afo~ ballncinj
balancing ICSl.
test.
.fo~

Eumplioa
~rd:s or information compiled for
for law enforcement
enf~ purposes
purpoxs that
tIw
ExelllptiOD 7{C)
7(C) pmtedll
protects ~rds
could leUOnIIbIy
oomtitute an lUlwananted
uowarranted invasion
invasu ofpersonal
of persooaI prjvaq.
privacy. This
This
reasonably be expected to coostinlle
exemption rakes
iDtcrests of individuals,
individuals, whether
whether they
they are
an: suspects.
suspects,
takes particular
particular DOte
ll()(e of the $l:l"OI1g
strong intereslS
witnessn, or investigators,
invc:nigators, in not being unwamntably
lUlwarrantably 8S3Otwed
witMucs.
wocwcd with alleged
allqcd criminal
criminal
activity. TIw
That inlcral
interest atmds
extends 10
to pcnons
persons ..
....no
activit)'.
-ho are
arc not
DOl ooIy
0ClIy the:
the subjcclS
subjects ofthc:
of the investigation,
invatiption, blll
bID
those v..
who
their privacy im<Jded
invaded by havina
having their identities
tI»sc
bo may have tbC'irrmwq
idCnlilies and
IJId information
informatioo about
aIx:MA
lhem rnulcd
revealed in c:ormcc:tion
oormeetion with an im,-eui8Jtim.
investigation. Bas.ed
them
Based upon
upon the
Ibc traditionaJ
u.:iitioual recognition
te'CClpitionof
of
strone privxy
privacy intcrcsl:
intere& in law cnforocmcnl
enforoemenl records.
5ttDD&
records.. categorical
calClorical withholding
",i1hholdq of
ofinformation
infonnarion that
thai:
identifies Ihird
third parties in law c:nfcrccmcnl
enforoemcnl (lX:(Irds
ordinarily appropriate.
identifies
nxords is
isontiAZriIy
appropiale. As
As sucb,
such, II have
have
that the privacy imcrest
interes! in the identities of
individuals in
delermined lhaI
determined
ofindi\1duals
in the
the records
~ you
roo. have
have
requested dearly
clearly otCweigb
out'Weigb any
requesled
aD)' minimal
minimal public interest
iDIcrest in
ill disclosure
dix10surc oflbe
of1bc information.
informatioD.. Please
Pkax
note dw
that any priVll1C
private inlCft:Sl
interest you may have
00lC
lave in thai
that information
infOf'lDlltioD docs
docs nOI
DOl factor
r.:tor inlG
iDto lhis
this
determination.
dcl:ermiaalion..
Regarding ilaDJ
items 4!Dd
4 and 5"S ofyour
OfyOUIlC<luest,
Reg:ardina
request, ICE does
docs not
DDt track
tnd: this
this infocmation
infonnlllion and
and therefore,
therefOR, hall
ha.$
no records responsive to this
your requcSi.
tb.i.s portion of
ofyour
request.

If you have any questions.
qllC'lions, or would
wooId like
like to
to discuss
discuss this
this matter,
matter, please
please feel
feel free
free to
to contact
eonllIetour
oue
office III
at (202)
(202) 732-0300.
office
732.()300.

FOTA
FOIA Director
Director

Enclosure:
EncI05lll'C: CO
CD with
wich responsive
I'C5pOllSivc information
iDformaljon

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

54

Appendix C: Detailed Descriptions of Criminal Conduct within Each
Offense Category
The following descriptions of criminal conduct within each crime category include all
deportees, regardless of immigration status.

Offenses Involving Violence against Persons
There were 67 crimes in the most serious crime category, “offense involving violence against
persons.” Nine of these crimes accounted for 85.2 percent of the non-citizens whose most
serious crime was in this category. Each of these nine crimes formed the basis for
deportation in more than 1,000 cases.
Most Common Crimes in “Offense Involving Violence against Persons” Category
Offense
ASSAULT
ROBBERY
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT – WEAPON
SEXUAL ASSAULT
SEXUAL OFFENSE – AGAINST A CHILD – FONDLING
SIMPLE ASSAULT
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT – FAMILY – STRONG ARM
HOMICIDE
KIDNAPPING

Frequency
27,802
11,135
5,412
3,751
2,942
2,840
1,810
1,443
1,127

Percent
40.7
16.3
7.9
5.5
4.3
4.2
2.6
2.1
1.6

Cumulative Percent
40.7
57.0
64.9
70.4
74.7
78.9
81.5
83.6
85.2

Non-Violent General Offenses with Potential to Cause Harm
More than ninety-six percent of all non-citizens deported for a “non-violent general offense
with the potential to cause harm” were found to have been convicted of one of nine crimes
as their most serious. Each of these offenses formed the basis for deportation in more than
1,000 cases. It is important to note that this category includes crimes that may not be
considered violent at all, such as “homosexual sex.” There were 41 different criminal
offenses in this crime category.

55

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

Most Common Crimes in “Non-Violent General Offense with Potential to Cause Harm”
Category
Offense
DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE LIQUOR

Frequency
36,429
12,725
7,051
2,417
2,255
2,172
1,963
1,830
1,631

CRUELTY TOWARD WIFE75
WEAPON OFFENSE
SEX OFFENSE76
DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE DRUGS
CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPON
HIT AND RUN
CRUELTY TOWARD CHILD77
FAMILY OFFENSE78

Percent
51.1
17.8
9.9
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.3

Cumulative Percent
51.1
69.0
78.8
82.2
85.4
88.4
91.2
93.8
96.1

Non-Violent Drug Offenses
There were 43 different criminal convictions or forms of conduct that were categorized as
non-violent drug offenses. Of deportees who were deported for a non-violent drug offense,
87 percent were deported for one of ten crimes as their most serious, each representing over
3,000 cases.
Most Common Crimes in “Non-Violent Drug Offense” Category
Offense
DANGEROUS DRUGS79
COCAINE – POSSESSION
COCAINE – SELL
MARIJUANA – POSSESSION
MARIJUANA – SELL
AMPHETAMINE – POSSESSION
HEROIN – SELL
AMPHETAMINE – SELL
HEROIN – POSSESSION
MARIJUANA – SMUGGLING
75

Frequency
25,643
20,885
18,599
11,063
8,317
6,492
4,496
4,061
3,476
3,322

Percent
21.0
17.1
15.2
9.1
6.8
5.3
3.7
3.3
2.8
2.7

Cumulative Percent
21.0
38.1
53.3
62.4
69.2
74.5
78.2
81.5
84.3
87.0

See footnote 65, above, defining “Cruelty toward Wife.”

76

“Sex offense” is categorized as an offense with the potential to cause harm because it is a general code in the NCIC which
could be used to categorize potentially violent offenses such as “incest with a minor,” but it also covers offenses that are not
necessarily violent, such as “homosexual sex.” According to the NCIC, crimes coded as “sex offense” should have a further
code describing the offense.

77

See footnote 67, above, defining “Cruelty toward Child.”

78

See footnote 68, above, defining “Family Offense.”

79

See footnote 64, above, defining “Dangerous Drugs.”

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

56

Non-Violent General Offenses
There were 121 separate offenses in the dataset that were categorized as a non-violent
general offense. Of the 30,821 people deported for a non-violent general offense, 69.8
percent were deported for one of ten crimes as their most serious. More than 900 deportees
had been convicted of each of these 10 crimes.
Most Common Crimes in “Non-Violent General Offense” Category
Offense

Frequency

Percent

Cumulative Percent

TRAFFIC OFFENSE

7,336

23.8

23.8

TRESPASSING

2,487

8.1

31.9

DISORDERLY CONDUCT

2,157

7.0

38.9

PROBATION VIOLATION

1,861

6.0

44.9

UNAUTHORIZED USE OF VEHICLE

1,607

5.2

50.1

POSSESSION OF WEAPON

1,565

5.1

55.2

RESISTING OFFICER

1,452

4.7

59.9

FAILURE TO APPEAR

1,070

3.5

63.4

PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES

989

3.2

66.6

OBSTRUCTION OF POLICE

972

3.2

69.8

Non-Violent Theft Offenses
There were 79 different offenses categorized as a non-violent theft offense. Of the 38,655
people deported for a non-violent theft crime, 82.9 percent committed one of nine crimes as
their most serious. Each of the top nine crimes included more than 1,000 cases.
Most Common Crimes in “Non-Violent Theft Offense” Category
Offense

Frequency

Percent

Cumulative Percent

BURGLARY

9,402

24.3

24.3

LARCENY

6,954

18.0

42.3

VEHICLE THEFT

3,926

10.2

52.5

FRAUD

3,472

9.0

61.5

FORGERY

2,836

7.3

68.8

SHOPLIFTING

1,572

4.1

72.9

FRAUD – IMPERSONATION

1,427

3.7

76.6

RECEIVE STOLEN PROPERTY

1,427

3.7

80.3

1,017

2.6

82.9

80

STOLEN VEHICLE
80

The offense code of “stolen vehicle” includes several types of offenses related to stolen vehicles, including “receiving
stolen vehicle,” “stripping stolen vehicle,” “possessing stolen vehicle,” “interstate transport of a stolen vehicle,” and
“unauthorized use of vehicle (including joyriding).” See Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services
Division, “NCIC 2000 Code Manual.”

57

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

Non-Violent Immigration Offenses
There were four offenses categorized as non-violent immigration offenses. All 170,536
people deported for a non-violent immigration offense were deported for one of these four
offenses.
Offense
ILLEGAL ENTRY
81

Frequency

Percent

Cumulative Percent

121,099

71.0

71.0

IMMIGRATION

27,727

16.3

87.3

FALSE CITIZENSHIP

15,232

8.9

96.2

SMUGGLING ALIENS

6,478

3.8

100.0

81

See footnote 63, above, defining “Immigration.”

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

58

Appendix D: Letter to ICE Raising Data Discrepancies

59

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

that within the entire dataset
non-citizens identified a~
as removed
removed from
from the
the country
country for
for
data~et of non-citizen~
uiminal
has recorded NCIC code~
codes with criminal
criminal offen~e
offense information
information
criminal convictions,
conviction~, your agency ha~
for only 44% of deportees,
serious concern. ItIt i~
is even
even more
more distre~~ing,
distressing,
deportee~, which is
i~ a matter of ~eriou~
however, to note the disparity
those with a legally pre~ent
present immigration
immigration ~tatu~
status and
and
di~parity between tho~e
those
As illustrated in table 1 below,
below, deportee~
deportees holding
holding aa
tho~e with an illegally present
pre~ent status.
~tatu~. A5
~without
status group~
groups with
with the
the greatest
greatest
~without inspection~
in~pection" immigration status
statu~ are one ofthe ~tatu~
probability of having their uiminal
recorded. for
for "without
"without
criminal conviction information recorded.
is 6z.6%. By
By contra~t,
contrast, the
the three
three most
most
inspection,"
in~pection: the percentage with crime data recorded i~
common legally present
statuses -- ~immigrant:
~immigrant," ~parolee:
~parolee," and
and "refugee""refugee"pre~ent immigration ~tatu~e~
those with
with "immigrant"
"immigrant" ~tatu~,
status,
have significantly
~ignifi(antly less
le~~ complete crime data. Only 5.1% of tho~e
9.4%
parolees have (rime
uime data recorded.
recorded. These
These limited
limited data
data for
for
9-4% of refugees,
refugee~, and 27.5% of parolee~
those
disturbing.
tho~e in
in a lawful status
~tatu~ are notewonhy
noteworthy and di~turbing.
Table 1 - Data recorded by
deported for criminal
criminal convictions
convictions
bv ICE for non-citizens deoorted

Cases
Case~ Induded
Included
All Cases
Ca~e~
'without
"without inspection'
inspection" immi ration status
~tatus
"immi rant·
rant' status
statu~ code
'immi
"parolee" status
~tatu~ code
'parolee"
"refu ee~
ee" status
~tatu~ code
'refu

cases
of cases
% ofcase~
% of ca~e~
## of
without
of (a~e~
cases with
with
with crime
without
crime data
data
no crime
crime data
data
data
crime
no
6.0%
0%
4..0%
'7'
24 80
80
62.6%
7·4%
7·
%
.,%
88
%
4· %
8
72.')%
27·
%
27·')%
21198
72·%
%
0.6%
00
0.6%

, '7'
,
"

As illustrated
illu~trated in table 2 below, when we put the~e
As
these common immigration
immigration status
status (ategorie~
categories
group~ --legally
pre~ent and illegally pre~entinto two groups
legally present
present - we find that
that 62.6%
62.6% oftho~e
of those illegally
illegally
in the country had their crime data recorded before they were removed
removed from
from the
the United
United
State~. By contrast,
contra~t, only 10.7% of tho~e
States.
those in the country legally had
had their
their (rime
crime data
data recorded.
recorded.
--lel(alitv of Presence GroUllS
GroUDS Crime data Presence Crosstabulation
Crosstabulatjon
Table 2 --le..alitv
Crime data re~ent
resent
Yo>
y"

No

Group

Illegally Present:
in~pection
"without inspection
and stowaway"
stowaway~
Pre~ent:
legally Present:
Immigrant, Parolee,
RefuKee
Refu!l:ee

Count
% within
Group
Grouo
Count
% within
Group
Grouo

, No

00

37·4%
10 ,72
89·3%

>0
>0

,

Total
Total
66

8,
8,

62.6%
62.6%

100.0%
100.0%

12,68
12,68

uB,
u8, 12
12

10.7%
10·7%

100.0%
100.0%

There is
i~ a significant
~ignificant difference between ICE's proce~~ing
There
processing of non-citizen~
non-citizens of
of different
different
statuse~, and this
thi~ difference reveal~
reveals poor attention
attention to
to accurate
accurate information
information for
for
immigration statuses,
lawfully present
pre~ent aliens.
alien~. The
The extent
extent of
lawfully
of the
the difference
difference in
in how
how often
often crime~
crimes were
were rewrded
rewrded
between this
this group
group and
and the
the illegally
illegally present
present group
between
group raises
raises the
the troubling
troubling implication
implicatlon of
of ~ome
some
~ort of
of institutional
institutional dysfunction,
dy~function, or
ICE's
sort
or intentional
intentional withholding
withholding of
of information
information about
about ICE's
removal practices.
practices.
removal
We invite
invite you
you and
and your
your wlleagues
wlleague~ to
We
to darify
darify our
our understanding,
understanding, either
either with
with further
further
these discrepancies,
discrepancie~,or
information explaining
explaining these
information
or with
with an
an improved
improved dataset
dataset providing
providing NCIC
NCIC

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

60

criminal
removing from
from the
the United
United
criminal offense
offen~e codes
(Qde~ for non-citizens
non-citilen~ whom your agency is
i~ removing
States
State~ on
on criminal
criminal grounds.
ground~.
Sincerely
Sincerely yours,
yOUr5,

Alison
Ali~on Parker
Parker
Deputy
Deputy Director,
Director, US
US Program
cc:
cc:
AnastasiaTaylor
Ana~ta~ia Taylor
FOIA
fOlA Office
Dffice
Immigration
Immigration and
and Customs
Cu~tom~ Enforcement
Department
Department of
of Homeland Security
Sandra Myles,
Myle~, Associate
A~~odate legal
Legal Advisor
Advi~or
Sandra
Enforcement law
Law Division,
Divi~ion, Office of the Principal Legal
Enforcement
legal Advi~or
Advisor
Immigration and
and Customs
Cu~tom~ Enforcement
Immigration
Department of
of Homeland Security
Department
Tae Johnson.
John~on, Acting
Acting Unit Chief
Chief
Tal'
Detention Compliance
Compliance Unit, Office of Detention and Removal Operation~
Detention
Operations
Immigration and
and Customs
Cu~tom~ Enforcement
Immigration
Department of
of Homeland Security
Department
Kendra Wallace,
Wallace, National Outreach Coordinator (on temporary leave)
Kendra
and Andrew
Andrew Strait,
Strait, Acting National Outreach Coordinator
and
of Policy
Policy
Office of
Office
Immigration and
and Customs
Cu~tom~ Enforcement
Immigration
Department of
of Homeland Security
Oepartment

61

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

Appendix E: Most Common Offenses by Immigration Status
Immigration Status “Legally Present”—11 Most Common Offenses (n>1,000)

Offense
ILLEGAL ENTRY
DANGEROUS DRUGS82
IMMIGRATION
ASSAULT
DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE LIQUOR
COCAINE – SELL
COCAINE – POSSESSION
SMUGGLING ALIENS
MARIJUANA – POSSESSION
MARIJUANA – SELL
ROBBERY

Percent within “Legally
Present” Immigration
Status Category
22.6
5.1
4.7
4.5
4.0
3.8
3.7
3.2
3.0
2.6
2.3

Frequency
10,188
2,279
2,118
2,019
1,825
1,692
1,675
1,426
1,343
1,185
1,039

Cumulative Percent
22.6
27.7
32.3
36.8
40.8
44.6
48.3
51.5
54.4
57.1
59.4

Immigration Status “Immigrant”—11 Most Common Offenses (n>100)
Offense
ASSAULT
SMUGGLING ALIENS
COCAINE – POSSESSION
ILLEGAL ENTRY
MARIJUANA – POSSESSION
COCAINE – SELL
DANGEROUS DRUGS83
IMMIGRATION84
DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE LIQUOR
ROBBERY
MARIJUANA – SELL

Frequency
330
312
294
284
238
237
228
180
149
146
116

82

See footnote 64, above, defining “Dangerous Drugs.”

83

Ibid.

84

See footnote 63, above, defining “Immigration.”

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

Percent
7.4
7.0
6.6
6.4
5.3
5.3
5.1
4.0
3.3
3.3
2.6

62

Cumulative Percent
7.4
14.4
21.0
27.4
32.7
38.0
43.1
47.1
50.4
53.7
56.3

Immigration Status “Parolee”—Nine Most Common Offenses (n>300)
Offense
ILLEGAL ENTRY
SMUGGLING ALIENS
MARIJUANA – SMUGGLING
DANGEROUS DRUGS85
COCAINE – SELL
IMMIGRATION86
MARIJUANA – SELL
COCAINE – POSSESSION
MARIJUANA – POSSESSION

Frequency
1,104
556
471
442
400
368
364
360
353

Percent
13.6
6.8
5.8
5.4
4.9
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.3

Cumulative Percent
13.6
20.4
26.2
31.6
36.5
41.0
45.5
49.9
54.2

Immigration Status “Refugee”—Four Most Common Offenses (n>5)
Offense
ASSAULT
COCAINE – POSSESSION
COCAINE – SELL
DANGEROUS DRUGS87

Frequency
10
9
6
5

Percent
10.2
9.2
6.1
5.1

Cumulative Percent
10.2
19.4
25.5
30.6

Immigration Status “Expedited Removal Pending Credible Fear”—Nine Most Common
Offenses (n>5)
Offense
ILLEGAL ENTRY
FRAUD
DANGEROUS DRUGS88
IMMIGRATION89
DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE LIQUOR
ASSAULT
COCAINE – SELL
COCAINE – POSSESSION
MARIJUANA – POSSESSION
MARIJUANA – SELL

Frequency
112
70
47
44
42
34
34
26
26
25

85

See footnote 64, above, defining “Dangerous Drugs.”

86

See footnote 63, above, defining “Immigration.”

87

See footnote 64, above, defining “Dangerous Drugs.”

88

Ibid.

89

See footnote 63, above, defining “Immigration.”

Percent
13.8
8.6
5.8
5.4
5.2
4.2
4.2
3.2
3.2
3.1

63

Cumulative Percent
13.8
22.4
28.2
33.6
38.8
43.0
47.2
50.4
53.6
56.7

Human Rights Watch | April 2009

Immigration Status “Illegally Present”—10 Most Common Offenses (n>8,500)
Offense
ILLEGAL ENTRY
DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE LIQUOR
ASSAULT
DANGEROUS DRUGS90
COCAINE – POSSESSION
IMMIGRATION91
COCAINE – SELL
CRUELTY TOWARD WIFE
ROBBERY
MARIJUANA – POSSESSION

Frequency
98,940
33,572
24,681
22,292
18,248
17,775
16,083
11,505
9,578
8,897

Percent
24.1
8.2
6.0
5.4
4.4
4.3
3.9
2.8
2.3
2.2

Cumulative Percent
24.1
32.3
38.3
43.7
48.1
52.4
56.3
59.1
61.4
63.6

Immigration Status “Unknown”—Six Most Common Offenses (n>1,000)
Offense
ILLEGAL ENTRY
FALSE CITIZENSHIP
IMMIGRATION92
ASSAULT
DANGEROUS DRUGS93
DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE LIQUOR

Frequency
11,971
11,246
7,834
1,102
1,072
1,032

90

See footnote 64, above, defining “Dangerous Drugs.”

91

See footnote 63, above, defining “Immigration.”

92

Ibid.

93

See footnote 64, above, defining “Dangerous Drugs.”

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)

Percent
26.0
24.4
17.0
2.4
2.3
2.2

64

Cumulative Percent
26.0
50.4
67.4
69.8
72.1
74.3

H UMA N R I G H TS WATCH
350 Fifth Avenue, 34 th Floor
New York, NY 10118-3299

www.hrw.org

Forced Apart (By the Numbers)
Non-Citizens Deported Mostly for Nonviolent Offenses
When Congress passed sweeping deportation laws in 1996, many assumed that enforcement would focus on
deporting illegally-present non-citizens who were convicted of serious, violent offenses. However, in this report,
Human Rights Watch reveals for the first time, through analysis of data obtained from Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), that over seven out of ten of the 897,099 non-citizens deported for crimes between 1997 and
2007 were removed from the country for non-violent offenses, including marijuana and other drug possession
crimes, and traffic offenses.
Twenty percent of non-citizens deported after serving their criminal sentences were legally in the country, often
living in the United States as lawful permanent residents for decades before deportation. It is this group of legallypresent non-citizens who have the strongest claims against summary deportation as a violation of their
fundamental rights, including their right to live together with their families. In fact, this report estimates that
1 million spouses and children—many of whom are US citizens or lawful permanent residents—have been forced
apart from loved ones by deportations since 1997. These American families were separated as a result of ICE
operations that cost $2.24 billion in fiscal year 2007 alone.
Human Rights Watch calls on the US government to take another look at whether enforcement dollars should be
spent to deport legally present non-citizens for relatively minor offenses. At a minimum, these non-citizens should
be allowed a fair hearing that takes into account the human right to live together with one’s family members and
to maintain ties to one’s country of primary residence, before the decision to deport becomes final.

Ronald Soza, 9, left, and his sister Cecia, 12,
on hunger strike in Miami to protest their
mother’s deportation, January 27, 2009.
© 2009 Associated Press

H U M A N
R I G H T S
W A T C H