DRO El Paso ICE (7)

Transcription

1 DRO El Paso ICE (7)

2 Page I of 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Venegas. Francisco J Wednesday. August 06, :05 AM Gone Gu.diu: e R..o: oeu, Ro b b)(7)c (b)(6), (b)(7)c, 'Gonzalez, Guadalupe R'; Jolicoeur. Robert E,(b() Stipulated Removals b() Mr. Gastelo, Thanks for calling the meeting with me yesterday. I think that, at least, we came to a mutual understanding of each others situations. Anyhow, I want to let you know that I looked into the issue of the local NTAs being offered stipulated removals even though the the NTA had been issued for over 7- days. My staff assures me that those are prison release cases where either CAP or Border Patrol issued the NTA while the subject was outside of DRO custody. and that is the reason for the dated NTA, They also apprised me that stipulated removals are otfered within I day of the subject coming into DRO custody, and that none of the offers go to cases that have been released to EOIR, I agree with that methodology but I asked my staff to ensure that they were following the I-day arrival practice as we did not want to offer stipulated removals to subjects that had been in our custody for an extended period of time. Furthermore, I want to elaborate on my mentioning of our continued tracking of the Stipulated Removal Program. As I explained yesterday. the program is a staple in our efforts to decrease the average length of stay of aliens in our custody. (An element my FOD is rated on) As such. DRO must continue its process of utilizing the Stipulated Program to its full extent. If our tracking indicates that the program is no longer meeting the intended purpose. fqr whatever rajnn, including your office's difficulty in responding to the stipulated removals, then we will seek alternative methods to meet our needs, including releasing NTAs to EOIR: but, that determination must come from DRO. as we will be the entity tasked to explain our deviation from what has been viewed as a successful process up to this point. My hope is that this is the message I was able to convey yesterday, but if further clarification is needed. please feel free to give me a call. Thanks. Deputy Field Office Director Department of Homeland Security U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Detention and Removal Operations 154 Hawkins Boulevard I El Paso, TX telephone l 91 cell fax Waring~ hi;: desumint i:, UNCLA89.lr-F4_QAzQ QWFUC-iA USR 0Q Y E141FOUC). it seian i rwtti thett be.. 'A F NA490 HIS M OF OR OfMffilefl HE la $91dj. 11 Aq Fe fle eaffiffflle(j, ajerw. f1ftimeff, 5/6/2009 ICE (7)

3 Page 2 of 2 "warrwieas dsig Ifioed, 6il As ii uneumdlte ma., 9! us!!j,016; e MIPsg n to! tit! vj mov01isat.ve up HIM SIsgut to uo the pubi k~ er' l pes'wndjla u. h"ne a val;d "need to le u..... to eu I... appund.f.an aud AdstJiunit From: Gastelo, Elias S Jr Sent: Tuesday, August OS, :41 AM To. Venegas, Francisco I Cc: 'Gonzalez, Guadalupe R' Subject: Stipulated Removals Frank, I tried calling you to speak about the ELP OCC's current attorney staffing situation as it relates to responding to stipulated removals (stips), but have been unsuccessful in reaching you. Due to the ELP OCC's decreased number of attorneys, the office will be unable to review a large number of proposed stipulated removals In addition, the office will take longer to review the stips. Please contact me to further discuss this matter. Thanks, Elias Gastelo Acting DCC 5/6/2009 ICE (7)

4 STIP Procedures 1) Review a- file for possible stipulated removal. 2) After reviewing a-file, update the cass, bios, and ecom on DACS. Also, update the spread sheet for your records. 3) Make a list of your aqw stips, and take a copy of the list to the "KNOW YOUR RIGHTS" presentation that will be held every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday (Make sure that the new stips are present at the presentation). 4) The person in charge of giving the presentation will ask the group that attended who wants a stipulated removal. Ie/she will give you a list of those who accepted it with the signed legal services sheet. 5) Go through your new stips list and only keep those whose a-file you have screened and found eligible. After that you can give a quick synopsis to those detainees, read them the entire stip, and have them sign the necessary paperwork. 6) After you have all the required signatures and paper work, make copies of the NTA, 200, and 286 from the original a-file( Make the necessary adjustments to the original NTA, 200, and 286 before making the copies). 7) Put the stip in the order that it goes in and include the copies of the NTA, 200, and 286. Also include the signed copy of the legal services sheet with the final order at the end. After getting all the paperwork in order, turn in the stip, including the a-file to the trial attorneys. Update DACS. 8) After getting the stip request and the a-file from the TA, remove the copies of the NTA, 200, and 286, and replace them with the originals from the a-file, Make sure that only the originals are submitted to the BOIR(I.J.). NOTE: you can only turn in-copies to the EOIR when the NTA has been filed and you have a stamped copy(from the EOIR) of the NTA. 9) Next, you will receive copies of the orders that have been approved by the Immigration Judge. Remember you will only get a copy of the final order and not the entire stip request. After this you prepare the 1-205/294 fbr MEXICANS ONLY with the correct charges and the correct information, This information will be exactly identical to the and the final order. GOt the 205s stamped with the Jolicoeur stamp and put them in order with 294s. 10) Create a 216 for the MEXICAN Removals only. Get the 216 signed by or mm Make four copies and keep one for your records and to update DACS. The OTM Removals with the a-files will be going t ICE (7)

5 11) After getting the 205 and 294s, staple a pre-removal/release record checks sheet on top. Place the 205/294 in the a-file and take it the corresponding DPO to sign. 12) After receiving the A-files and signed 205s, gather all the 205s and place copies of the 216 on top. You can either give them to the duty officer to take to the back, or take them yourself. Place the Mexican a-file in the cabinets marked Mexican Removals, 13) At this time you can update DACS with your information as well as the worksheet, Sincerely, P.S. Any questions please hesitate to ask. Not really, call me with any questions. ICE-U8-1 4bU( f)-uuuuu -

6 00 ) CA) c10 ogoo C U "U 8o -- - OMO M I:' 0: ICE (7)

7 ICE (7)

8 0 O0 0 ICE (7)

9 0 0 0 N) 0 N)I C-.*k 0 on 0 C -. k ;.- Xc 3, IC E (7)

10 Diocesan Migrant & Refugee Services, Inc. Legal Orientation Program Programa de Orientaci6n Legal This document verifies that the undersigned individual participated in a Legal Orientation Program at the El Paso Service Processing Center/ Albuquerque Regional Corrections Center /Otero County Prison. The legal orientation included an explanation of the immigration court process, possible remedies against removal and their corresponding eligibility requirements, and an explanation of the process by which an individual can request issuance of a final order of removal and a complete explanation of the waiver of rights associated with that request. A travds del presente documento se verifica que el que firma ha participado en el Prograna de Orientaci6n Legal que so Ilevo acabo en el El Paso Service Processing Center/ Albuquerque Regional Corrections Center/ Otero County Prison, Esta orientaci6n legal incluyo una explicaci6n del proceso de audiencia on [a core do inmigraci6n, los posibles remedios contra la deportai6n, y do los requisitos necesarios parg ser elegible. Tanbi6n so explico el proceso a trav6s del cual un individuo puede solicitar que so le otorgue una orden de expulsion final, y so dio una explicacifn completa do ia renuncia de derechos asociada con esa solicitud. Name/Nombre: A No. /Numero "4": _ Date/Pecha: Name of Presenter/Nombre de Presentador: Signature of Participant/Firma del Participante. IC-81450(7)

11 Pre-Removal/Release Record Checks O fjdetention and Removal Operatiuns U.S. Department of Homeland Seariy 8915 Mottana Ave. El Paso, TX U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement AliKn INIC. Date of Illrth \ number footrc ;(11CS: Daw Nhiu.: t check a psinw; 11EA holding warrant: I.1A plione number: Pcr.sun contacted of LEA. Dait & Lt, 'I hne spoken to; Dale hitis; resolved; YE'\Officer Initial DOC t'n I 1NTTVI(ON: Deportation Final Order by imm. Judge BIA Appeal Circuit Appeal Stay of Removal flabeus Medical Hold POD Hold INTERPOL Hold INTERPOL Green TAC Cleared CLAIMS for pending Benefit TECS checks SQl 1, NNI3 and NNl6 Officer Yes No OLO O O1 El O O F1 El O O Reviewer Initials DACS CCOM updated by: DPO (Signature of Person ReviewingiComnpleting Checks) (Printed Name of Person Reviewing/Completing Checks) (Title of Persun Rcviewing/Completing Last saved by Checks) Created on 9-26,2007 5;22:00 PM ICE-UdBl 4bU()-U00'i

12 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE IN THE MATTER OF Subject's Name File A# IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS RESPONDENT STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL AND WAIVER OF HEARING The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), and the Respondent, hereby respectfully request that the Court enter an order of removal in this matter based on the attached stipulation. S INA 240(d); 8 C.F.R (b) (2007). The parties jointly request that the order be issued "without a hearing and in the absence of the parties," as provided in 8 C.F.R (b). Both parties wish to waive appeal. CONTENTS 1. Stipulated Request for Removal Order and Waiver of Hearing. 2. Form 1-862, Notice to Appear. 3. List of Free Legal Services Providers. 4. Notice of Right to Consular Notification and Communication. 5. Form 1-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien. 6. Proposed order of removal Alifi l.

13 statements; to present witnesses to testify in my behalf and to cross-examine the government's witnesses; and to appeal any decision made by the immigration judge, who would review all the evidence and decide whether I should be removed from the United States or whether there is any relief that would allow me to stay in the United States, By signing this request, I waive all of these rights and request that the immigration judge issue an order based solely on the written record without a hearing and without further explanation. Entiendo que tengo derecho a toner una audienciafrente a unjuez de inmigracidn, en la cual todos los asuntos que se traten constardn en el acta escrita palabra por palabra. En esta audiencia tendrd el derecho de presentar pruebas y examinar y oponerme a la evidencia presentada por el gobierno, incluyendo mis declaraciones escritas; tender el derecho de presentar testigos a mi favor y do interrogar los tesitgos del goblerno; y tendrd el derecho de apelar cualquier decision deljuez de inmigracidn, quien revisara lodas las pruebas y decidird si yo debo ser expulsado de los Estados Unidos o si existe alguna manera que me permita quedarme en los Estados Unidos. Alfirmar esta peticidn, yo renuncio a todos estos derechos y le solicito al juez de inmigracidn que emita una orden basada solamente en el acta escrita, sin efectuar una audlencia y sin dar ninguna explicacidn adicional admit that all of the factual allegations contained in the NTA are true and correct, and agree that I am removable as charged on the NTA. Admito que todas las acusaciones contenidas en la NTA son verdaderas y correctas, y estoy de acuerdo en que soy sufeto do expulsion como cargado en la NTA. 7, 1 elect Country of Citizenship as the country designated for my removal. Elo a Country of Citizenship como elpais designado para mi expulsidn do not believe that I will be persecuted, harmed, or tortured if I return to that country, and do not wish to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. No creek que so me perseguira,. harta daflo a torturaria, si regreso a ese pals, y no deseo solicitar asilo, retencidn de la expulsion, a proteccidn bajo et Convenio Contra la Tortura do not wish to apply for any relief from removal for which I may be eligible under the Immigration and Nationality Act.or any other provision of law. This may include voluntary departure, adjustment of status, change of status, cancellation of removal, registry, and naturalization. No deseo solicitar ning4n tipo de amparo legal mediante el cual pueda tener derecho bajo la ley de Inmigracian y Naturalizaci6n a otra provision de la ley. Esto podria incluir salida voluntaria, ajuste de estado, cambio de estado, cancelacidn de la expulsidn, registry. y naturalizacibn,

14 CERTIFICATIONS CERTIFICATION OF IMMIGRATION OFFICER I, Agent's Name, certify that on Today's Date, I offered this Stipulated Request for Order of Removal and Waiver of Hearing to the alien, exactly as written and in its entirety, in the English/Spanish language. Date Officer's Name and Title CERTIFICATION OF INTERPRETER (IF APPLICABLE) 1,, certify that on I interpreted this Stipulated Request for Order of Removal and Waiver of Hearing to the alien, verbatim and in its entirety, from English into the English/Spanish language. I certify that I am competent to such interpretation in both languages. Date. interpreter CONCURRENCE OF DHS COUNSEL Upon review of the DHS file and papers submitted, DHS does not oppose the Respondent's request that a Final Order of Removal issue in these proceedings. I have read the Respondents statements and representations, and they are consistent with evidence available to DHS. DHS waives an in-person hearing in this matter. DHS does not oppose the introduction of this "Stipulated Request for Order of Removal and Waiver of Hearing" as an exhibit in these proceedings. DHS will accept a written order of the Respondent's removal to Country of Citizenship as a final disposition of these proceedings and waives its right to appeal. Date I1-_ 91 1RAORMAAAAI

15 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT / EL PASO, TEXAS FILE NO: A# IN THE MATTER OF: Subject's Name RESPONDENT/ALIEN STIPULATED ORDER IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS CHARGES: Section(s) 212(a) as contained in the Notice to Appear (1-862):. 1)A))(3)(C)(i) _(6)(H) _(9)(B)(i) (2(A()()(3)(D)(i) _(6)(F)(i) -(9)(C)(i) _(2)(A)(i)(II) _(3)(E)(i) _(6)(G) _(10)(A) (2)(B) (4)(A) (7)(AXi)(I) (10)(B) _(2)(C) _(5)(A) (7)(B)(i) _(10)(C) _(2)(D) _(6)(A)(i) _(8XA) _(I0)(D) (2)(E) (6)(B) (8)(B) (10)(E) (3)(A) (6)(C)() (9)(A)(i) (3)(B)(i) (6)(D) (9X A)(ii) CHARGES: (1)(A) -(1)(B) 1)(C)(i) -(1)(D) (1)) Section(s) 237(a) as contained in Notice to Appear (1-862): (1)(F) (2)(A)(iv) (2)(B) (1 )(G _(2XB)(i) (3XA) (2)(A)(i).(2)(B)(ii) (3)(B).(2)(AXii) 2)(C) (3)(C) (2)(A)(iii) (2)(D (3)(D) (4)(A) (4)(B) (4)(C) (5) _(6) DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT RE: ORDER OF REMOVAL The Court herein finds the following: I. The Notice to Appear (1-862) was made part of the record (Ex. 1). 2. Alien's written stipulation was made part of the record (Exhibit 2). 3. The alien was found removable as charged based on the evidence of record. 4. No application for relief from removal was requested. Therefore this court herein determined that the alien be removed from the United States. Appeal: Waived by all parties per written stipulation, ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the alien be removed from the United States to Country of Citizenship. Date:. SERVED ON ALL PARTIES William L Abbott, Robert S. Hough Richard Ozmn. ThomasC. Roopke immigration Judge

16 U.S. Departmet of Justice Immigration and Naturalizaton Service Notice of Rights and Request for Disposition Name: File No: NOTICE OF RIGHTS You have been arrested because immigration officers believe that you are illegally in the United States. You have.he right to a hearing before the Immigration Court to determine whether you may remain in the United States. If you request a hearing. you may be detained in custody or you may be eligible to be released on bond, until your hearing date. In the alternative. you may request to return to your country as soon as possible, without a hearing. You have the right to contact an attorney or other legal representative to represent you at your hearing, or to answer any questions regarding your legal rights in the United States. Upoi your request, the officer who gave you this notice will provide you with a list of legal organizations that may represent you for free or for a small fee. You have the right to communicate with the consular or diplomatic officers from your country You may use a telephone to call a lawyer. other legal representative, or consular officer at any time prior to your departure from the United States. REQUEST FOR DISPOSITION nitals I request a hearing before the Immigration Court to determine whether or not I may remain in the United States. :ntnss I believe I face harm if I return to my country, for a hearing. My case will be referred to the Immigration Court nass I admit that I am in the Inited States illegally, and I believe I do not face harm if I return to my country, I give up my right to a hearing before the Immigration Court, I wish to return to my country as soon as arrangements can be made to effect my departure, I understand that I may be held in detention until my departure, Signature of Subject Date Notice read by subject CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE Notice read to subject by.in the language. Name of Service Officer (Print) Name of Interpreter (Print) Signature of Officer Date and Time of Service Form 1-82 (41797) N ACE )

17 US. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service Notificaci6n de Derechos y Solicitud de Resolucida Expediente No: Nombre: NOTIFICACION DE DERECHOS Usted ha sido detenido porque el Servicio do fnmigracl6n opina quo se encuentra en los Estados Unidos ilegalmente. Tiene derecho a una audiencia ante el Tribunal de lnmiigraci6n, con el fin de decidir si puede permanecer en los Estados Unidos. En el caso de que Usted solicite esa audiencia, pudiera quedar detenido o tener derecho a la libertad bajo fianza hasta la fecha do la audiencia. Tione la opci6n do solicitar el regreso a su pais a la brevedad posible, sin que se celebre la audiencia. Usted tiene derecho a comunicarse con un abogado u otro representante legal para que to represelite en la audiencia, o para responder a cualquier pregunta acerca de sus derechos conforme a la ley en los Estados Unidos. Si Usted se to pide, el funclonarlo que le haya entregado esta Notificaci6n le dard una lista de las asociaciones juridicas que podrian representarlo gratuitamente o a poco costo. Tiene derecho a comanicarse con el servicio consular o diplomidtco de su pals. Puede user el telfono para flamar a un abogado, o a otro representante legal, o a un funcionario consular en cualquier moment anterior a so salida de los Estados Unidos. was, Initiates w SOLICITUD DE RESOLUCION 13 Solicito una audiencia ante el Tribunal de Inmaigraci6n que resuelva si puedo a no permanecer en los Estados Unidos. 0 Considero que estartia en peligro si regreso a mi pats. Mi caso se trasladard al Tribunal do Inmigracidn para la celebraci6n de una audiencia. O Admito que estoy ilegalmente on los Estados Unidos, y no consider que estaria en.peligro si regreso a mi pais. Renuncio a mi derecho a una audiencia ante el Tribunal de Tnmigraci6n. Deseo regresar a Mi pais en cuanto so pueda disponer mi salida. Entiendo que pudiera permanecer detenido hasta mi salida. Firma del sujeto Fecha O3 Notice read by subject CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE 0 Notice read to subject by, in the language. Name of Service Officer (Print) Name of Interpreter (Print) Sinature of Officer Date and Time of Service Form (411101) N -- 50(

18 Executive Office for Immigration Review Immigration Court 8I915 Alamana,Avenue C Pasa. Texas IP90/ LIST OF FREE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS EL PASO. TEXAS D)OCER~ N MIGRANT.4NDf REFUGEE SERVICES '400 E andell Sudite A [vial- charge a nominma fee LAS AMERICAS REFUGEE ASYLUM PROJECT 1500 E. Yandell Sireet El Paso. Texas (915, IWill represent aliens in asylum cases [Will reprcscnt juvenilesj UNITED NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION (UNO) 8700 Boeing Drive El Paso, Texas (915) [Will NOT represent aliens in asylum or refugee cases] [May charge a nominal fee] UNO Branch Location: 747 E, San Antonio Avenue - Suite 100 El Paso, Texas (915) Will NOT represent aliens in asylum or refugee cases [Ma\ charge a nominal fee] Revised ALL PREVIOUS EDITIONS OBSOLETE M-ALQV IAR 1'.J I 9 JJU~J - k I-

19 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE IN THE MATTER OF File: A RESPONDENT IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL AND WAIVER OF HEARING The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), and the Respondent, hereby respectfully requests that the Court enter an order of removal in this matter based on the attached stipulation. See INA 240(d); 8 C.F.R.' (b) (2007). The parties jointly request that the order be issued "without a hearing and in the absence of the parties," as provided in 8 C.F.R (b). Both parties wish to waive appeal. CONTENTS 1. Stipulated Request for Removal Order and Waiver of Hearing. 2. Form 1-862, Notice to Appear. 3. List of Free Legal Services Providers, 4. Notice of Right to Consular Notification and Communication. 5. Form 1-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien. 6. Page 1 of 8 0cl 0O 19 f-1 I F..,1ZV 0 I ()-0 0

20 Request for Stipulated Order of Removal and Waiver of Hearina File No. A RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT I, make the following statements and admissions: Yo,, el Demandado en estos procedimientos declaro lo siguiente: I am at least 18 years of age. Soy mayor de 18 alios have received a copy of the Notice to Appear ('NTA") dated. which contains my full, true, and correct name. The allegations and charges] on the NTA Notice to Appear have been read to me in a language that I understand. He recibido una copia del Aviso de Comparecencia (NTA) con fecha contiene mi nombre completo, verdadero, y correcto. La NTA 3. I have been advised of my privilege during these proceedings to be represented, at no expense to the government, by an attorney or other representative of my choice authorized to represent aliens in immigration proceedings. I have also received a list of free legal service providers published by the Executive Office of immigration Review ("EBIR-). Se me ha informado que tengo el derecho de ser representado por un abogado escogido por mi, sin que sea pagado por el gobierno, durante estos procedimientos. Tambidn he recibido una lista de instituciones que ofrecen servicios legales graluitos. (Check "A" or "B.") O A. I waive my privilege to be represented, at no expense to the government, by an attorney or other representative of my choice authorized to represent aliens in immigration proceedings. I will represent myself in these proceedings. (or) 1 B. I am represented in this matter by an attorney or other representative whose Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative Before Immigration Judge (Form EOIR-28) is attached. Se me ha informado que tengo el derecho de ser representado por un abogado escogido por mi, sin que sea pagado por el gobierno, durante estos procedimientos. Tambidn he recibido una Usta de instituciones que ofrecen servicios legales gratuitos. A. Yo renuncio a mi derecho de ser representado por un abogado. Personalmente yo me representard en estos procedimientos. Initials: Page 2 of 8 ICE (7)

21 Request for Stipulated Order of Removal and Waiver of Hearin File No. A (0) B. Estoy representado en este caso por un abogado o representante acreditado cuyoformulario EOIR-28 estd anexado have been advised that by signing this request, I will be giving up the following legal ights and privileges that I would otherwise have been entitled to at a hearing before an immigration judge: a) the privilege of an attorney or other representative to represent me at no expense to the government, b) the right to question witnesses, and call witnesses on my behalf, c) the right to offer and to object to evidence, d) the right to have all hearings before the immigration judge recorded, and e) the right to require the government to prove my removablity. I waive these rights. I do not want to have a hearing before an immigration judge, and I request that the immigration judge issue a written order as a final disposition of the immigration proceedings against me, based solely on the written record including the admissions made in this written statement. Entiendo que tengo derecho a tener una audiencia frente a un juez de inmigracidn, en la cual todos los asuntos que se traten constar4n en el acta escrita palabra por palabra. En esta audiencia tendrd el derecho de. a) presentar pruebas y examinar y oponerme a la evidencia presentada por el gobierno, incluyendo mis declaraciones escritas b) presentar testigos a mi favor y de interrogar los testigos del gobierno c) apelar cualquier decision del juez de. inmigracdn, quien revisara todas las pruebas y decidird s! yo debo ser expulisado de los Estados Unidos a si existe alguna mantra que me permita quedarme en los Estados Unidos. Alfirmar esta peticidn, yo renuncio a todos estos derechos y le solicito al juez de inmigracidn quite emita una orden basada solamente en el acta escrita, sin efectuar una audiencia y sin dar ninguna explicacidn adicional admit that all of the factual allegations contained in the NTA Notice to Appear are true and correct. I also agree that I am removable as charged on the Notice to Appear N4FA. Admito que todos las acusaciones contenidas en la NTA son verdaderas y correctas, y estoy de acuerdo en que soy sujeto de expulsion como cargado en la NTA choose as the country designated for my removal, Elyo a como el pals designado para mi expulsi6n. Initials: Page 3 of 8 ICE (7)

22 Request for Stipulated Order of Removal and Waiver of Hearing FileNo. A 7. 1 de not believe that 1 willbe have no fear of perocuted, harmed, or teru persecution, harm, or torture if I return to that country, and do not wish to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. No creo que se me perseguiria, haria dahio a torturaria, si regreso a ese pals, y no deseo solicitar asilo, retenci6n de la expulsion, a protecci6n bajo el Convenio Contra la Tortura do not.wish to apply for any relief from removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act or any other provision of law. Possible grounds for relief include, but are not limited to, voluntary departure, adjustment of status, change of status, cancellation of removal, and/or registry. No deseo solicitar ningdn tipo de amparo legal mediante el cual pueda tener derecho bajo la ley de Inmigracid6n y Naturalizacidn u otra provision de la ley. Esto podria incluir salida voluntaria, ajuste de estado, camblo de estado, cancelacidn de la expulsion, registro, y naturalizacidn am not a citizen of the United States. I do not have or make any claim to ". United States citizenship or nationality. Nor do I have any application for naturalization pending with any agency of the United States. My father is a citizen of. My mother is a citizen of No tengo y no har6 ning6n reclamo de ciudadania Americana. 10. The box I checked below indicates my current immigration status. (Check "A" or 13.") [ A. I am not a lawful permanent resident of the United States; or [D B. I am a lawful permanent resident of the United States and understand that by signing this written statement I will lose this lawful permanent resident status. [Translation] 11. I understand and agree that this written statement will be made part of the record for the immigration judge to review. I also understand and agree that the government's Form I- 213 and any court records relating to criminal convictions listed in the NTA Notice to Appear, may be made part of the record. Yo entiendo y estoy de acuerdo que esta declaraci6n escrita hard parte del acta que revisard eljuez de inmigracidn. Tambidn entiendo y estoy de acuerdo que elformularlo del gobierno y cualquier record del tribunal relacionado con culpabilidad de delitos penales listados en la NTA pueden constituirse en parte del acta understand that I would have had the tight to appeal the immigration judge's decision but wd agree that I will accept a written order for my removal as a final disposition of Initials: Page 4 of 8 ICE (7)

23 Request for Stipulated Order of Removal and Waiver of Hearing File No. A these proceedings. I de-net-wish-4e choose not to appeal the written order of the immigration judge, and I waive my right to appeal. Entiendo y estoy de acuerdo que aceptard la orden escrita para mi expukikn, como decision final deljuez de inmigraci6n understand that, depending upon the facts and circumstances of my case, I cannot return to the United States for a minimum of ten years, and possibly forever, without special permission from the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I also understand that returning without proper permission could result in my being removed again and/or being prosecuted for illegal reentry, which may result in punishment of up to 20 years in prison. Yo entiendo, dependiendo de los hechos y las circunstancias precisas de mi caso, que no podrd regresar a los Estados Unidos por un periodo minimo de diez aiios, y posiblemente nunca, sin un permiso especial del gobierno de los Estados Unidos. Tambidn entiendo que si regreso sin elpermiso adecuado, podria ser expulsado de nuevo y/o procesado por entrar ilegalmente de nuevo, lo cual podria resultar en un castigo de veinte o mds alios en prisi6n. 14. The box I checked below indicates the manner by which I became aware of this written statement and all its terms. (Check "A" or "B") O A. This written statement was read to me in a language that I understand. O B. I read this statement without assistance because I am capable of reading and understanding English or Spanish, or both. Whether the statement was read to me, or whether I read the statement myself, I fully understand the immigration consequences that would result from my removal as described in this written statement. I submit this request for a removal order voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. I understand that by signing this document, I will be removed from the United States. Se me ha leido esta declaraci6n escrita en un idioma que entiendo. Tambidn he tenido la oportunidad de leerla yo mismo. Entiendo completamente sus consecuencias. Present esta petici6n para recibir una orden de expulsion de manera voluntaria, consciente, e inteligente, sin ninguna cohesion del gobierno, y creyendo que es en mi mejor interns. Me doy cuenta que alfirmar este documento se me expulsard de los Estados Unidos signed this statement and initialed each page of this written statement without duress, force, or coercion certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that the foregoing statements are all true and correct. I understand that, if any o f the information 1 Initials: Page 5 of 8 ICE (7)

24 Request for Stipulated Order of Removal and Waiver of Hearing File No. A have provided is false, I may be criminally prosecuted for perjury or for making a false official statement to a United States official and, if convicted of either of those offenses, I could be fined and sentenced to up to five years in prison. Title 18, Uited States Code, Section 15 6 provides, in pjurt: dwhoeevoy knowingly smates Unider oat mri a permitted Odeara tyce feror' ne action 176 of Title 28, United 18 Se Cedei54,dly sucoe aost, s a staent wia respect to a mateie fact in y application, affidavit, r kmowiny pmenti any buch application, aff it l r otaer d7uel required by the mdigade leas ouios 6 cried underr keiarigly pmeens any such application, affidavit, or other- docent cnann ny-dl se4a1se statement Er whieh fails toeantain any reasonable basis in law or fact, shall be fined in acsrdance with this title eor imprisoned not more than five yeas, ora both." Doy fe, bajo pcua de juramento d las oyes do los Estados Unidos de Am ica, quo las declaraciones, anteriores son correctas y verdaderas. El Titule 18, Secci6n 1546, del C6digo de los Estado Unidos estipula. en parte q1ue: "Quien haga un juramento con pleno, conocimaiento o, como esta permitido bajo pena de juraniento en la Secci6ni 1746 del Tftulo 18 del C6digo de los Estados Unidos, U~ coma verdadera, cualquier declaraci6n falsa con respecto, a los heohos materiales en cualquier solicitud, declaraci&n jurada u otro documento requerido per Jas leyes inmigratorias o reglamentos contenidos en la misma o, quo con pleao conocimiento presente tal solicitud, declaraci6n jurada u otro documento que contenga cualquiera de las tales declaraciones falsas o que no contenga algan hecho o base legal razonable, serd multado de acuerdo con este titulo o encarcelado por no mas de cinco afios, o ambos" Date/Fecha Respondent/Demandado Initials: Page 6 of 8 ICE (7)

25 CERTIFICATION OF IMMIGRATION OFFICER I,, certify that on I read this "Stipulated Request for Removal Order and Waiver of Hearing" to the i-jen Respondent, exactly as written and in its entirety, in the language. (Date) (Signature of Immigration Officer) (Printed Name and Title) CERTIFICATION OF INTERPRETER (IF APPLICABLE) I,, certify that on _ I interpreted this "Stipulated Request for Removal Order and Waiver of Hearing" for the-alien Respondent, verbatim and in its entirety, from English into the language. I certify that I am competent in both English and to render such interpretation. (Date) (Signature of Interpreter) (Printed Name and Title) CONCURRENCE OF ICE ATTORNEY Upon review of the DHS file and papers submitted, DHS does not oppose the Respondent's request that a Final Order of Removal issue in these proceedings. I have read the Respondent's statements and representations, and they are consistent with evidence available to DHS. DHS waives an in-person hearing in this matter. DHS does not oppose the introduction of this "Stipulated Request for Order of Removal and Waiver of Hearing" as an exhibit in these proceedings. DHS will accept a written order of the Respondent's removal as a final disposition of these removal proceedings and waives its right to appeal. (Date) (Signature of ICE attorney) (Printed Name and Title) Page 7 of 8 IUL-U (7)-UUOU2b

26 CONCURRENCE OF RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY (IF APPLICABLE) I have read the Respondent's statements and representations and concur that the facts and admissions contained are stipulated as true. Respondent will accept a written order of removal as a final disposition of these removal proceedings and waives the right to appeal, (Date) (Signature of Respondent's attorney/reprsentative) (Printed Name) Page 8 of 8 ICE (7)

27 Page 1 of I Froni: " Sent: Tuesday, May 06, :22 AM To: Vene as Francisco J; El Paso, Texas STIP Program Monthly Stats: STIP Program running total since start of program: FEP STIP Total fa Offered 0Accepted o Declined From June 2007 to April 2000 ICE (7)

28 Page 1 of I From:. Sent: To: (b)6) (b(. Friday, May 25, :34 PM Gonzalez, Guadalupe R; Gastelo, Elias S Jr; Domin uez, Corine; Ruhle. Stephen M: 'BaPa. Theresa N. (EOlR)l': The sa N. EOIR);(FWMW- Cc: Venegas, Francisco J; Subject: stips The following is a recap of the last meeting we held to discuss the stipulated removal program. This meeting was originally an expansion of the Legal Orientation Program. The issue of reviving and increasing stipulated removals especially in Pro se cases was discussed and will be expanded provided certain requirements are met. The following was agreed upon: RE: Legal Orientation Program will be expanded to include all new arrivals in Courtroom #4 at 0900 hrs Monday- Thursday. The Legal Orientation Program will conduct the orientation on Friday in Courtroom #2, and will include Albuquerque or Otero. The current unit in Courtroom #2 is unable to conduct multiple sites. A new VTEL is on order for courtroom #4 with capabilities to connect to multiple sites, A Deportation Officer will coordinate and conduct the EPC Orientation to include deportation procedures at this time as well. RE: Stipulated Removal Orders, DMRS has agreed to include rights and responsibilities on the stipulated removal process and procedure. DMRS has prepared a legal orientation program notice and acknowledgement form on each detainee provided the presentation. Subject to approval by the Office of the Chief Counsel, the form will be Included in every A file. The form was provided the OCC and final approval remains pending. After that meeting, we met with UNO to discuss representation of detainees in the stipulated removal process. UNO stated they will continue to do represent Mexican Nationals and would like to extend their services to other nationalities specifically Central Americans. I know we have been discussing this issue for some time now, but we really need to find closure here. Once the OMRS legal orientation program notice and acknowledgement form is approved we should meet one last time to close out the details and start the stipulated removals. Thank you all, A 9, 9. Office Director lar ICE (7)

29 Page 1 of 4 From: Sent: Monday, April 14, :32 AM To: Subject: FW: Schedule This Is only for Pecos Staff, But what about this for outreach: 4 DOS me met with PAIC and Ector County Texas on April 10, On April 11, (A) AFOD and DOS( b met with Mexican Consul Hector Acosta and Vise Consul Jacobi Francisco regarding the Stipulated Removal Program. Both the Consul and Vice Consul concur with the Stipulated Removal Program and have agreed to coordinate with UNO for the rights presentation. El Paso EOJR and the Trial Litigation Unit have been notified regarding the Stipulated Removal Program. Consul Acosta voiced concerns regarding travel required for those reporting to El Paso on Orders of Supervision. (A) AFOD advised the Pecos Resident Office will expand the non-detained docket so those on Orders of Supervision within the Pecos Resident Office responsibility will be able to report to Pecos. (A) AFODb 7 and DOS also met with Presidio County Sheriff Texas on April 11, in Presidio, From: Sen ondja Ail 14, :25 AM Subject: RE: Schedule Town hall meeting? Is this something I can report for Outreach? M- In office T- In office FOD Conference W-In office T-In Office FOD Pecos Townhall meeting F- In office Sent: Friday. Acril 11, :59 PM Ui ICE (7)

30 ra ztg / u x -t (b)(6). (b)(7)c (b)(6);i (b)(7)c Subject: RE: Schedule M- In Office T- In Office/FOD Telecon 1230 W- In Office HQ/Otero Meeting 0900 T- In Office F- In Office Venegas, Francisco J; I<bxeu; (b)7)e Al-All, Qasem M,; Assistant Field Office Director El Paso Processing Center 915 ()6) b)7coffice Fax 915 (Cell AWWAXE i; 4%is,datim is UNCLASRHWIeD R OrreiCAL USE CNLY (UrUOU". ft cotan inostaii lix a Jim A.pptn fnm i raleagg.l-tiilgr t freedom of infomation Act (5 U.S.C. 552).,ti ~b otald trzi~~d hoansmind, disribute1, uid dispose ofuin matcadam uwifla ids IVS oicy Ldmvzuw Ws FUt nfn i and b no W bo relemsed e dus public a uthea pursamnd who du ntruhave a valid "ucedrtu-luxwn withoputlsius approvaluof mnthusized fliif l fivial. N 16V Ofda i uf JI nepmchlmid be fundihed to we ed., eidthei vnitenma vtl form. M- In Office T- In Office/FOD Telecon W- In Office/NFOP Telecon T- In Office F- In Office AFOD M-In Office T-In Office/FOD Teleconf. W-In Office T- In Office F-In Office ICE bU /-OUUUUU

31 rage.) utl *(A)AFOD Removals/EI Paso Processin6 Center 915( ( Prom- li Awpurunes nigi M- in office/otero T- in office/fod teleconference/otero prep for HQ meeting w- Meeting with HQ at Otero all day th- in office/otero F-In office/otero asisan Ie Removals Management 8915 Montana Ave. El pao, Desk 91 Cell-91 Fax-91J Ofice Director From:<e c Sent FrIdav Anril :49 AM TO., Francisco ; subject: Schedule Venegas, Monday - Tuesday - Wednesday Thursday - Friday - Range; 0900 SAC meeting / 1230 FOD teleconference; 0900 NFOP teleconference, in office; In office; In office; Assistant Field Office Director Compliance Enforcement El Paso, TX office fax cell W fig Ti t is doettmztis UNCLA861FIED/ 1 'rr OFFICIAL li4le ONLY 0440T40i).4 Itw as infrm a "ha may be eotnpt from public rel.ease under the Freexkm of lefermation Aet (5 Uf.S.e. 552), It 41 to bea controlledy stoied, handled, fransniited, distribuated,- end dispesed of in aeeerdonee wit DHS peliecy rolftfiff te FOU0 ifonnafgt i d is flet to be rc1;am;d to the Ptb~i or ed pes=6wt do not hipm a ;;alid "need to know" without prior apprvu ef an autherized D9H8 effieial. No porfiai of this repott should be Famished to +e inedift; ei+er in written ei verbea fbrir.- Iut-Uo- I~uyj~uuuxJrI

32 Page 1 of 2 From: Sent: To: Monday, April 09, :15 PM [In19M Subject: FW: STIP Please ensure DMRS receives notice to attend on Wednesday. Thanks From: This is a follow up to the meeting held last week at the multi purpose conference area, This week we have asked OCC to Join us at The following discussions have taken place: With DMRS: of DMRS regarding their legal orientation program (LOP) schedule. They currently provide the LOP on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday starting at 9 a.m. On Tuesday they provide workshops. She did state that DMRS has dedicated staff to handle this program and.that they are able provide the LOP at other more convenient times. Since the video teleconferencing may be utilized by DMRS, we need to check with court to see what schedule would be best. With Mexican Consulate: They have approved the use of UNO to review all of the stipulated removal cases. They concur with the utilization of stipulated removals to move the cases faster. We are in the process of ordering additional VTEL equipment for the courtrooms. 3 in 1 printer scanners will also be requested for the courtrooms to assist with facsimile transmissions. The Deportation Officer will provide the detainee EPC orientation video followed by the know your rights video. He/she will have the Expedited removal cases, administrative removal, and reinstatement cases removed from the courtroom and sent back to the facility. The remaining should all be NTA cases. The Deportation Officer will explain the stipulated program, and see how many wish to be removed under the stipulated removal program. Files pulled and DMRS presents the LOP. DMRS will get a signed acknowledgement from detainee that LOP was presented which will Include a Stipulation removal overview, After LOP, Deportation will verify which cases will still take the stipulated removal. Stipulated removal order will be prepared by deportation officer, reviewed by UNO then given to OCC for approval, then to EOIR /IJ for signature then back to deportation for removal. UNO will Initial each stipulation reviewed and signed and return.the to the deportation officer. The Mexican consulate representative Pilar Flores will obtain a copy of the 1-=216 signed by UNO for their records. Will Iron out additional details on Wednesday meeting. From: Ruhie, Stephen M 09, :51 PM Seril Subject: RE: STIP ICE (7)

33 Page 2 of 2 For your meeting, use this one. It is the one you sent, with one type-o I corrected on the last page. Bear in mind, this format might change In the near future, depending on the results of our meetings with the free legal service providers. From: Sent: Monday, April 09, :02 AM To: Ruble, Stephen M Subject: FW: STIP Mr. Ruble Just wondering if you have reviewed the STIP attachment. I will be meeting with some Central American consulates tomorrow and would like to discuss the STIP program with them. From: Sent: T ur ay, pr 05, :00 PM To: Ruble, Stephen M Subject: STIP AS PER YOU REQUEST ICE (7)

34 From: Sent: Monday, May 07, :23 PM To: Gastelo, Elias S Jr:.; Venegas, Francisco J; Ruhle, Stephen M; Gonzalez, Guadalupe R; Dominguez, Corine; Cc: Subject: FW: Stipulated removals Can we try for next Thursday? (A)AFOD -----O riial Mess From: Sent: Mond Ma :43 PM To:- aet: removals please an to all on my previous msg about the meeting should be next week. See if thursday will work Original Message----- From: Gastelo, Elias S Jr Tob6b CC: Gonzalez, Guadalupe R A Sent: Mon May 07 12:38: Subject: RE: Stipulated removals U Due to a staffing shortage and Ms. Gonzalez's unavailability this week (May 7-11), the ELP OCC will be unable to send a representative to participate in the meeting described below. The office may have someone available for next week, but we are not yet certain. If this meeting is going to take place, a representative from this office should be present to identify and address problematic issues, if any, that may negatively impact the Agency. Should you have any questions, please contact me. My number is (915) Thank you, 1 ICE (7)

35 Elias From:(b6)(b7) Sent: Wednesday, May 02, :25 PM To: Gastelo, Elias S Jr Subject: FW: Stipulated removals Elias, I had to leave for the day, so here is the message, I will add the time and try to get all together for the meeting. Thank you From:(omn Sent: Wednesday, May 02, :23 PM To: Gonzalez, Guadalupe R; Ruhle, Stephen M; Gastelo, Elias S Jr; Dominguez, Corine Cc*= Venegas, Francisco J Subject: Stipulated removals Guadalupe, We are looking to expand the stipulated removal program, and I would like to have a meeting with your staff and the staff of the other offices that are involved in this process. That would be OCC, EOIR, DMRS, Detention Management, and Removals Management. As previously discussed, we had a meeting to discuss the expansion of the Legal Orientation Program and the meeting turned to pro so stipulated removal orders. Everyone was in agreement that expanding the stipulated removals to include pro se cases was a very good idea. I believe Judge Abbott has his calendar out about two months, so we do have a need to increase the use of stipulated removal orders especially in unrepresented cases. 2

36 The "Pro Se" stipulated removal was prepared and forwarded to your office for approval. It was reviewed and approved by your office. EOIR has also approved the "Prop se" stip. DMRS and Deportation have also reviewed and approved the "Pro se" stip. What is needed to kickoff this project is to finalize the role DMRS will play. DMRS has previously conducted Know your Rights presentations under the Legal Orientation Program, and the only detainees that received the rights presentation were the detainees that were scheduled for a hearing before the IJ a day or two before, were given the presentation. They have now requested and with the Approval of HQ BOIR LOP POC Steve Lang, DMRS will begin the LOP presentation to ALL new arrivals. This will include Albuquerque, and Pecos. I calleedto find out what the hold up was and come to find out she was waiting on one logistical matter, which I believe will be ironed out before the meeting or will be ironed out at the meeting. I also spoke with her regarding the notice of rights form provided and a signed acknowledgement and witnessed by DMRS for each detainee given the rights presentation. Therefore, I would like to have a meeting sometime next week here at the EPC Multi purpose building to discuss and hopefully finalize and a ee on the of "Pro se" stipulated removals process. I will be out of the Office next week, bu will be acting as AFOD. We have requested the purchase of an additional VTEL system with appropriate communication lines. stated the items (s) has been ordered and should be installed within the next days. In the interim, the Pro se stip program will start as soon as we agree on the process and requirements for the STIP program, DMRS will have to travel to Otero if either VTEL (their or ours) is in use and they are unable to communicate with Otero/ I informed the Mexican Consulate, Mr. Hector Ortega, and he would still like to have UNO represent Mexican Nationals on stipulated removals. Ms. Pilar Flores from the Mexican Consulate as well as UNO will be invited to this meeting. Please let me know when next week is best for you, and provide a back up day just in case the other offices are unable to attend on your first choice. Thank you I. 1--UB- 14 ( }-UU-0

37 Page 1 of 1 From: Sent: Wednesday, April 18, :12 AM To: Subject: FW: Stipulated Removals Have the Judges approved the use of slips? Do we need to call another meeting? From: Thanks How many aliens did you need to talk to that RCC could not accommodate you? From., (b)(6): (b)17)c; 7, :40 AM importance: Hign emovals Wednesday of last week, I interviewed 35 candidates at RCC for stipulated removals. Only 9 of the 35 requested an I.J. Hearing. The 9 files for the aliens' who did not want STIPS were returned to the DRA's for docket distribution. I was on escort Thursday, Friday, thus I could not finish the STIPS. I came in on Sunday OFT and finished all of the STIPS. RCC could not accommodate me In gathering the aliens in the V-Tel room, thus I had to go to each pod, and individually have the alien sign the STIP. Only one changed his mind at this time. Today 04/17 I'm NFTS'ing the files to DRAx n He will route the files to El Paso Litigations, hopefully we can get the files returned to us within one to two weeks. Once the files are returned, they will be distributed to their assigned docket officers for DACS updates. All of the files have call-ups for 04/30. Mexican: 15 Dominican Republic: 4 Brazil: 4 Ecuador: 3 Greece: 1 El Salvador: I Ghana. 1 Guatemala: 2 Honduran: 2 Colombia: I Peru: I ICE (7)

38 Page 1 of 2 From: Sent: Wednesday, October 03, :17 AM Subject...In work adies d GntLy Outstanding work Ladies and Gentleman. Odie 91b5 ew' 19,5 6)Nb() mc~az~e~t S~e(4~eme4,49e4 Sent: ondav. * r n )nn7 no rim, To( (b)(7)c CC Su, This is to notify you that the 120t Mexican Treaty commenced the week of September 24, 2007 with the final group of inmates leaving on Saturday September 29, I am pleased to advise you that we were able to successfully remove 37 aliens giving us 100% removals for this Treaty. The following is a breakdown of all aliens removed: Administrative Deports-24 Final Orders-i Expedited Removals-2 Reinstatements-1 r-f r-1m - -Rfllfll

39 Page 2 of 2 Stipulated Removals-3 mingraon forcement Agent SRT Team Leader/Defensive Tactics Instructor DHS/ICE Fax ICE (7)

40 rage I or I From: Sent: Wednesday, May 02, :23 PM To: Gonzalez, Guadalupe R; Ruble, Stephen M. Gasnin Flsu.e Jr., Dominguaz. Corine co b (b)(7)c Venogas, Francisco J Subject: u.pusu removals Guadalupe. We are looking to expand the stipulated removal program, and I would like to have a meeting with your staff and the staffof the other offices that are involved in this process, That would be OCC. EOIR. DMRS, Detention Management, and Removals Management, As previously discussed, we had a meeting to discuss the expansion of the Legal Orientation Program and the meeting turned to pro e stipulated removal orders. Everyone was in agreement that expanding the stipulated removals to include pro so cases was a very good idea. I believe Judge Abbott has his calendar out about two months. so we do have a need to Increase the use of stipulated removal orders especially in unrepresented cases. The "Pro Se stipulated removal was prepared and forwarded to your office for approval: It was reviewed and approved by your office. EOIR has also approved the 'Prop se' slip. DMfit and Deportation have also reviewed and approved the 'Pro se slip. What Is needed to kickoff this project is to finalize the role DMRS will play. OMRS has previously conducted Know your Rights presentations under the Legal Orientation Program, and the only detainees thal received the rights presentation were the detainees that were scheduled for a hearing before the IJ a day or two before, were given he presentation. They have now requested and with the Approval of HQ EOIR LOP POC Steve Lang, DMRS wit begin the LOP presentalion to ALL new arrivals. This wit include Albuquerque, and Pecos, I called i* o find out what the hold up was and come to find outshewas waiting on one logisical malter,-want aleve wil be ironed out before the meeting or will be ironed out at the meeting, I also spoke wikh her regarding the notice of rights form provided and a signed acknowledgemeni and witnessed by OMRS for each detainee given the rights presentation. Therefore. I would like to have a meeting sometime next week here at the EPC Multi purpose building to discuss and hope fiaie and nrea on the of'pro se stipulated removals process, I will be out of the Office next week. bukb)(will be eating as APOD, We have requested the purchase of an additional VTEL system with appropriate communicalln I ines.0 ffl~steed the toms (a) has been ordered and should be stalledd within the next 30-0 days. In the interim, heito so slip program will start as soon as we agree on the process and requirements for tme STIP program. DMRS will have to travel to Otero if either VTEL (their or ours) is in use and they are unable lo communicate wilk Otero/ i Informed the Mexican Consulate. Mr. Hector Ortega, and he would st litre to have UNO represent Mexican Nationals on stipulated removals. Ms. Par Flores from the Mexican Consulate as well as UNO wil be invited to this meeting. Please let me knowwhen next week in best for you, and provide a back up day just in case Ihe other offices am unable to attend on your first choice. 5/7/2009 ICEU8-1450(7)-00004Q

41 From sent: To: Cc: Subject! able. Slephen Mr. Gastdo, Can you please check with your Deputy or Chief Counset, We are anxious to start he "Pro sa, stipulated removal program. It has been two weeks since the last -mails were flosling around. [fi recall correctly, he stipulated removal form was approved, but the only item was pending concurrence on the Know your rights/adlvisory form DMRS will provide and sign fir each detainee. Please lot me know if thero isenything else you require on this matter. Thaik you c as ass a -ield Office Director 'Ruble, Stephen M1 The last section of both paragraphs refers to a request for issuance of a final order of removal, which is the title of the stipulated order form that you provided to me. I used the same Insg~jg as was on that form, but lean use different language Ifyou'd prefer. Please let me lonow. Thank you TVrector/Attorney at Law Diocesan Migrant & Refugee Services 2400A. Yandell --- Orl aot Messa-- S srom: Sent:A ItA _lesiy.a _s'.lt _: To: * gu *jj 5U5ommLgues, Uonne Mame. Stephen M n ject: RE: detainee signature form/pro So CE (7)

42 ALL No motion or STIP on document. Shouidnt the PROS SE STi be mentioned? SDDe~)6 b() From ()6 Sent: Monda Ma: Z I ZU/ ti I I To Domingua Coileb6 ) Subject: detaincesignature fom I'm sorry it took me a few days to get Ihis to you, but the Spanish transintion took me a lot longer than I thought it would. Please let me know if this foum is nee table for the detainees to sing after participating in the LOP presentations and workshops. Thank you Executive Director/Att'omay at Law Diocesan Migrant & RulNgee Services 2400A 8, Yandell El Paso, Texas fax (915) ICE (7)

43 vage I 1 2 lt-iti;m From: Gonzalez, Guadalupe R Sent: Wednesday, April '39 AM To: b( Ruble. Sthanhan U V*( Subject: RE, STIP Ruble, Stephen M Thanks,f This is good news, especially the fact that UNO will review all slips on Mexcan nationals. Therefore, the local sip program wi include only OTM nationals that are unrepresented. I spoke to Terry Baeza today and she alated that EOIR is coming out with national formal for stipulated removals in both represented and unrepresented cases. My office Is folowing up on this to ensure our forms wl be current. Guadalupe Fromtb() b() This is a follow up to the meeting held last week at the inti purpose conference area. This week we have asked 000 to jon ng discussns have t aken place: Wits DMRS DMRS regringtheir I ega orentallon program (LOP} schedule. They currently provi ae s day, Wednesday, Thursdey, and Friday startig at 0 am. On Tuesday they provide workshops. Sihe did saete that DMR'S has dedicated staff to handle this program and that they are able provide the LOP at other more convemni times. Siace the video teleconferencing may be Uilized by DMRS, we seed to check with court to see what schedule would be beat. With Mexican Consulate: They have approved the use of UNO to review alt of the stipulated removal cases They concur with the utilizatlon of stipulated removals to move the cases faster. We are In the process of ordering addillonal VTEL equipment or the courtrooms. 3 In 1 printer scasnars wili also be requested for the courtrooms to assist with facsimile tranamisslons., The Deportation Officer will provide the detainee EPO orientetion video followed by the know your rights video. He/she wiii have the Expedited removal cases, adnnistrative removal, and reinstatement cases removed from the courtroom and sent back to the facility. The remaining should all be NTA cases. The Deportatlon Officer will eixplaln the stipulated program, and see how many wish to be removed under the stipulated removal program. Files pulled and DMRS presents the LOP. DMIIRS will get a signed acknowledgement from detainee thai LOP was presented which will include a Stipulation removal overview. After LOP, Deportation will verifywhich cases will still take the stipulated removal. Stipulated removal order will be prepared by deportation officer, reviewed by UNO then given to OCC for approval. thento EORiJ for signature then back to deportation for removal. UNO will initial each stipulation reviewed and signed and return the -210 to the deportation officer. The Meeican consulate representative PIlar Flores will obtain a copy of the signed by UNO for their records. WIII Iron out additonal details on Wednesday meeting. Fronts Ruble, Stephen M Sents Monday, April 09, PM 5/ 'E )

44 0. For your meeting, use this one. It Is the one you sent, with one type-o I corrected on the last page. Bear in mind, this formal might change in the near future, depending on the results of our meetings with the free legal service providers. Sent: enay, Apir us, too 10:02 AM To, Ruhle, Stephen M Subject: FW: SITP Mr. Ruble Just wondermg If you have reviewed the STIP attachmentt wit be meeting with some Central American consulates tomorrow and would like to discuss the STIP program with them. y, ill u!, :00 PM Tog Ruble, Stephen M Subject. STIP AS PER YOU REQUEST 5/7/2009 I (7 F-OA-1 450(7)

45 Sent: To: Wrornm (b)(7)c dab)r6)., Wednesday, April i11, :55 PM (b)(6n. b)( c - Cc- ( ) c Ruble, Stephen M Subject RE: STIP Update come backffrom the Consular quarterly meeting. The STIP Program was rolio out an they all agreteditwou boa benefit to heir country nallonals to take advantage of the slip in order to expedite the removal. Thanks This Is good news, especially the fact that UNO will review all slips on Mexican nationals. Therefore, the locslllp program will include only OTM natllonals that ate unrepresented. I spoke to tarry Baeza today and shib stated that EOIR is coming out with national formats for stipulated removals in both represented and unrepresented cases, My office Is following up on this to eaure our forms willbe current. Guadalupe Frorm This Is a follow up to the meeting held lest week at 1ie multi purpose conference area, Tie week we have asked 0C to join lowln discussions have taken place: With MRS:of DMRS regarding their legal orientation programr (LOP) schedule. They currmently pr a n day, Wednesday Thunsday, and PrIday starting at am. On Tuesday threy. providloworkshlops. She did stale (liat DMRS has dledicated slaff lo harrile tibs program end thal thesy are able provide lire LOP at olther more convervient limes. SInce lire video leleconesrerncing may be ulllzed by DMRPS. we need to check wlth court to see what schedule would be heal. With Mexican Consulate: Thoy have approved the use of UNO 1o review all of the silpulated remover cases, They concur wilh lthe uillizationi of stipulated removals to move the cases faster. We are In the process of ordering additional VTEL equipment for lire courtrooms. 3 in t printer scanners will elso be requested for the courilrcomne to assist with facsimrile treamissions. Ths Deportation Oficer will provide the delainee EPO orientalont video followed by tireknow your rights video. Helshe wilt have Ihe Exrpedited removal cases, administrative remtoval, and reinstalemeant canes removed from lie courtroom end sent back to the farulity. The remaininrg should all he 1NTA cases, The Deportation Ollicer will 5tl/2009 p"'ids wor ICE (7)

46 Sent: "e nes ay, uy,2008 9:06 AM Sulje : ": FY1 Mi*eared answer on Stips Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer Task Force d Training 81 Paso Field oft 915 J esk/ fax/ 9 la m cell d..me n: ia.ay t mune t~ v ~L n bih D.ro undu CIALa Um ui.'' Id 'manian Iu (J L.. 33). it La Io V 0. usco u, sed, hu l unsum.j Ji wi d a nd d u ISl policy m oub id t. F RM i n...hau rt and u wj h dt Uu in ti m 1-blico.. Ud) I... n -u m, o do 21uthalaw a aod. l-," without pdim app-nd fta aeizd OHSa vffdal. fjo pundiu vi thin~p utuaa k tumlu thel med i, eial Ind mittt s - d fun,.. Sent; Wednesday, July 23, :00 AM To. Montenegro, Gall Cc. Zamarripa, Leticla Rocha, Richard A (b( )7 Subject, RE: DRO Cleae answer on Stips Hello everyone: I have a copy of the questions that asked yesterday, I am not all that concerned with the Immgrant Justice story as we were aware of the here in HQ. It seems to be pretty solid as far as the factual amount of stips and Increases In certain EOIR courts, I looked at It when first published. When wb respond to the way DMRS [a currently (and other NGOs are) portraying the Increase we should get that answer looked at up here at HQ. Looks ilke you held your ground and thank you for that Thanks Detention & Deportation Officer DRO Liaison to ICE Office of Public Affairs (202 desk) (202) all (202) ffax] r%- -f IN~ 5/7/2009 -I =-M

47 From: Montenegro, Gal R My23, :33 AM Subject: IE: DRO Goared answer on Slips Leitle and I did a conference call yesterday wilh I the Chicago Tribune on stipulated removals. Lettile did a great job explaining how ICE works wilt DMRS to provide Know Your Rights presentations to detainees who might he Interested in accepting slips at the ELP processing center. The reporter's main focus Is trying to find out why the sipulated removal orders have seen such a drameailo Increase In the past couple years. According to her. ICE's overall reloval numbers increased 64% fromt 2004 to 2007, whereas the aumber of stipulated orders signed increased swtopphig 500% during the same time period, They went from S,000 sips in 2004 to 30,000stips in 20,07. She kept asig us if there has oean a conceded nallonal effort by ICE to push Oipulated removals, I responded that the anii' national policy that I Was Ware of was he one we provided to her that allws IGE to offer the stiulated option to alns. I also explained to her that ICE had not seen the FOiA atatialles cited In the study one by the National Immigrant Justic, Here is a lilk to the study: i Lettle and I were both clear in explaining to the reporter that ICETs In the businessof removing aliens and that stlpulated orders are a tool that helps us do this More expeditiously, thereby reducing costs is the taxpayers and reducing detention time for aliens who volunteer fir this option. But the reporter Is sli under the Impression that we are not telling her something because the increase In atips as been so dramallo Just wanted you both to have o recap of the conversatior Let us know If there Is anything on a aonal level that we should provide to her, or if there Is someone in HQ she should be talking to that can help explain this increase. Thanks. 317 Gall Montenegro Office of Publile Affairs,. 1Imin affon ad tatus enforcement sent: Tuesday, July 22, :54 AM Tot Montenegro, Gail R Co. Zarrrpe, Lteda, Subject: RE: DRO Cleared answer on Stips I can find nothing further. I was actually told that beyond our policy we supplied on Friday there Is nothing we have to publicize. Suggest modifying the answer to be to that effect when using this bullet "However we do have an overall national policy that allows DRO to offer aliene stipulated removals." Thanks b()(b7c SMo09 ICE (7)

48 Detention & Deportation Officer ORO a t ICE Office of Public Affairs (202) 1 deskj (202) (.x 01. it( 11"I Z1. fbm from; Montenegro, Gall R Sent: Tuesday, Jul 22,2008 9:49 AM Subject: RE: ORO Cleared answee on StIps Any news on national tip polloy? Lettle and I are doing a conference call with the reporter today at 4pm Chicago time. Thanks. Gall Montenegro offle of Public Affairs U.S. Imigration and Customs Enforcement 312 I32el Se t, M2008 9:09 AM To: Montenegro, Gall R Subject: RE: DRO Cleared answer on Stlps I sanitized the policy, so all that is your discretion how much you give her. Looking for an answer to national policy on increase in slips. Likely not something for public disclosure as it doesn't exist except for Secure Communities, possibly. Let me track that down and Ill see how it shakes out. Thanks- I;)etention : deportation Officer DRO Uaison to ICE Office of Public Affairs (202)ldesk (202) Eiclll file:m.57/200 IL-a- 1450(

49 (202) (fax] From: Montenegra, Gall R Se * Mond July Iv 21, :00 AM Subjects RE: ORO Cleared answer on StlPs And con I provide the reporter with a copy of the policy or is that for me only? Gall Montenegro Office of Pub ie AffaIts U.S Customs Enforcement r PM Ta Mac~~oteneao GalRZarrc.Lta 0cl Rocha, Richard N Subject: DRO Cleare answer on stps Hello all: Please review the attachment, and It Is pasted farther below. I was cleared to pull directly from the DRO Policy Manual. Here are some bullets based on my analysis of the policy that I think are helpful for response. If anyone has any other input, please advise. Otherwise this Is ready for a Public Affairs Officer to return the Chi Trib's call, On the El Paso specific allegations, I believe you all are ready to answer Vanessa's questions based on the Info you received yesterday from El Paso ORO. DRO HQ mgmt received a brief on what El Paso's response / specific allegations were by the Trib, no objections were raised to what El Paso gave to ICE Public Affairs. * On nationwide stlips: " "We do have a national policy that allows DRO to offer aliens stipulated removals." " "The policy states that DRO shall fully explain both the original charging document, which alleges that they are _rnatode from the US. and that DRO shall also explain that a stipulated removal means (here will be no hearing and they are accepting an order of amal." " "DRO must make clear to the alien that the the stip process is not designed to have any further Interaction with the Immigration Court after removal is ordered.' * "As you can see In the policy, the Immigration Judge reviews the supporting paperwork 5/7/2009 ICE (7)

50 to ensure that the alien or their attorney I representative signed the etip freely and konting1y." "if asked- Local procedures may vary on the opportunity to revoke a stip before removal, but ICE respects an aliens due process rights in every way while they are In removal proceedings." DRO Policy on Stipulated Removals- A stipulated order of removal is ar agreement between the Service and the alien in which the alien consents to being deported /,removed. Such an agreement Is advantageous to the government in that it relieves the immigration Court of the need to have a hearing, saves the Service additional detention costs and allows the alien to return to his/her country without further detention. An immigration judge may enter sia order of deportation, oxchision or removal, stipulated to by the alien (or rie alien's representative) and the government It is Important to note that some Immigrtion Courts will not allow for stipulated removal requests, and a hearing will have to be scheduled. DRO must Inquire as to whether the Immigration Courts in their area allow Stipulated Orders of Removal, prior to offering it to an alien. The alien shall be served with a charging document which lists the allegations and immigration violations. Most times the charging document will already have been served to the alier by another component, such as the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), Border Patrol, CBP or the ICE Office of Investigations. The alien may receive nir explanation of the stipulated request process, whaet tey are originally processed or when they srrive at the detention center. Prior to drawing a stipulated request for removal and hearing waiver, DRO must confirm that the alien agrees to each of the following provisions: * Admits the truth of the allegations contained in the charging document; * Concedes deportability or inadmissibility, as charged; * Declines the opportunity to apply for relief * Designates at country for deportation or removal; * Concedes to the introduction of the written stipulation as an exhibit to the Record of Proceeding (documents filed with the cout); * Understands and accepts the consequences of the stipulated request, into which he/she is entering and provides a statement to this effect, and; * Agrees to accept a written order of deportation, exclusion or removal as final, and so waives the right to appeal. The stipulated request and required waivers shall be signed on behalf ofthe government by Office of the Chief Counsel and by the alien and iris/her attorney or representative, if any. The immigration judge will review the charging document, the written stipulation and supporting documents to verif the alien's waiver is made feely and knowingly. A signed order from the imunigration Judge ite legally warrants the alien's deportation or removal from the United States. The alien will be removed to the country designated on the stipulated request or as designated by the 5/7/2009 I U L~U82V4~OX73'~

51 Immigration and Nationality Act. Thanks - bsa Detention & Deportation Officer DRO Lial ICE Office of Public Affairs (202) 61 (desk] (202) 73 [cella.(202) 3D (fax) file: 5b7/2(2g IU t-uo- 1'90UI)-UUUD I

52 From! b() b() Sent; Fn ay, ay, 010:34 PM To Gonzalez, Guadalupo R; Gastelo, Elias S Jr, Dominguez, Cosine; Ruble Stehen M; Baeza, Thoress cc.; Subject: stips co b)(6r (; b The following is a recap of the last meeting we held to discuss the stipulated removal program. This meeting was origirinaly an expansion of the Legat Orientation Program. The issue of reviving and increasing stipulated renmovals especially In Pro so ases was discussed and will be expanded provided certain requirements Ore met. The following was agreed upon: RE: Legal Orientation Program will be expanded to include all new arrivals In Courtroom #4 at 0000 hrs Monday. Thursday, The Legal Orientation Program will conduct the orlentedton on Friday in Courtroom #2, and will Include Albuquerque or Olero. The current unit in Courtroom #2 Is unable to conduct multiple ales. A new VTEL is on order for courtroom #4 with capabilities to connect to multiple sites, A Deportation Officer will coordinate and conduct the EPC Orientation to Include deportation procedures at this time as wel. RE: Stipulated Removal Orders, DMRS has agreed to include rights and responsibillies on the stipulated removal process and procedure. DMRS has prepared a legal orientation program notice and acknowledgement form on each detainee provided the presentation. Subject to approval by the Office of the Chief Counsel, the form will be included In every A file, The form was provided the OCC and final approval remains pending. After that meeting, we met With UNO to discuss representalton of detainees In the atipulated removal process. UNO stated they will continue to do represent Mexican Natlonals and would lke to extend their services to other nationalities spdcfically Central Americans. I kowwe have been discussing this Issue for sometime now, but we really need to find closure here. Once the DMRS legal orientation program notice and acknowledgement form Is approved we should meet one lasl time to dose out the details and start (he stipulated removals. Thank you all, A cr oemwas 5 Office DIrector 5/7/2009 ICE (7)

53 San rm d: 18, 008 1:38 PM To: Montenegr* Gail R; Zamarrioa. Leticia Cet Rocha, Richard A; Subject: DRO Cleared answer on Sups Attachments: DRO Policy on Stipulated Rentovals.doc Hello all: Please review the attachment, and it Is pasted farther below, I was cleared to pull directly from the DRO Policy Manual. Here are some bullets based on my analysis of the policy that I think are helpful for response, if anyone has any other input, please advise. Otherwise this Is ready for a Public Affairs Officer to return the Chi Trib's call. On the El Paso spealfic allegations, I believe you all are ready to answer Vanessa's questions based on the Info you received yesterday from El Paso ORO. DRO HQ mgmt received a brief on what El Paso's response I specific allegations were by the Trib, no objections were raised to what El Paso gave to ICE Public Affairs. * On nationwide slips; * "We do have a national policy that allows DRO to offer aliens stipulated removals." " "The policy states that ORO shall fully explain both the original charging document, which alleges that they are ranwyakfp from the US, and that DRO shall also explain that a stipulated removal means there will be no hearing and they are accepting an order of ranteai." * "DRO must make clear to the alien that the the slip process is not designed to have any further Interaction with the Immigration Court after removal is ordered," * "As you can see In the policy, the Immigration Judge reviews the supporting paperwork to ensure that the allen or their attorney / representative signed the stlip freely and * "If asked: Local procedures may vary on the opportunity to revoke a stip before removal, but ICE respects an aliens due process rights In every way while they are In removal proceedings." DRO Polley on Stipulated Removals; A stipulated order of removal is an agreement between the Service and the alien In which the alien consents to being deported / removed, Such an agreement is advantageous to the government in that it relieves the Immigration Court of the need to have a hearing, saves the Service additional detention costs and allows the alien to return to his/her country without further detention. An immigration judge may enter an order of deportation, exclusion or removal, stipulated to by the allen (or the alien's representative) and the government. It is important to note that some Immigration Courts will not allow for stipulated removal requests, and a hearing will have to be scheduled. DRO must inquire as to whether the Immigration Courts in their area allow Stipulated Orders of Removal, prior to offering it to an alien, T1he alien shall be served with a charging document which lists the allegations and Immigration A b)()high. 5/2009 I M-0005.F- -lat; -nnn053

54 component, such as the Criminal Alien Program (CN(), Border Patrol, CBP or the ICE Office of investigations. The alien may receive an explanation of the stipulated request process, when they are originally processed or when they arrive at the detention center, Prior to drafting a stipulated request for removal and hearing waiver, DRO must confimi that the alien agrees to each of the following provisions: * Admits the truth of the allegations contained in the charging docunient; * Concedes deportability or Inadmissibility, as charged; * Declines the opportunity to apply for relief; * Designates a country for deportation or removal; * Concedes to the introduction of the written stipulation as an exhibit to the Record of Proceeding (documents filed with the court); * Understands and accepts the consequences of the stipulated request, into which helsite is entering end provides a statement to this effect, and; * Agrees to accept a written order of deportation, exclusion or removal as final, and so waives the right to appeal. The stipulated request and required waivers shall be signed on behalf of the government by Officeofthe Chief Counsel and by the alien and his/her attorney or representative, if any. The immigration judge will review the charging document, the written stipulation and supporting documents to verify the alien's waiver is made freely and lanowingly. A signed order from the Immigration Judge then legally warrants the alien's deportation or removal from the United states. The alien will be removed to the country designated on the stipulated request or as designated by the Immigration and Nationality Act. Thanks De en ion *eportation Officer DRO Liaison to ICE Office of Public Affairs (202) (deskj (202) 511)00 (202) 3718 ax] file 5fl/2009 ICE (7)

55 From ()6 b() Sent: urs ay, my r, ^ To: Venegas, Francisco J; Subject PW: stips Assistant Fidd Office Director Compliance Enforcement 91 P TX 915 Coll son 1 I 0QO8 8:47 AM elow is n from one of the meetings we had with DMRSd Flm (b(),()() I,08 Sentl rrsay, I-my 43, *O7 1:34 PM To: Gomalez, Guadalupe R; Gasto ElIas S 3r;7 Doypnneer rartne: Ruhle. Steahen M: Baeza, Theresa N. Omp);())(b7) (b(6 M~)6,b() Cc: Venegas, Francisco ) Subject: stips U The following Is a recap of the last meeting we held to discuss the stipulated removal program. This meeting was origlnally sn expansion of the Legal Ofrenlaltan Program, The Issue of reviving end Increasing silpulated removals especially In Pro se cases was discussed and will be expanded provided certain requirements are met. The following was agreed upon: RE: Legal Orlentation Program will be expanded to include pli new arrivals In Courtroom #4 at 0900 bra Monday- Thursday. The Legal Ortantation Program wil conduct the orientalion on Friday in Courtroom 92, and wit Include Albuquerque or Otero. The current unit in Courtroom #2 Is unable to conduct multiple sites, A new VrEL is on 5/7/2009 I IGF!! AQn ' nf000055

56 order lor courtroom 14 with capabilities to connect to multiple ahes. A Deportation Offlacr wil coordinate and conduct the EPC Orientation to Include deportation procedures at 1his time as well. RE: Stipulated Removal Orders, DMRS has agreed to Includ6 rights and responsibilities on the stpulated removal process and procedure. DMRS has prepared a legal orentation program notice and acknowledgement form on each detalnee provided the presentation. Subject to approval by the Office of the Chief Counsel, the form wil be Included In every A Oe. The form was provided the OCC and final approval remains pending. After that meeting, we mretv itti UNO to discuss represeanlaton of dtaiees In the stipulated removal process. UN) elated they will continue to do represent Mexican Nationals and would like to extend their services to other nationalities spectfically Central Americans. I knowwe have been discussing this issue for same fme now, but we realy need to find closure here, Once the DMRS legal orientation program notice and acknowledgement form is approved we should meet one last time to close out the details and start the stipulated removals. Thank you all. c d Office Dector c cellular 7/200.9 ICE (7)

57 From (b()%b() Sent: ria i 1 :58 PM To Venegas, Francisco J(( Sub eel: I" ared answer on Stips Attachments: DRO Policy on Stipulated Romovals.doc From * 08 :38 PM lb * M mo GaI R; Zarniarrios Letlda Cc: Rocia, Richard A, Subject DRO Cleared answer on Sps Hello all: Please review the attachment, and it Is pasted farther below, I was cleared to pull directly from the DRO Policy Manual. Here are some bullets based on my analysis of the policy that I think are helpful for response. If anyone has any other Input, please advise. Otherwise this is ready for a Public Affairs Officer to return the Chi Trib's call. On the El Paso specific allegations, I believe you all are ready to answer Vanessa's questions based on the info you received yesterday from El Paso DRO, DRO HQ mgmt received a brief on what El Paso's response I specific allegations were by the Trib, no objections were raised to what El Paso gave to ICE Public Affairs. * On nationwide stfps: * "We do have a national policy that allows DRO to offer aliens stipulated removals.' * 'The policy states that DRO shall fully explain both the original charging document, which alleges that they are rrnoyavl from the US. and that ORO shall also explain that a stipulated removal means there will be no hearing and they are accepting an order of. *DRO must make'clear to the allen that the the stip process Is not designed to have any further interaction with the immigration Court alter removal Is ordered." * "As you can see In the policy, the Immigration Judge reviews the supporting paperwork to ensure that the alien or their attorney / representative signed the stip freely and fkowinul.". "If asked: Local procedures may vary on the opportunity to revoke a stip before removal, but ICE respects an aliens due process rights in every way while they are in removal proceedings." DRO Poliy on Stipulated Removais: A stipulated order of removal is an agreement between the Service and the alien in which the alien corisents to being deported / removed. Such an agreement is advantageous to the government in that it relieves dh Immigration Court of the need to have a hearing, saves the Service additional detention coits aud allows the alien to return to his/her country without further detention. An immigration jadge may enter an order of deportation, exclusion or removal, stipulated to by the alien (or the alien's representative) and the government. 5/7/2009 ICE (7)

58 Page 2 of3 It is important to note that some immigration Courts will not allow for stipulated removal requests, and a bearing will have to be scheduled. DRO must inquire as to whether the Irunigration Courts in their area allow Stipulated Orders of' Removal, prior to offering It to an aliv.. Pramdure. 'Me alien shall be served with a charging document which lists the allegations and Immigration violations. Most times the charging document will already have been served to the allen by another component, such as the Criminal Allen Program (CAP), Border Patrol, CSP or the ICE Office of Investigations. The alien may receive an explanation of the stipulated request process, when they are originally processed or when they arrive at the detention center, Prior to drafting a stipulated request for removal and hearing waiver, DRO must confirm, that the alien agrees to each of the following provisions: * Admits the truth of the allegations contained in the charging document; * Concedes deportability or inadmissibility, as charged; * Declines the opportunity to apply for relif, * Designates a country for deportation or removal; * Concedes to the introduction of the written stipulation as an exhibit to the Record of Proceeding (documents filed with the court); * Understands and accepts the consequences of the stipulated request, into which he/she is entering and provides a statement to this effect, and; * Agrees to accept a written order of deportation, exclusion or'removal as final, and so waives the right to appeal. The stipulated request and required waivers shall be signed on behalf of the government by Office of the Chief Counsel and by the alien and his/har attorney or representative, if any. The immigration judge will review the charging document, the written stipulation and supporting documents to verify the alien's waiver is made freely and lnowingly. A signed order from the Immigration Judge then legally warrants the alien's deportation or removal from the United Slates. The alien witl be removed to the country designated on the stipulated request or as designated by the Immigration and Nationality Act. Thanks - De tn on a Deportation Officer ORO L ison to ICE Office of Public Affairs (202) (desk] (202) [cell) (202) [fax) fl e*/5/7/2009 ICE (7)

59 IkI~~ I H II I~1~1~ J k ~ Imil P a o 0 HI I Q u 0 0 ( ICE (7)

60 ICE (7)

61 ICE (7)

62 IIIII 7 FI 2 NgNU 2 Oa 6 T N I ~I i I I - ICE-OS- l450(7)uu0006

63 ICE-08-14bU(7)-UUU06,3

64 r- -" I I I III I I I I ffi-i 1 I I I I I I M I I I PlIzIl FBI~ I ii i i IOiOI0i0i0I0i0l0I0I0I0I0i0I0L0i0iPiI0I0F~ I I I I I J I I I ] 1 I 90j0O ~ I~H~H4frIuI~IAI~N.I liii I I I il I I II1I IC E-08-1I450(7)

65 l sl1+1+ +Hslalll l. Iio 1 a1isla IMIsaS.-ls lig lels l+1# l r+ lgi + 1+i1 ICE (7)

66 !I: ril.! , 1.1.1;! lut-vb--l 40u t)-uuuut)t:)

67 ill - II ICE (7)

68 -H tarn IV U11 J2LU~[Ji ICE (7)

69 II II H ''U.N lmu H1~UiI!I I I 1711 L~I I viii 0 Ai III ICE-08-1I450(7)

70 ICE (7)

71 IFL I HIM I.J TITFFFIF ICE (7)

72 ICE (7)

73 I[U I. ICE (7)

74 ICE (7)

75 Ui. -I-, II III TT I j ICE (7)

76 MLLLTII PRT!a I I f I II r I I II TT1llTFFFTl t Ia~ fj 0 ICE (7)

77 ICE (7)

78 r I E~W~UThj i~i I~H~IHEIU 1F~I~1~1~ 1 w+i~ i MEN. I.L-Ub-1 4U( )-VUUUIt b

79 --will M I H ill H ill.it IT ICE (7)

80 IUt-U6-14U(k )-UUUUbU

81 1.1c

82 0 0) / 0 >r- m / -~IBrnX 0I -<m in m -~ -~ N N 0 Ul 0 UI 0 (ii C Z3 too 00 ICEOB0-1 4bU(tI)-OUUUbZ

83 MM Il i l l i l III Mill I HIM HII ill- T T- 'I , Hill W~IWi - I IIILLJ~iLL I I /J'.J'J-w Jww-w

84 S t.rp. ~J ~ ~, ~V%'~ ~ '-fl'c%.'~p M'~. t' I III II II I l!mirkic itim.,t ir vicmiletir zelzit i i I I Milli 1.4 1z 1. Is III H IM I t r IT-TT; "T ICE (7)

85 ir'llill I 111 rp"ifi ii I I I~ I I I ii; i II i ii1 iiii II11itII II' 1 H liii l 11111h I ii I ICE (7)

86 ICE-UB--145uti)-UU0uab

87 nn o 1111 Uld UI Hil TH ICE (-UUU

88 ICE (7)

89 it-uvo- I QOuk I)-VUVUOII

90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I! I I I I I I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I %. WWI M. %WMMARM %S n t N 9 W-SM all i k M I i -it- it I I [ I f I f i t ! 1 1 1',' IM 1 1 I 1 1, 1, H I I I 1LIL111 I I ICE (7)

91 H ill I I I I I I H I JJ L.1 TT li IM ICE (7)

92 ::T IT ICE (7)

93 A~S-~. ~ ~ Z'~'r~1' *-r -~ ICE (7)-00003

94 I I JIlIl OM s t t tit8 nt!28 A &~V 8 8 w $ $0 M R4- Wig A co '9-1-1 ITITI ILr--uo- lqz)vkf)-uuuuzi'+

95

96 ily*di M4N 1bL v Nde b" h-dm4kvaih? ' N 1i Ks' F ; ' ' i I I I I 119' a RIF IF X m it 3:101C 00 8 ill t at t. A s t t 1 1 % A :,e. A 1. It A. t x ic HOFF ff 1"Up A I l I. OS [M IL k 4 59 I lilt I I I lutz-uo- 1.+Dukf)-UVVLJZID

97 a.* AsLanto.1weds. A ab? F f"i I 'I' ' li 11 ~ 1 ~..1 1 S Man "4"1PitIUIUlI I I I I I: II :1::: iii I ICE-08-14bu(7)

98 ~.ftaa~t AAA 4~*4~ ~ W" W WWW W& M I I.1 I I ; WE ir x r. r Mir x 0 r ox 10 I I 9 PIT If CIMIM g.9(9) 1 Q R t t p t t t t g g t t (11 t N t 441% t t t t it t t t t t t t It f4 CA 4 (A Lll M 0, -It,) 0 (A 4% Cn (a (n W 4. Y N J -J I It Al I'l 1 N 8 as j 9 i [ I, I ldi15mi ii. I Iii I III I UI-U- 140Uk )-UUUUNG

99

100 A.1 -S.. h.m.. A.4 4 A &... ~a..l. ICE (7)-OQ0l 00

101 ICE (7)

102 df4tgyrg im e) si lth op www ww ga ramm y w I I I I I II I III II III I 1 F I ICE (7)

103 DRO Office of Policy and Communications ICE (7)

104 Detention and Removal Operations Policy and Procedure Manual (DROPPM) Appendix 2-2 Office of Detention and Removal Program Description Removals The primary responsibilities of the DRO program as part of the DHS immigration and law enforcement mission are to provide adequate and appropriate custody management to support removals, to facilitate the processing of illegal aliens through the immigration court, and to enforce their departure from the United States. Key elements in exercising those responsibilities include: identifying and removing all high-risk illegal alien fugitives and absconders; ensuring that those aliens who have already been identified as criminals are expeditiously removed; and to develop and maintain a robust removals program with the capacity to remove all final order cases issued annually - thus precluding growth in the illegal alien absconder populations. Simply stated, DRO's ultimate goal is to develop the capacity to remove all removable aliens. Traditional Removal Proceedings: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) grants aliens the right to a removal proceeding before an immigration judge to decide both inadmissibility and deportability. Aliens can be removed for reasons of health, criminal status, economic well being, national security risks and others that are specifically defined in the act. An immigration judge weighs evidence presented by both the alien and DHS, assesses the facts, considers the various factors, and renders a decision which can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. When the decision rendered is to depart the country, DRO takes over the responsibility to facilitate the process and ensure the alien does, in fact, depart. The process includes coordination with foreign government and embassies to obtain travel documents and country clearances, coordinating all the logistics and transportation necessary to repatriate the alien and, when required, escort the alien to his or her home of record. Alternative Removal Processes: The INA provides several alternative removal procedures to maximize efficiencies and expedite the removal process wherever applicable and appropriate. Expedited removal can be exercised after the DHS orders the removal of aliens after inspection and subsequent findings of inadmissibility on grounds relating to fraudulent activity i.e. no documents, improper documents, fraudulent documents, or other forms of fraud). The ICE (7)

105 expedited removal process is the only formal removal process that can be used when these are the only grounds of inadmissibility. This process also applies to aliens whose claims for fear of persecution are not found credible, and to aliens who claim certain types of status but immigration judges find do not have these types of status. Administrative removal can be exercised by the Attorney General as an alternative to hearings conducted by immigration judges for certain serious criminal offenders. As a result, DHS may issue final administrative removal orders to certain aliens who have been convicted of one or more aggravated felonies and who are not lawful permanent residents. Judicial removal is authorized to remove certain aliens at the request of the U.S. Attorney with DHS concurrence. U.S. district court judges have jurisdiction to enter judicial removal orders when sentencing aliens deportable based on certain criminal convictions. This procedure can only be used in the Federal courts. Stipulated judicial removal is a judicial removal entered as a condition of probation or supervised release or both in a plea agreement between the alien and the US government. The alien will waive the right to notice and a hearing by agreeing for a removal order to be entered as part of his plea agreement (stipulation). A U.S. district court judge in a felony or misdemeanor case, or a U.S. magistrate judge in a misdemeanor case, may accept such a stipulation and enter a judicial order of removal. Stipulated removal is exercised by an immigration judge when he/she enters a removal order without a hearing based on an agreement between the alien and the DHS. In some instances, a judge in a criminal case may consider the alien's agreement to be removed when the judge imposes a sentence for the criminal charge. Reinstatement of removal orders are applied to aliens who illegally reenter the United States after removal. The original removal order is reinstated as of the original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed. Reinstatement of the removal order is mandatory if the DHS determines that the alien who reentered unlawfully is, in fact, the same person who was previously removed. Custody Management The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and other immigration laws authorizes and sometimes mandates that DRO detain illegal aliens who are charged with violating immigration. law, have entered the United States illegally, or have been ordered to leave the country. These aliens are detained while their immigration proceedings are administered and facilitates their proper and expedient removal from the country when ordered to do so. DRO administers a ICE (7)

106 national detention program that uses funding appropriated specifically for the care of these aliens and includes the transportation, housing, subsistence, medical care, and guard service necessary to provide safe and humane environments to the inmate population and detention staff. The responsibility begins when a detainee is brought into DRO custody and continues until the alien can be released into the community or removed from the United States. The detainee population is generated by multi-component investigative and prosecutorial efforts within the Department of Homeland Security. DRO detains aliens for administrative purposes, not criminal and punitive, to ensure they comply with the immigration process. In particular, these aliens are detained because they are determined to be a threat to public safety or pose a significant risk of flight if released. Other. factors that DRO considers in making detention determinations are similar to those reasons used to justify removal which include health, prior criminal history and the severity of their crimes, history of failure to appear for Court, equities in the United States and evidence of ties to the community, availability of relief from removal and the likelihood of relief being granted, and prior immigration history. This detained population is inherently unique, requiring specialized knowledge and processes to safely and humanely hold in appropriate facilities and meet all operational demands. The DRO detained population includes illegal economic migrants, aliens who have committed criminal acts, asylum-seekers (required to be detained by law) or potential terrorists. These persons can be male, female, unaccompanied juveniles of either gender, or families. This diverse population necessitates different environments, standards, and management procedures within DRO facilities than that of other federal, state, county, or local correctional facilities. Additionally, detainees have unknown lengths of stay in custody because they are dependant on the speed of immigration court hearings, appeal review or removal processing. Factors that DHS considers in making detention determinations include prior criminal history, the severity of the crimes for which the alien was convicted, history of failure to appear for Court, equities in the United States and evidence of ties to the community, availability of relief from removal and the likelihood of relief being granted, and prior immigration violation history. DRO detention policy sets forth guidelines for determining priorities in which aliens should be detained. This policy' sets forth four major categories of aliens and classifies these individuals as for placement into high priority, medium priority, or lower priority detention. * Category 1, mandatory detention; * Category II, includes security and related crimes, other criminals not subject to mandatory detention, aliens deemed to be a danger to the community or a flight risk and aliens smugglers; * Category Ill, includes inadmissible non-criminal aliens (not placed in expedited removal), aliens who committed fraud or were smuggled into the United States, work site apprehensions; and ICE (7)

107 * Category IV, includes non-criminal border apprehension, other aliens not subject to mandatory detention, aliens placed in expedited removal. Not every alien taken into DRO custody has to be placed into traditional or hardened detention facilities. Low threat and low risk aliens can be placed into non-traditional settings (halfway houses, intensive supervision) as they complete their immigration proceedings. These non-traditional methods or alternative programs provide a more cost effective solution to hardened detention facilities and free. up bed space for those aliens who must be detained. The alternative to detention program is a comprehensive array of alternative detention settings and methods that, when employed, will provide a more cost effective solution to ensuring that low risk individuals in immigration proceedings comply with their immigration obligations. Releasing these individuals from hardened and secure detention facilities and into controlled alternative environments creates bed space for those aliens who must be detained, and minimizes the management and oversight needed for those aliens in alternative settings. While bed costs in alternative settings equal those in traditional detention the logistics and special requirements needed to manage special populations such as families and noncriminal females are less intensive than managing that same population integrated into a traditional environment. Additionally, moving these unique populations out of traditional facilities frees up bed space exponentially as two rooms needed to house one family will be freed up to bed 2 and 3 times more individual aliens. Current custody management initiatives include the establishment of halfway houses particularly suited to house families, female asylum seekers and non-criminal females. These dormitory style facilities are secured by staff only and have no fences, bars or watch towers, providing -a less restrictive and more humane atmosphere for individuals who are not releasable. With these facilities in place, the logistical strain for moving, placing, and housing females and families is removed from the mainstream, hardened detention environment. DRO will continue its research into available technology and methods in order to create and provide safe, secure and humane alternatives to detention. Custody management is a key tool in the immigration enforcement process. Through an array of traditional and non-traditional detention methods, DRO ensures aliens complete their immigration proceedings and are removed when ordered to do so. Experience shows that aliens who are placed into traditional and non-traditional detention environments have high court appearance rates and high removable rates and achieving high removable rates, especially 100%, is DRO's overarching goal. ICE (7)

108 DRO Policy and Procedure Manual Appendix 11-7 Sample Stipulated Removal UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXCECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE (CITY, STATE) IN THE MATTER OF: EN EL ASUNTO DE: IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS EN LOS TRAMITES DE EXPULSION RESPONDENT A-FILE NO. ) NUMERO DE REGISTRO ICE (7)

109 BOP NO. NUMERO DE BOP RESPONDENTS STIPULATED REQUEST FOR REMOVAL ORDER AND WAIVER OF HEARING PURSUANT TO 8 CFR 3.25(b) SOLICITUD DEMANDADO PARA EMISION DE LA ORDEN ESTIPULADA: RENUNCIA DE AUDENCIA BAJO EL TOMO 8 DEL CODIGO DE REGULACIONES FEDERALES SECCION 3.25(b) I,, Respondent in the above entitled removal proceedings, hereby submit the following request, statements, admissions and stipulations: Yo,, el demandado en los procedimientos arriba mencionados, solicito, declaro, y admito 1o siguiente en referencia a esta SOLICITUD DEL DEMANDADO PARA EMISION DE LA ORDEN ESTIPULADA Y RENUNCIA'DE AUDENCIA. I have been served with a copy of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Form 1-852, Notice to Appear (NTA), dated, and it cites my full, true, and correct name. He sido servido con una copia del formulario del Servicio de Inmigracion, Notificacion de Compadecer (NTA) con fecha,, y contiene mi nobre completo, verdadero, y correcto. I have received a copy of the LIST OF FREE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS. I am aware that, pursuant to 8 CFR 240.3, 1 may be represented by an attorney or other representatives qualified under 8 CFR 292. He recibido copia de La Lista De Servicios Legales Gratuitos. Reconozco que bajo el Tomo 8 del Codigo de Regulaciones Federales seccion 240.3, puedo ser representado por unabogado u otro representante acreditado bajo la seccion 292 del mismo tomo. No deseo representacion legal en este proceso por un abogado o representante. He decidio representarme a mi mismo durante el proceso. I fully understand my rights in this proceeding contained within 8 CFR and I understand that in a removal hearing, I would have the right to representation, a reasonable opportunity to examine and object to the evidence against me, to present witnesses in my own behalf, to cross examine witnesses presented by the government, to object to government evidence including written statements I have made, offer evidence of my own, have all matters on the record recorded verbatum, and, if charged with being deportable, demand that the government prove that I am removable from the United States. Knowing this, I hereby waive ICE (7)

110 these rights, and request that my removal proceeding be conducted solely by way of written record without a hearing. Entiendo mis derechos bajo el proceso de expulsion identificado en el Tomo 8 del Codigo de Regiamentos Federales seccion y Reconozco que tengo asimismo derecho a una audencia ante unjuez de inmigracion. Reconozco que ina audencia tengo el derecho a ser representado, la oportuni dad razonable de examinar y objetar la evidencia presentada en mi contra, presentar testigos en mi favor, hacer preguntas a los testigos presentados por el gobierno, presentar mi propia evidencia, mi derecho a documentar este proceso palabra por palabra, y de set declarado inadmisible or deportable, exigir que el gobierno pruebe que me puede deportar de los Estados Unidos. Conociendo lo aqui mencionado, renuncio a estos derechos, y solicito que mi proceso de expulsion se ileve a eabo en base a la documentacion existente sin una audencia individual. I admit that all the factual allegations contained in the Form 1-862, Notice to Appear, are true and correct as written. Admito que todos los alegatos en el documento acusatorio del Servicio de Inmigracion formulario 1-862, son verdaderos y correctos como documentados. I do not wish to apply for relief from removal pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (herinafter the Act). I am not seeking the relief of voluntary departure, asylum, adjustment of status, registry, review of a termination of conditional resident status, review of a denial or revocation of temporary protected status, family unity benefits, legalization benefits, cancellation of removal, naturalization, or any other possible relief or other benefits under the Act. No deseo solicitar recurso alguno a la orden de expulsion bajo el Acta de Inmigracion Y Nacionalidad (de aqui en adelante el Acta). No solicito el recurso de salida voluntaria, asilo, cambio de estado migratorio, registro, nueva revision de terminacion de estado de residente condicional, nueva revision de negacion o revocacion de estado proteccion temporal, beneficios para la union de familias, beneficios de legalizacion, anulacion de expulsion, naturalizacion, ni cualquier otro recurso o beneficio posible bajo el Acta. Pursuant to Section 241 (b)(2)(a)( i) of the Act, I hereby designate the country designated for removal. Conforme a la seccion 241 (b)(2)(a)( i) del Acta, Designo a el pais al cual deseo ser trasladado si soy expulsado. as como I consent to the introduction of this Stipulated Request for Order, Waiver of Hearing as an exhibit to the Record of Proceedings. Comprendo y estoy de Acuerdo que esta Solicitud del Demandado para Emision de la Orden Estipulada; Renuncia de Audencia forme parte de mi expediente en procedimientos de expulsion. ICE (7)

111 I understand the consequences of this Stipulated Request for Order, Waiver of Hearing are that I will be removed from the United States. I make this request voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Reconozco que la concecuencia de esta Solicitud del Demandado para Emision de la Orden Estipulada Renuncia de Audencia es mi expulsion de Los Estados Unidos. Hago esta solicitud voluntariamenta, conocimiento, e inteligentemente. I agree to accept a written order for my removal as a final disposition of these proceedings. Estoy de acuerdo y acepto una orden por escrito de mi expulsion como disposicion final de este procedimiento. I waive appeal of the written order of removal from the United States. Renuncio al derecho de apelar esta orden escrita sobre mi expulsion de los Estado Unidos. I have carefully read or have had read to me in my native language this entire document, and fully understand its consequences. I am aware that my eventual removal from the United States will be the result of my signing this document. Yo he leido cuidadosamente o se me ha leido todo el contenido de este documento en mi lengua nativa y entiendo las concecuencias. Yo entiendo que mi eventual expulsion de Los Estados Unidos resultara de que yo firme este documento. I, the undersigned respondent (alien), certify that all the information in this document is true and correct and I sign this document under the pains and penalties of perjury, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1746, on this _ day of_,. Yo, el demandado suscrito (extranjero), certifico que toda la informacion contenida en este documento es verdadera y correcta y firmo este documento reconociendo las penalidades de peijurio, segun el Titluo 28, Codigo de Estados Unidos, Seccion 1746, en este dia de,. Signature of Respondent Firma del Demandado Printed Name of Respondent Letra de molde del Demandado ICE (7)

112 Signature of Witness Firma de Testigo Printed Name of Witness Letra de molde del Testigo Signed on Behalf of the Government Assistant District Counsel City, State Date: ICE (7)

113 11.16 Stipulated Orders of Removal. (a) Overview. A stipulated order of removal is an agreement between the Service and the alien in which the alien consents to being deported/removed. Such an agreement is advantageous to the government in that it relieves the Immigration Court of the need to have a hearing, saves the Service additional detention costs and allows the alien to return to his/her country without further detention. An immigration judge may enter an order of deportation, exclusion or removal, stipulated to by the alien (or the aliens representative) and the government. (See Section 240(d) of the Act and 8 CFR 3.25(b).) It is important to note that some Immigration Courts will not allow for stipulated removal requests so a hearing will have to be scheduled. You must inquire as to whether the Immigration Courts in your area allow Stipulated Orders of Removal, prior to offering it to an alien. (b) Procedure. (1) Notice to Appear ( )-862. The alien shall be served with a charging document, the Notice to Appear 1-862, which lists the allegations and Immigration violations. Most times the charging document will already have been served to the alien by another program, such as Border Patrol, Inspections or Investigations. At this time you may explain the stipulated request process and then ask the alien if they would like to request a stipulated removal. (2) Preparation of a Stipulated Request. Prior to drafting a stipulated request for removal and hearing waiver, confirm that the alien agrees to each of the following provisions: Admits the truth of the allegations contained in the charging document; Concedes deportability or inadmissibility, as charged; Declines the opportunity to apply for relief; Designates a country for deportation or removal; Concedes to the introduction of the written stipulation as an exhibit to the Record of Proceeding (documents filed with the court); Understands and accepts the consequences of the stipulated request, into which he/she is entering and provides a statement to this effect, and; Agrees to accept a written order of deportation, exclusion or removal as final, and so waives the right to appeal. Although there is no standard form for stipulated removals, the alien must agree to the above mentioned provisions. See a sample of a stipulated removal in Appendix 11-7 of this manual. Generally speaking, the Office of District Counsel will prepare the stipulation for filing with the Executive Office of Immigration Review. ICE (7)

114 (c) Required Signatures. The stipulated request and required waivers shall be signed on behalf of the government by District Counsel and by the alien and his/her attorney or representative, if any. (d) Review by Immigration Judge. The immigration judge will review the charging document, the written stipulation and supporting documents to verify the aliens waiver is made freely and knowingly. (e) The Stipulated Order. A signed order legally warrants the aliens deportation or removal from the United States. (f) Removal and Closure. The alien will be removed to the country designated on the stipulated request or to the country prescribed in section 241 (b)(2) of the Act. Update the closure (CLOS) screen in DACS to show the alien was removed. Enter 6 in the Depart-Cleared Stat data field. ICE (7)

115 U. S. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service Notice to Appear In removal proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act: File No: In the Matter of: Respondent: currently residing at: (Number, street, city, state and ZIP code) O 1. You are an arriving alien. Li 2. You are an alien present In the United States who has not been admitted or paroled. n 3. You have been admitted to the United States, but are deportable for the reasons stated below, The Service alleges that you: (Area code and phone number) On the basis of the foregoing, it Is charged that you are subject to removal from the United States pursuant to the following provision(s) of law: This notice is being Issued after an asylum officer has found that the respondent has demonstrated a credible fear of persecution or torture Section 235(b)(1) order was vacated pursuant to: E] 8 CFR (f)(2) s CFR 235.3(b)(5)(iv) YOU ARE ORDERED to appear before an immigration judge of the United States Department of Justice at: at the charge(s) set forth above. (Complete Address of immigration Court, including Room Number, if any) to show why you should not he removed from the United States based on (Date) (Time) (Sigasture and Title of issuing Officer) Date: (City and State) See reverse for important information Form (Rev. 3;22/99)N ICE (7)

116 Notice to Respondent Warning: Any statement you make may be used against you in removal proceedings. Alien Registration: This copy of the Notice to Appear served upon you is evidence of your alien registration while you are under removal proceedings. You are required to carry it with you at all times, Representation: If you so choose, you may be represented in this proceeding, at no expense to the Government, by an attorney or other individual authorized and qualified to represent persons before the Executive Office for Immigration Review, pursuant to 8 CFR Unless you so request, no hearing will be scheduled earlier than ten days from the date of this notice, to allow you sufficient time to secure counsel. A list of qualified attorneys and organizations who may he available to represent you at no cost will provided with this Notice. Conduct of the hearing: At the time of your hearing, you should bring with you any affidavits or other documents which you desire to have considered in connection with your case. If any document is in a foreign language, you must bring the original and a certified English translation of the document. If you wish to have the testimony 'f any witnesses considered, you should arrange to have such witnesses present at the hearing. At your hearing you will be given the opportunity to admit or deny any or all of the allegations in the Notice to Appear and that you are inadmissible or deportable on the charges contained in the Notice to Appear. You will have an opportunity to present evidence on your own behalf, to examine any evidence presented by the Government. to object, on proper legal grounds, to the receipt of evidence and to cross examine any witnesses presented by the Government. At the conclusion of your hearing, you have a right to appeal an adverse decision by the immigration judge. You will be advised by the immigration judge before whom you appear, of any relief from removal for which you may appear eligible including the privilege of departing voluntarily. You will be given a reasonable opportunity to make any such application to the immigration judge. Failure to appear: You are required to provide the INS, in writing, with your full mailing address and telephone number. You must notify the Immigration Court immediately by using Form EOIR-33 whenever you change your address or telephone number during the course of this proceeding. You will be provided with a copy of this form. Notices of hearing will be mailed to this address. If you do not submit Form EOIR-33 and do not otherwise provide an address at which you may be reached during proceedings, then the Government shall not be required to provide you with written notice of your hearing. If you fail to attend the hearing at the time and place designated on this notice, or any date and time later directed by the immigration Court, a removal order may be made by the immigration judge in your absence, and you may be arrested and detained hv the INS. Request for Prompt Hearing To expedite a determination in my case, I request an immediate hearing I waite my right to have a 10-day period prior to appearing before an immigration judge. Before: (Signature of Respondent) (Signature and Title of INS Officer) Date:. This Notice To Appear was served on the respondent by me on Certificate of Service, in the following manner and in compliance with section 239(a)(1)(F) of the Act: [E in person [7] by certified mail, return receipt requested [] by regular mail ] Attached is a credible fear worksheet. ] Attached is a list of organizations and attorneys which provide free legal services. The alien was provided oral notice in the language of the time and place of his or her hearing and of the consequences of failure to appear as provided in section 240(h)(-) of the Act. (Signature of Respondent if Personally Served) (Signature and Title of Officer) Forn (Rev, )N ICE (7)

117 DRO Tasking: HQ DRO Guidance & Policy Related to Stipulated Orders of Removal: Question: Has there been a concerted ICE policy over the past few years to make immigrant detainees more aware of the option of stipulated removal? Answer: Yes, ICE has established policies to make immigrant detainees more aware of the option of stipulated removal, In 2004, local Field Office Directors coordinated with the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) and local court administrators to develop a stipulated removal agreement, including stipulated removal procedures. This action was taken in order to expedite proceedings before an immigration judge and avoid lengthy removal proceedings under Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Stipulated removal is offered on a case-by-case basis to aliens not wanting to plead their cases before an immigration judge. Question: Please provide any written guidance or policy to the field regarding the use of stipulated removals. Answer: See the following memos: 1. 'January 12,2004, "Updated Guidance for Use of Stipulated Removals," signed by Gary Mead, on behalf of John P. Torres, Director of DRO 2. Feb 22, 2007, "Recommendations to Improve Removal Processes," signed by Gary Mead, on behalf of John P. Torres, Director of DRO ICE (7)

118 PARTICIPANT WORKBOOK Lesson Plan Overview Course Course Description Field Performance Objective Interim (Training) Performance Objectives: Instructional Methods Time Training Aids Method of Evaluation Trainee Materials/Reference ICE ACADEMY August 10, 2004 ALTERNATE ORDERS OF REMOVAL Introduces the trainee to the various types of alternative orders of removal available, the steps that should be followed to obtain an order of removal, and the actions necessary to effect a removal. Given case information regarding a removable alien, the ICE officer/agent will initiate and affect an appropriate removal proceeding according to regulations and ICE policy. In a simulated removal case, the trainee will: 1, Identify the various methods that are available to secure an Order of Removal. 2. Identify the case information used to determine the proper method of obtaining an Order of Removal. 3. Identify the official that has jurisdiction over the different methods of obtaining an Order of Removal. 4. Identify and serve the documentation to obtain an Order of Removal. 5. Issue the proper documentation to affect a removal after an Order of Removal is obtained. Lecture, Discussion, Demonstration, and Laboratory Two (2) Hours Desk Top Exercise Multiple choice exam (comprehensive 25 items for Activity Preparation courses) Instructor critique of trainee's performance during the laboratory. Participant Workbook Immigration and Nationality Act Sections 217, 238, 240, 241 and CFR 217.4, 238.1, 239.1, 241.1, and (b) Forms: 1-851, I-851A, 1-862, I-871, I-221, I-205,I-294,I- 296, Stipulated Removal Form and Section 217 Removal Orders. ALTERNATE ORDERS OF REMOVAL ICE (7)

119 PARTICIPANT WORKBOOK Instructional Equipment Classroom Writing Surface (Chalkboard, Flipchart) Overhead Projector Task Addressed SOURCE: Deportation Officer Validation, Final Report (1995) Appendix D Amended by Deportation officer Re-Validation Panel, August 1997 TASK # TASK DESCRIPTION 018 Prepare and serve all forms applicable to removal proceedings. 030 Effect or determine removal of alien. a. Obtain valid travel document for alien Participate in alternate removal procedures (e.g., Institutional Hearing Program (IHP), stipulated and administrative removals). ICE ACADEMY August 10, 2004 ALTERNATE ORDERS OF REMOVAL 2 ICE (7)

120 _PARTICIPANT WORKBOOK I. INTRODUCTION A. An order of removal is the primary documentation needed to remove an alien from the United States. B. There are various avenues available to ICE officers from which an order can be obtained. The officer must be aware of the differences and methods that are appropriate for each individual case. The Immigration and Nationality Act contains provisions for several alternate orders of removal: 1. Stipulated Removal 2. Administrative Order of Removal (under the Visa Waiver Program) 3. Reinstatement of Previous Removal Order 4. Judicial Removal of Aggravated Felons in conjunction with a criminal case 5. Expedited Removal of Aggravated Felons C. The different forms required for each alternate order are: 1. Notice to Appear (NTA) (Form 1-862), 2. Order to Show Cause (OSC) (Form 1-221) (proceedings initiated and forms served on the Court prior to April 1, 1997), 3. Reinstated Order (1-871), 4. Notice of Intent to Issue an Administrative Removal Order (1-851), 5. Administrative Removal Order (1-85 1A), 6. Stipulated Removal Form and ICE ACADEMY ALTERNATE ORDERS OF REMOVAL August 10, ICE (7)

121 PARTICIPANT WORKBOOK 7. Section 217 Adniin Removal Order. II. DEVELOPMENT A. Case Requirements: 1. Alien must be classified as removable. 2. The aliens must be served with appropriate charging documents. 3. Alien must be given the opportunity to rebut the charges. B. Officers with jurisdiction and authority over the various Removal Orders: 1. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has authority over cases where a Notice to Appear has been served. 2. The following officers are authorized to. sign Notices of Intent to Reinstate and Intent to Issue Administrative Orders, of Removal. They include the: Field Office Director, Deputy Field Office Director, Officer in Charge, Assistant Officer in Charge, Chief Patrol Agent, Deputy Chief Patrol Agent and Assistant Chief Patrol Agent, Associate Chief Patrol Agent, Patrol Agent in Charge, Special Agent in Charge, Service Center Director, Deputy Center Director, Assistant Center Director for Examinations, Supervisory Asylum Officer, Institutional Hearing Director, Deputy Institutional Hearing Director. 3. Only the Field Office Director and the Chief Patrol Agent are designated to render a decision and order removal. 4. The deciding official cannot be the same official who signed the Notice of Intent. 5. Judicial Orders of Removal are issued by United States District Court Judges as part of a criminal ICE ACADEMY ALTERNATE ORDERS OF REMOVAL August 10, ICE (7)

122 PARTICIPANT WORKBOOK case verdict. 6. FOD/SAC over 217 Administrative Removal Orders. C. Documentation and Procedure 1. Stipulated Removals Pursuant to Section 240(d) of the INA. a. In order to proceed with a deportation in the timeliest manner possible, an Immigration Judge may enter an order of deportation or removal stipulated to by the alien (or their representative if they have one) and ICE. This can be done without a hearing based on a review of the charging document, the written stipulation, and any supporting documents. If the alien and ICE agree to a stipulated order, then the stipulation shall include: 1. An admission that all factual allegations contained in the charging document are true and correct as written; 2. A concession of deportability or inadmissibility as charged; 3. A statement that the alien makes no application for relief under the Act; 4. A designation of a country for deportation or removal under section 241(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act (the alien cannot designate a contiguous territory unless a citizen, national, native or permanent resident thereof); 5. A concession to the introduction of the written stipulation of the alien as an exhibit to the Record of Proceeding; 6. A statement that the alien understands the consequences of the stipulated request and that the alien enters the request voluntarily, ICE ACADEMY ALTERNATE ORDERS OF REMOVAL August 10, ICE (7)

123 PARTICIPANT WORKBOOK knowingly, and intelligently; 7. A statement that the alien will accept a written order for his or her deportation or removal as a final disposition of the proceedings; and 8. A waiver of appeal of the written order of deportation or removal. 2. Administrative Order of Removal under 8 CFR Visa Waiver Program (VWP). a. Aliens entering the United States under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program are initially admitted for 90 days. b. Aliens admitted under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program who are determined to be deportable will be served a letter from the Field Office Director ordering removal and be removed. c. Aliens admitted under the Visa Waiver Pilot. Program will be removed without referral to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) since the alien waives all right to a hearing when entering the United States under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. 3. Reinstated Order of Removal under 241 (A)(5) of the Act. a. An alien who illegally reenters the United States after having been removed, or having departed voluntarily, while under an order of deportation, or removal shall be removed by reinstating the prior order. The alien has no right to a hearing before an Immigration Judge. In establishing whether an alien is subject to this section, the officer shall determine the following: 1. Whether the alien has been subject to a prior order of removal. The officer must obtain the prior order and proof that the deportation has, in fact, been executed (1-205). ICE ACADEMY ALTERNATE ORDERS OF REMOVAL August 10, ICE (7)

124 _PARTICIPANT WORKBOOK 2. The officer must positively identify the alien to determine whether the alien is in fact an alien who was previously removed while under an order of deportation or removal. Verification of identity shall be accomplished by a comparison of fingerprints between those of the previously removed alien and those of the subject alien. In the absence of fingerprints in a disputed case, the alien shall not be removed pursuant to this section of law. 3. Whether the alien unlawfully reentered the United States. In making this determination, the officer shall consider all relevant evidence, including statements made by the alien and any evidence in the alien's possession. a Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior order is served on the alien. b. Appropriate deciding official will decide case after carefully reviewing all evidence. 4. Judicial Order of Removal (AGGRAVATED FELONS) Section 238(c) of the Act. a. U.S. District Court Judge orders removal in conjunction with criminal case. b. The United States Attorney must notify both the defendant (alien) and ICE of the government's intent to seek Judicial Removal. c. The alien is ordered removed at time of sentencing by Federal Judge. d. Alien attorney is necessary. The alien must be represented. e. The only avenue of appeal of a Judicial Order is the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. f. As soon as possible after the order is entered; ICE will provide the alien with written notice of the ICE ACADEMY ALTERNATE ORDERS OF REMOVAL August 10, ICE (7)

125 PARTICIPANT WORKBOOK Order of Removal. The Order will indicate the country of removal designated by the alien and the alternate country designated by ICE. CAUTION: Case must be reviewed for possible relief. The case can be presented to EOIR at the option of ICE. 5. Expedited Removal of Aggravated Felons Section 238(b) a , Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order, is served on aggravated felon alien. b. The alien has ten calendar days in which to submit a written response and any evidence to the deciding official. c. Based on the evidence in the file and the response submitted by the alien, the deciding official will render a decision. Under Section 238(b)(c) of the Act an alien convicted of an aggravated felony is "'conclusively presumed to be deportable." d. Alien may be represented by an attorney. e. Must not be an alien who was a Lawfully Admitted Permanent Resident (LAPR). f. Criminal convictions used as a basis for removal must be final. There is no appeal of the criminal conviction pending or outstanding. g. Final Administrative Removal Order (I-851A) can be executed fourteen (14) days after served on the alien; this period can also be waived by the alien. h. Alien can be served with a Notice to Appear pursuant to Section 240, and presented to EOIR at the discretion of the deciding official in lieu of Administrative Removal. i. The only appeal allowed is a Petition For Review ICE ACADEMY ALTERNATE ORDERS OF REMOVAL August 10, ICE (7)

126 PARTICIPANT WORKBOOK with Circuit Court of Appeals. The Petition for Review must be filed within thirty (30) days of the Administrative Removal Order being served on the alien. D. Final Order of Removal: When an Order of Removal is final, and the alien may be removed from the United States, the following actions are to be taken: 1. Issuance of a Warrant of Removal (Form 1-205), 2. issue and serve Penalties for Re-entry after Removal (Form 1-294) on the alien. Issue and serve Notice to Alien Ordered Removed/Departure Verification (Form 1-296) for Visa Waiver Program Administrative Removals, 3. initiate requests for travel documentation if necessary, 4. notify Consul of alien's country that the alien will be removed from the United States and 5. make travel arrangements. If escorting the alien remember to comply with advance notification and country clearance procedures. III. SUMMARY A. You have been exposed to various alternative methods available to obtain an Order of Removal. B. Cases you will encounter most frequently will be Section 240 cases. The cases in this course describe removals as otherwise provided by law. C. Select the most efficient way to effect a removal use the administrative methods as a tool to assist you in this matter. D. When there is a final order, issue a Warrant of Removal (1-205) and Warnings for Re-Entry after ICE ACADEMY ALTERNATE ORDERS OF REMOVAL August 10, ICE (7)

127 PARTICIPANT WORKBOOK Deportation (I-294) to effect the physical removal of the alien. Issue Form for VWP removals. IV. DEMONSTRATION AN LABORATORY The instructor will provide the trainee with sufficient information to prepare Form and After the instructor reviews forms for accuracy the trainee will serve the alien with Form The trainee will complete Form appropriately pursuant to the instructor's directions. ICE ACADEMY August 10 10,. ALTERNATE ORDERS OF REMOVAL, 2004 ICE (7)

128 1. IDepartient of Homeland SecuriHy 1 Stret NW.,mi ton, DC U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement MEMORANDUM FOR: FROM: All Special Agents in Charge All Field Office Directors Marcy M. Forman Director Office of Investigations John P. Torres Acting Director Detention and Removal Operations SUBJECT: Mandatory Use of Alternatives to Removal Proceedings This memorandum serves to affirm that it is U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy to use any available statutory alternative to removal proceedings for processing and removing aliens encountered by ICE officers. Unless there is a compelling law enforcement interest as determined by the ICE Special Agent in Charge (SAC) or ICE Field Office Director (FOD), a Notice to Appear (NTA) initiating removal proceedings before Immigration Court shall not be issued if a statutory alternative is available. This memorandum does not affect policy concerning voluntary departure, voluntary removal or deferred action decisions. Use of alternatives to removal proceedings has been mandatory for some time; however, not all ICE offices have consistently taken advantage of these useful tools. Using alternatives to removal will result in streamlining the removal process and will provide substantial resource and operational benefits to ICE field offices. Consistently using alternatives to removal proceedings may dramatically reduce alien transportation time and costs and may reduce the number of days aliens remain detained awaiting immigration court proceedings and removal. As a result, more officers will be available to pursue other critical enforcement duties and more detention space will be available to detain aliens who represent a threat to public safety or national security. At the same time, use of alternatives to removal proceedings provides appropriate due process rights. ICE (7)

129 SUBJECT: Mandatory Use of Alternatives to Removal Proceedings Page 2 ICE officers processing aliens for removal are required to determine if an alternative to removal proceedings contained in Section 217, Section 238, Section 240(d), or Section 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is available before issuing an NTA. ICE officers should consult with their local Chief Counsel office to assist in determining which alternative to removal proceedings is most appropriate for the situation. An NTA commencing removal proceedings in Immigration Court will be issued only in those cases where an alien cannot be removed using one of the following alternatives to removal proceedings and where there is no compelling law enforcement interest in the case. Reinstatement of Final Orders [INA Sectioi 241(a)(5), 8 CFR 241.8]: Under the statute, reinstatement of a final order is not optional. It is mandatory in the case of an alien who has previously been removed from the United States under a final order or who departed voluntarily while under a final order and has reentered illegally. Pursuant to the regulation the immigration officer must determine: 1) if the alien has been subject to a prior order of removal (note a copy of the prior order must be obtained in order to reinstate); 2) if the alien was previously removed, or departed voluntarily under an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal (in cases where identity is disputed, verification must be accomplished through the use of fingerprint comparison); 3) whether the alien entered illegally. In the event that ICE is unable to verify these requirements in a timely manner, and all other investigative avenues that would establish legal sufficiency to support reinstatement have been exhausted, another alternative to removal proceedings must be considered. If there are any issues or concerns whether reinstatement is appropriate, the local Office of Chief Counsel should be consulted. An alien otherwise subject to reinstatement of a final order who has applied for adjustment of status under either the Haitian refugee Immigration Fairness Act or the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act may not have a prior order reinstated unless and until a final decision to deny the application for adjustment has been rendered. An alien, for whom a prior order has been reinstated, and who expresses a fear of returning to the country designated, shall be immediately referred to an asylum officer for an interview pursuant to 8 C.F.R The only current judicial exception to the use of reinstatements is in the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as the result of an adverse decision by that court. A moratorium exists on the use of reinstatements in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Additional Guidance on Reinstatements is available in Chapter 14.8 of the Detention and Deportation Officer's Field Manual available in the bookshelf section of INSERTS Administrative Removal [INA Section 238(b), 8 CFR 238.1]: This alternative to removal proceedings is available for aliens: 1) who were not admitted for pennanent residency, or had permanent resident status on a conditional basis (as described in INA 216) at the time proceedings were commenced; and 2) are convicted of aggravated felonies; and are not subject to reinstatement. A list of aggravated felonies may be found under Section 101 (a)(43) of the ICE (7)

130 SUBJECT: Mandatory Use of Alternatives to Removal Proceedings Page 3 INA, If there are any issues or concerns whether an Administrative Removal is appropriate, the local Office of Chief Counsel should be consulted. An alien, served with a final Administrative Removal order and who requested withholding of removal pursuant to section shall be immediately referred to an asylum officer for a reasonable fear determination in accordance with 8 C.F.R Additional Guidance on Administrative Removals is available in Appendix 14-1 of the Detention and Deportation Officer's Field Manual available in the bookshelf section of INSERTS. Judicial Order of Deportation [INA Section 238(c)]: In the case of an alien being criminally prosecuted in a federal court and not subject to reinstatement or administrative removal, consideration of this alternative should be coordinated with the prosecuting Assistant United States Attorney prior to any plea agreement or sentencing and prior to issuance of an NTA. Additional Guidance on Judicial Removals is available in Chapter 14.9 of the Detention and Deportation Officer's Field Manual available in the bookshelf section of INSERTS. Stipulated Removal [INA Section 240(d)]: In the case of an alien not subject to reinstatement or administrative removal, the alien (or the alien's representative) should be given the opportunity to stipulate to a formal removal. Although it does require the filing of a NTA with the Immigration court a stipulation to removal expedites the issuance of a final removal order. The use of stipulated removal must be coordinated with local ICE Chief Counsel. Aliens Admitted Pursuant to the Visa Waiver Program [INA Section 217, 8 CFR 217.4(b) : An alien admitted pursuant to the Visa Waiver Program waives the right to contest removability in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. The SAC with jurisdiction over the alien's place of residence determines removability. If there is no asylum claim or if asylum is denied, removal may proceed. Additional Guidance on Visa Waiver Removals is available in Chapter 14.2 of the Detention and Deportation Officer's Field Manual available in the bookshelf section of INSERTS. In all cases, the use of alternatives to removal proceedings or issuance of an NTA must occur without undue delay and in conformity with Under Secretary Hutchinson's March 30, 2004, memorandum entitled, "Detention Prioritization and Notice to Appear Documentary Requirements." It is important that ICE officers make every effort to obtain final removal orders against aliens incarcerated on local, state or federal criminal charges prior to their release to ICE custody. This applies to all aliens incarcerated in either Institutional Removal Program (IRP) facility or at a non-irp Facility. Using available alternatives to removal proceedings will streamline the ICE (7)

131 SUBJE(T: Mandatory Use of Alternatives to Removal Proceedings Page 4 removal process and result in fewer criminal aliens released to ICE without final removal orders who must then be detained for longer periods of time. For those cases where a removable alien is prosecuted in federal court pursuant to an ICE initiated investigation, it is the responsibility of the ICE case agent to complete removal processing by use of an alternative to removal proceedings or issuance of an NTA. If the prosecuted removable alien is transferred to a jail, prison or other facility in another area of responsibility prior to completion of removal processing, the originating case agent will complete the processing and forward it to the appropriate 01 office for service on the incarcerated alien. ICE (7)

132 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 425 I Street, NW Washington, DC U.S. Immigration and Customs. Enforcement MEMORANDUM FOR: FROM: SUBJECT: ALL SPECIAL AGENTS IN CHARGE ALL FIELD OFFICE DIRECTORS Marcy M. Forman Director, Office of Investigations John P. Torres Acting Director Detention and Removal Operations Mandatory Use of Alternatives to Removal Proceedings Purpose This memorandum reaffirms that it is U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy to use any available statutory alternative to removal proceedings for processing and removing aliens encountered by ICE officers. Use of the statutory alternatives is mandatory. A Notice to Appear (NTA) commencing removal proceedings before an Immigration Court must not be issued if a statutory alternative is available unless there is a compelling law enforcement interest as determined by the ICE Special Agent in Charge (SAC) or ICE Field Office Director (FOD). This memorandum does not establish new policy for voluntary departure or voluntary removal decisions. Discussion Use of alternatives to removal proceedings has been mandatory for some time; however, not all ICE offices have consistently taken advantage of these useful tools. Using alternatives to removal will result in streamlining the removal process and will provide substantial resource and operational benefits to ICE field offices. Consistently using alternatives to removal proceedings can dramatically reduce alien transportation time and costs and will, likewise, reduce the number of days aliens remain detained awaiting immigration court proceedings and removal. Accordingly, more officers will be available to pursue other critical enforcement duties and more detention space will be available to detain more aliens who represent a threat to public safety or national security. At the same time, use of alternatives to removal proceedings is fair and provides appropriate due process rights. ICE (7)

133 SUBJECT: Alternative Forms of Initiating Removal Proceedings Page 2 ICE officers processing aliens for removal are required to determine if an alternative to removal proceedings contained in Section 217, Section 238, Section 240, or Section 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is available before issuing an NTA. An NTA commencing removal proceedings in Immigration Court will be issued only in those cases where an alien cannot be removed using one of the alternatives to removal proceedings listed below or there is a compelling law enforcement interest. This policy is mandatory and applies to all aliens regardless of whether they are encountered in the field or in custody. It is especially important; however, that ICE officers make every effort to obtain final removal orders against aliens incarcerated on local, state or federal criminal charges prior to their release to ICE custody. This applies to all aliens incarcerated in either IRP or non-irp facilities. Using available alternatives to removal proceedings will streamline the removal process and result in fewer criminal aliens released to ICE without final removal orders that then have to be detained for longer periods of time at ICE expense. Each of the alternatives to removal proceedings.listed below must be considered in all cases when processing an alien for removal. Any alternative available or the most appropriate available if more than one is available must be used. * Reinstatement of Final Orders (Section 241(a)(5) INA, 8 CFR 241.8): Under the statute, reinstatement of a final order is not optional. It is mandatory in the case of an alien who has previously been removed from the United States under a final order or who departed voluntarily while under a final order. In the event that ICE is unable to verify an alien's prior removal in a timely manner, and all other investigative avenues that would establish legal sufficiency to support reinstatement have been exhausted, another alternative to removal proceedings must be considered. Only when all of the alternatives have been considered and determined to not be available should an officer issue an NTA. The only current exception to the use of reinstatements is in the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as the result of an adverse decision by that court. A moratorium exists on the use of reinstatements in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Additional Guidance on Reinstatements is available in Chapter 14.8 of the Detention and Deportation Officer's Field Manual available in the bookshelf section of INSERTS * Administrative Removal (INA, Section 238(b), 8 CFR 238.1): This alternative to removal proceedings is available for aliens who were not admitted for permanent residency, are convicted of aggravated felonies, and are not subject to reinstatement. Additional Guidance on Administrative Removals is available in Appendix 14-1 of the Detention and Deportation Officer's Field Manual available in the bookshelf section of INSERTS. * Stipulated Judicial Order of Deportation (Section 238(c)(5) INA): In the case of an alien being criminally prosecuted in a federal court and not subject to reinstatement or administrative removal, consideration of this alternative should be coordinated with the prosecuting Assistant United States Attorney prior to any plea agreement or sentencing and prior to issuance of an NTA. ICE (7)

134 SUBJECT: Alternative Forms of Initiating Removal Proceedings Page 3 Additional Guidance on Judicial Removals is available in Chapter 14.9 of the Detention and Deportation Officer's Field Manual available in the bookshelf section of INSERTS. Stipulated Removal (Section 240(d) INA): In the case of an alien not subject to reinstatement or administrative removal, the alien (or the alien's representative) should be given the opportunity to stipulate to a formal removal. This does require commencement of a removal proceeding in an Immigration Court, however, a stipulation to removal expedites the issuance of a final removal order. The use of stipulated removal must be coordinated with local ICE counsel. * Aliens Admitted Pursuant to the Visa Waiver Program (Section 217 INA, 8 CFR 217.4(b)): An alien admitted pursuant to the Visa Waiver Program waives the right to contest removability in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. Removability is determined by the SAC with jurisdiction over the alien's place of residence. Additional Guidance on Visa Waiver Removals is available in Chapter 14.2 of the Detention and Deportation Officer's Field Manual available in the bookshelf section of INSERTSm This memorandum reaffirms ICE policy. It is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis or tutorial for use of alternatives to removal. For further, more detailed information, reference should be made to the ICE documents noted. Local ICE counsel is also available to provide further guidance when necessary. Timeliness and Responsibility for Processing Criminally Prosecuted Aliens for Removal Use of alternatives to removal proceedings or issuance of an NTA must occur without undue delay. In those cases in which a removable alien is prosecuted in federal court pursuant to an ICE initiated investigation, it is the responsibility of the prosecuting case agent to also complete removal processing either by use of an alternative to removal proceedings or issuance of an NTA. If the prosecuted removable alien is transferred to a jail, prison or other facility in another area of responsibility prior to completion of removal processing, the prosecuting case agent will complete the processing and forward it to the appropriate ICE office for service on the incarcerated alien. IC E (7)

135 From: Senior Management Counsel Sent: Wednesday, January 23, :54 PM To: Ragsdale, Daniel H; Liberta, Joseph M; Buchanan, Christopher B; Gountanis, John H Cc: OPLA Special Counsel Subject: FW: New task from OESIMS: Stipulated Removals FolderlD Are any of you aware of a video explaining the STIP removal process to aliens? I know that I am not and I train the Deportation Officers in Newark on the stipulated removal process. Patrice M. Rodman enior at cement Counsel NOTE: Responses should be sent to the "Senior Management Counsel" mailbox in Outlook and not directly to the above named individual. From: ICEOpsTasking@U [malto:iceopstasking Sent: Wednesday, January 23, :49 PM To: Gebhard, Susanna P; McLane, Jo Ann; Senior Management Counsel Subject: New task from OESIMS: Stipulated Removals FolderID CBP has heard that there is a video (in spanish) being used to explain the STIP removal process to aliens. They would like a copy of the video if it is legally valid and available for their use. Please respond to OPStasking whether or not you are aware of such a video and if so if we are able to provide CBP with a copy by COB Wednesday January 30, Original Message: OPStasking Office of the Assistant Secretary Immigration and Customs Enforcement PH: From: RYAN, CARA [mailto On Behalf Of CBPTASKING Sent: Wednesday, January,M To: OPStasking Cc: Cbptasking, Cbp Subject: STIPULATE REMOVALS ICE: CBP has heard that there is a video being used to explain (in Spanish) the alien's rights during a ICE (7)

136 stipulated removal. CBP would like to use that video if it is legally valid and available. Is there such a video and if so, where can we obtain it? Thank yo. n CBktaskings Office of the Executive Secretariat U.S. Customs and Border Protection (b)(), b)()c esk) This message is part of an automated workflow, please do not change the text in the subject line when responding or forwarding the message. Folder Subject: Stipulated Removals Folder Originator: CBP taskings Due Date: 1/30/2008 5:00:00 PM Workflow ID: bc-29be-4ae6-b02f-de9dl a25ed8c Folder Location Task ID: Workflow Task ID: d2983ba7-14ea-4fcl-bobl-4089d1d2cc94 Assignment ID: aecc28e4-41d8-418c-8f97-aldoelo35cae ICE (7)

137 From: Ragsdale, Daniel H Sent: Wednesday, January 23, :56 PM To: Senior Management Counsel; Liberta, Joseph M; Buchanan, Christopher B; Gountanis, John H Cc: OPLA Special Counsel Subject: RE: New task from OESIMS: Stipulated Removals FolderID OPP is working on a new know you r rights video. It could be in there? Dan Ragsdale Chief - Enforcement Law Division and Customs Enforcement cell) soeyo prodc and pridvilegedattomeylclient communi available~~ foaees ~n, slsure msnoceetwthu h exprss rior approval of th.s mi ndheoic ' a visor. From: Senior Management Counsel Sent: Wednesday, January 23, :54 PM To: Ragsdale, Daniel H; Liberta, Joseph M; Buchanan, Christopher B; Gountanis, John H Cc: OPLA Special Counsel Subject: FW: New task from OESIMS: Stipulated Removals FolderID Are any of you aware of a video explaining the STIP removal process to aliens? I know that I am not and I train the Deportation Officers in Newark on the stipulated removal process. Patrice M. Rodman Senior Mana ement Counsel NOTE: Responses should be sent to the "Senior Management Counsel" mailbox in Outlook and not directly to the above named individual. From: ICEOpsTasking ( imalito:iceopstasking ** Sent: Wednesday, January 23, :49 PM To: Gebhard, Susanna P; McLane, Jo Ann; Senior Management Counsel Subject: New task from OESIMS: Stipulated Removals FolderID CBP has heard that there is a video (in spanish) being used to explain the STIP removal process to aliens. They would like a copy of the video if it is legally valid and available for their use. Please respond to OPStasking whether or not you are aware of such a video and if so if we are able to provide CBP with a copy by COB Wednesday January 30, ICE (7)

138 Original Message: OPStasking Office of the Assistant Secretary Immigration and Customs Enforcement From: [mailto Sent: Wednesday, January, **: :;3 ' On Behalf Of CBPTASKING To: OPStasking Cc: Cbptasking, Cbp Subject: STIPULATE REMOVALS ICE: CBP has heard that there is a video being used to explain (in Spanish) the alien's rights during a stipulated removal. CBP would like to use that video if it is legally valid and available. Is there such a video and if so, where can we obtain it? Thank you. n e a taskings Office of the Executive Secretariat U.S. Customs and Border Protection Desk) Cell) This message is part of an automated workflow, please do not change the text in the subject line when responding or forwarding the message. Folder Subject: Stipulated Removals Folder Originator: CBP taskings Due Date: 1/30/2008 5:00:00 PM Workflow ID: bc-29be-4ae6-b02f-de9dla25ed8c Folder Location: Task ID: Workflow Task ID: d2983ba7-14ea-4fcl-bobl-4089d1d2cc94 Assignment ID: aecc28e4-41d8-418c-8f97-aldoe1035cae ICE (7)

139 Summary - Chief Counsel Office Responses Regarding Stipulated Removal Process (02/10/06) A. Offices where the program is successful: In offices where the program is successful, the number of stipulated orders is large, and the program is deemed to be helpful both in freeing up detention space, and limiting the backlog in the immigration courts. Most of these offices do not see the need for a regulatory fix, however they are quick to note that the success of their program relies upon the cooperation of relationship between them, DRO, and EOIR. This relationship is essential because the regulations at 8 C.F.R (b) state that the IJ may enter an order - thus many Us refuse to use them. Also, as there are many legal requirements that must be included in the stipulated order packet, if these are not processed properly by DRO and reviewed by the OCC, the stipulated order process is rendered useless. Offices where the program has been successful include: Arlington, Atlanta, Chicago, Eloy, Kansas City, El Paso, Los Angeles, Newark, Orlando, Seattle, and St. Paul. B. Offices with less successful programs: There is a large subgroup of offices that has hit logistical barriers in the processing of stipulated removals that may be remedied by a regulation. Interestingly, these programs have faltered for precisely the reasons the successful programs have thrived, the lack of strong working relationships with the other components, as well as resources. Either EOIR refuses to entertain the orders (or holds them up by requesting a hearing), DRO cannot process the paperwork correctly, or the OCC lacks the resources to review and process the paperwork quickly and efficiently. In these offices, there are three basic areas in which the offices suggest a regulation change would assist with these issues. First, these offices suggest that 8 C.F.R (b) be changed to require that IJ's must sign off on stipulated orders. This would remove the discretion IJ's presently use to curtail the use of stipulated orders. Second, the offices suggest making clear that the documentation required by the regulation suffices to meet the standard for a "knowing, voluntary waiver." Many IJs use this to require hearing for all unrepresented aliens (a large group), making the use of a stipulated order pointless, as dealing with the paperwork and then also having the hearing is extra work. Third, a few offices have suggested that a regulation change be instituted requiring that the IJ sign off on the order within hours. C. Offices with no stipulated removal program. ICE (7)

140 At present, four of the 26 OCC's do not have stipulated removal order programs. They are: Buffalo, San Diego, El Centro, and San Juan. D. General Stats. According to GEMS, OPLA's database used for tracking cases, in FY 2007, approximately 23,259 stipulated order of removal cases nationwide where reviewed by OPLA attorneys to determine legal sufficiency. In addition, thus far in FY 2008, nationwide there approximately 2,251 stipulated order removals in October 2007, 2,163 stipulated order of removal in November 2007, and 2,110 in December. Approximately 16,811 aliens were removed via stipulated order in Five offices removed over 1000, accounting for approximately 12, 068 aliens, or 72% of the yearly total: 1. Eloy LA Kansas City St. Paul Seattle (Approx.) Of the 26 OCC's, the following answers were received regarding regulatory fixes (many offices suggested more than one): 15 offices stated there is no need for a regulation change (1 N/A) 7 offices requested a regulation change requiring IJ's to accept orders 5 offices suggested the regulation clarify the issue of what is a knowing waiver 2 offices suggested the regulation require the IJ turn the order around in hours 1 office suggested that the regulation confer authority to 01 and DRO to sign the orders 1 office suggested that INA 238(d) be changed to ensure that District courts can also enter orders against aliens removed, and in 212 and 237 proceedings. 1 office suggested that a signed directive from EOIR would suffice 2 offices suggested standardizing the forms nationwide ICE (7)

141 QFR Set Number: QO0O 149 Committee Question Number: 41 Topic: ICE protocol - 8 Question: What protections are in place to ensure that U.S. citizens who are mentally disabled are not caught up in administrative removal, expedited removal, or are asked to sign stipulated removal orders? Response: [INSERT RESPONSE HERE. USE Times New Roman, I Ipt font, blue] QFR Set Number: Q Committee Question Number: 42 Topic: ICE protocol - 9 Question: What specific steps do ICE officers take to ensure that mentally ill individuals who are ICE (7)

142 not capable of exercising a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of their rights at the time of deportation are not mistakenly deported? Response: [INSERT RESPONSE HERE, USE Times New Roman, 1lpt font, blue] QFR Set Number: Q Committee Question Number: 43 Topic: ICE protocol - 10 Question: What written policies or guidelines has ICE issued regarding steps to be undertaken by ICE personnel during the voluntary departure or removal process to ensure that mentally disabled U.S. citizens are not deported from the United States? Please share any such materials with the Committee. Response: [INSERT RESPONSE HERE. USE Times New Roman, I Ipt font, blue] ICE (7)

143 November 18, 2008 Amnesty International USA Amnesty International is requesting the Department of Homeland Security to provide the information requested below, as part of Al's research on the use of immigration detention and alternatives to detention in the United States. We would be grateful if you could send the information requested by December 5, 2008 to: - Acting Director Ru aw igrants Rights Amnesty International USA 600 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 500 Washington, DC Tel: Detention 1. How many individuals has ICE arrested for each year since 2003? 2. How many individuals has ICE detained for each year since 2003? 3. For each year since 2003, can you please break down the number of individuals detained under the following classifications: a. Individuals subject to expedited removal under INA 235, 8 CFR (b) (iii) b. Individuals subject to detention as arriving aliens under INA 235 (b). Please break this into those who are: i. Seeking asylum, withholding or relief from removal under CAT; and ii. Legal Permanent Residents c. Individuals subject to discretionary detention under INA 236 (a) d. Individuals subject to mandatory detention under INA 236 (c) e. Individuals subject to post-removal detention under INA 241 AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA 600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE SE WASHINGTON DC T Amnesty Intematlonal Is a worldwide grassroots movement that promotes and defends human rights. F ICE (7)

144 4. For each year since 2003, what is the average length of detention for individuals held in ICE detention? Please break this into the following classifications: a. Individuals subject to expedited removal under INA 235, 8 CFR (b)(iii) b. Individuals subject to detention as arriving aliens under INA 235 (b), Please break this into those who are: i. Seeking asylum, withholding or relief from removal under CAT; and ii. Legal Permanent Residents c. Individuals subject to discretionary detention under INA 236 (a) d. Individuals subject to mandatory detention under INA 236 (c) e. Individuals subject to post-removal detention under INA For each year since 2003, what is the longest period of detention for individuals held in ICE detention? Please break this into the following classifications: a. Individuals subject to expedited removal under INA 235, 8 CFR Sec (b) (iii) b. Individuals subject to detention as arriving aliens under INA 235 (b). Please break this into those who are: 1. Seeking asylum, withholding or relief from removal under CAT; and ii. Legal Permanent Residents c. Individuals subject to discretionary detention under INA 236 (a) d. Individuals subject to mandatory detention under INA 236 (c) e. Individuals subject to post-removal detention under INA Of those subject to mandatory detention under INA 236 (c) how many are: a. People being held on criminal grounds? b. People being held related to national security and/or terrorist activities? Release From Detention 7. For each year since 2003, how many individuals were released by ICE on their own recognizance? Please break this into the following classifications: a. Individuals subject to detention as arriving aliens under INA 235 (b). Please break this into those who are: i. Seeking asylum, withholding or relief from removal under CAT, and ii. Legal Permanent Residents b. Individuals subject to discretionary detention under INA 236 (a) c. Individuals subject to mandatory detention under INA 236 (c) d. Individuals subject to post-removal detention under INA For each year since 2003, how many individuals were released subject to supervision that did not include electronic monitoring: Please break this down into the following classifications: 2 ICE (7)

145 a. Individuals subject to detention as arriving aliens under INA 235 (b). Please break this into those who are: 1. Seeking asylum, withholding or relief from removal under CAT; and ii. Legal Permanent Residents b. Individuals subject to discretionary detention under INA 236 (a) c. Individuals subjectto mandatory detention under INA 236 (c) d. Individuals subject to post-removal detention under INA For each year since 2003, how many individuals were released subject to supervision that did include electronic monitoring? Please break this down into the following classifications for the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP); a. Individuals subject to detention as arriving aliens under INA 235 (b). Please break this into those who are: i. Seeking asylum, withholding or relief from removal under CAT; and ii. Legal Permanent Residents b. Individuals subject to discretionary detention under INA 236 (a) c. Individuals subject to mandatory detention under INA 236 (c) d. Individuals subject to post-removal detention under INA Please break the same number down into the following classifications for the Enhanced Supervision/Reporting (ESR) program: a. Individuals subject to detention as arriving aliens under INA 235 (b). Please break this into those who are: i. Seeking asylum, withholding or relief from removal under CAT; and ii. Legal Permanent Residents b. Individuals subject to discretionary detention under INA 236 (a) c. Individuals subject to mandatory detention under INA 236 (c) d. Individuals subject to post-removal detention under INA It is Amnesty International's understanding that pursuant to INA 212(d)(5), ICE has jurisdiction to release migrants and asylum seekers subject to all types of detention, Including mandatory detention under INA 236(c), when humanitarian grounds exist. Can you break down: a. How many people subject to mandatory detention were released by ICE each year since 2003? 1, How many were released on medical grounds? 3 ICE (7)

146 ii. How many were released on other grounds, and can you provide examples of other grounds that may be considered for release? 12. Amnesty International has been informed by practitioners in various jurisdictions that local ICE offices have a "no release" policy. Can you explain: a. Whether this is a national policy or local policy? b. In what circumstances is it appropriate for a local ICE office to be asserting a no release policy? c. If no release policies are not appropriate in any circumstances, what steps Is ICE taking to ensure that local ICE offices understand this position? d. If this guidance is in written format, can you provide a copy? Bond 13. Does ICE provide ICE officers and attorneys with guidance on how to establish an appropriate bond in individual cases? For example, are there monetary guidelines, a requirement of family ties, or other factors considered?. Can you provide a copy of these guidelines? 14. For each year since 2003, how many individuals were released by ICE on bond? Please break this Into the following classifications: a. Individuals subject to detention as arriving aliens under INA 235 (b). Please break this into those who are: i. Seeking asylum, withholding or relief from removal under CAT; and ii. Legal Permanent Residents b. Individuals subject to discretionary detention under INA 236 (a) c. Individuals subject to mandatory detention under INA 236 (c) d. d. Individuals subject to post-removal detention under INA For those granted bond through an ICE officer each year since 2003 please break these numbers down by local ICE office, and include the following information. i. What is the average bond set by the ICE office? ii. What is the highest? iii. What is the lowest? 16. How many and in what percentage of cases have people statutorily eligible for bond have been denied bond by local ICE officers each year since 2003? How many were: 4 ICE (7)

147 a. Individuals subject to detention as arriving aliens Under INA 235 (b). Please break this into those who are: a.seeking asylum, withholding or relief from removal under CAT; and b.legal Permanent Residents b. Individuals subject to discretionary detention under INA 236 (a) c. Individuals subject to mandatory detention under INA 236 (c) d. Individuals subject to post-removal detention under INA Since 2003, how many people and in what percentage of cases has an immigration judge been asked to review the decision of an ICE officer to deny parole or bond? When an ICE officer has denied bond, can you provide the percentage of cases in which an immigration judge grants a. bond? 19. In what percentage of cases and for how many people has an immigration judge decreased the amount of bond? What is the average bond set by an immigration judge? What is the highest bond set? 20. What is ICE's position as to whether an Ii can release an individual on electronic monitoring as a part of "conditional parole" under INA Sec. 236(a)(2)(B). 21. What is ICE's position as whether an Immigration Judge can release an individual on their own recognizance? 22. Since the regulations were published, how many times have ICE attorneys invoked the automatic stay from bond regulations per year? Of those cases referred to ICE headquarters, in how many cases was a Notice of Appeal filed to the BIA? Of those not pursued, what was the average length of time it took for the individual detained to be notified, and what was the average length of time before they were released? Is there Written guidance on this issue? Please provide It. 23. It is Al's understanding that when a person prevails in removal proceedings, successfully undergoes voluntary removal or Is deported, he is entitled to return of the bond. What is the shortest period it takes to return a bond? What is the average amount of time? What is the longest period? 24. In how many and what percentage of cases has ICE been unable to return a bond because it can't find the person who paid it? What steps are taken to find the person who paid the bond? Is there written guidance on this? If so, can you provide it? Removal and Post Removal Issues: 25. Are ICE attorneys required to review stipulated removal orders before they are presented to immigration judges for review and signature? If so, what guidance is provided to them in undertaking this review? If there is a written policy, please provide. 5 ICE (7)

148 26. If ICE attorneys are not required to review stipulated removal orders, what guidance is provided to DHS officers preparing stipulated removal orders? Please provide this guidance, 27. For each year since 2003, how many removal cases have been terminated with ICE consent because an individual is proven to be a US citizen? 28. In how many cases did OIL agree to remand a case back to the BIA from the circuit courts between 2003 and 2008? In how many of these cases did ICE contest the legal issues before the BIA on remand? Of those contested, in how many cases was the individual detained? 29. When a migrant or asylum seeker has been in detention for more than 90 days after receiving an order of removal under INA 242, what steps does ICE take to ensure that a timely "continued detention review proceeding" takes place pursuant to 8 CFR ? a. How many cases have been reviewed under the regulations? b. How many went through an associate commissioner? c. How many people in detention, and what percentage, were released pursuant to the regulations? d. Is there written guidance on this issue for ICE officers? If so, please provide. 30. In numerous cases, federal courts have found deficiencies and/or noncompliance with the regulations on post removal custody review. What steps are being taken to ensure that each ICE office is in compliance with these regulations? Is there written guidance and if so, can you provide it? Conditions 31. How many Inter-Governmental Service Agreement facilities (IGSAs) and Contract Detention facilities (CDFs) does ICE have contracts with throughout the US? Can you provide a list of all IGSAs and CDFs? 32. Is guidance given to IGSAs and CDFs regarding ICE's standards for detention conditions? Is guidance currently given to IGSAs and CDFs regarding Inspections? 33. How often do inspections by DHS or an independent agency occur for each IGSA and CDF facility? Are there ever unannounced inspections? 34. How many contracts have been terminated on the basis of non-compliance with ICE standards (since 2003)? If so, please provide the names of these facilities and the reasons why these contracts were terminated. 35. In 2007, the Government Accountability Office released a report which highlighted the Inability of detainees at IGSAs from calling consulates and pro bono legal organizations at no charge to themselves or their recipients. What changes have been implemented to ensure 6 ICE (7)

149 that this problem does not continue at the facilities GAO investigators visited as well as other IGSAs and CDFs ICE contracts with? What recommendations from the report have been implemented into ICE protocol and standards? 36. In December 2006 and June 2008, the Inspector General of DHS released reports which detailed deficiencies in health care provided to ICE detainees and the oversight of detention facilities' health care programs respectively. Amnesty International also received reports of detainees not receiving adequate and timely medical treatment. What steps have been taken to ensure that detention facilities are providing adequate health care to ICE detainees? What steps have been taken to improve the oversight of detention facility health care programs? 37. Amnesty International spoke with current and former ICE detainees who reported that they were not getting their requisite recreation time and/or that recreation was only provided at unreasonable times such as 5:00 am. What steps are being taken in choosing an IGSA or CDF to ensure that ICE detainees will receive outdoor recreation and that it occurs at a reasonable hour? What steps are taken during inspections to ensure that ICE detainees are receiving their requisite recreation and under what conditions? Do inspectors ever speak with ICE detainees about recreation.during inspections? 38. Amnesty International spoke with current and former ICE detainees, including women and asylum seekers who reported being repeatedly placed in restraints during transportation, although they did not appear to present any form of security risk. ICE standards specifically note that females and minors will not be handcuffed "as a rule" during transportation. What guidance, if any, is given to the Officers in Charge on the use of restraints during transportation and the need to conduct a review of the necessity of restraints in each individual case? 39. Amnesty International spoke with current and former ICE detainees who consistently described commingling between the immigration and criminally incarcerated populations. Is ICE aware that IGSAs are commingling populations? What steps is ICE taking to ensure that this practice ceases? 40. Amnesty International spoke with current and former ICE detainees who were transferred between several facilities during the course of their immigration detention. Several individuals were transferred to detention facilities in different states. Some alleged that they were threatened with or actually transferred in retaliation for making complaints. Are any measures taken to reduce the number of transfers for ICE detainees? What measures are taken to ensure that detainees' families and attorneys are notified of the transfer? What measures are taken to ensure that transfer Is not used in retaliation or as punishment against detainees who lodge complaints about their treatment? 41. How does ICE ensure that IGSAs and CDFs are issuing immigration detainees with a handbook that is specific to them, i.e. not the handbook issued to people detained due to 7 ICE (7)

150 criminal convictions? How does ICE ensure that the handbooks given out are provided in Spanish and the next most prevalent languages spoken by the ICE detainees at each facility? 42. Amnesty International received reports that immigration detainees may not be receiving adequate access to law libraries and that material in the libraries were out of date. How does ICE ensure that IGSAs and CDFs have adequate law library available services for ICE detainees? What steps are taken to ensure that IGSAs and CDFs keep their library materials up to date? How does ICE ensure that ICE detainees are getting the requisite amount of time in accessing facility law libraries? 43. Amnesty International received a report of a transgender woman being held alongside male criminal detainees. Does ICE have a policy for the detention of transgender individuals? If so, please provide a copy of this policy. 44. Know Your Rights Presentation (KYR) and Legal Orientation Programs (LOP) have been shown to have a demonstrated positive effect on the ability for immigration detainees to represent themselves in Immigration Court. However Amnesty has found that some detention facilities do not allow outside groups to perform KYR presentations and that the LOP is limited to a set number of locations around the country. What steps has ICE taken to increase access for detainees to these two types of legal programs? 45. What steps has ICE taken to ensure that while in detention, detainees have regular access toice officerswho are familiar with their cases? What steps have been taken to ensure that ICE detainees, including those who are unrepresented by legal counsel, can get information regarding their immigration case in a timely manner? 46. Amnesty International spoke with several current and former detainees who were unable to read legal documents or communicate with facility staff because of language barriers. What steps, if any, has ICE taken to provide translation services for detainees while in detention? 8 ICE (7)

151 1. LA Times on launch of BEST at the ports oflos Angeles and Long Beach New task force targets smuggling at L.A., Long Beach ports The Border Enforcement Security Task Force is made up of officers from federal, state and local agencies. It has already seized cocaine bound for Australia and weapons headed for Mexico. Louis Sahagun December 05, 2008 Since it was quietly deployed at the nation's busiest harbor complex in October, a new antismuggling task force has seized 140 pounds of cocaine bound for Australia, dozens of weapons headed for Mexico and 20 pounds of meth stashed in cars en route to Hawaii. Headquartered inside a former detention facility on Terminal Island, the multi-agency Border Enforcement Security Task Force's (BEST) main mission is to "shut down criminal organizations that exploit the ports of Los Angeles.and Long Beach," said Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent in Charge Robert A. Schoch. But it kept a stealthy profile until today, when it was unveiled at a waterfront news conference surrounded by the industrial maze of terminals, massive cranes, big rigs, railroads and tens of thousands of shipping containers it investigates under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security. The 17-member task force is made up of officers from nine federal, state and local agencies: ICE, the U.S. Secret Service, the California Highway Patrol, the Los Angeles Port Police, the U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service, the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Federal Air Marshal Service and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It was modeled after BEST units already targeting criminal activity at key points along the nation's northern and southern borders from San Diego to the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. "We're the first BEST unit to be launched at a seaport," Schoch said. Similar operations are planned for the ports of New York and Miami. Los Angeles Port Police Chief Ronald Boyd said the task force has strengthened collaborative ties among agencies that tended to work independently while fighting drug, immigrant, currency and weapons smuggling, trade fraud and cargo theft in. the 10,700-acre complex. Each year, the area handles about 8,000 commercial vessels and 16 million containers crammed with cargo valued at $378 billion -- a tempting target of opportunity for criminal organizations. ICE (7)

152 "Within weeks of hanging their shingle over the door, they proved themselves with interdictions that have had a major impact on public safety," Boyd said. "They put money, drugs and guns on the table in a remarkably rapid fashion." 2. LA Times on detention fees as solid income for cities and counties The L.A. County Sheriffs Department and other agencies cover budget shortfalls and save positions using the federal payments. By Anna Gorman March 17, 2009 At a time when local law enforcement agencies are being forced to cut budgets and freeze hiring, cities across Southern California have found a growing source of income -- immigration detention. Roughly two-thirds of the nation's immigrant detainees are held in local jails, and the payments to cities and counties for housing them have increased as the federal government has cracked down on illegal immigrants with criminal records and outstanding deportation orders. Washington paid nearly $55.2 million to house detainees at 13 local jails in California in fiscal year 2008, up from $52.6 million the previous year. The U.S. is on track to spend $57 million this year. The largest federal contract in the state is with the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, whose 1,400-bed detention center in Lancaster is dedicated to housing immigrants either awaiting deportation or fighting their cases in court. The department received $34.7 million in 2008, up from $32.3 million the previous year. Some smaller cities have seen their income rise much faster. Glendale received nearly $260,000 in 2008, triple what it got the previous year. In Alhambra, last year's $247,000 was more than double the previous year's payments. For some cash-strapped cities, the federal money has become a critical source of revenue, covering budget shortfalls and saving positions. Santa Ana's Police Department, for example, expects as much as a 15% budget cut and has had a hiring freeze since October that has resulted in more than 60 sworn and civilian positions remaining vacant, Police Chief Paul Walters said. To offset reductions, Walters plans to convert two multipurpose rooms at the 480-bed jail into dormitory rooms this spring. That will accommodate an additional 32 immigrant detainees, which he expects will bring in $1 million more in revenue each year. He also hopes to get approval to raise the nightly price per detainee from $82 to $87. -ICE (7)

153 "We treat [the jail] as a business," Walters said. "The cuts could have been much deeper if it weren't for the ability to raise money there." When Santa Ana received bond money to build a police headquarters and jail, it did so with the future in mind. Rather than constructing a facility to house its own inmates, it built a much larger facility and soon started contracting with Orange County and state and federal governments. The federal contracts cover nearly the entire cost of the jail, said Russell Davis, the jail administrator. On a recent day, the jail housed 20 Santa Ana arrestees, 283 U.S. Marshals prisoners and 165 immigration detainees. Some of the detainees, from Mexico, Vietnam, El Salvador and elsewhere, had landed in immigration custody after serving state prison sentences. Others were arrested after ignoring deportation orders or because of criminal records that made them eligible for deportation. The contract with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency brought in more than $3.7 million in 2007 and $4.8 million last year. If he had to do it all over again, Davis said, he would have built another floor on the jail. The immigration agency "is inundated with detainees," he said. "If I had 100 more beds, they'd fill them." Immigrant detainees stay in the local jails anywhere from a few hours to many months. At most jails, they are not separated from the rest of the population. Not everyone is as pleased as Davis over those arrangements. Immigrant rights advocates have raised concerns about local jails not following federal detention standards and not segregating detainees from people suspected of committing crimes. "Immigration detention is civil, not criminal," said Ahilan Arulanantham, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. "If you are holding them in the same place, that distinction is meaningless." Even though the cities may benefit financially, the savings do not get passed along to taxpayers, he said. "We're still paying for it," he said. "It's still a waste of resources to detain people who do not need to be detained." Several of the foreign nationals housed in Santa Ana said they believed they should be let out on bond rather than incarcerated while fighting their immigration cases, especially if they had no criminal records or had already served their time. Victor Hidalgo, 36, finished a five-year sentence in state prison on a drug charge before being transferred into immigration custody. Hidalgo, who is from Nicaragua, said he and others have jobs, families and homes here and are not a danger to society. "We're not national security risks," he said. ICE (7)

154 Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice said the jails that house detainees for more than 72 hours -- including in Santa Ana and Lancaster -- are subject to "stringent detention standards" and undergo inspection by a contracted company. Other jails are inspected regularly by the immigration agency. The federal contracts with local jails began about a decade ago but have expanded over the last few years. The federal government operates some of its own detention centers and contracts with private companies to run others but relies heavily on the local jails. The cost varies from around $80 to just over $100 per detainee per day, generally less expensive than the cost of housing detainees at federal immigration facilities. "These facilities enable us to place detainees at appropriate sites with minimal travel so we can begin the removal process quickly," Kice said. In Southern California, the need for bed space became more pressing after the immigration agency closed the San Pedro detention center on Terminal Island in And in Northern California, where there is no dedicated immigration detention center, Santa Clara County began housing the detainees in "It was a strategy to help us financially," said Edward Flores, chief of Santa Clara County's Department of Correction. Those budget cuts have only gotten worse, with the county expecting $1.25 million less in fiscal year In turn, the federal contract has become even more important. Flores said he expects to make up about half the expected deficit with federal contracts, both with the immigration agency and the U.S. Marshals Service. He is also trying to negotiate a higher nightly rate. The county received nearly $7 million to house detainees in "We have become very reliant on this revenue," Flores said. 3. LA Times on Mexican agents repatriated following their arrest in the U.S. on drug violations Two Mexican agents deported after pleading to drug charges 12:15 PM IApril 7, 2009 Two Mexican federal agents were deported this morning, one week after entering pleas on drug charges in Los Angeles County Superior Court. ICE (7)

155 Immigration agents handed Carlos Cedano-Filippini, 35, and Victor Manuel Juarez-Cruz, 35, over to Mexican authorities at the border crossing this morning, "amid extraordinarily tight security," according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The men, both part of Mexico's Federal Agency of Investigations, were arrested July 2008 at a West Covina house in connection with an ongoing narcotics investigation. More than $600,000 in what was believed to be drug proceeds was recovered from the house. On April 1, Cedano- Filippini pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor count of accessory to a felony and Juarez-Cruz pleaded no contest to possession of more than $100,000 in narcotic proceeds. They were sentenced to time already served in county jail. Representatives from the Mexican Attorney General's office were waiting for the men at the San Ysidro crossing this morning. 4. LA Daily News writing on the one-year anniversary of controversial worksite enforcement at an area manufacturing plant One year later, immigration raid at factory leaves lives in limbo By Jerry Berrios, LA Daily News, 2/8/09 Gregorio Cruz was working at a manufacturing plant in Van Nuys one year ago when federal agents raided the facility. Cruz is now in court claiming that arresting officers did not follow correct procedures. A year ago, Gregorio Perez Cruz stood at his work station at a Van Nuys factory dismantling printer cartridges, as he had done for the previous two years. Forty-five minutes into his shift, he walked to a nearby water fountain for a drink and spotted law enforcement officers with weapons strapped to their legs and waists. What happened next turned his tranquil life upside down. "They came in shouting, 'Everybody out. Stop doing what you are doing,"' Perez Cruz recalled. He said he was ushered into a hallway, where he saw anxious co-workers trying to steady trembling hands. That's when he heard the word "immigration." That moment was the beginning of an ordeal that continues today for Perez Cruz and more than 100 others arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents during a raid at Micro Solutions Enterprises in Van Nuys on Feb. 7, In the year that has passed, no resolution has been reached in the cases of Perez Cruz and the bulk of other arrested workers accused of being in the country illegally. Some have returned voluntarily to their homelands; others, like Perez Cruz, wait to see if they may be deported. ICE (7)

156 Of eight workers facing criminal charges, such as identity theft, 2010 trial dates have been set for four. And so the debate rages over what, if anything, was gained by the raid at the printer cartridge factory. Civil liberties groups are pressing claims that authorities violated workers' rights during the raid. ICE, meanwhile, argues that even without a resolution to individual cases, the Van Nuys raid acts as a deterrent to illegal immigration and hiring. The lack of measurable impact, critics say, reflects a national stalemate over immigration policy - an impasse likely to drag on as the country's economic crisis takes center stage and the Obama administration shapes its own immigration policy. "Nothing has been gained," said Nora Preciado, an attorney for the L.A.-based National Immigration Law Center, a, legal group that advocates for the rights of low-income immigrants and their families. "People's lives have been destroyed." Perez Cruz, who is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, is trying to get his charges dismissed, arguing the raid wasn't conducted properly. "The agents flagrantly violated both immigration regulations and the Constitution," said Ahilan Arulananthm, Perez Cruz's lead attorney and the ACLU's director of immigrants' rights and national security. "Most importantly, instead of only detaining those people who they suspected of being unlawfully present, they chose just to round up everyone first and gather'evidence later." Perez Cruz said he was handcuffed, arrested and questioned five times without being read his rights and without an attorney present. He says he didn't get anything to eat for 18 hours after the raid, and he said he had to drink water from a bathroom sink in the detention center, where he was taken from the factory. He wasn't able to use a bathroom until he got to the detention center, hours after the arrest. Similar allegations Other detainees have made the same charges, which ICE refutes. "It's our policy to treat all persons humanely," said Virginia Kice, an ICE spokeswoman. "That includes providing adequate food, water and access to restrooms." ICE (7)

157 Separate from the immigration and criminal cases, more than 100 people at the Van Nuys plant filed claims for damages against the U.S. government, charging that they were unlawfully detained - a charge ICE disagrees with. "We maintain that the search was conducted properly in accordance with the terms of the warrant, the federal rules of criminal procedure and ICE policies," Kice said. Peter Schey, president of the L.A.-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and an attorney for the 115 people from the Van Nuys plant, said that in addition to emotional distress, such raids cause economic turmoil for U.S. workers, customers, investors and businesses. After raids, business owners consider outsourcing, selling their company, closing their doors or opening a site outside the United States, Schey said. The increased costs of doing business are passed on to customers or remaining workers. "The ripple effect of the economic consequences are enormous," Schey said. Plus, the raids do nothing to seriously address the millions of illegals in the country, he said. During the Van Nuys raid, ICE arrested 138 people out of the millions of illegals in the Los Angeles area. "It's like a grain of sand on the beach," Schey said. "It is entirely symbolic." He suggests a different approach - ICE officials could audit employment paperwork, identify illegal workers and then work with employers. Enforcing the law Kice noted that ICE is enforcing the country's laws and the outcome of this case is not final. What is definite is that hiring illegal workers doesn't benefit business owners, the economy or legal residents and citizens, the ICE spokeswoman said. In some cases, illegal workers have stolen a legal resident or citizen's identity in order to forge the necessary employment paperwork. Some employers have smuggled workers into the United States and exploited them, paying them dismal wages. Raids, which ICE calls work-site enforcement actions, protect the integrity of the nation's legal immigration system, Kice said. ICE (7)

158 "The prospect of employment is one of the most significant factors fueling illegal immigration," she said. "That is why work-site enforcement has been a important facet of the nation's immigration enforcement strategy." Illegal immigration is down nationwide and increased raids are likely part of the reason, according to a July 2008 study - called Homeward Bound - by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C. Through last May, the number of illegal immigrants in the country declined by 1.3 million people compared with the peak during the previous summer. The center estimates the current illegal population at 11.2 million. The worsening economy is among the main reasons for the decline, Barbara Coe, founder and president of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, a Huntington Beach-based nonprofit that advocates enforcing the nation's immigration laws, disputes the findings that illegal immigration has decreased. The election of Barack Obama as president has changed the atmosphere dramatically, Coe said. "Those statistics are now a thing of the past," Coe said. "I am talking to people on the border who are watching a deluge of illegal aliens coming in, sniffing amnesty in the air." Obama campaigned on having undocumented residents register, pay fines and begin a path to legalization, which opponents tag as amnesty, said Angela Kelley, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Immigration Policy Center, the research arm of the pro-immigrant American Immigration Law Foundation. Three million children born in the United States have at least one parent who is undocumented, Kelley said. And of the II million to 12 million undocumented people in the United States, 60 percent have been here eight years or longer. "You can't divide up the family barbecue and put undocumented on one side and citizens on the other," Kelley said. "You are breaking up families." The immigration quandary won't be solved anytime soon since the economy is taking center stage, said Steven Camarota, director of research for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies, which supports immigration law enforcement. "Immigration is not going to come up that much," Camarota said. "When it does, the political stalemate in Washington is likely to remain." ICE (7)

159 That means, if his charges are dropped, Gregorio Perez Cruz's life will stay in the same limbo as before, except now he has a 6-month-old son. "I want to stay here," the 24-year-old said. "I feel like I am part of this country. I have a family here." 5. LA Times on ACL U lawsuit alleging substandard conditions at ICE Processing area L.A. detainees sue immigration authorities over holding conditions The lawsuit claims that their rights are being violated by being held for too long in a short-term facility, denied access to counsel and subjected to 'disgusting' conditions. By Anna Gorman April 3, 2009 Federal authorities are violating immigrant detainees' constitutional rights by holding them for weeks at a detention facility in downtown Los Angeles that was designed as a short-term processing center, according to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court. The center is "regularly overcrowded, causing violence, safety hazards and humiliation," while detainees are denied access to attorneys and courts and are rarely provided drinking water or a change of clothing, according to the lawsuit filed Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, the National Immigration Law Center and the Paul Hastings law firm. Detainees are held at the facility during the day and then shuttled to local jails at night and on weekends, which the suit said "effectively cuts detainees off from contact with the outside world" and deprives them of basic needs. "They are detaining people in inhumane conditions, grossly unsanitary and disgusting conditions," said Marisol Orihuela, a staff attorney at the ACLU. "There are serious violations of due process." Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities said they couldn't comment on pending litigation but issued a written statement saying that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has called for a comprehensive review of the nation's immigration practices and is committed to making "measurable, sustainable progress." The department is "committed to providing secure, safe and humane treatment for all of our detainees," the statement said. "We are continuing to work with other agencies and stakeholders to improve services to those in our custody." During a tour of the processing center last year, Eric Saldana, Los Angeles assistant field ICE (7)

160 director, said the agency does its best to keep detainees there for just 12 hours at a time and quickly moves them to facilities designed for longer holding periods. Sometimes, however, he said detainees are kept longer or brought back for several days because of delays in accessing travel documents for deportation or limited space at local jails. "Our goal is to get people out of here as quickly as possible," Saldana said. The processing center holds up to 250. There are six large holding cells surrounding a central area with desks, where the detainees are photographed, fingerprinted and interviewed. Each has a phone, a bathroom and a bench around the edge. There are also smaller cells for families or. juveniles. Saldana said detainees have access to medical staff and can ask to see a judge. There are four named plaintiffs, but Orihuela said the lawsuit is on behalf 6f hundreds of detainees. One of the plaintiffs, Russian immigrant Alla Suvorova, 25, said that for two weeks she spent every day at the center and every night at local jails. She was not able to get physical exercise during that time and was kept in a holding room where the toilet was consistently stopped up. "It was terrible," Suvorova said in an interview. "They didn't give us soap. They didn't let me change clothes. They were transferring me from one jail to another." Suvorova, married to a U.S. citizen but who overstayed her visa, said she also was not told whether she was eligible for bond. Yet when she was transferred to a facility in Washington state, she was released on bond at her first hearing. She is still fighting her case. Another plaintiff, Mexican immigrant Abelardo Chavez Flores, 52, spent about a month and a half at the center, being taken to local jails most nights but also sleeping on the floor on several occasions. According to the lawsuit, he was held for 18 hours at a time in dirty and overcrowded rooms, denied access to a doctor and prevented from brushing his teeth for two weeks. He also wasn't given an opportunity to see his legal documents or file an appeal on his immigration case. The plaintiffs have asked the court to order immigration authorities to set a time limit on detention or comply with detention standards, and to provide hygiene items, sanitary conditions, adequate sleeping facilities and access to legal materials. "We just want them to follow the minimum standards guaranteed by the Constitution and the statutory rights the detainees have," Orihuela said. 6. LA Daily Journal (legal publication) on mentally ill detainees denied access to telephones, mail and visitors at private contract facilities March 26, 2009 MENTALLY ELL DETAINEES HELD WITHOUT CONTACT County Health Officials Say Ice Instructed Psychiatric Hospitals To Break State Law ICE (7)

161 By Sandra Hernandez Daily Journal Staff Writer Federal immigration officials have held mentally ill immigrant detainees in a little known network of private psychiatric hospitals in Southern California beyond the reach of their families and lawyers in apparent violation of state law, the Daily Journal has learned. At least two of those detained were permanent residents of the U.S. The men, who were facing deportation charges after serving time for convictions, allege they were taken by federal authorities to hospitals for psychiatric care, and not allowed to make phone calls or contact anyone about their whereabouts. The practice violates California law, which requires private psychiatric facilities to allow all patients to make telephone calls, receive visitors and notify relatives of their hospitalization, according to Los Angeles County health officials. One of the hospitals implicated in the practice, BHC Alhambra Hospital in Rosemead, was under contract with the federal government to treat mentally ill immigration detainees. The hospital received a notice from a Los Angeles County health official last month warning that what it was doing was illegal. The hospital "is currently denying legally mandated rights to mental health patients that are being treated in your facility and are in custody of (U.S.) Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office," Ellen Satkin, Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health's patients rights director, wrote BHC administrators. County officials said they have received complaints from patients at other contracted hospitals, but would not say from whom or how widespread the practice is. The alleged practice is alarming, immigrant advocates say, because it essentially allows ICE to hold mentally ill immigrants in private hospitals without due process and out of the reach of attorneys. These private hospitals are not listed among federal detention facilities where immigrants might be held, making it impossible for anyone to locate them. "I have never heard of immigration officials detaining individuals in private facilities for mental health reasons," said Charles Kuck, president of the Washington D.C. based American Immigration Lawyers Association. At the center of the allegations is a memo sent by Ruben Vela, assistant field office director for ICE, to BHC last July. The memo instructed hospital staff that "individuals in ICE custody may not use the phone or have conversations with members of the public without prior approval." ICE officials confirmed the agency contracts with five California private psychiatric hospitals to treat mentally ill patients under its custody, but would not list them. The Daily Journal has identified four of them through interviews with patients, their attorneys and county health officials. The hospitals are BHC Alhambra, College Hospital Cerritos, College Hospital Costa Mesa and Alvarado Parkway Institute in La Mesa. The hospitals declined comment when contacted by the Daily Journal. ICE (7)

162 Lori K. Haley, a spokeswoman for the immigration agency, said the contracted hospitals "must comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations concerning the care and treatment of individuals with mental health issues," but did not respond to subsequent requests for more information or an explanation for assistant field office director Vela's memo. County health officials said they began investigating complaints that mentally ill immigrants were being held incommunicado last year. Hospitals that deny patients access to communication could lose their designation by the county as a facility that is allowed to treat involuntarily committed mental patients. College Hospital Cerritos also ran afoul of county officials when complaints surfaced there. The hospital stopped the practice a year ago, according to a letter to the county by Richard Louis III, the hospitals' vice president. "We were denying these clients phone and visiting [rights]," Louis said in the letter. Omar Solis, a green card holder, said he was involuntarily committed and held incommunicado at College Hospital Cerritos and its sister campus College Hospital Costa WMesa for five weeks in "Basically, I was told that no one was supposed to know I was there," said Solis, 41. Solis, who has bipolar disorder, was facing deportation charges at the time for a probation violation. Permanent legal residents may be expelled from the country for some criminal convictions. Solis was originally convicted of burglary and assault with a deadly weapon. He said that during his hospitalization, the medical staff provided him with a list of California's "patients rights." "I remember signing the patients rights," Solis said, but an immigration agent "told me they didn't apply to me. He said I was in custody, like a prisoner, and that wasn't a jail facility; therefore, they needed to exercise certain security measures." Among the forms Solis signed was a "notification of patients admission," a legal form requiring the hospital to ask patients if they want a relative notified of their location, his medical records show. Solis said he signed a blank form, and someone else filled it out, writing that Solis wanted no contact from relatives, according to his medical records. "I never told anyone that," Solis said. "I was very outspoken in voicing my desire to talk to my family. I was constantly telling people I wanted to call my family." Like Solis, J. Roberto Sepulveda, 33, another green card holder, said he was sent to BHC Alhambra and held incommunicado for a month in Both Sepulveda and Solis say they were processed for deportation proceedings in a downtown Los Angeles federal building, in a basement area known as B-18. They were briefly examined, the men said, and transferred to the private psychiatric hospitals. ICE (7)

163 Sepulveda, who suffers from schizophrenia and has a domestic violence conviction, said hospital staff and security officers "wouldn't let me use the phone, or call anyone. Everyone else at the hospital was allowed to use the phone, but I wasn't allowed to call or write." Sepulveda's family was not provided information despite repeated calls to immigration officials in Los Angeles, his relatives said. Sepulveda was ordered deported to Mexico earlier this month. Greg Pleasants, an Equal Justice Fellow and attorney with Mental Health Advocacy Services Inc. in Los Angeles, took on Solis' case. He said the men's ordeals underscore that few safeguards are in place to protect mentally ill immigrants in detention. "It's a terrible legal fiction," said Pleasants, who also represents another mentally ill immigrant he said "languished in private facilities for nearly two years." "His mother didn't know where he was for nearly one year," Pleasants said. On any given day, an estimated 33,000 immigrants are detained in a network of facilities, including local jails, privately operated facilities and federal detention centers, according to ICE. About 600 are mentally ill. It is unknown how many immigrants are held in private mental hospitals while they are contesting deportation orders. ICE's edict for private hospitals stands in sharp contrast to its detention standards within their own facilities that require immigrants be allowed access to telephone, visitors, mail and a legal library. Neither Solis nor Sepulveda had an attorney during their hospitalization, they said. Unlike criminal defendants who are provided public defenders, detained immigrants facing deportation are not entitled to a court appointed attorney, even in cases of mental illness. Both men said they repeatedly complained about being barred from any outside communication. "I asked the doctor why I couldn't use the phone," Solis said. "I was very vocal about it, but he said, 'You know, there's nothing I can do about that."' Solis said he grew more anxious during his hospitalization. "I felt really desperate," he said. "It was an added stress on top of my depression and bipolar. Not knowing what was going to happen was really hard." Solis' mother said she spent weeks searching for her son. She called immigration officials at several Los Angeles offices, including an information hot line, but her son was not in the system. "They wouldn't tell me anything," said Berta Solis, a naturalized U.S. citizen. "They would say... we can't give you information. We can't let you know anything."' Solis said he finally was able to contact his mother with the help of another Cerritos hospital patient who was not in immigration custody. ICE (7)

164 Afterward, Berta Solis said she tried to visit her son without success. "The [hospital] supervisors came out and said, 'We can't give you information. It's impossible for you to see him,"' she said. Solis said he was never told of his mothers visit. Shortly after her visit, he was moved to College Hospital Costa Mesa. Nearly three weeks later, he was transferred to a San Diego immigration detention center, where he was finally able to call his family. That's when Pleasants took over his case. Solis has won the right to remain in the U.S. 7. LA Times on DHS's potential worksite enforcement Policy changes Homeland Security shifts focus to employers A new policy will aim enforcement efforts at those who hire illegal workers. But immigration raids will continue, sources say. By Tosh Meyer and Anna Gorman March 31, 2009 Reporting from Los Angeles and Washington - Stepping into the political minefield of immigration reform, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano soon will direct federal agents to focus more on arresting and prosecuting American employers than the illegal laborers who sneak into the country to work for them, department officials said Monday. The shift in emphasis will be outlined in revamped field guidelines issued to agents of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, as early as this week, several officials familiar with the change said. The policy is in line with comments that President Obama made during last year's campaign, when he said enforcement efforts had failed because they focused on illegal immigrants rather than on the companies that hired them. "There is a supply side and a demand side," one Homeland Security official said. "Like other law enforcement philosophies, there is a belief that by focusing more on the demand side, you cut off the supply." Another department official said the changes were the result of a broad review of all immigration and border security programs and policies that Napolitano began in her first days in office. "She is focused on using our limited resources to the greatest effect, targeting criminal aliens and employers that flout our laws and deliberately cultivate an illegal workforce," the official said. Homeland Security officials emphasized that the department would not stop conducting sweeps of businesses while more structural changes to U.S. immigration law and policy were being contemplated. ICE (7)

165 Agents, however, will be held to a higher standard of probable cause for conducting raids, the officials said, out of concern that at least one recent raid in Washington state and another planned sweep in Chicago were based on speculative information that illegal workers were employed. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the coming policy changes. The new guidelines would mark a fundamental shift away from what was happening at the end of the Bush administration, said Doris Meissner, who served as commissioner of ICE's predecessor -- the Immigration and Naturalization Service -- under President Clinton. The law governing employer enforcement requires proof that a business knowingly hired illegal workers. So without an effective way for employers to verify workers' status, Meissner said, "It is very easy for that 'knowingly' to be a big loophole." Meissner, a-senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute think tank in Washington, said the Bush administration also vowed to go after employers but rarely did so. In later years, it drew criticism by conducting large-scale raids at businesses across the country aimed almost entirely at workers. The Clinton administration, in contrast, used a combination of laws to go after employers for smuggling, violating labor laws and engaging in criminal conspiracy, she said. "At the end of the day, when you make cases like that, you have more impact." Advocates on both sides of the issue have been awaiting major changes in immigration policy since Obama's election -- particularly since he tapped Napolitano, a former border state governor and prosecutor, to head the Homeland Security Department. Conservatives have warned that any easing of enforcement efforts will result in more arrivals of illegal workers, who will compete for jobs held by Americans. And immigrant rights groups have complained that the lack of reform measures to date under Obama suggested the White House was backing down from campaign pledges to curb workplace enforcement efforts. Those concerns ratcheted up dramatically when ICE agents swept into a manufacturing plant in Bellingham, Wash., in February and arrested dozens of people. on suspicion that they were in the country illegally. Napolitano suggested to Congress that she was unhappy with the raid and that she would "get to the bottom of this." But, she added: "In my view, we have to do workplace enforcement. It needs to be focused on employers who intentionally and knowingly exploit the illegal labor market." Homeland Security officials confirmed that a planned raid in the Chicago area was delayed in recent weeks because senior administrators expected "a higher level of scrutiny to be applied," ICE (7)

166 one official said. "Politics has nothing to do with it. It is all about the quality of the investigative work and the effectiveness of targeting the employers." Michael W. Cutler, a retired senior special INS agent, said the Obama administration needed to go after workers and employers to send a message that it would not condone illegal immigration. "Who is more responsible for prostitution, the hookers or the johns? It is a shared responsibility," said Cutler, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group opposed to illegal immigration. He said it would be "dumb" to "go after employers and not the illegal aliens. That means they are going to make very few arrests. And the message that sends is that if you can make it across the border, you're home free. No one is going to be looking for you." Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, said the Obama administration also needed to target employers who did not pay minimum wage and who exposed workers to unsafe conditions. But she said she hoped the new guidelines would mark a good first step by halting mass raids. "What happened during the Bush administration is unconscionable," she said. "At the end of the day, it really targeted a group of vulnerable workers who just were trying to bring the food to the table." 8 LA Times on Los Angeles DRO's foreign fugidve apprehension successes Finding foreign fugitives on the streets of L.A. Suspected criminals often hide in plain sight, starting new lives in diverse Southern California. Immigration officers, police and U.S. marshals join forces to catch them. By Anna Gorman February 15, 2009 Before sunrise at an underground parking garage in Los Angeles, Rafael Lugo briefed more than a dozen officers about the day's target: Guatemalan. Skinny. Five feet 10 at most. Likely wearing a blue sweat shirt and a black ball cap. The man, Oliverio Grijalva Carrillo, was suspected of fatally shooting a man in a Guatemalan bar in September before fleeing to the U.S. "He loves to fight," Lugo said in a brusque New York accent. "That's the word out on the street.' "Does he speak English?" someone asked. ICE (7)

167 Lugo, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, answered with a smile, "I haven't talked to him yet." If all went as planned that Friday morning, Grijalva would be arrested at the doughnut shop where he waited for a ride to work and soon would be sent back to Guatemala. There, law enforcement officials would be waiting to welcome him home. Lugo works alongside other immigration officers, Los Angeles police and U.S. marshals to track down foreign fugitives hiding in the U.S. Theirs is not an easy job, because fugitives can easily access high-quality fake documents in Los Angeles and blend in among the diverse communities of Southern California. Hiding in plain sight, the suspected criminals often change their names and appearances and get jobs, buy homes and even start families. One of the most publicized arrests was that of Alfredo Rios Galeana, Mexico's "Public Enemy No. 1," who had escaped from prison 20 years earlier and was wanted in a string of killings, kidnappings and bank robberies. When authorities found him in South Gate in 2005, he was running an office-cleaning business, had become involved in his neighborhood church and apparently had made himself less recognizable with plastic surgery. "These people may have nothing but fake documents," said Thomas Hession, chief inspector for the U.S. Marshals Service regional fugitive task force. "They may be able to slip and slide through the system." Over the last three years, immigration officers, working with other law enforcement agencies, have captured 87 foreign nationals in the Los Angeles area wanted in their native countries on suspicion of murder, rape and other crimes. A much larger task force headed by the marshals in Southern California has captured thousands more foreign fugitives, including 142 in the last year who were wanted in connection with homicides. Last year, authorities arrested a Mexican national in Inglewood wanted in the 2004 shooting of a policeman in Jalisco while he sat in his patrol car. They also tracked down a man in East Los Angeles a decade after he and other gunmen allegedly stormed a ranch near Ensenada and killed 19 men, women and children as part of a drug massacre in Some of the suspects in recent arrests are believed to be involved in the ongoing drug wars in Mexico, Hession said. Others have also been convicted of crimes in the U.S. Last week, agents arrested a man in Northern California who is suspected of shooting his aunt and cousin in a church in Guanajuato, Mexico, in The man had served time in the U.S. for a sex crime and been deported. ICE (7)

168 Most of the arrests are of Mexicans, but officers have found suspected criminals from around the world, including Korea, China and Hungary. Building a case In the Guatemalan case, Interpol, the international police agency, passed along information from the Guatemalan government to the task force that Grijalva, 32, was named in an international warrant and was believed to be living in the Los Angeles area. For three weeks, immigration and Los Angeles Police Department officers investigated the case, searching databases and talking to co-workers, acquaintances and apartment managers. "Little by little, you build your case," said Federico Sicard, an LAPD detective supervisor who worked on the case. They created a likely scenario: Grijalva came to the U.S. about five years ago, lived with his brother in the San Fernando Valley and registered a car in his own name. Within the last year, authorities believe, he made his way to Guatemala. After the shooting in September 2008, they believe, Grijalva sneaked back into the U.S. and found construction work. The officers couldn't find a home or a work address, so they staked out the brother's apartment. For three days, they watched as a man driving a gray Audi picked up Grijalva's brother and then met up with Grijalva about 7:15 a.m. at a doughnut shop on De Soto Avenue. On the third day, Lugo put out the word that the fugitive team would meet at 5 the next morning. Leads on cases come from foreign governments, local police and ordinary citizens. Someone will see a story on Spanish-language television and call Los Angeles law enforcement or will walk into a local consulate with an old newspaper clipping, saying the suspect is a neighbor. "They know the case, whether it's five years ago, 10 years ago or 20 years ago," Lugo said. In their hunt, authorities use federal and local databases that show criminal records, prior deportations and recent addresses. When traditional methods don't turn up leads, they may publicize the search in ethnic newspapers or check with local post offices to see if the suspect has received mail. But Lugo said he often has the most success just knocking on doors and talking to people who may have information. "The best investigative tool that anybody's got is two feet," Lugo said. "You could sit in front of the computer 12 hours a day and not get anything. You have to get out there in the old-fashioned way." Preparing to move Lugo handed out maps and photographs and explained the plan for that late-january morning: ICE (7)

169 One car would follow the Audi. Others would be on the side streets. Several would be stationed at the doughnut shop parking lot, where Lugo and the immigration officers would arrest Grijalva. Everyone would be in place by 6:15 a.m. "If he runs, he's gonna run to one of us," Lugo said. "If anything goes south, LAPD is going to take over." Just after 7, Lugo said over the radio, "We've got movement." The Audi had left the apartment to pick up Grijalva's brother. But then.the plan changed and the car stopped a few blocks away, where Grijalva was waiting, wearing the blue sweat shirt and black cap. As he headed to the car,.armed immigration agents surrounded and handcuffed him. In his apartment, they found his birth certificate and government card, but the identification documents bore a different name, Benigno Guevara Grijalva. At an immigration detention processing center in downtown Los Angeles, Grijalva said he paid a coyote $5,500 in 2004 to guide him illegally across the border. He left Guatemala to make money to send his two children to school, he said. Grijalva said he had been in the U.S. continuously for five years. "Do you know why you are here?" Lugo asked. Grijalva just stared straight ahead. "You are in the country illegally." Lugo offered him the choice to leave voluntarily. If Grijalva agreed to go, he would be home within a few weeks. If he wanted to see a judge, the process could take a lot longer. "If I fight or I don't fight, they're still going to send me home," he said. "This is faster." Lugo said suspects often lie about their time in the country. "They don't want us to know the crimes they committed," he said. "They are under the impression that we have no idea." Later, a representative from the Guatemalan Consulate confirmed that the man arrested was the man wanted in Guatemala. Grijalva was here illegally, so authorities sent him home last week on the immigration violation, rather than formally extraditing him. That afternoon, Grijalva was placed behind bars to await his return trip to Guatemala. And Lugo returned to work -- on three new cases. ICE (7)

170 9. Imperial Valley News on Los Angeles Community Shield Operation Success ICE Los Angeles Area Gang Arrests Reach Nearly 2,000 in 2008 Written by Imperial Valley News Monday, 26 January 2009 Los Angeles, California - United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested. nearly 2,000 gang members and gang associates in the Los Angeles area in 2008 as part of the agency's ongoing national anti-gang effort known as Operation Community Shield. Of the 1,970 gang members taken into custody here by ICE in the last year, more than 850 were prosecuted criminally on state or federal charges, ranging from re-entry after deportation to weapons violations. The remaining targets were foreign national gang members who were arrested on administrative immigration violations and placed in deportation proceedings. The statistics include ICE gang arrests in seven Southland counties - Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. ICE attributes the agency's rising local gang arrests to several factors, among them the expanded screening of criminal aliens incarcerated in area jails and ICE's increased cooperative efforts with local law enforcement agencies to attack and dismantle transnational streets gangs. Targeting gang members is a priority for ICE's two primary enforcement divisions, the Office of Investigations and the Office of Detention and Removal Operations. As its name implies, the Office of Investigations conducts criminal investigations into ongoing gang activity while the Office of Detention and Removal Operations focuses on identifying deportable gang members in the area's jails and proactively tracking down fugitive gang members who have ignored court orders of deportation and continue to menace the community. "These arrest statistics are further proof of ICE's major role in combating gang-related crime in Los Angeles," said Robert Schoch, special agent in charge for the ICE Office of Investigations in Los Angeles. "Our immigration and customs authorities are proving to be powerful weapons in this effort and we'll continue working closely with local law enforcement to attack and dismantle the gangs that have terrorized our communities. Now, it's the gang members who have something to fear." Recently, an ICE investigation led to the arrest of a 30-year-old Salvadoran national with ties to the Westside Criminals street gang who had been previously deported from the United States. Wilmar a6esmileyfi[0 Alberto was taken into custody by ICE agents during a traffic stop in the Rampart section of Los Angeles in November. A subsequent search of the convicted robber's residence turned up an unregistered.38 caliber revolver and 12 rounds of hollow point ammunition. Alberto was charged with re-entry after deportation and is in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service awaiting further court proceedings. ICE (7)

171 Another gang member now facing prosecution as a result of ICE's efforts is a previously. deported Mexican national with ties to the Westside Dukes whose criminal record includes prior convictions for second degree robbery. and voluntary manslaughter involving the fatal stabbing of a rival gang member. Heriberto Ramos-Moreno, 41, was turned over to ICE in mid-october upon his release from the Orange County Jail, where he had been detained on charges of obstructing an officer. Like Alberto, Ramos is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for re-entry after deportation, a felony that carries a maximum penalty of up to 20 years in prison. "Using criminal prosecutions and deportations, we're taking dangerous gang members off the street and disrupting the cycle of gang violence," said Brian DeMore, field office director for ICE's Office of Detention and Removal Operations in Los Angeles. "In cases where gang members are in the United States illegally, we not only remove them from the community, we seek to remove them from the country." As part of Operation Community Shield, ICE works with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to target transnational street gangs. Transnational street gangs have a significant number of foreign-born members and are frequently involved in human and contraband smuggling, immigration violations and other crimes with a connection to the border. Since Operation Community Shield was launched in 2005, ICE has arrested more than 11,850 gang members and associates nationwide and seized more than 450 firearms. Of those arrested, 145 were gang leaders. 10. Riverside Press Enterprise on America's Voice report suggesting more enforcement focus on criminal aliens Criminals should be priority of deportation, report says 10:00 PM PDT on Friday, April 3, 2009 By DAVID OLSON The Press-Enterprise A year ago, Cristina Ramirez was deported from her Nuevo home to Mexico, a country she barely knew. Ramirez, 32, came to the United States at age 2, and her deportation left her four children, husband and parents -- all U.S. citizens -- emotionally devastated. As Ramirez's case remains in the immigration-system bureaucracy, the administration of President Barack Obama is coming under increasing pressure to put less priority on arrests of people like Ramirez and more emphasis on illegal immigrants who are criminals and on employers of illegal workers. Ramirez had no criminal record. ICE (7)

172 A report released Wednesday by America's Voice, which favors liberalization of immigration laws, said spending time and money catching people like Ramirez allows many illegalimmigrant criminals and exploitative employers to remain free. A February report by the Migration Policy Institute found that illegal immigrants with criminal convictions represented a small share of arrests of those who violate deportation orders. The Obama administration has already signaled it will focus more than the Bush administration on targeting employers, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has ordered a review of immigration-arrest policies. Supporters of stronger immigration-law enforcement say not arresting people like Ramirez would give them impunity. Ramirez, her parents and her brother entered the United States in 1979 with a valid bordercrossing card and illegally stayed after the card expired. Her parents later became citizens, but a 1997 change in immigration law made it more difficult for Ramirez to gain legal residency. After four years of appeals, a deportation order was issued against Ramirez in She was deported March 27, 2008, as part of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement fugitiveoperations program that targets people with standing deportation orders. Fugitive Program The fugitive-operations program, which debuted in 2003, dramatically ramped up the government's efforts to arrest illegal immigrants who ignored orders to leave the country. The number of such arrests rose 18-fold between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2008, according to ICE. But the percentage of those arrested who had criminal convictions tumbled from 39 percent in fiscal year 2004 to 9 percent in It rose to almost 17 percent in 2008, As of Feb. 27, 25 percent of arrests in fiscal year 2009 were of criminals, said ICE spokesman Richard Rocha. On Feb. 4, the day the Migration Policy Institute was first widely publicized, a memo written by Jim Hayes, director of ICE's Office of Detention and Removal, called on each of the 104 fugitive-operations teams to pursue at least 50 illegal-immigrant criminals per month. Rocha said the memo was not in reaction to the report and did not reflect new policy or directives from the Obama administration, which took office two weeks before. U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Los Angeles, vice chairman of the congressional Democratic caucus, who met recently with Napolitano about immigration-enforcement priorities, said fugitive operations teams' focus on non-criminals ignores a congressional mandate that they should concentrate on apprehending criminals. ICE (7)

173 "No one has said to us that there aren't sufficient numbers of fugitive immigrants out there who are dangerous and who we should focus on trying to find, detain and deport...," Becerra said in a telephone interview. "It appears that those who have demonstrated a propensity to be dangerous or harmful to the population are still out there free and loose." Rocha said the fugitive-operations team was created to go after anyone who ignores deportation orders, criminal or not. Debate Continues Crystal Williams, deputy director for programs of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said Ramirez is a victim of a policy that looks to pump up arrest numbers. People like Ramirez "are much easier to find than those who are deliberately hiding, the true criminals, people nobody wants in the United States," she said. Yet Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, which favors greater limits on immigration, said if people like Ramirez were not pursued, immigration law would be meaningless. "You end up with a climate of impunity, so no one takes a deportation order seriously," he said. "When you start apprehending absconders from the law, then immigration law is not just a joke. When people in the future get deportation orders, they start thinking, 'Wow, this means something.'" Jan Bejar, the San Diego attorney representing Ramirez's husband, David Meyer, said cases like Ramirez's often take two years or more to be resolved. He said Ramirez's marriage to a U.S. citizen strengthens her case, but many people married to citizens and with citizen children are denied re-entry. Family Separated Meyer and Ramirez's four children.and parents visit her in Rosarito regularly. Ramirez said she is anguished she can't spend more time with her kids. "It's hard," Ramirez said. "I would help them with their homework. We would go to all of their school activities, to the parent-teacher conferences. I don't know what's going on now." Ramirez's mother, Imelda Garcia de Ramirez, 50, said the grades of the three school-age children have plummeted. Five-year-old Jessilyn frequently throws tantrums, something she never did before the deportation, she said. Meyer, 31, and the children now live with Garcia de Ramirez and her husband in their Murrieta home. The Nuevo home where the family lived was foreclosed last summer because of the money Meyer spent on attorney fees, living expenses for Ramirez and gas to visit her in Mexico. He is filing for bankruptcy. ICE (7)

174 But, most of all, he said, he worries about their children. "No one understands what they've been through," Meyer said. "No one realizes the hardship and what it does to people." 11. New Zealand Herald reports on the LA investigation and case of three notorious human smuglers - case received widespread media Evil trade of the three Franciscos 4:OOAM Saturday Apr 04, 2009 Peter Huck LOS ANGELES - The chickens were packed tightly into their coops when the Los Angeles Police Department staged a pair of raids. The chickens were 140 illegal aliens - "chickens" in smuggler parlance - and the coops were two nondescript private residences, or "drop houses" slang for safe houses, in South Los Angeles. The aliens, on the last leg of their under-the-radar odyssey from Central America, were awaiting transportation from Los Angeles, one of the main hubs on the illegal immigrant trail, by a shadowy outfit subsequently dubbed the Three Franciscos. Last month, as part of a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigation, Francisco Andres-Francisco, 40, was jailed for 78 months for concealing and transporting more than 9000 illegal immigrants. Officials say the Three Franciscos network - named for the chief defendants, all Guatemalans - is the biggest smuggling ring ever detected in Los Angeles. Five defendants, including Francisco Andres-Pedro, 36, are in custody. A further six, including Francisco Pedro-Francisco, 30, are on the run. Agents say Andres-Francisco was the kingpin in an organisation that made at least US$9 million ($15.4 million) hauling illegal immigrants from Guatemala, Ecuador and El Salvador from the Arizona border to drop houses in LA and Lancaster, a city in California's Mojave Desert. The immigrants, who paid up to US$3700 (NZ$6300) for passage, were taken by van or SUV to Illinois, New Jersey and Tennessee. The vehicles had blacked-out windows; immigrants had their shoes confiscated to prevent escape and were kept hungry to limit toilet stops. Costs were carefully calculated and the network's drivers were expected to reimburse any money not used. ICE (7)

175 Vehicles, like drop houses, were frequently overloaded and safety was not a priority. In 2007 a network van crashed and 10 immigrants were ejected, causing serious injuries. "It was a typical smuggling outfit, " says Scott Hatfield, a unit chief with ICE, "with a cadre of recruiters, transporters, safe house operators and so on to bring people to safe houses in the US, where the network would seek payment from relatives of the smuggled aliens." In effect, this was holding immigrants hostage to get payment. The Three Franciscos moved 200 to 300 people a month, "on a much larger scale than we normally see", says Hatfield. In worst-case scenarios - other than death in transit, the fate of some who take the cheapest, more dangerous route into the US across deserts and mountains - immigrants are rapedor murdered or, in trafficking cases as distinct from smuggling, are tricked into believing they will find jobs, then forced into prostitution or sweatshops. The network is a window into the lucrative people-smuggling business, which Arizona - one of four US-Mexico border states - estimates generates US$2 billion in profit a year. Smugglers operate by land, sea and air, shifting routes and techniques to counter law enforcement efforts to.stop them. Recently, there has been an upsurge in traffic by small boats from Baja California in Mexico to neighbouring California in the US. The most expensive passage is via plane, in part because this demands good documentation. Rates are also determined by how far immigrants travel. Besides increasing security at the border and breaking up networks like the Three Franciscos, ICE also "pushes our borders," training police in the 50 countries that disgorge illegal immigrants how to take down smuggling networks. As more money is spent on US border security, smugglers have raised their game. "It's a network, with entrepreneurs who perform different functions," explains Susan Ginsburg, Mobility and Security director at the Migration Policy Institute who advised the 9/11 Commission on border safety. Spotters at the border phone in intelligence. "They identify border personnel, watch the shift changes, watch what vehicles they stop, see if they have the dogs out, if they check outbound cars. It's real-time information. It's a huge operation. The number of spotters usually outnumbers the US Customs and Border personnel." Documents experts run theft rings, dummy up "imposter" passports - real document, fake photo - or complete fakes. Services include makeup and wigs. The immigrant's fee includes taxes paid at the border to the drug cartels controlling illegal passage across the line. Ginsburg says the drug trafficking organisations have "a major presence in human-smuggling." ICE (7)

176 Whereas "generations-old" people-smuggling networks run by families have pushed into drugs, the cartels, which include corrupt police and soldiers - such as the Zetas, trained by the US in counter- narcotics and equipped with automatic weapons, body armour and encrypted radios - have added people-smuggling to their traffic in drugs, gun and dirty money. "Recently, criminal gangs have interposed themselves as intermediaries at the final stage of crossing into the US, straddling both sides of the border, " says Ginsburg. "They include both ethnic Mexican gangs and MS-13 [the El Salvadoran gang, Mara Salvatrucha)." It is an ominous development, linked to the escalating drug violence that has killed more than 7000 in the past 15 months, bringing parts of Mexico to near anarchy, that bodes ill for immigrants. "One of the striking things that's going on," says Ginsburg, "is the kidnapping and extortion of the people being smuggled to kind of leverage them. One smuggler will steal (people) from another, then charge for releasing them. So they have to pay more than once." One result has been a jump in US asylum applications from Mexico, with 70 applications in the first quarter of this year, as against almost 200 in "There's almost a direct connection between increased border security in the US and the rise of organised crime in the handling of people coming across the border," says Terry Goddard, Arizona's Attorney General, a point he stressed during recent a recent congressional hearing. Sometimes immigrants are persuaded to carry drugs. "It's one way of reducing the cost of your passage, if you become a mule," says Goddard. He says the cartels are "very much" involved in human smuggling and human trafficking. As for the new border fence, the chief beneficiaries may be the contractors who built it. Goddard described an episode - revealed last December in Operation Tumbleweed, an antismuggling effort - where traffickers used night vision goggles and hydraulic ramps to drive a ton of marijuana in a truck across the fence in minutes. The fence's deterrent value? "Almost irrelevant." Little wonder Arizona is possibly the front line in people-smuggling. A recent wire report estimated 1000 drop houses in the Phoenix area. Goddard says they don't know how many, but there are "an awful lot". The situation is exacerbated by the collapse of the sub-prime housing bubble, with empty houses rented by smugglers as drop houses. ICE (7)

177 "Probably the owner has no idea. But it's right there in our midst. He advocated increased coordination between law enforcement agencies to tackle the cartels. "They have a seamless operation involving a wide number of different illegal activities. The federal response is highly segmented." In recent weeks there has been a flurry of top-level negotiation across the line, with the Obama administration emphasising enforcement; the Merida Initiative, signed last year, stresses counternarcotics. But some observers suggest a more holistic approach is needed if there is to be any long-term hope of stemming illegal immigrants. Essentially, this means trying to deter migrants in the first place, a tall order given the poverty south of the border and US prosperity, although the recession may have slowed traffic just as it has decreased remittances from the US. "Building economic assistance is on our plate," says Fred Lash, a State Department spokesman. "The overarching strategy that Secretary Clinton spoke about last week with President Calderon was of fostering economic development." Such ideas are not new says the Migration Policy Institute's Don Kerwin. "There have been micro-credit programmes and business ventures developed by diaspora communities, using remittances. But I don't think there's a lot of targeted government aid focused on immigration." Part of the problem is that aid often encourages migration. "People have some resources and can come," says Kerwin. "So they do. You have to get to that point where the opportunity differential isn't as great as it is now, so people decide to stay home. It's more complicated than just throwing money. You need very long-term development costs." One of the groups tackling this at the grassroots is Seattle coffee importer, Pura Vida, which uses part of its profits to subsidise growers' co-operatives in places like Oaxaca, Mexico. "They make about US$6000 when they come to the States and spend half on illegally getting here,"; explains Sam Snyder, who directs the Pura Vida charity. "They've no interest in living in the US. They're leaving their families to come up here." Pura Vida hopes to help locals supplement their incomes and thus stay at home. ICE (7)

178 Meanwhile, illegal immigrants keep heading for the US, whatever the obstacles. "Where there's a will there's a way," says Hatfield. "It's been with us forever and I think it will remain." Copyright 02009, APN Holdings NZ Limited 12. FOX Newswire reports on LA-area couple convicted in smumling scheme involving victims forced to work at elder-care homes Fox Newswire Tuesday, March 24,2009 California Couple Plead Guilty in Alien Smuggling Scheme in Which Some Were Forced to Work at Elder Care Homes WASHINGTON, March 24, 2009 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ The owner of two elder care homes in Long Beach, Calif., has pleaded guilty on March 23, 2009 to bringing undocumented aliens into the United States and forcing two of them to work at her businesses. Evelyn Pelayo, 53, a resident of Long Beach, pleaded guilty on March 23, 2009 to forced labor and unlawful conduct of holding passports to further forced labor. Pelayo owned two residences in Long Beach where she operated elderly care and boarding facilities called Vernon Way Care Home and Walton Care Home. In a plea agreement filed in federal court, Pelayo admitted that she paid a co-defendant $6,000 to smuggle two undocumented aliens into the United States from the Philippines and then forced them to work at her elder care homes after confiscating their passports and threatening to turn them over to authorities if they attempted to escape. Pelayo's husband, Darwin Padolina, 56, pleaded guilty on March 23, 2009 to harboring a third undocumented alien for private financial gain. Padolina admitted that he concealed the undocumented alien for 10 years while the person worked as a domestic servant. "Defendant Pelayo practiced a modem-day form of slavery, coercing employees to work in deplorable conditions for unfair wages," said Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "The Civil Rights Division will remain vigilant in finding and prosecuting those who prey on foreign nationals in this manner." "Using fear and threats of reprisal, the defendants in this case exploited the dreams of foreign. nationals who sought a better life in the United States," said U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien. "Instead of realizing the American dream, the victims in this case were subjected to inhumane ICE (7)

179 treatment that profited only the defendants. For forcing victims to work up to 24 hours a day, everyday,*while keeping about half of their meager salaries, Ms. Pelayo is now facing a lengthy prison sentence commensurate with her crimes." Two other defendants in the case, Rodolfo Ebrole Demafeliz Jr., 39, and Rolleta Riazon, 28, both of the Philippines, previously pleaded guilty for conspiracy to bring aliens into the United States. Demafeliz and Riazon have completed their sentences and have returned to the Philippines. According to the court documents, Pelayo recruited potential workers in the Philippines, promising them jobs in her elder care facilities. Once the victims agreed, Pelayo contacted Demafeliz, a Taekwondo martial arts instructor, who would enter the undocumented aliens in Taekwondo tournaments in the United States as a ruse to bring them into the country. Demafeliz obtained visas for the victims and provided them with limited martial arts training to make the visas appear legitimate. Once the aliens were brought to Southern California, Pelayo paid Demafliz $6,000 per victim. She then doubled that smuggling fee and charged each of the victims $12,000. Pelayo instructed the victims that they would have to work for her for a minimum of 10 years, and during that time they would be charged debt repayments. Pelayo confiscated the victims' passports and verbally abused them, threatening to contact police with false allegations and immigration officials if they tried to escape. The two elder care homes were shut down in April 2008, following the execution of the federal search warrants. At the time, 10 elderly patients were rescued and moved to other facilities. Robert Schoch, Special Agent in Charge of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Investigations in Los Angeles, said: "Today's guilty pleas are a disturbing reminder that even in today's modern society vestiges of slavery still exist. It is a sad reflection on human greed and heartlessness, when individuals believe they can egregiously exploit people from other countries and other cultures. ICE will continue to work aggressively to ensure that those who engage in these abusive practices are made to pay for their crimes." Salvador Hernandez, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI in Los Angeles, commented: "This case is only the latest example of modern-day slavery, and a grim reminder that this criminal behavior is practiced in our local neighborhoods. The Human Trafficking Task Force in Los Angeles has made consistent progress in identifying and dismantling trafficking organizations, as well as drawing much-needed attention to this abhorrent crime problem." Pelayo and Padolina pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess, who is scheduled to sentence the defendants on June 22, At sentencing, Pelayo faces a statutory maximum penalty of 25 years in federal prison, and Padolina faces a maximum possible penalty of 10 years in prison. The case against Pelayo and her husband was investigated by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area Task Force on Human Trafficking. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Sandy Leal and Civil Rights Division Trial Attorney Kayla Bakshi. ICE (7)

180 In Los Angeles, the FBI, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of the Inspector General, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Los Angeles Police Department, along with several community groups, comprise the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area Task Force on Human Trafficking, whose mission is to improve tactics for identifying aid rescuing trafficking victims, provide assistance to victims and prosecute those responsible for human trafficking. The Human Trafficking Task Force in Los Angeles has established a toll-free hotline - (800) that victims and individuals with information about victims are encouraged to call. Information may be provided anonymously and will be kept confidential. 13. LA Times on arrests in lawn statue caper thanks to the LA BEST ,800 pounds of pot found in lawn statues Drug agents arrest 15 people and seize 200 concrete burros packed with an estimated $1.5 million in marijuana. By Andrew Blankstein February 5, 2009 In a case that could cast suspicion on lawn ornaments everywhere, authorities say they have busted a drug ring that used concrete donkey statues to smuggle $1.5 million worth of marijuana into the Los Angeles area. At least 15 people have been arrested in connection with the scheme to ship 1,800 pounds of pot in 200 concrete burros, which were discovered last month in a shipping container at the Port of Long Beach. The donkey shipment was believed to have originated in Mexico and had been sent to a fictitious business in Fontana. U.S. customs officials acting on a tip discovered the contraband and alerted nearly a dozen agencies that make up the Los Angeles Border Enforcement Security Task Force. Marijuana was found hidden inside the hollow lawn statues, which are 3 feet tall and weigh 100 pounds, Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice said. Authorities tracked the shipment of dope-laden donkeys to Fontana and Sun Valley and made the arrests Tuesday night, Kice said. The bulk of the shipment was seized in Fontana but agents found a portion of the donkey shipment in Sun Valley, stacked against a backyard fence next to a pen of live goats. Agents detained 15 suspects, Kice said. Of those, 14 were held on immigration violations and the remaining suspect was held on an outstanding criminal warrant. andrew.blankstein@latimes.com ICE (7)

181 14. LA Times on use of stipulated removals in Los Angeles From the Los Angeles Times Concerns arise over fast-track deportation program Immigration officials say 'stipulated removal' saves the government money and gets immigrants out of detention sooner. Advocates fear deportees don't know their rights. By Anna Gorman March 2, 2009 Federal authorities are increasingly deporting illegal immigrants through a fast-track program that bypasses court hearings, an effort by the federal government to save money, reduce backlogs and clear detention beds. The number of detainees in California and across the nation who agreed to be deported without first seeing a judge jumped fivefold between 2004 and 2007, from 5,481 to nearly 31,554. In the first half of 2008, 17,445 speedy deportation orders were signed. Nearly half of all such orders since 1999 were issued in three locations -- Lancaster; Los Fresnos, Texas, and Eloy, Ariz., according to federal data provided to the Stanford Law School Immigrants' Rights Clinic as part of a Freedom of Information Act request. Attorneys, advocates and judges have raised concerns about the dramatic rise in fast-track deportations, saying they have resulted in many immigrants being deported without knowing their rights or understanding the consequences. "That is everyone's underlying concern -- is there due process here?" said Gilbert T. Gembacz, a retired immigration judge in Los Angeles. "Are people getting a frill explanation? Are they getting a case-by-case review of all their options? I don't think they are. I think they are being told, 'Hi. You're here illegally, and we are going to send you back.'" Jayashri Srikantiah, the director of the Stanford clinic, which has sued the federal government to get more information, said some detainees are pressured to sign the deportation forms even though they may have defenses against deportation or be eligible for asylum or green cards. About 95% of the people who agreed to the speedy deportations since 1999 are not represented by attorneys, she said. "We have people mostly who are in detention in remote locations, without lawyers, who are non- English speakers, and they are being asked to sign away their rights," Srikantiah said. ICE (7)

182 Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities in Los Angeles counter that the program is voluntary and that deportation officers clearly explain to detainees their options, including the choice to see a judge. They said the program, known as "stipulated removal," saves the government money and prevents immigrants from having to stay in detention when they would probably be deported by a judge anyway. If they agree to stipulated removal, they often can be returned to their native country within a few days or weeks. Challenging their deportation, however, could take months. Among the recent detainees deported to Mexico with stipulated removal were two men, one who served time for robbery and another who spent years behind bars for assault and lewd and lascivious acts, immigration authorities said. "It allows those who have no form of relief to return to their home country as quickly as possible," said Brian DeMore, the agency's Los Angeles field office director of detention and removal. "It is a very economical way for us to do business because people don't spend a lot of time in detention." Even though the fast-track deportations have been available for more than a decade, they were not widely used until Julie Myers, former head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said the agency wanted to speed up deportations and started looking at all the tools that Congress had made available. "This was one that we believed had been underutilized," she said. Myers said she was concerned, however, that the procedures for using stipulated removals differed from region to region and urged the government to make the process uniform across the nation. In the Los Angeles area, immigration officials started using the process in large numbers after a large-scale protest at Mira Loma in 2005, when 950 federal detainees upset over delays in deportation proceedings refused to return to their barracks. Officers at the Mira Loma detention center in Lancaster deport about 130 foreign nationals each month through stipulated removal, or about one-third of the total deportations from the facility. The vast majority of the local detainees who agree to stipulated removals, DeMore said, are criminals and are not eligible to stay in the United States. At Lancaster, the detainees sign a form, in both English and Spanish, saying they understand they are giving up their right to a court hearing and that they may be prevented from legally returning to the U.S. for at least 10 years. That form is reviewed by a government attorney and then given to the judge, along with any other information available on the detainee, authorities said. ICE (7)

183 Catholic Charities of Los Angeles' Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project gives presentations three times a week at the Mira Loma facility informing detainees of their rights, but director Julianne Donnelly said she believes that many immigrants sign the forms before they have had a chance to attend a presentation. Donnelly said immigrants are given the choice between fighting their cases in court and getting out of detention by agreeing to the stipulated removal. "The basic message is, 'You want to get out of here quickly, sign here,' " she said. One of the attorneys with the project, Sue Griffin, said a Honduran detainee with a criminal record told her that immigration authorities tried to get him to sign a stipulated removal but that he refused because he feared returning home. A Salvadoran detainee, she said, signed the form because he thought he had no hope of getting out of detention but withdrew it after Griffin told him he was probably eligible for bond. Because fast-track deportation doesn't require detainees to appear in court, judges can devote more time to cases of immigrants who want to fight to stay in the United States, said Susan Eastwood, spokeswoman for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the courts. But San Francisco Immigration Judge Dana Leigh Marks, head of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, said the program has not alleviated the large caseloads and long waits in California and across the nation. Judges still must review the file to make sure that the right questions have been asked before issuing a deportation order, she said. And they must determine that the immigrants' request for an order was "voluntary, knowing and intelligent," according to the federal regulation. "It's a drop in the bucket for how it affects savings and resources for immigration courts," she said. ICE (7)

184 JOHN CONYERS, JK. Michigan CHAIRMAN LAMAR S, SMITH, Texas RANKING MINORITY MEMBER HOWARD L BERMAN. Californe RICK BOUCHER, Virginia JERROLDNADLER, NowYork ROBERTC "BOBBY, SCOTT.Vrgmnia MELVIN L WATT, Nodr Carolina ZOE LOPOREN, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE Taxes MAXINE WATERS, CalIfornla WILAM D. DELAHUNT. Masochustre ROBERT WEXLER, Florida LINDA T. SANCHEZ Califorila STEW COHEN, Toeisse HENRY C. HANK' JOHNSON.JR., Georgia BETTY SUTTON, Ohio LUIS V. GUTITRREZ IIlno BRAD SHERMAN. Calioria TAMMY BALDWIN. Wiconean ANTHONY 0. WEINER, Nw York ADAM B, SCHIFF, California ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida KEITH ELSON, Miniesote ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS Tongress of the United Rouge of Rpresentatiues COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 2138 RAYSURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC (20t e httpulawww.house.govijdiciary tates F. JAMES SENSEMBRENNEt, JR., Wsenonm WARD COBL, North Carona ELTON GALLEGLY, Califormi BOB GOODLATT. Virginia STEW CHABOT, Ohio DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Collfenia CHRIS CANNON, Utah RIC KELLER, Forda DARRELL B. ISSA, CalIfornia MIKE PENCE,Indiana J. RANDY FORBES, Virglina STEVE KING, Iowa TOM FEENEY. Florkda TRENTFRANKS, Adzona LOUISE GHMERT, Texas JIM JORDAN, Ob.o March 17, 2008 Gary Mead Immigration and Customs Enforcement Assistant Director for Detention & Removal 801 I St, Room 900 Washington, DC Dear Mr. Mead: Thank you for your recent appearance before the Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Inmigratioq t citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Enclosed you will find a verbatim transcript of the hearing enclosed for your review, as well as additional questions from members of the Subcommittee to supplement the information you provided at the April 1, 2008, hearing. Please deliver your written responses to the attention of(b6of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Border Security, and International Law, 517 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, IDC, no later than March 27, If you have any further questions or concerns, pease contac at Sincerely,. Zoe Lofgren Chairwoman Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ICE (7)

185 ICE Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Questions for the Record Hearing on "Problems with ICE Interrogation, Detention, and Removal Procedures" 1) Pursuant to 8 CFR 287.2(b)(2), if an immigration officer has "a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts" that a person being questioned is in the U.S. illegally, then the officer "may briefly detain the person for questioning." o What constitutes a "brief" period of detention? Please provide examples. * Does detaining one of our witnesses, Mr. Mike Graves, and hundreds of his co-workers in the Swift plant in Marshalltown, Iowa for eight hours constitute a "brief" period? * Why were they denied food or water or contact with their families, union representatives, or lawyers during this time? o How does ICE define "a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts?" Please provide examples. Based on your knowledge of ICE's policy interpreting this regulation, what would you'say was the "reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts'! that lead ICE agents to handcuff a U.S. citizen like MrY Graves, search his locker, and question him about how he would drive from Iowa. to Mississippi? o Does ICE have policies and written training materials readily available for vz officers to reference on these matters? If so, please provide them to the Subcommittee. 2) Section 240(c)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that ICE has "the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that, in the case of an alien who has been admitted to the United States, the alien is deportable." Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in INSv. Woodby that "it is incumbent upon the Government in such proceedings to establish t4e facts supporting deportability by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence." 385 U.S. 276 (1966). o How does ICE define "clear and convincing evidence?" Please provide examples, ICE (7)

186 o Do you all have training materials on this in written form? If so, please provide them to the Subcommittee. o In the case of a U.S. citizen, who has the burden of proof in citizenship - the U.S.'-' citizen or ICE? o How did ICE meet that "clear and convincing evidence" burden in the case of Mr. Thomas Warziniack, the U.S. citizen that ICE detained in Florence, Arizona until his sisters obtained a copy of his birth certificate? I o In a McClatchy newspaper article describing the plight of Mr. Warziniack, an ICE,/ spokeswoman stated that!'t]he burden of proof is on the individual to show they're legally entitled to be in the United States." How do you reconcile this statement with 240(c)(3)(A) of the INA and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Woodbv? 3) What intake process does ICE utilize to ascertain if an individual is a U.S. citizen before detaining a person? How often have has ICE detained U.S. citizens? For how long? 4) What protections are in place to ensure that U.S. citizens who are mentally disabled are not caught up in administrative removal, expedited removal, or are asked to sign stipulated removal orders? 5) What specific steps do ICE officers take to ensure that mentally ill individuals who are not capable of exercising a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of their rights at the time of his deportation are not mistakenly deported? 6) What written policies or guidelines has ICE issued regarding steps to be undertaken by ICE personnel during the voluntary departure or removal process to ensure that mentally disabled U.S. citizens are not deported from the United States? 7) Pursuant to 8 CFR Section 287.3(b), when ICE arrests an Individua, it must either grant voluntary departure or determine whether the person will remain In custody and/or be placed in removal proceedings within 48 hours of arrest, "except in the event of an emergency or extraordinary circumstance." * How many times has ICE failed to make this determination within 48 hours? * How many times has that happened due to "emergency or extrabrdinary.,- circumstances?" * What is considered an "emergency or extraordinary circumstance?" Please provide examples. ICE (7)

187 8) In the case where an individual does not admit they are in the U.S. illegally but you have probable cause to believe he/she is in the U.S. illegally, what is your process for determining whether the individual is in fact here illegally? How long does it take? Does your policy have a time requirement? Does your policy require detention during that time period? 9) What regulations, written policies or procedures, if any, does DHS have to prevent the transfer of a non-citizen who is a caretaker of a child in the United States to a facility beyond the physical jurisdiction of the local ICE field office in order to maximize the full and fair visitation by the child and immediate family members? Please specify. If none, please clarify why not. 10) The detention standards require that ICE take into consideration whether the individual has legal representation before transferring that person. However, immigration lawyers have observed that they regularly have cases where counsel is never notified of the transfer and there seems to be no consideration given to not transferring people with representation. o What criteria does ICE use to select which individuals will be transferred from a L facility when it becomes too crowded? o What are ICE's protocols and procedures to ensure that ICE officials across the country know and comply with their obligation under the detention standards to consider whether an individual has counsel before transferring that person? o If a represented person is transferred, what are ICE's protocols and procedures to ensure that notation of the consideration is made and that ICE does in fact notify counsel of the transfer as required by the detention standards? 11) The Subcommittee staff has heard that detained individuals are regularly transferred away from family immediately before a bond hearing where they could have been potentially released. o Does ICE consider other factors such as whether the individual is eligible for bond and scheduled for a bond hearing? 12) We have heard many reports from our constituents that immigrants and their families have been targets of enforcement actions at home and at work without fair and humane treatment. 'f ICE has a protocol regarding the following situations, please confirm whether it is in writing and whether it has been disseminated to ICE field agents. Finally, please identify the mechanisms in place to hold ICE officers accountable when such protocols are violated. O Use of force or humiliation in executing warrants and related interrogations.w 7 o ICE display and use of weapons during interrogations and arrests. ICE (7)

188 " ICE cooperation and coordination with state and local law enforcement during V' larger operations. o Whether ICE officers are required to identify themselves when entering a location. for enforcement purposes. o Whether confined individuals are provided access to a telephone. o Whether confined individuals are notified of their rights in a language they can understand. o ICE Methodology for notifying agents about humanitarian standards regarding/ enforcement actions and holding them accountable when such standards are violated. 13) Please identify ICE's protocol on Fugitive Operations and specifically: o Percentage of ICE arrests that are collateral arrests o Percentage of arrests that are of level 1, 2, or 3 fugitives (fugitives posing a threat to the nation; fugitives posing a threat to the community; or fugitives with a violent criminal history, respectively) o Percentage of arrests of fugitives based on in absentia orders. ICE (7)

189 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Gatons, Anna-Marie Tueda- Au*ust 02, :41 PM eero r. aircia and with enclosure of meeting notes from May 2005 meeting Garcla thank you ICE May mtg July 05.pdr notes DRAFT... Please control this after the fact and it requires no due date. The original package. from should go to Mr. Garcia, Mr. Clark, Mr. Lang, DRO and. The enclosure should also be included. This should be done today. You can gi to do also. This is an imporant item to have on file. Anna Ori inal Message----- FroSt: Sent: ues ay, August 02, :16 AM To: -Marie Cc: Subject: : ank you letter, ICE meeting notes from May 05 meeting Hi Anna -- Below is a letter and attachment from the NGOs to Mr. Garcia thanking him. wanted to make sure that Exec Sec has record of it and that a copy is provided to Mr. Garcia for his information. Thank you, I Fro Sen To: Cc: Sub [mai 0 0 : " Pm Tosado, Rebekah (DHS HQ); - ICE meeting notes from May ting Attached below is a copy of the letter and memo to Mr. Garcia. I have faxed a copy of the letter to your attention as well. Thanks again for all of your help, and we look forward to talking to you soon. ecutive director The Chicago Bar Foundation 321 S. Plymouth, Suite 3B I~f oundation.org 1 ICE (7)

190 OFFIGRS asprevo.colman 10MB"ILANDOUBN THOMAS X HAYWAM JIL flajim"u"ow UCA LOMMF SAJ.LYMCONA DIAPJudr& &V 0,pUS LLP v~wrofts MAUEIAEJA-USIUO July 29, 2005 THE CHICAGO BAR FOUNDATION THE COMMUNfTY'S FOUNDATION FOR ACCESS TO JUSTICE Via Facsmile and Regular MaI Mr. Michael Garcia Assistant Secretary, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department of Homeland Security 425 I Street NW Washington, DC Dear Mr. Garcia: Lo.kUA=Y&fL-m U.& Pme1fL0IoAIDAK W&4o" x U~spr~t.**us.r~ Ispr, Din" owl"i tame A. COTR ava. conodl o.vsorm~umuiam' KEVINEDURKIN CEUAGAMMFh 8410seDuCedund1ha CAlmEJ.IIG1ITHAN R. INOMAS HO0WEU. JKL Sel &. LAN Much SalhdDemakig MARC fabtbh A. 1%214 NKANM.tEFTN OAVID.MEANN amw As the co-chairs of the broad coalition of organizations that make up the DHS Enforcement Working Group, we are writing to thank you again for meeting with us in June on the various issues relating to immigration detention and enforcement that have been the subject of our ongoing dialogue. A memorandum summarizing that meeting is enclosed. More importantly, we want to formally congratulate you on your appointment as United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Thank you for all that you have done to ensure that advocates and the organized bar have a meaningful forum to work together with ICE on access to counsel, due process and other humanitarian issues relating to immigration detention and enforcement. Our meetings with you and your staff have illustrated that we have a lot of common ground on these issues and have been key to our building a positive working relationship with ICE. While we a want to stress how helpful ICE leadership has been on these issues (particularly and Victor Cerda and ( 7e they were at ICE), it has been critical to have your commitment to meet with us on a regular basis. We hope that commitment will continue with your successor. Again, thank you for all of your leadership and assistance in your time with ICE, and all the best to you in the future. KA NAWR JOHUUIOSCNAAL Shain MAlp,1i Magor DMANmw amar welavornes.an GENERAL COUNSEL JAME RUDM STAFF ON GLAV68 EwmltDfor. DNIL&NEKL DEMAMARL op CordimUarr cc: Enclosure TER CHICAGO Rebekah Tosado tels ( AoUN Director of Policy National Forum Ph: Fax: (202) Emai w DAION* 3a 80tlTE ILYMOUTil COURT, SuTx an * OCICAQQ, uiiin1 60o+ 954" f-n (p1) a4.-io3 * wmachtgobaurfoundfonorg ICE (7)

191 SUMMARY OF MAY 25,2005 MEETING OF DHS ENFORCEMENT WORKING GROUP WITH ICE Background The DHS Enforcement Working Group (Working Group) is a broad coalition of organizations around the count concerned wi h immigration detention and enforcement issues. The Working Group is co-chaired b yy Director of Policy for the National Immigration Forum, and= Executive Director of the Chicago Bar Foundation. In April, 2003, the Working Group met with Asa Hutchinson, Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security at DHS. Mr. Hutchinson suggested that the Working Group schedule meetings with Mr. Garcia on a regular basis to address immigration enforcement issues. Pursuant to his suggestion, the Working Group met has met on several occasions over the past year with Mr. Garcia and some of his key staff. This meeting on May 25, 2005 was the Working Group's fifth meeting with ICE. Introductions The following individuals attended the May 25, 2005 meeting: Working Group Attendees* National Immigration Forum, Co- Chair o g group Chicago Bar Foundation, Co-Chair of Government Relations & Policy n A r Aerican Institute Associate Director, Commission on g o, rican Bar Association (ABA) ourch World Service Capitol Area Immigrants Rights Coalition AIR) Policy Director, Massachusetts Immigrant gee Advocacy Coalition Associate Director, National Imm' o Project Legal Advisor, American-Arab Anti- Diso n Committee (ADC) Director of Public Education and ocacy, olic Immigration Legal Network CLINIC., American Immigration Lawyers sso Director for Asylum and Immigration ncerns, u eran Immigrant and Refugee Services (LIRS) of UNHCR also attended the meeting as an observer. DHS/ICE Attendees Michael 1. Garcia, Assistant Secretary, ICE Victor Cerda, Outgoing Special Counsel to the Assistant Secretary Dan 4rown, new Special Counsel to the Assistant Secretary Mike Carney, Chief, Compliance Enforcement Unit, Office of Investi tons ICE Outreach Coordinator, Ieo Policy and Planning Barry O'Melinn, Deputy Principal Legal Advisor M. Yvonne Evans, Chief, Detention Standards Compliance Unit, DRO Wesley Lee, Acting Director, DRO Tim Perry, Deputy Assistant Director, Detention Management Division, DRO Bob Shook, Deputy Assistant Director for National Security Investigations, Office of Investigations Rebecca Tosada, DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 1 ICE (7)

192 Agenda Items and DHS Responses 1. Crimes and Sentences of Detainees Issue and Recommendation: Can ICE make available breakdowns on crimes and sentences of detained criminal aliens? ICE previously did this in the form of monthly detention reports. Response: Secretary Garcia said he would look at this. Mr. Lee said these reports are still created monthly. 2. Reporting of Noncitizens Incarcerated or On Probation Issue: Is there a statutory or regulatory authority that mandates the state departments of probation, county jails, houses of correction, and the state department of corrections to report to DHS/ICE any noncitizens that are on probation or incarcerated? If there is no mandatory authority, is there a national policy that allows for such reporting? Response: Secretary Garcia believes there is no authority, and said national policy would need statutory backing. 3. ICE Budget and Detention Beds Issue: What is ICE's plan for the $455 million they received in the supplemental, including plans for any (1,950) new beds? How wil Ithe simultaneous $185 million in DHS cuts effect ICE? Response: Secretary Garcia stated that the supplemental is good for ICE, that it included some earmarks including one for new beds, and that ICE was putting together a spending plan. ICE was unaware that the money was going to be included in the supplemental; they did not request it. Secretary Garcia is unaware of any Congressional budget cuts. 4. Detainee Transfer Standard Issue: When will the transfer standard be incorporated in the inspection guidelines handed to local DROs? When reviewing the local DRO inspection checklist, we noticed that the transfer standard was not incorporated. Therefore, no one is verifying whether the transfer standard is being followed or not. Response: Ms. Evans indicated that the forms had been updated in January 2005 and released to ICE District Directors, and that standard was available on ICE's intranet. She said she expected that the standard would be available to the public on the internet in a few weeks. In response to follow up indicating that at least one field office director did not have the new standard, Mr. Perry stated that DRO would also be proactive and send an to each field office to ensure their awareness of the new standard. 5. Stipulated Orders Issue and Recommendation: Stipulated orders that detainees sign should be given to detainees, both when they sign them and when the order has been signed by the Judge. We have heard that usually Investigations issues the stipulated order. While the local DRO office for the Washington District is trying to ensure that detainees get a copy of the stipulated order, they are still having problems at all of the Virginia jails. How can we ensure that the detainee gets a copy of the stipulated order that he signed in all jurisdictions? Response: Mr. O'Melinn stated that it may not be possible from an operational standpoint for detainees to receive a copy of the order when they initially sign it. Mr. Lee said something should be in place to ensure that detainees do receive a copy of the order; he said he would reach out to the field on this issue. Recognizing that there may be problems with detainee mail delivery, and that local offices have different 2 ICE (7)

193 procedures, Mr. O'Melinn indicated that ICE would need to address the issue with local offices individually. 6. ICE Detention Standards issue: ICE and members of the Working Group have a mutual interest in ensuring full implementation of the ICE Detention Standards in all detention facilities owned or contracted by ICE. Recommendation: Our-goal continues to be to work with ICE to ensure 100% implementation of the ICE Detention Standards, which is fully consistent with ICE goals. As we have emphasized in all of our meetings with DHS and ICE, better coordination in efforts to implement the standards both within ICE and in the NGO community will maximize efficiency and cut down on duplication. (a) Access to facilities is key as non-government organizations work with ICE to ensure full implementation. However, NGOs are not always able to identify facilities where people are being detained for 72 hours or more. ICE should take steps to ensure that there is appropriate and timely notification to NGOs of the facilities where detainees are being held as part of its efforts to ensure implementation of the standards. (b) We sincerely appreciate ICE's commitment to developing better systems for implementing the standards, and in particular want to thank ICE for agreeing to allow the ABA to allow two-way sharing of information between the ABA and other non-governmental organizations regarding implementation efforts. Mr. Cerda is currently working with the ABA to finalize that agreement, which is an important step forward. However, there remains a pressing need to develop a more efficient and coordinated system for responding to day to day issues regarding implementation of the Standards. We have shared numerous examples in our past meetings of situations where there have been prolonged instances of detainees lacking phone access to counsel, facilities not relaying counsel telephone messages to detainees, and other violations of the standards, with often devastating consequences. The local meetings with field office directors have not provided an effective solution. Nor have the facility inspections, which may report that phones are working properly although in fact they are not. Both the NGO community and ICE need to work togetherto ensure implementation of the Standards at both the regional and national levels. ICE should develop a better internal system to respond to issues regarding implementation of the Standards in both field offices and at the national level, with an emphasis on transparency, timely responses and accountability. The NGO community is interested in discussing ways that it can work with ICE to better coordinate implementation of the Standards through the ABA project and other efforts. Resnonse: (a) Secretary Garcia and Mr. Lee agreed that ICE will provide a list of facilities where detainees are held for over 72 hours. Mr. Perry added that ICE is working to consolidate list to a list of approved 72-hour facilities. (b) ICE requested that attorneys and NGOs pontinue to first contact the field offices when problems arise, and give the field offices an opportunity to correct the problems. Mr. Perry agreed to provide a current list of Field Office Directors, as well as of PCS points of contact for problems with telephones, a list of collateral-duty officers who are points of contact for detention issues for each field office, and Ms. Evans' telephone number. Ultimately ICE hopes to place someone in each field office to handle detention standards compliance. For now, the process normally should be for advocates to approach the local "collateral duty" detention contact first with any problems with the Standards, and if that is not successful to take it to the Field Office Director; and if still unresolved, to the national office. Mr. Cerda agreed to examine contracts with facilities, and to speak with the "legal shop" about addressing the issue on the contract level. Mr.,Lee stated that he and ICE were doing training in the field again and would include 3 ICE (7)

194 the standards, and that a CD ROM on detention standards will be available to DHS employees, contractors, and IGSAs. The Office of Civil Rights is supporting an Internet-based training as well. Finally, Mr. Cerda said he would like to take up the offer of consolidating NGO issues with the ABA or another organization for regular reporting to and meetings with ICE on these issues. 7. Unaccompanied Immigrant Minors issue; Since the passage of the Homeland Security Act (which transferred care and custody functions regarding unaccompanied immigrant minors to the Office of Refugee Resettlement of the Department of Health and Human Services, or ORR, but reserved some limited functions for DHS), ORR and ICE have gradually developed working protocols for ORR to undertake its responsibilities regarding the care and custody of unaccompanied immigrant minors, including the DHS/ORR Statement of Principles issued in However, there are a number of issues where it is necessary for ORR and ICE to work together to ensure that these minors are protected and treated fairly while they are in federal custody, two examples of which follow below. Recommendation: ICE should take reasonable steps to ensure that it maintains a good working partnership with ORR, including designating a high level person at ICE to act as liaison with the head of ORR's Division of Unaccompanied Immigrant Children's Services and the Working Group to troubleshoot on issues that develop between the two agencies. Response: Mr. Cerda reported that he, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Brown had met with ORR senior staff, and that they would meet every two months for progress on these items. No ICE liaison was designated. 7a. Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Consents Issue: In the transition after passage ofthe Homeland Security Act, the anomaly developed that ICE, rather than CIS, began handling the adjudicative function of consent for special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) visas within DHS. As discussed in detail in our recent meetings, it is problematic for a variety of reasons that ICE is currently responsible for granting requests for consent to seek dependency before a state juvenile court on behalf of detained children, which is a necessary precondition for unaccompanied immigrant minors to obtain special immigrant juvenile status. In our most recent meeting with Mr. Cerda and. Cerda confirmed that ICE will agree to the transfer provided that CIS can take on this function, and te proposed transfer is currently pending before Secretary Chertoff. Recommendation: We commend ICE for agreeing to transfer of this function to CIS, and urge ICE to take all reasonable steps to facilitate the orderly transfer of this function. Response: Mr. Garcia confirmed that ICE is pleased to transfer the SU consent function and will cooperate fully with the transition at the appropriate time. 7b. Family Separation/Unaccompanied Immigrant Minors Issue: An increasingly troubling issue is developing (particularly in Arizona and Texas) when families are taken into.custody: ICE is detaining non-criminal parents for expedited removal and referring their children to ORR custody, separating the families. Apart from the underlying problem of unnecessarily separating families, ORR is expected to hold these children for weeks, and often months, while DHS obtains travel documents. 4 ICE (7)

195 Recommendation: ICE should exercise its discretion whenever possible so that non-criminal parents are not separated from their children who have arrived with them. This might be done by consolidating the charges against the parents and children. so that their cases are heard together and then releasing the whole family on parole; or, if the parents are in expedited removal, by releasing the parents on bond so that their children can be with them. At a bare minimum, if children are transferred to ORR because their parents are being detained, DHS should not obstruct or object to release by ORR to other relatives in the U.S. We suggest that ICE form a special task force that includes representatives from ICE, ORR and the Working Group to look at what is causing this increasing separation of families and how that can be avoided to the maximum extent possible in the future. Respore: Mr. Cerda noted that in expedited removal cases CBP officers may exercise discretion in exceptional circumstances, but stated that there is an enforcement issue at stake. ICE is aware of smuggling rings that rent out children for people to bring in in order to get paroled out, and they don't want to encourage this practice. Additionally, they recognize that crossing the desert at the Arizona border is dangerous, and are trying to control migration through deterrence. Mr. Cerda noted that the new Pearsall, Texas facility may include space for families. ICE acknowledged this is an issue that we need to continue to work through, but there was no commitment to a task force at this point. 8. Special Registration Issue: As you know, the Department of Justice created the national security entry and exit registration system (NSEERS or "special registration"), a tracking scheme that required visitors from certain countries-.and others whom an immigration inspector decides meet certain secret criteria-to be fingerprinted, photographed, and interrogated by immigration officers. The most controversial part of this program "called" men from 25 predominantly Muslim and Arab countries to immigration offices around the country for fingerprints, photographs and lengthy questioning by officers. This "call-in" registration program resulted in hundreds of detentions and disarray at understaffed local immigration offices. More than 13,000 men who complied with call-in registration were placed in removal proceedings. In short, immigration officers failed to exercise prosecutorial discretion favorably towards those non-citizens who at the very least should have been given the opportunity to have their immigration cases processed before being placed into removal proceedings. The NSEERS program was transferred from DOJ to DIHS in In December 2003, DHS announced (by interim rule) that it would suspend the 30-day and annual interview requirements related to special registration (a.k.a. NSEERS). Since the December announcement, immigration advocates, religious leaders and pro bono lawyers have worked to educate communities about the continuing requirements of NSEERS and the consequences of not registering. Unfortunately, these efforts have been overshadowed by uninformed local DHS officials, inaccurate press accounts, and public speeches by DHS leaders, all testifying that special registration is over, or soon will be. There is remarkable inconsistency among DHS officials about what remains of NSEERS. Similarly, there is an absence of outreach and education by DHS to the community of the ongoing requirements of special registration, and the inability of the government to convincingly articulate how and why special registration should exist at all. At the last meeting with ICE, you confirmed that special registration will not end in the "foreseeable" future and in fact, confirmed that ICE conducts about two in-person special registration interviews per week. Is this still the case? Given that the November 2000 memo on prosecutorial discretion memo is still in effect and the fact that the Department is closer to implementing the USVISIT program, will ICE consider looking more favorably on NSEERS cases? Do you plan to use information collected through NSEERS in the future? 5 ICE (7)

196 Response: Secretary Garcia stated that while the name "NSEERS" is gone, the process, including call-in ("special") registration, has been incorporated into US VISIT. The requirements of call-in registration (30-day and one-year reporting) are still in use on a discretionary basis. Mr. Shook added that there are no plans to terminate the call-in registration program, which is used on a limited basis, including for cases raising national security concerns. On the issue of whether prosecutorial discretion could be applied in cases in which people initially registered but failed to report after 30 days or one year, Mr. Cerda stated that the standard of "willful failure" is already high. He agreed to raise the issue with ICE Chief Counsel's office. 6 ICE (7)

197 Summary - Chief Counsel Office Responses Regarding Stipulated Removal Process (02/10/06) A. Offices where the program is successful: In offices where the program is successful, the number of stipulated orders is large, and the program is deemed to be helpful both in freeing up detention space, and limiting the backlog in the immigration courts. Most of these offices do not see the need for a regulatory fix, however they are quick to note that the success of their program relies upon the cooperation of relationship between them, DRO, and EOIR. This relationship is essential because the regulations at 8 C.F.R (b) state that the IJ may enter an order - thus many IJs refuse to use them. Also, as there are many legal requirements that must be included in the stipulated order packet, if these are not processed properly by DRO and reviewed by the OCC, the stipulated order process is rendered useless. Offices where the program has been successful include: Arlington, Atlanta, Chicago, Eloy, Kansas City, El Paso, Los Angeles, Newark, Orlando, Seattle, and St. Paul. B. Offices with less successful programs: There is a large subgroup of offices that has hit logistical barriers in the processing of stipulated removals that may be remedied by a regulation. Interestingly, these programs have faltered for precisely the reasons the successful programs have thrived, the lack of strong working relationships with the other components, as well as resources. Either EOIR refuses to entertain the orders (or holds them up by requesting a hearing), DRO cannot process the paperwork correctly, or the OCC lacks the resources to review and process the paperwork quickly and efficiently. In these offices, there are three basic areas in which the offices suggest a regulation change would assist with these issues. First, these offices suggest that 8 C.F.R (b) be changed to require that IJ's must sign off on stipulated orders. This would remove the discretion IJ's presently use to curtail the use of stipulated orders. Second, the offices suggest making clear that the documentation required by the regulation suffices to meet the standard for a "knowing, voluntary waiver." Many IJ's use this to require hearing for all unrepresented aliens (a large group), making the use of a stipulated order pointless, as dealing with the paperwork and then also having the hearing is extra work. Third, a few offices have suggested that a regulation change be instituted requiring that the IJ sign off on the order within hours. C. Offices with no stipulated removal program. ICE (7)

198 At present, four of the 26 OCC's do not have stipulated removal order programs. They are: Buffalo, San Diego, El Centro, and San Juan. D. General Stats. According to GEMS, OPLA's database used for tracking cases, in FY 2007, approximately 23,259 stipulated order of removal cases nationwide where reviewed by OPLA attorneys to determine legal sufficiency. In addition, thus far in FY 2008, nationwide there approximately 2,251 stipulated order removals in October 2007, 2,163. stipulated order of removal in November 2007, and 2,110 in December. Approximately 16,811 aliens were removed via stipulated order in Five offices removed over 1000, accounting for approximately 12, 068 aliens, or 72% of the yearly total: 1. Eloy LA Kansas City St. Paul Seattle (Approx.) Of the 26 OCC's, the following answers were received regarding regulatory fixes (many offices suggested more than one): 15 offices stated there is no need for a regulation change (1 N/A) 7 offices requested a regulation change requiring IJ's to accept orders 5 offices suggested the regulation clarify the issue of what is a knowing waiver 2 offices suggested the regulation require the IJ turn the order around in hours 1 office suggested that the regulation confer authority to 01 and DRO to sign the orders 1 office suggested that INA 238(d) be changed to ensure that District courts can also enter orders against aliens removed, and in 212 and 237 proceedings. 1 office suggested that a signed directive from EOIR would suffice 2 offices suggested standardizing the forms nationwide ICE (7)

199 Senator Edward M. Kennedy Follow-up Questions on Nomination of Julie Myers to be Assistant Secretary, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security October 23, 2007 Detention Question #2 You state that your agency's Detention and Removal officers are required to attend a training program that includes a video on its National Detention Standards. Please forward a copy of the video, along with any other training materials on the National Detention Standards. How does training on these standards for contract employees within Service Processing Centers and Contract Detention Facilities differ from the training provided to Detention and Removal officers? What plans does your agency have to update its training curriculum on the National Detention Standards? More than half of all immigration detainees are held in state and local jails pursuant to Intergovernmental Service Agreements with your agency. Are staff at these facilities trained on the National Detention Standards? If so, what is the scope of this training? Does your agency condition these agreements on the provision of such training? Currently, the overview of the National Detention Standards (NDS) is presented at the basic training academy at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Georgia for all new Immigration Enforcement Agents. In thefield, DRO officers receive the same training as the contract officers. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) and ICE Office ofdetention and Removal Operations (DRO), developed the ICE NDS Training Part One. Part One consists of training on six key standards. This training is available on the ICE Virtual University, for ICE employees,, and CD-ROM for contract employees. Additionalparts to the training curriculum will be developed in the future. All law enforcement officers assigned to DRO were mandated to complete and did complete the NDS Training Part One by Wednesday, January 17, To ensure continuity oftraining, on April 4, 2007, a memorandum was distributed requiring all Field Office Directors (FODs) to ensure that the NDS training CD-ROM's were distributed immediately to all Service Processing Centers (SPCs), Contract Detention Facilities (CDFs) and Inter-governmental Service Agreement (IGSA) facilities within their area of responsibility. ICE (7)

200 Additionally, all SPCs and CDFs were required to include the National Detention Standards Training Part One within their annual training curriculum specifically for contract employees. All contract employees within SPCs and CDFs were required to complete this training by June 1, Provision of this training is not a condition of an IGSA, however those state and local municipalities that have IGSAs with ICE are encouraged to include the National Detention Standards Training Part One into their local training curriculum. ICE is currently in the process of updating its Detention Standards to the new performance-based format utilized by the American Corrections Association Once these new standards are finalized, we will be updating all of our training materials to coincide with the new standards. We are providing you with the following two D VDs: 1. DVD containing the following videos: Detention Standards Overview, Detainee Services, Health Services, Security and Control 2. ICE National Detention Standards Training Part One Question #3 You state that your agency conducts annual reviews of all Service Processing Centers, Contract Detention Facilities, and Intergovernmental Service Agreement facilities to evaluate compliance with the National Detention Standards. Will your agency make its reviews publicly available? If not, why not? Will your agency make the reports of the Detention Facilities Inspection Group, the Creative Corrections Corporation, and the Nakamoto Group publicly available? If so, when? What about the reports by the American Bar Association and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that were cited in the California district court's July 24,2007 order in Orantes-Hernandez v. Gonzalez? Generally speaking, ICE's annual reviews, including those conducted by Creative Corrections Corporation, and the reports generated by ICE's Detention Field Inspection Group and the Nakamoto Group, may be requested and released via a Freedom of Information Act (FOL4) request subject to applicable exemptions under FOL4 laws and regulations. ICE's FOIA office has responded to nine such requests for annual reviews this year. Additionally, at my direction, ICE is developing a semi-annual report offindings and corrective actions that will be made public. The first one will be out after January 1, 2008 for the period ofjuly 2007 to December In addition to these official reviews, ICE has agreed to allow the American Bar Association (ABA) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to informally conduct their own facility reviews that are provided to ICE but are not made publicly available. With regard to the UNHCR reports you reference, I note that those were disclosed, subject to certain privileges, by DHS during the court-ordered discovery 2 ICE (7)

201 process in Orantes v. Gonzalez No, CV (C.D. Cal.). With respect to the ABA reports, these visits originated with the understanding that this was part ofa cooperative effort between ICE and the ABA in facilitating attorney access to promote pro bono representation to detainees. For a number of reasons, we cannot agree to distribution of these reports. As currently contemplated, ABA reports provide a valuable way to increase the level of communication between ICE and outside entities. In this way, outside groups gain a fuller understanding of ICE's efforts to ensure the safety and welfare of detained population, while ICE is able to quickly respond to issues identified during these visits and brought to ICE's attention. These reports are based on observations made by volunteer staff such as student interns and student co-op program participants, many whom have never been in a detention facility before the tour and lack the subject matter expertise to properly evaluate conditions ofconfinement Should the ABA reports be distributed to the public, we would need to reassess the existing policy and determine if non-official reviews are nonetheless appropriate. We understand that Service Processing Centers, Contract Detention Facilities, and Intergovernmental Service Agreement facilities receive 30 days' notice of your agency's annual reviews. What plans does your agency have to make unannounced visits and inspections of detention facilities? If such visits are already taking place, please provide a list of all detention facilities reviewed and the dates of review. Does your agency have any plans to increase the number of unannounced inspections? In accordance with the Detention Management Control Program (DMCP), ICE has the authority to conduct random inspections. When necessary, ICE exercises this authority to ensure appropriate conditions of confinement exist within its detention facilities. In addition, the Detention Field Inspection Group (DFIG) also has the authority to make unannounced visits. In addition, ICE CDFs contain a Quality Assurance Performance clause and are supported by Quality Assurance and Quality Control Surveillance Plans. The Contracting Officers Technical Representative (COTR) periodically evaluates and inspects the facility to determine the contractor's adherence to these standards. The contractor is required to correct any noted deficiencies to the government's specifications and return the facility to maximum operating efficiency. If a facility fails to timely correct deficiencies, that facility may be subject to certain penalties, as outlined in the contract, based on the recommendation of the Contracting Officer. In addition, ICE has entered into a contract that will place subject-matter experts in selected facilities on a daily basis to monitor both the detention standards and the detainees' quality of lfe. These reviewers will serve as professional on-site compliance personnel in each SPC, CDF and large JGSA facilities. On-site compliance for the smaller IGSA facilities will be achieved by implementation ofa regional monitoring plan. This program will also support contractual compliance review for contract detention facilities that utilize the performance-based concept. 3 ICE (7)

202 At my direction, unannounced visits were made to the San Pedro Service Processing Center, Los Angeles, CA, on October 16-18, I personally made unannounced visits to the Regional Correction Center (RCC) in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Thursday, July 26, 2007 and the Aguadilla Service Processing Center in San Juan, Puerto Rico on Tuesday, June 12, The DRO Director, Assistant Director, and Deputy Assistant Director for Detention Management have made visits to various facilities, on little or short notice. For example, in the 4 th quarter offy 07, RCC, Willacy, Pearsall, Port Isabel, and Hutto were all visited, some multiple times. In addition, the DFIG has made most of its visits with a short amount of notice to the facility. Members of Congress or their staffs have also visited the following facilities in the last six months. In all but the one noted, these visits were announced with less than 30 days advance notice: Thursday. July 5, 2007 (T. Don Hutto Residential Center) Congressman David Price (D-NC) Congressman John Carter (R-TX) Congressman Ciro Rodriguez (D-TA) Friday. July 6, 2007 (Houston Contract Detention Facility) Congressman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) Saturday. July (Port Isabel Detention Facility) Majority staffofhouse Appropriations Committee *Tuesday, July 10, 2007 (Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility) Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) Congressman Donald Payne (D-NJ) * This visit was unannounced Wednesday August 8, 2007 (T Don Hutto Residential Center) Staff of Congressman John Carter (R-TX) Saturday, August 11, 2007 (Otay Mesa Detention Facility) Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA) Friday, August 17, 2007 (York County Detention Facility/Berks Family Shelter) Staff of Congressional Research Service (CRS) Wednesday, August 22, 2007 (Stuart Detention Facility) Staff of Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) 4 ICE (7)

203 Wednesday. August 22, 2007 (Krome Detention Facility) Staff of Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Staff ofsenator Mel Martinez (R-FL) Majority staff of Senate Judiciary Committee Staff of CRS Monday, August 27, 2007 (Orav Mesa Detention Facility) Congresswoman Mary Fallin (R-OK) Thursday, August 30, 2007 (T. Don Hutto Residential Center) Staff of CRS Tuesday, September 11, 2007 (Otay Mesa Detention Facility) Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) Tuesday, October 9, 2007 (Broward Transitional Center) Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) ICE will continue to make unannounced visits as deemed necessary to ensure ICE employees and detainees are safe and that appropriate conditions ofconfinement exist for ICE detainees. You state that your agency may terminate contracts with detention facilities that do not comply with the National Detention Standards or temporarily transfer detainees out of such facilities. Over the last five years, how many times has your agency terminated contracts based on non-compliance with the National Detention Standards, at what facilities, on what dates, and for what reasons? Over the last five years, how many times has your agency temporarily transferred detainees based on non-compliance with the National Detention Standards, at what facilities, on what dates, and for what reasons? Over the past five years, ICE has terminated agreements or temporarily transferred detainees on the following occasions for the reasons noted: * San Pedro Service Processing Center, San Pedro, CA, October 22, 2007, temporary relocation to other facilities while facility modifications are performed at the San Pedro site. * Regional Correctional Center, Albuquerque, NM July 31, 2007, relocation due to because of issues with the facility such as contraband procedures, lack of air conditioning in certain areas, and clothing issuance. * Passaic County Jail, Newark, NJ February 2006, use offacilities ceased under a mutual agreement between ICE and jail officials. Aliens have been transferred from facilities in instances in which ICE determines their transfer to another facility is the best way to guarantee their continued safety and implement changes as quickly as possible. 5 ICE (7)

204 When issues of non-compliance arise, DRO works diligently with the facilities to address the deficiencies. If deficiencies are identified during a review, the facility is required to submit a Plan ofaction (POA) to Headquarters- within 30 days that addresses correcting those deficiencies. The POA must be reviewed and approved by Headquarters. Once approved, the Field Office is directed to re-inspect the facility within 90 days to ensure that the POA was implemented and that the noted deficiencies have been corrected or are being corrected. You state that your agency is working to strengthen compliance with the National Detention Standards. In light of this goal, why has your agency refused to promulgate the National Detention Standards as enforceable regulations? DHS has not yet made a decision as to whether to promulgate regulations governing detention standards. However, it must be noted that the quality ofdetainee care is not contingent on the promulgation ofregulations. I have taken substantial steps over the past year to increase oversight, training, and compliance; steps I believe would have been more difficult to take with regulations in place. In addition, we are currently undertaking a broad initiative to update the current National Detention Standards (NDS) into performance-based standards for adults and families. Updating and creating new standards to become performance-based would be much more difficult, afnot impossible, regulations were in place. In my view, the current structure of the ICE National Detention Standards allows ICE the necessary flexibility to enforce standards that ensure appropriate conditions of confinement. The NDS employed by ICE are also consistent with industry standards, such as those established and promoted by the American Correctional Association (ACA), among other groups specializing in detainee care and treatment. In addition, the facilities are also governed by existing federal, state and local regulations and policies applicable to the particular jurisdiction's correctional/detention programs. ICE has engaged in negotiations with local service providers, conducted regular meetings with various non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and maintains its own inspection requirements in order to ensure compliance with these standards. The NGO coalition petition is lengthy and detailed, and raises a number ofimportant matters requiring policy, operational, and legal consideration. DHS continues to consider this request and remains mindful ofthe flexibility needed to provide the highest quality of care to immigration detainees. 6 ICE (7)

205 Question #4 Recent press reports indicate that the Service Processing Center in San Pedro, California, which houses over 400 immigration detainees on any given day, was closed based on concerns that arose during a recent facility evaluation. Please elaborate on the nature of these concerns and what steps your agency is taking to address them. Detainees currently in custody at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) San Pedro detention center have been temporarily relocated to other facilities while modifications are performed at the San Pedro site. ICE and private sector experts identified the needfor preventative maintenance during a facility evaluation as part of our ongoing assessment process to ensure ICE detention facilities adhere to the highest standards. Performing the preventive maintenance, which includes improvements to the fire suppression system and replacement of the hot water boiler, would not have been feasible if the center remained fully occupied. In transferring detainees to other facilities, ICE took into account the aliens' criminal histories, medical conditions, and the status of their legal cases. On October 18-22, 2007, ICE transferred the 404 detainees at San Pedro to ICE Field Offices in San Diego, CA (20), Seattle, WA (26), San Antonio, TX (226), and Phoenix, AZ (132) via Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS) aircraft and land movement. Attorneys of record have been notified of their clients' new locations, and ICE is working with the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the agency that oversees the immigration court system, to ensure that aliens will have their removal cases properly and timely adjudicated. ICE facilities are subject to regular inspections and must comply with standards that meet or exceed those recommended by the American Correctional Association. ICE detains an average of30, 000 aliens a day in more than 400 facilities nationwide, and the agency'sforemost concern is the welfare of its employees and detainees. The transfer of all detainees from San Pedro reflects the agency's commitment to maintain safe, secure, and humane conditions for those in custody. You state that your agency considered recommendations from non-governmental organizations in the initial stages of drafting the new performance-based detention standards. Please elaborate on the scope of your agency's consultations to date with non-governmental organizations. In the past year, we have met with NGOs on November 28, 2006, May 7, 2007, and October 25, On each of these occasions, we discussed a range of issues including concerns the attendees had with implementation of existing detention standards that would bear on the development of the new performance-based standards. A representative from each of approximately 25 to 30 various advocacy groups attended these meetings. The agendas are submitted in advance and ICE looks into all allegations and concerns raised. ICE has incorporated feedback from these advocacy groups in 7 ICE (7)

206 developing these newer standards. Groups represented at these quarterly meetings include the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), American Civil Liberties Union (A CL U), Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services and Human Rights First. These meetings have provided us valuable input to apply to the development of these new standards. Once the final draft of the standards is approved, we intend to solicit input from the NGO community before implementation. Question #5 You state that your agency has cooperated with non-governmental organizations in coordinating Group Legal Rights presentations at the Hutto facility. What steps is your agency taking to actively work with non-governmental organizations to make Group Legal Rights presentations available at every Service Processing Center, Contract Detention Facility, and Intergovernmental Service Agreement facility? According to the National Detention Standards, facilities holding ICE detainees shall permit authorized persons to make presentations to groups ofdetainees for the purpose of informing them of US. immigration law and procedures, consistent with the security and orderly operation of the facility. ICE encourages presentations that instruct detainees about the immigration system and their rights and options within it. The standard states that all facilities shallfully cooperate with authorized persons seeking to make such presentations. In addition, ICE and the Department ofjustice's (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EDIR) continue to work collaboratively on the Legal Orientation Program (LOP) to improve government efficiency and assist aliens in detention. The purpose of the Legal Orientation Program is to: 1. Increase the efficiency of immigration court proceedings; 2. Decrease the duration ofdetention; 3. Increase an individual's ability to make a timely decision about his or her immigration case through receipt of early and accurate legal information and orientation; and 4. Facilitate access to legal counsel. Legal Orientation Programs may include: 1. Group orientations; 2. Individual orientations; 3. Self-help workshops; 4. Dissemination ofwritten and taped legal orientation materials; and 5. Programs to promote and facilitate pro bono representation for detained aliens who seek legal assistance through the legal orientation program. Legal Orientation Programs are performed by on-site presenters, who must either be a licensed attorney, BIA Accredited Representative or legal assistant/paralegal, law student, law school graduate or other trained volunteer working under the direct supervision ofsuch licensed attorneys or Accredited Representatives. It is our policy that 8 ICE (7)

207 presentations be available to all detainees regardless of the presenter's intended audience. Through the LOP, representatives from nonprofit organizations provide comprehensive explanations about immigration court procedures to large groups ofdetained individuals. The orientations are normally comprised of three components. (1) the interactive group orientation, which is open to general questions; (2) the individual orientation, where non-represented individuals can briefly discuss their cases with experienced counselors; and (3) the referral/self-help component, where those with potential relief or those who wish to voluntarily depart the country or request removal are referred to pro bono counsel, or given self-help legal materials and basic training through group workshops, where appropriate. EOIR is currently operating the LOP at twelve large ICE detention facilities: (1) Eloy, (AZ); (2) Port Isabel (TM9; (3) El. Paso (T); (4) Tacoma (WA); (5) Lancaster (CA); (6) Aurora (CO), (7) San Pedro (CA); (8) Houston (T); (9) York County (PA); (10) Batavia, (NY); (11) Newark (NJ); and (12) Pearsall (TX). In the coming year, I intend to work to further expand our partnership with the legal community, both within the LOP and in other arena. In particular, I am interested in working with the legal community to develop an updated standardized "Know Your Rights" presentation that we could show in our facilities. Iam also interested in partnering with EOIR to improve access to qualifiedpro-bono at our facilities, starting with the Stewart, Georgia facility. I have discussed both these interests with AILA, and they were also mentioned at a quarterly NGO meeting. Finally, ICE is currently working with EOIR to expand the LOP to additional detention sites throughout the country. Alternatives to Detention Question #6 Please explain how you arrived at the cost estimate of $21 per day per detainee for the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program. What was the September 2007 modification that resulted in a reduction in the average per day cost to $14 per detainee? ICE arrived at the cost estimate of $ per day per detainee by averaging the daily rates of the eight (8) Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) cities, Baltimore, San Francisco, Saint Paul, Kansas City, Miami, Portland, Philadelphia and Denver The average per day cost reduction to $14.00 per detainee was derived through negotiations between the Office ofacquisition Management (OAQ) and Behavioral Interventions, Incorporated (BI) when the ISAP expansion procurement was awarded to BI (Reference ICE Contract No.: ACB4C008 - ISAP Expansion Modification). 9 ICE (7)

208 With respect to the Electronic Monitoring Program and the Enhanced Supervision/Reporting Program, please explain how you arrived at the average per detainee cost estimates. How many detainees have participated in each of these programs over the last five years and in what locations? What are the projected numbers of participants in each program for the next fiscal year? ICE is contractually obligated to pay the rates per participant pertaining to the Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP); -those daily rates are as follows: Telephonic Reporting $0.20 Radio Frequency $2.60 Global Positioning Satellite $6.02 As for the Enhanced Supervision/Reporting Program, OAQ arrived at the $10 per participant daily rate by factoring the projected population of the ESR program, the expected use of electronic services and the actual rate structure for each of the 27 locations. An example of one of the 27 locations is below. Example rates for one of the 27 locations, Atlanta: ESR Case Management & Supervision $9.59 Telephonic Reporting $0.35 Radio Frequency $2.50 Cellular Electronic Monitoring $5.95 Passive GPS Monitoring $5.50 Active GPS Monitoring $8.00 Since its inception (September of2003), the Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) has provided services to 11,819 participants (GPS - 4; RF - 516; and TR - 11, 299). The EMP contract will continue to operate until the ESR program becomes operational. ESR was recently awarded to a contractor on September 25, l expect the ESR program to begin either at the end of this calendar year or the early part ofnext calendar year. The projected number ofesr participants for next fiscal year is EMP participants will be transitioned to the new ESR program. 10 ICE (7)

209 You stated that enrollmentsns into alternatives to detention programs are at the discretion of DRO Field Offices and determined on a case-by-case basis." Are there eligibility criteria for these programs? If so, why has your agency not made them publicly available? What steps is your agency taking to work with nongovernmental organizations to identify the best cases for use of alternatives to detention? If enrollment is denied, is there any procedure for review? Alternatives to Detention (ATD) programs are intended to provide field and sub-offices with supervision tools to assist in monitoring aliens releasedfrom custody. The population ofatd programs consists ofnon-detained docketed aliens who are under Orders ofsupervision or Release on Recognizance. People who benefit from the ATD program may include criminals and non-criminals. The Office ofdetention and Removal Operations gives preference to the following groups for consideration in a A TD program: individuals who are not subject to mandatory detention or who have been ordered released by the appropriate judicial authority; individuals who are not deemed to be threats to the public or flight risks; and individuals who have the infrastructure in place to support various electronic monitoring technologies. DRO considers input and advice from a variety ofsources, including NG0s, ICE attorneys, and foreign Consulates. DRO may elect to release an alien into an ATD program by utilizing prosecutorial discretion when circumstances are warranted. If an alien's enrollment is denied and he or she remains in custody, the alien may request a custody re-determination hearing before an Immigration Judge. However, ifan alien is released, ICE determines the conditions of the alien's release. You state that aliens who "have been ordered released by the appropriate judicial authority" may be considered for alternative-to-detention programs. Under what circumstances would your agency enroll an individual who has been ordered released by a judge into an alternative-to-detention program? An alien who is in immigration proceedings or has received afinal order ofremoval may be considered for placement into an ATD program. This will help to ensure that the alien appears for removal or for any further immigration court or immigration matters while ensuring that bed space is reserved for aliens who pose the greatest danger to the community or highest flight risk. Once again, this at the discretion of the field offices and decided on a case-by-case basis. 11 ICE (7)

210 Raids Question #8 You state that your agency does not track the use of stipulated orders of removal. Given the relatively recent, controversial change in practice in using such orders for unrepresented persons, why does your agency not track these numbers? Does your agency have any plans to start tracking the use of these orders? Immigration Judges within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), an agency within the Department of Justice, are responsible for accepting any stipulated removal order and EOIR records such data in its case management system. I encourage you to reach out to the EOIR for its statistics related to stipulated removals. All aliens are informed oftheir statutory and regulatory rights when they are placed in removal proceedings, including their right to be represented by an attorney at no cost to the government (see answer below). Further, by federal regulation, an immigration judge must be satisfied that any alien who requests a stipulated order ofremoval, regardless of whether the alien is represented, must do so knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. See 8 C.ER Regarding ICE's tracking ofstipulated removal orders, I do believe that it would be useful to track stipulated orders of removal. ICE's immigration case management system, which is called General Counsel Electronic Management System or GEMS, has the capacity to record data related to stipulated removal orders, but the system did not become universally available at all detention facilities until very recently. Once the system is fully in place and fully operational, I expect that we will be able to accurately track and provide this sort of data. You also state that, despite a general practice favoring release from detention of parents responsible for the care of minor children, you are unable to do so in cases where the parent has signed a stipulated order of removal. Do you advise detainees of this consequence before asking them to sign a stipulated order of removal? No. However, every arrested individual charged with an administrative violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is given a form advising them of their rights under our laws. The form includes a statement advising individuals of their right to be represented by a lawyer and their right to a hearing before an immigration judge. A list offree legal servicesfor thatjurisdiction is also given to each individual placed in removal proceedings. This list offree legal services is provided by the Executive Office for Immigration Review within the U.S. Department of Justice. By federal regulation, immigration judges must advise individuals in removal proceedings of the availability of free legal services provided by recognized organizations located in the district where the removal hearing is being held, and provide a list ofsuch services. See 8 C.F.R (a)(2) and (3). For individuals who do not speak English, ICE provides the information on the form through a native speaker or a translation service. This information is provided to the individual prior to signing the stipulated order of removal. 12 ICE (7)

211 With this information in hand, iyan individual chooses to sign a stipulated order of removal and an immigration judge accepts such order, then afinal order ofremoval is entered. Pursuant to INA 241 (a)(2), the individual shall be detained and ICE will work as quickly as possible to effectuate -the individual's removal and avoid unnecessary detention. With regard to your agency's operational guidelines for worksite enforcement operations, I have made two requests: 1) that the agency provide states with the opportunity to assist it with humanitarian screening; and 2) that the guidelines apply to raids targeting the arrest of more than 150 people. On the second request, you agreed that the agency would "implement these guidelines in all appropriate smaller enforcement operations." I appreciate this commitment and hope that you will agree to revise the guidelines to incorporate it. I also hope that we can reach a similar compromise on my first request. Would you agree to give each state the opportunity to assist the agency with humanitarian screening "in all appropriate enforcement operations"? Such a commitment would allow your agency to exclude a state when a particular raid triggers one of the concerns noted in your response, but provide for state involvement when those concerns are not applicable. If you find the proposed language acceptable, I hope that you will revise the guidelines to reflect this commitment as well. ICE is committed to information sharing whenever practical with our state partners. In all of our operations, ICE agents and officers are mindful of the impact the operation may have on people, especially those individuals who rely on others for their overall care and well being such as children, the elderly or those with serious medical conditions. To mitigate any negative impact, ICE arranges for personnelfrom the 'Division of Immigrant Health Services (DIHS) to be present whenever possible on large worksite enforcement actions. DIHS plays a critical role in assisting ICE in identifying individuals who have some type ofhumanitarian concern. Although ICE typically utilizes DIHS' services on the larger operations, our experience has indicated that on smaller operations, state and local agencies are able to accommodate our requests for humanitarian assistance. Operational security and the safety of everyone involved is a paramount concern in our operations. ICE is able to communicate with state and local social service agencies on the day of the operation withoutjeopardizing operational security, but I cannot commit to providing advance notification to state and local social service agencies in all cases. However, I will commit that in large worksite enforcement operations, ICE will consider whether such coordination is appropriate and ICE will make such coordination whenever possible. 13 ICE (7)

212 Unaccompanied Foreign-Born Children Question #10 In FY 2007, how many children were not transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement within 72 hours? In each case, what was the reason that the transfer did not occur within the required 72-hour period? Between October 2006 and October 2007, 293 minors were held in ICE custody beyond 72 hours. Almost seventy percent ofthese children stayed in ICE custody beyond 72- hours because they were waiting for the Office of Refugee Resettlement's approval of their placement. I note that on ICE's initiative, a working group was formed composed of the ICE Office of Detention and Removal Operations, the Office ofrefugee Resettlement (ORR), the CBP Office of Border Patrol (OBP) and its Office of Field Operations (OFO) and the DHS Office of Civil Rights Civil Liberties (CRCL). The purpose of this working group is to create a joint operations manual (JOM) in order to improve and standardize all policies dealing with unaccompanied children. With respect to children who are not transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement or released to sponsors, what screening procedure does your agency use to assess eligibility for release? DRO places Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) in the care of Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Those who are not placed in the care of ORR include: 1. Children who are accompanied by a parent/immediate family member or legal guardian may be placed in family residential centers (i.e. the T. Don Hutto or the Berks Family Shelter). 2. Children who may be released to a verified parent or legal guardian. Veryfcation ofa parent or legal guardian's identity and relationship to the alien child is determined in accordance with the following: a. a declaration signed under penalty ofperjury before an Immigration or Consular Officer, or b. such other documentation that establishes (to the satisfaction ofice in its discretion) that the individual designating the minor's custodian is, in fact, his or her parent or guardian. c. a state-licensed juvenile shelter, group home, or foster home willing to accept legal custody, as opposed to simply physical custody (which means that ICE will not pay for the minor's upkeep). 14 ICE (7)

213 d an adult individual or entity seeking custody (in the discretion ofice) when it appears there is no other likely alternative to long-term detention, and family reunification does not appear to be a reasonable possibility. Prior to releasing a juvenile from ICE custody to one of the entities named above, the Officer must have the minor's sponsor complete an Affidavit of Support and supplemental questionnaire. As merited, an ICE Officer may deem it necessary to require a positive suitability assessment ofa prospective custodian prior to releasing a juvenile to an individual or program. Such an assessment may include: * investigation of the living conditions; * standard of care to be provided; * verification of identity and employment of individual offering support; * interviews with members of the household, * a home visit; and * consideration of the minor's concerns. 15 ICE (7)

214 These answers are my own. In preparing the foregoing answers, I have consulted with DHS and with employees within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I, _, being duly sworn, hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Questions for the Record and that the information provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, and complete. October 30, 2007 ICE (7)

215 ICE (7)

216 VWW1 T AOI M OF INS 4 " REBT NW T, D.C. [20536] -,Deportation. Order and pursuant to A.R.S 1-160%.14 Dear Commissioner, Now comes the Petitioner,, a layman Haineas v. Kerner,.404 US 519 (1972), Harris v. Neldon, 394 US 286, (1969), does hereby presents this request, any foreign' bdrn inmate who meets ALL eligibility criteria for release pursuant to A.R.S must have a current deportation order prior to being relea se upon reaching one-hal'f( ) of their imposed sentence RELEASE OF PRISIONERS with detainers eligibility; revocati-on of release. A. Notwithatanding.-'any law to the contrary, the director may releasea prisioner to the custody and control of the United States Immigra-- tion and.naturalization service if all of the following requirementsare satisfied: 1.- The apartment receives an Order of deportation from the United - onand Naturatlization Seravice. er has served at least one-4alf.( ) of the sentence impj0d by the court. 3.- The prisioner was convicted of a Class 3,4,5 or 6 Felony Offense. A.- The prisioner was not convicted of an offense under Title.13, cha pter 11, Section at seq. 5.- The prisioner was not convicted of a sexual offense pursuant to - A.R.S , , or The prisioner was not sentence pursuant to B. If a prisioner who is release pursuant to this section -returns i-- llegally to the United Statear upon notification from any feederaj or- State Law enforcement agency that the prisioner is in custody, the di rector shall revoke the prisi.oner's release. The prisioner shall notbe eligible for parole, community supervision or any other release -- from confinement until the remainder of the sentence of imprisonmentis served, except pursuant to A.R.S , subsection A or B. I,, desire to obtain a deportation orderand I askii you GI1KNT this petition/request in order to obtain a sti pulated deportation order. Signed this. day a( Loots Sigilli: C.e. IS.D- ttorne* wenercx ICE (7)

217 I GENE McNARY COMMISSIONER OF INS 425 "l" STREET NW WASHINGTON, D.C. [20536] RE: Stipulated Deportation Order and pursuant to A.R.S Dear Commissioner, Now comes the Petitioner m, a layman Haineas v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (19/2), Harris v. Nelson, 394 US 286, (1969), does hereby presents this request, any foreign born inmate who meets ALL eligibility criteria for release pursuant to A.R.S must have a current deportation order prior to being relea se upon reaching one-half(k) of their imposed sentence RELEASE OF PRISIONERS with detainers eligibility; revocation of release. A. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the director may releasea prisioner to the custody and control of the United States Immigra-- tion and naturalization service if all of the following requirementsare satisfied: 1.- The department receives an Order of deportation from the United - States Immigration and Naturalization Service. 2.- The prisioner has served at least one-half(k) of the sentence imposed by the court. 3.- The prisioner was convicted of a Class 3,4,5 or 6 Felony Offense. 4.- The prisioner was not convicted of an offense under Title 13, cha pter 11, Section ct seq. 5.- The prisioner was not convicted of a sexual offense pursuant to - A.R.S , , or The prisioner was not sentence pursuant to B. If a prisioner who is release pursuant to this section returns i-- egally to the United States, upon notification from any federal or- "5is 4 db a w freoent -,agency that the prisioner is in cu&todgr. the-di rector shall r voke tose prisioner's release. Th'e prineaall notbe eligible for parole, community supervision or any other release -- from confinement until the remainder of the sentenceof imprisonmentis served, except pursuant to A.R.S , subsection A or B. 'A-ded by Laws 1996, CH. 257, subsection 10, amended -by lavs l r CH- 212 subsection 14, eff. April 28, desire to obtain a deportation order- ition/request in order, to obtain a sti I,- and I asiigg you.grt t s p pulated deportation orde r. Signed this 06 day of 0, 2008 Locus Sigilli:,;e c.e. U.S. Attorney General 7 ICE (7)

218 -. -.,, ~ -~ Office of Detentlon and Removal Operations U.S. Department of Homeland Security 500 t2th Street, SW Washington, DC U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement NOV Dear Mr. We received your correspondence regarding a stipulated deportation order. ICE is responsible for detecting and preventing immigration violations and ensuring the departure of all removable aliens from the United States. ICE has procedures to identify, process, and institute removal hearings of criminal aliens while they are in the custody of correctional institutions. However, the actual removal of criminal aliens is not effected until they have finished their sentence, or served the mandatory minimum, as set by law and regulation. When a person is in an institution and determined to be an alien subject to removal, an ICE detainer is placed at that institution, so that ICE will be contacted when his or her sentence is complete. A detainer notifies a detention facility that an individual may be remanded to ICE custody, after completing his or her current sentence. The detainer does not allow action by ICE until the current sentence is completed. Sincerely, Office of Detention and Removal Operations d- F M ICE (7)

219 July 03, 200$ JULIE MYERS, SECRETARY FOR ICE DIRECTOR IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY- WASHINGTON, D.C. +atqjaforft-aprsinmates Honorable Director; Please consider this requests a honest attempt.at redemption from the guilt and,regret. at the situation that I find myself in and the costs and unnecessary paperwork I have caused the United States Government. Pursuant to your interesting interview with of USA Today and the savings.to the United States taxpayer I wish to apply, as a federal inmate, for the Early Deportation for Non-Violent Immigrant Criminals, for participation in the program. I am a non-violent immigrant offender, I am at one-half or better of completionof my federal 'sentence,'i have no sexual or violent offenses in my record. I hereby waive my right to contest the-presen.t.and any future deportation proceedings against me, if I can be allowed to participate in the early deportation program. Please consider my request and grant me participation. Thank you very much for your kind'attention. NAME A# BOP EDEN DETENTION CENTER/CCA PO BOX 605 EDEN, TX ICE (7)

220 WASHIGTON, D.C. 10 OF MARCH UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ICE OFFICE OF DETENTION AND REMOVAL ORDER DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATIONS 425 I-STREET NW. WASHIGTON DC. CP AR 1 2f TO: MISES. MARCY FORMAN: First thing with all do respect, I would a reciate if you could please check my case No [, to see if I"m - elig~blg pr,.early 1 ideportation arid half-time reduction. RE: Stipulated Deportation Order and Pursuant to A.R.S Any foreign born inmate who meets ALL eligibility criteria for-- release pursuant to A.R.S must have a current deporta tion order prior to being release upon reaching One-Half (1/2)of their imposed sentence RELEASE OF PRISIONER-with 'detainer: eligibility, revo cation of release. A- Notwithstanding any Law tothe contrary, The director may re-- lease a prisioner to the custody andcontrol of The United Sta-- tes Inmigration and Naturalization Service if all of the follo-- wing requirements are satisfied: 1. The department receives an order of deportation from The United States Inmigration and Naturalization Service. 2. The prisioner has served at least One-Half (1/2) of the sen-- tence imposed by the Court..3. The prisioner was convicted of a Class 3,4,5 or 6 felony ---- offense. 4. The prisioner was not convicted of an offense under Title 13, Chapter 11, Section ct. seq. 5. The prisioner was not convicted of a sexual offense pursuantto A.R.S , , or The prisioner was not sentence pursuant B- If a prisioner who release pursuant to this.section'returns-- illegally to the United States, upon notification from any Fe deral or States Law Enforcement Agency that the prisioner isincustody, the Director shall revoke the prisioner s release. The prisioner shall not be eligible for parole, community supervision or any other release from confinement until the --- remainder of the sentence of imprisonment is served except - persuant to A.R.S , subsection A or B. -Added by Laws-1996, Ch.-257, subsection 10. Amended-by Laws h27 u~t~ 14, eff April 28, I. wish to obtain a deportation - order, and submit this written request in order to obtain a - stipulated deportation order. I-have read the foregoing and - understand.the contents there of; that the same is true of my own knowledge except those matter there in states upon information and belief, are and as to those I believe them to be - true. I RESPECTFULLY submit this request for a stipulated deporta=tionorder this 10 day of MARCH, ICE (7)

221 Affiant Sig Printed Nam BOP. No. CASE No. GILES W. DALBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 805 NORTH AVENUE F POST, TEXAS ICE (7)

222 I I I I / 0 (;7 "I A *0 * 0 0 &4 t-f 0 k V -'1.4 ICE (7)

223 CO The Honorable Spencer Abraham United States Senator 2622 Telegraph Rd., #200 Southfield, MI Dear Senator Abraham: We regret the delay in res onding to your letter of December 5, 1997, with an enclosure fro who believes that certain criminal aliens convicted of non-violent dgoenses s deported prior to the completion of their sentences under provisions of the Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act, which provides for certain non-violent criminal aliens to be deported without completion of their sentence. The stipulated deportation program referred to applies only to persons who so stipulate before their trial on criminal charges has been completed and judgment and sentence imposed. It operates only in those cases where the prosecuting authority is prepared to suspend the trial, sentencing, and imprisonment. Section 242(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended states: An alien sentenced to imprisonment shall not be deported until such imprisonment has been terminated by the release of the alien from confinement. Parole, supervised release, probation, or possibility of rearrest or further confinement in respect of the same offense shall not be a ground for deferral of deportation. This Section of statute prohibits the Attorney General from deporting any criminal alien until his or her sentence has been completed. Section 242(i) provides: In the case of an alien who is convicted of an offense which makes the alien subject to deportation, the Attorney General shall begin any deportation proceeding as expeditiously as possible after the date of the conviction. ICE (7)

224 The Honorable Spencer Abraham Page 2 The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 did authorize specially designated Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officers to order the deportation of criminal aliens, but did not suspend the requirement that the period of imprisonment be completed. Since the regulations which will implement these provisions of law have not completed the promulgation process, many of the questions asked by the Consulate General cannot be answered at this time. We hope to have regulations published in the near future. We hope that the information provided is useful. If we may be of assistance in the future, please let us know. Sincerely, Allen Erenbaum Director Official File ICE (7)

225 ,WASHIGTON, D.C. APRIL 04, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ICE OFFICE OF DETENTION AND REMOVAL ORDER DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATIONS 425 I-STREET NW. WASHIGTON.DC. CP BOP.No. TO: MISES. MARCY FORMAN: 1(b(6, me7) APR First thing with all -do respect I would avoreciate if you could please check my case No. I, to see if Im - eligible for early deportation and half time reduction. RE: Stipulated Deportation Order and Pursuant to A.RS Any foreign born inmate who meets ALL eligibility criteria for-- release pursuant to A.R.S must have a current deporta tion order prior to being release upon reaching one-half (112)of their imposed sentence ,14 RELEASE OF PRISIONER with detainer: eligibility, revo cation of release. A- Notwithstanding any Law tothe contrary, The director may re-- lease a prisioner to the custody and.control of The United Sta-- tes Inmigration and Naturalization Service if all of the follo-- wing requirements are satisfied: 1. The department receives an order of deportation from The United States Inmigration and Naturalization Service. 2. The prisioner has served at least one-half (1/2) of the sen-- tence'imposed by the Court. 3. The prisioner was convicted of a Class 3,4,5 or 6 felony offense. 4. The prisioner was not convicted of an offense under Title 13, Chapter 11, Section at. seq. 5. The prisioner was not convicted of a sexual offense pursuantto A.R.S , , or The prisioner was not sentence pursuant B- If a prisioner who release pursuant to this section returns--, illegally to the United States, upon notification from any.fe deral or States Law Enforcement Agency that the prisioner isincustody, the Director shall revoke the prisionerl's release. The prisioner shall not be eligible for parole, community supervision or any other release from confinement until the --- remainder of the sentence of imprisonment is served, except - persuant to A.R.S , subsection A or B. Added by Laws 1996, Ch. 257, subsection 10. Amended by Laws Q anham+-4 n 14, eff April 28, I wish to obtain a deportation -- order, and submit this written request in order to obtain a - stipulated deportation order. I -have read the foregoing and - understand the contents there of; that the same is true of my own knowledge except those matter there in states upon information and belief, are and as to those I believe them to be - true. I RESPECTFULLY submit this request for a stipulated deporta=tionorder this 04 day of APRIL, ICE (7)

226 ~ Affiant.Signature. I Printed Name. BOP. No. CASEw CAEN No- GILES W. DALBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 805 NORTH AVENUE F POST, TEXAS ICE (7)

227 E0 E-f N t q 0 BB0 E-o H e QE- 0 MNH pq A NO EQ INOH HPQ No 0 WU 0 if N S Q i - U 0 E-i O, N- 04 UN. N H m * P4 lic4 w O~oO * to me-ow0 p. 0 0P ICE (7)

228 CO The Honorable Connie Mack United States Senator 1342 Colonial Blvd., Suite 27 Fort Myers, FL Dear Senator Mack: ay in responding to your letter of January 7, 1998, with enclosures from hose husband is currently serving time in a Federal Penitentiary. vould like to be deported rather than to serve out his sentence. The stipulated deportation program referred to by M applies only to persons who so stipulate before their trial on criminal charges has been completed and judgment and sentence imposed. It operates only in those cases where the prosecuting authority is prepared to suspend the trial, sentencing, and imprisonment. states: Section 242(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended An alien sentenced to imprisonment shall not be deported until such imprisonment has been terminated by the release of the alien from confinement. Parole, supervised release, probation, or possibility of rearrest or further confinement in respect of the same offense shall not be a ground for deferral of deportation. This section of statute prohibits the Attorney General from deporting any criminal alien until his or her sentence has been completed. Section 242(i) provides: In the case of an alien who is convicted of an offense which makes the alien subject to deportation, the Attorney General shall begin any deportation proceeding as expeditiously as possible after the date of the conviction. Please assured that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) will commence his deportation proceeding as soon as possible, but no later than as soon as his sentence has been served. In fact, it is possible that he may be subject to the Institutional Hearing Program. If this is the case, we may commence his expulsion proceedings within 6 months prior to the completion of his sentence, in order that there be no delay in the carrying out ICE (7)

229 of his deportation after his sentence has been served. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 did authorize specially designated INS officers to order the deportation of criminal aliens, but did not suspend the requirement that the period of imprisonment be completed. The Honorable Connie Mack Page 2 We hope that the information provided is useful. If we may be of assistance in the future, please let us know. Sincerely, Allen Erenbaum Director O(b)c2lHN i IC E (7)

230 GENE McNARY 'COMMISSIONER OF INS 425 "1" STREET NW WASHINGTON, D.C. [20536] -I Uq RE: Stipulated:Deportation Order and pursuant to A.R.S. 41-1, Dear Commissioner,. Now comes the Petitioner-, ' a layman Baineaa v. Rerner, 404 US 519 (1972>, narrie v US 286, (.1969)4 does hereby presents this request, any foreign born inmate who meets ALL eligibility criteria for relerass 0ursubnt to A.R.S must have a current deportation order prior to being relea se upon reaching one-half(k) of their imposed sentence RELEASE OF PRISIONERS with detainers eligibility; revocation 6f release. A. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the director may releasea prisionet to the custody and control of the United States Immigra-- tion and naturalization service if all of the following requirementsare satisfied:' 1.- The department receives an Order of deportation from the United - States Immigration and Naturalization Service. 2.- The prisioner has served at least one-half(k) of the sentence imposed by the court. I 3.- The'prisioner was convicted of a Class 3,4,5 or 6 Felony Offense. 4.- The ptisioner was not convicted of an offense under Title 13, cha pter 11 Sectidn ct seq. 5.- The prisidner was not convicted of a sexual offense pursuant to - A..R.S , , or ,.- The prisioner was not sentence pursuant to B. If a prisioner who is release pursuant to this section returns i-- llegally to the United States, upon notification from any federal or- State Law-enforcement agency that the prisioner is in custody, the di rector shall revoke.the prisioner's release. The prisioner shall notbe eligible for parole, community supervision or any other release -- from confinement until the remainder of the sentence of imprisonmentis served, except pursuant to A.R.S , subsection A or B. Added by Laws 1996, *Ci.,.257, subsection 10, amended by..1laws.1997, CH, 212 subsection 14, eff. April 28, It *, desire to obtain a deportation orderand I asking you GRANT Eniu ptition/request in order to obtain a sti pulated deportation order. Signed this 13 Wday ao L1)Z~, 2uv0 Locus Sigilli c.c. U.S. Attorney Gener ICE (7)

231 CO The Honorable Max Cleland United States Senator 75 Spring Street, SW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA Dear Senator Cleland: We regret the delay in responding to your letter of April 23, 1998, with an enclosure from ( bwho wants to have her husband,b deported before he finishes s prison sentence. In accordance with current unnugration law and procedures, certain criminal aliens convicted of non-violent drug offenses may be deported prior to the completion of their sentence. This "stipulated deportation" program applies only to persons who agree to accept a final deportation and/or removal order prior to the completion of their criminal trial and imposition of sentence. It operates only in those cases where the prosecuting authority is prepared to agree to these same conditions. However, if husband did not stipulate to a final deportation order as part of his sentencing agreemen, e may nonetheless be deported expeditiously when he is ultimately released from prison. This is a matter best handled by the local immigration office with jurisdiction over the case, i.e. the district office to which he will be released by prison officials. Please be assured that will receive every consideration commensurate with current immigration and regulations. He will have the opportunity to present his case before an Immigration Judge and to have legal counsel, who can explore any possible avenues for relief from removal. We hope that the information provided is useful. If we may be of assistance in the future, please let us know. Sincerely, Allen Erenbaum Director ICE (7)

232 WASHIGTON, D.C. APRIL 04, r UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ICE OFFICE OF DETENTION AND REMOVAL ORDER DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATIONS 425 I'STREET NW. WASHIGTON DC. CP BOP. No. TO: MISES. MARCY FORMAN: First thing with all do respect I would appreciate if you could please check my case No. ' to see if IM -. eligible for early deportation an a time reduction. RE: Stipulated Deportation order and Pursuant to A.R.S Any foreign born inmate who meets ALL eligibility criteria for-- release pursuant to:a.r.s must have a current deporta tion order prior to being release upon reaching One-Half (1/2)of their imposed sentence RELEASE OF PRISIONER with detainer: eligibility, revo cation of release. A- Notwithstanding any Law tothe contrary, The director may re-- lease a prisioner to the custody and.control of The United Sta-- tes Inmigration and Naturalization Service if all of the follo-- wing requirements are satisfied: 1. The department receives an order of deportation from The United States Inmigration and Naturalization Service. 2. The prisioner has served at least One-Half (1/2) of the sen-- tence imposed by the Court. 3. The prisioner was convicted of a Class 3,4,5 or 6 felony ---- offense. 4. The prisioner was not convicted of an offense under Title 13, Chapter 11, Section ct. seq. 5. The prisioner was not convicted of a sexual offense pursuant- *.to A.R.S , , or The prisioner was not sentence pursuant B- If a prisioner who release pursuant to this section returns--. illegally to the United States, upon notification -from any Fe deral or States Law Enforcement Agency that the prisoner isincustody, the Director shall revoke the prisionerls release. The prisioner shall not be eligible for parole, community supervision or any other release from confinement until the remainder of the sentence of imprisonment is served, except - persuant to.a.r.s , subsection A or B. Added by Laws 1996, Ch. 257, subsection 10. Amended by Laws F Ch subsection 14, eff April 28, I wish to obtain a deportation -- orner, and submit this wr tten request in order toiobtain.a - stipulated deportation order. I have read the foregoing and - understand the contents there of; that the same is true of my own knowledge except those matter there in states upon information and belief, are and as to those I believe them to be - true. I RESPECTFULLY submit this request for a stipulated deporta=tionorder this 04 day of APRIL, 'i ICE (7)

233 --- meow& Affiant Signature Printed Name. BOP No. CASE No. GILES W. DALBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 805 NORTH AVENUE F POST, TEXAS ICE (7)

234 I ge 0 H-I>z f4~ 0 ;rj- w E-1 0- WH C- C%)- Elo Es te- H EOUHH Pr o OE4to rehl 0 u 4 0 Hr. Fj0 ",. t :D: W LO E r. Z rz t 8 oo7 40o( ICE (

235 7;.~< I(b)(2)igh July 03p 2008 JULIE MS, SECRETARY FOR ICE DIRECTOR IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON, D.C. RE:,1 AItP I'no rtati Fedal Inmates Honorable Director; Please consider this request.as a honest attempt at redemption from the guilt and regret at the situation that I find myself in and the costs and unnecessary paperwork I have caused the United States Government. Pursuant to your interesting interview with Emily Bazan of USA Today and the savings to the United States taxpayer I wish to apply, as a federal inmate, for the Early Deportation for Ron-Violent Immigrant Criminals, for participation in the program. I am a non-violent immigrant offender, I am at one-half or better of completion of my federal sentence, I have no sexual or violent offenses in my record. I hereby waive my right to contest the preset and any future deportation proceedings against me, if I can be allowed to participate in the early deportation program. Please consider my request and grant me participation. Thank you very much for your kind attention. NAMI A# 80P PO BOX 605 EDEN, TX ICE (7)

236 (b)(6) (b)7) b 6 () )( GENE McNARY COMMISSIONER OF INS 425 "1" STREET NW WASHINGTON, D.C. [ ( H RE: Stipulated Deportation Order and pursuant to A.R.S Now comes the Petitioner_, a layman Haineas v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972), Harris v. Nelson, 394 US 286, (1969), does hereby presents this request, any foreign born inmate who meets ALL eligibility criteria for release pursuant to A.R.S must have a current deportation order prior to being relea se upon reaching one-half( ) of their imposed sentence RELEASE OF PRISIONERS with detainers eligibility; revocation of release. A. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the director may releasea prisioner to the custody and control of the United States Immigra-- tion and naturalization service if all of the following requirementsare satisfied: 1.- The department receives an Order of deportation from the United - S.gt'o nd N ionservi. 3.- The prisioner was convicted of a Class 3,4,5 or 6 Felony Offense. 4.- The prisioner was not convicted of an offense under Title 13, cha pter 11, Section ct seq. 5.- The prisioner was not convicted of a sexual offense pursuant to - A.R.S , , or The prisioner was not sentence pursuant to B. If a prisioner who is release pursuant to this section returns i-- 1legally to the United States, upon notification from any federal or- V,-Attorney General 'saw n I Aw I - ff 7 ME ICE (7)

237 'WASHIGTON, D.C. NPRZE 04, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 04,208 ICE OFFICE OF DETENTION AND REMOVAL ORDER DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATIONS 425 I-STREET NW. WASHIGTON.DC. CP BOP. NUM. TO: MISES. MARCY FORMAN: annmm First thing with all -do respect, I would appreciate if you could please check my case No., to see if IRM - eligible for.early deportation-and half time reduction. RE: Stipulated Deportation Order and Pursuant to A.R.S Any foreign born inmate who meets ALL eligibility criteria for-- release pursuant to:a.r.s must have a current deporta tion order prior to being release upon reaching One-Half (1/2)of their imposed sentence RELEASE OF PRISIONER-with detainer: eligibility, revo cation of release. A- Notwithstanding any Law tothe contrary, The director may re-7 lease a prisioner to' the custody and control of The United Sta--. tes Inmigration and Naturalization Service if all of the follo-- wing requirements-are satisfied: 1. The department receives an order of deportation from The United States Inmigration and Naturalization Service. 2. The prisioner has served at least One-Half (1/2) of the sen-- tence 'imposed by the Court. 3. The prisioner was convicted of a Class 3,4,5 or 6 felony ---- offense. 4. The prisioher was not convicted of an offense under Title 13, Chapter 11, Section ct. seq. 5. The prisioner was not convicted of a sexual offense pursuantto'a.r.s , , or The prisioner was not sentence pursuant B- If a prisioner who release pursuant to this section'returns-- illegally to the United States, upon notification from any Fe deral or States Law Enforcement Agency that the prisioner isincustody, the Director shall revoke the prisionerts release. The prisioner shall not be eligible for parole, community supervision or any other release from confinement until the --- remainder of the sentence of imprisonment is served, except - persuant to A.R.S.' , subsection A or B. Added by Laws 1996, Ch.:257, subsection 10. Amended by Laws Ch. 257-' ht-4.'1,eff April 28, * I iwsh to obtain a deportation -- orner, and submit this written request in order to obtain a - stipulated deportation order. I-have read the foregoing and - understand the contents there of; that the same is true of my own knowledge except those matter 'there in states upon information and belief, are and as to those I believe them to be - true. I RESPECTFULLY submit this request for a stipulated deporta=tionorder this 04 day of APRIL., ICE (7)

238 Affiant Signature. Printed Name. BOP. No. CASE No. GILES W. DALBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 805 NORTH AVENUE F POST, TEXAS ICE (7)

239 r lip, cn 0 ui Z trj 0.3 a o C 0.. lwh0. A t%' 0 H G 0 t3o Ni 00 N to!4 U 1HI3 U t% 1 rj j 0 0r 4. Z Ni H Q DI0 CI.4 i ) ICE (7)

240 TO: JULIE L. MYERS DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE FROM: DATE: FEBRURARY 12,2008 FED I C A )O RE: REQUESTING A STIPULATED DEPORTATION ORDER!IinITIZN OF THE DOMN,=-AV---RU.-BLan ~ SERVING A TOTAL OF 14 YEARS IMPRISOMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE BUREAU OF PRISON. FCI RAY BROOK NY. UNDER THE 16A.05 EXPEDITED REMOVAL OF ALIENS CONVICTED OF CRIMES the DHS may conduct deportation or removal hearings before the aliens has finished serving his or her criminal sentence,either at the centralized facilities or at state or local facilities. MY PROJECTED RELEASE DATE IS I NOVEMBER 27,2008 I AM REQUESTING TO BE DEPORTED BEFORE THAT DATE BY SIGNING A CONTRACT THAT WILL HELP ME TO RETURN BACK TO MY FAMILY AT A EARLY DATE, AND AT THE SAME TIME HELP THE ECONOMIC BY NOT ALLOWING THE TAX-PAYERS MONEY TO MAINTAIN US ALIENS. IN THE NEW PAPERS YOU STATED THAT YOU WILL HELP THE ECONOMIC BY DEPORTING MANY ALIENS THAT HAVENT FINISHED THEIR SENTENCE. PLEASE I WILL LIKE TO BE THE FIRST, BECAUSE I AM 46 YEARS OLD AND MY INTENTIONS ARE NOT TO EVER RETURN BACK TO THIS COUNTRY. I AM A FATHER OF TWO CHILDREN THAT ARE AT THIS MOMENT WAITING FOR THEIR FATHER, AND THEY ARE PRETTY MUCH TEENAGERS THAT WERE RAISE 9IH I Er PEASTERR. PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS REQUEST. THANK YOU ICE (7)

241 United States Department of Justice IC Office of Detention and Removal Orders Field Office Director, Phoenix 2035 North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ RE: Stipulated Deportation Order and Pursuant to A.RS Any foreign born inmate who meets ALL eligibility criteria for release pursuant to A.R.S RELEASE OF PRISONERS with detainers; eligibility; revocation of release. A. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the director may release a prisoner to the custody and control of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service if all of the following requirements are satisfied: 1. The department receives an order of deportation from the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. 2. The prisoner has served at least one-half (1/2) of the sentence imposed by the court. 3. The prisoner was convicted of a class 3 4, 5 or 6 felony offense. 4. The prisoner was not convicted of an offense under Title 13, Chapter 11, Section ct seo. S The prisoner was not convicted of a sexual offense pu Tol.T 3T44T-1405, or v. 6, The prisoner was not sentenced pursuant to B. If a prisoner who is released pursuant to this section returns illegally to the United States, upon notification from any federal or state law enforcement agency that the prisoner is in custody, the director shall revoke the prisoner's release. The prisoner shall not be eligible for parole, community supervision or any other release from confinement until the remainder of the sentence pursuant to A.R.S , subsection A or B. I,, wish to obtain a deportation order, and submit this written request in order to obtain a stipulated deportation order. I have read the foregoing and understand the contents thereof; that the same is true of my own knowledge except those matters therein stated upon information and belief are and as to those I believe then to be true. 1 RESPECTFULLY submit this request for a stipulated deportation order this I1- day of 20.Qjj Affiant Signature Printed Nam ASPC-CCA Diamondback Correctional Facility ICE (7)

242 16A-25 REMOVAL OF ALIENS 16A.05 Notably, it has been held that federal courts cannot review a determination that an alien is subject to expedited removal pursuant to INA 235(b)(1). 5 16A.05 Expedited Removal of Aliens Convicted of Crimes The INA requires the DHS to expedite the removal of aliens convicted of crimes.i Toward this end, INA 238(a)(1) 2 requires the DHS to provide for the availability of deportation and removal proceedings at federal, state, and local correctional facilities for aliens convicted of specified crimes. 4;-, incarceration. 3 For aliens convicted of aggravated felonies, removal proceedings must be initiated and, "to the extent possible," completed, including any administrative appeals, before the alien's release from criminal custody. 4 However, the statute does not require the DHS to deport or remove any alien sentenced to actual incarceration before the end of his or her sentence. S The DH1S has created the Criminal Alien Instituitional Hearing Program (IHP) to carry out these mandates.$ Under the IP, aliens convicted of crimes may be centralized in designated Bureau of Prisons facilities for deportation or removal hearings. 7 The DS may conduct deportation or removal hearings before the alien has finished serving his or her criminal sentence, eitheral the centralized facilities or at state or local facilities.8 The DHS must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the alien's right to counsel and access to counsel are not impaired by the institutional removal hearings.' LJJ.JL4ULI J V 1VYIVY t/) AV1'XIIVCL wl uv1, L. 1- U- L1JALIr.. -. J, '~.~/ I INA 238(a), 8 U.S.C. 1228(a). This provision was previously numbered INA 242A(a), 8 U.S.C. 1252a(a). See, generally, Iory Diana Rosenberg, Ask Lory: Deported Without a Hearing - Section 238 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8'Bender's Immigr. Bull (Oct. 1, 2003); Lory Diana Rosenberg, Separate Opinion: Gonna Need Somebody on Your Bond - Pre-Removal Detention Under the INA, 8 Bender's Immigr. Bull (Sept. 1, 2003). 2 8 U.S.C. 1228(a)(1); see, also, 8 C.F.R. Part INA 238(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1228(a)(1). 4 INA 238(a)(3)(A). 8 U.S.C. 1228(a)(3)(A). SINA 238(a)(3)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1228(a)(3)(B). 6 See Campos v. INS, 62 F.3d 311, 313 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995). 7 Id. See also INA 238(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1228(a)(2). 8INA 238(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1228(a)(1). 9 INA 238(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1228(a)(2). o INA 238(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1228(a)(1). INA 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). (Rd3q-4/04 Nb.334) ICE (7)

243 Date. HONORABLE 206 ir 19 P ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BUILDING CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND 10TH STREET N.M. WASHINGTONG, D.C RE: ALIEN DEPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ACT R.R. 668 of I(2) 5242(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act title 8 U.SC.A (h) I am a citizen of the country of Colombia S.A. I am incarcerated in the Federal prison system at PCW-US-P-1 C--lean-loida I am elegible for Deportation pursuant to act 668 (supra), I therefore request, pursuant to criminal Aliens Deportation improvements'att RR 668 of 1995 "to control crime by further streamlining the Deportation of Aliens", 17, Deportation of non-violent offenders prior to completion of sentence of improsonment. '(A) In general-5242 (h) of the immigration and naturalization Act (8 U.S.C.) 1252 (h), under t2. Also were under section 701 Requires the I.N.8. to initiate any deportation proceeding as expeditiously as possible after the date of aliens conviction so that question is resolved before the expiration of the prisioners' term and not the end of the aliens criminal sentence. I would appreciate being advised of what remedies are available to me. Rnanfully submited. CC. BUREAU OF PRISONS Enclosures: Sentence.monitoring comptation date. (BOP) Copy of detainees. (INS) Progress report. (BOP) Judgement andconmmitent Document. (court) ICE (7)

244 as CERTIFICACION OF SENTENCE PLACE OF CONFINEMENT: Federal Correctional Complex USPI-1. ColemanFl. CONVICTED BY: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA DATE OF JUDGMENT: LENGTH OF SENTENCE: 188 Months TIME ALREADY SERVE1): 117 Months Days NATURE OF OFFENSE: Con piratipp and Possesion of Martinana.' DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY (S): Prn- I DECLARE under the penalties of perjury and false swearing the foregoing is true and correct to the beat of my knowledge and belief under the penalties of perjury and false swearing. Tecee cts i Of b LWAIM.in ICE (7)

245 AFFIDAVIT E>, do hereby CERTIFY, STATE and DECLARE the 1. 1 am willing to waive my right to a Deportation Hearing in front of an Immigration Judge if my inmediate deportation is ordered by this Honorable Court. 2. I am aware that pursuant to the amendment under 8 U.S.C (h)(2)(a), indicating that if I, was to re-enter or attempt to re-enter or Is found inside the United States at any time without the. authorization of the United State Attorney General's office, that I shall be incarcerated for the remainder of the sentence imposed by the District Court before the time-of Deportation. 3. That I am over the of 18 years and person to make such decisions. of sound.mind, and I am a competent Is true and correct to the best of my ties of perjury and false swearing. knowledge and belief under the penal- ICE (7)

246 JUDICIAL DEPORTATION The Immigration and Nationality technical corrections Act of 1994, authorizes Judicial deportation of certain Aliens at the request of the United States- Attorney with INS Jurisdiction to enter a Judicial order of Deportation at the time of sentencing against.an Alien whose criminal conviction causes the alien to be deportable under section 241(A)(2)(A) of the INA, this procedure is commonly reffered to as- Judicial deportation and can be. used in Federal Courts in some programs, a judge in a criminal case may. consider the aliens.agreement to be deported, when the- Judge imposes a sentence for the criminal charge. In a stipulated Deportation an itunigration Judge may enter an order of Deportation without a hearing based on an agreement between the alien and the INS. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this motion was mailed to the U.S. Attorney, Jacqueline Arango, AUSA at 99 N.E. 4th Street, Miami,0131. on this 7th.day of February, 2006 ICE (7)

247 Date, HONORABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BUILDING - CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND 10TH STREET q.w. WASHINGTONG, D.C RE: ALIEN DEPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ACT R.R. 668 of (2) 242(h) of:.the Immigration and Nationality Act title 8 U.S.C.A (h) I am a citizen of the country of olormbia S.A. I encareeraed in the Fe- *deral prison system at &CCINIP-1 Cal Oman-Porida I am eligible for Deportation pursuant to act 668 (supra). I therefore request, pursuant to criminal A-liens Deportation improvement'att RH 668 of 1995 "to control crime by further streamlining the Deportation of Aliea", 617, Deportation of non-violent offenders prior to completion of sentence of improsonment. (A) In general- 242 (h) of the immigration and naturalization Act (8 U.S.C.) 1252 (h), under. %2. Also were under section 701 Requires the I.N.S. to initiate any deportation proceeding ag expeditiously as possible after the date of aliens conviction so that question is resolved before the expiration of the prisioners' term and not the end of the aliens-criminal sentence. I would appreciate being advised of what remedies are available to me.. Respecfully submited, CC. BUREAU OF PRISONS )LOMBIA Enclosures; Sentence.monitoring comptation date. (BOP) Copy of.detainers. (INS) Progress report. (BOP) Judgement and-commitent Document. (court) ICE (7)

248 JUDICIAL DEPORTATION The Immigration and Nationality technical corrections Act of 1994, authorizes Judicial deportation of certain Aliens at the request of the United States- Attorney with ThS Jurisdiction to enter a Judicial order of Deportation at the time of sentencing against.an Alien whose criminal.conviction causes the alien to be deportable under section 5241(A)(2)(A) of the INA, this procedure is commonlyy reffered to as- Judicial deportation and can be used in Federal Courts in some prograde, a judge in a.cr inal case may-consider the aliens agreement to be deported, when the- Judge imposes a sentence for the criminal charge. In a stipulated Deportation an immigration Judge may enter an order of Deportation without a hearing based on an agreement between the alien and the INS. CERTFlICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this motion was mailed to the U.S. Attorney, Jacqueline Arango,AUSA at 99 N.E. 4th Street, Miami 1331 on this 7th.day of February $ 2006 ICE (7)

249 AYFIDAVIT HDIMMIc lowiner: I do hereby CERTIFY, STATE aad DECLARE the 1. I am willing to waive my right to a Deportation Hearing in front of an Immigration Judge if my immediate deportation is ordered by this Honorable Court. 2. I am aware that pursuant to the amendment under 8 U.S.C..242(h)(2)(a), indicating that if I was to re-enter or attempt to re-enter or is found inside the United States at any time without the authorization of the United State Attorney General's office, that I shall be incarcerated for the remainder of the sentence imposed by the District Court before the time of Deportation. 3. That I am over the of 18 years and person to make.such decisions. of sound.mind, and I am a competent is true and correct to the best of.my ties of perjury and false swearing knowledge and belief under the penal- Executed this 7th day of ICE (7)

250 CERTI1ICACION OF SENTENCE PLACE OF CONFINEENT: Federal Correctional_ Complex USP-t ColemanFl CO1VICTED BY: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF PLORIDA DATE OF JUDGEMNT: LENGTH OF SENTENCE: 188 Months TIME ALREADY SERVED: 117 Months Days NATURE OF OFFENSE: ConpSiration and Possesion of Marijuana. DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY (S): Pro-qe I, DECLARE uader the penalties of perjury and false searing the foregoing is true and correct to the best of.my knowledge and belief under the penalties of perjury and false swearing. Executed thisjjhday ICE (7)

251 (~A. ~ M A (RetN.0 fc 4'Vwr r, c"st'cs 199 FE THE DEFENDANT: 23 PM l: 50 ' OO MAMERICA Fl pleaded guilty to count(s) pleaded nolo contendere to count(s) which was accepted by the court was found guilty on count(s) I and 11 of the Indictment after a plea of not guilty. Title & Section ~J~AIAI.ARLa U ftp Is~t.I AU~ VA J.~A~JI AlA Aft SonsconT- ua nct ua01j%%'v.& a Uo Nature of Offense JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE (For Offenses Committed On or After November 1, 1987) Case Number: (b(f(7)c 1 oetandanftanmey... I... Date Offense Concluded Count Number 46 U.S.C (j)(g) USC Appendix 44 U.S.C (a)(g) VSC Appendli 18 U.S.C. 2 Conspiracy to PWID Marijuana PWID Marijuana PWID Marijuana 05/ /26/ /1996 The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through... to the Sentencing Reform Act of of this judgment. The sentence is imposed purment [] The defendant has been found not guilty on count(s) 11 Count(s) (is)(are) dismissed on the motion of the United States. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this district within 30 days of sry change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid. Defendants Soc. Sec. No.: Defendatra Date of 81tth: Defendants USM No.: Defendants Residence Addreas: V13/1998 Defendanfs Mailing Address: FDC..Miami Miami FT.. The Honorable Stanley Marcus, U.S. Circuit Judge Sitting By Designaton u4s=. o w kare w correct copy Of the ori carios Jueriliptc aterk Februry 18 1<i So teo8irl d 7poyC ICE (7)

252 4 t5 (ROY. WU) S ffpri ObEFENDANT: CASE NUMBER: Ot ~ * IMPRISONMENT Judgment-Page. The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of 188 monh... as to each of Counts I aud f of the Indictment Both terms shall be served concurrently; The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons: The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal. The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district: -I at _ a~m./p.m. on as notified by the United States Marshal, The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons: before 2 p.m. on - O as noticed by the United States Marshal. as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office. I have executed this judgment as follows: RETURN..... I I at Defendant delivered on to with a certified copy of this judgment. UNIT STATES MARSHAL By De.tAy. Ma.... ICE (7)

253 SENTENCE MONITORING * VA COMPUTATION DATA * 15:21:01 AS OF X~EGNO. NAME: FBI NO-., *E'UIU ATE OP BIRTH: ARS1.....,., O / -E UNIT L/M QUARTERS... (2 DETAINERS... YES NOTIFICATIONS: PRE**RLEASE PREPARATION DATE: THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE DATA IS FOR THE INMATE'S CURRENT COMMITMENT. THE INMATE 13 PROJECTED FOR RELEASE: 03-16"2010 VIA GCT REL ---- CRRENT JUDGMENT/WARRANT NOM COURT OF JORTSDICT.ION..,:.*, SOTHERN DISTRICT DOCKET NUMBER.... )) JUDGE,, * MARCUS DATE SENTENCED/PROBATION IMPOSED: DATE COMMITTED HOW COMMITTED... * S DISTRICT CO.)ET COMMITMENT PROBATION IMPOSED..... : NO FELONY ASSESS MISDMNR ASSESS FINES COSTS NOW-COMMITTED.: $ $00.00 $ RESTITUTION.: PROPERTy: NO SERVICESi NO AMOUNT: $00.00 O ---C- COURRENT OBLIGATION NO: OFFEINSLE CODE. I = OFF/CHG: 46 USC 1903 (USC APPENDIX) & 18 USC 2. CONSP.1HACY AND POSS W/INT DIST MARIJUANA. SENTENCE PROCEDTURE.* 3559 P.LRA SENTENCE SENTENCE IMPOSED/TIME TO SERVE.: 188 MONTHS TERM OF SUPERVISION... * 5 YEARS DATE OF OFFENS G0002 MORE PAGES TO FOLLOW... ICE (7)

254 COVC3 * SENTENCE, MONITORING * vage 003 OF 003 * COMPUTATION DATA 15:21; 03 AS OF REGNO.. b6))t CURRENT DETAINEPS. DETAINER NO-t. DATE LODGED AGENCY... TMMI1RAION J: & NATUP.ALIZATION CHARGES... ; POSSIBLE DEPORTATION G'0000 TPANSACTION SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED ICE (7)

255 ESTPZ PAGE * PROGRESS REPORT :34:51 RSP OF: EST ESTILL PCI PRISONS 100 PRISON RD US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BUREAU OF NAME: REGNO: (b);6), (b)(7)c AGE{ DOB)z INMATE EVIEWED/SIGNATURE i 6leAy ~A& TYPE OF PROGRESS REPORT: DATE INITIAL SIH TRIENNIAL PRE-RELEASE V TRANSFER OTHER: PRESENT SECURITY/CUSTODY HIGH /IN LEVEL: OFFENSE/VIOLATOR OFFENSE: SENTENCE IMPOSED AND TERM OF SUPERVISION- 46 USC 1903 (USC APPENDIX) & 18 USC 2. CONSPIRACY AND POSS W/INT DIST MARIJUANA. 188 MONTHS / 5 YEARS DATE COMPUTATION BEGAN: DAYS FSGT/WSGT/DGCT: INOP.... IDAYS GCT OR EGT/SGT: ~MONTHS 1+ JAIL Im SERVED: CREDIT - INOP TIME 87 D: 11 JC - 0 PROJECTED RELEASE DATE: PROJECTED RELEASE METHOD: GCT REL DETAINERS/PENDING CHARGES: IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION POSSIBLE DEPORTATION CO-DEFENDANTS: None Known DISTRIBSTION: ORIGINAL TO INMATE, COPY TO USPO, COPY TO USPC CENTRAL FILE - SECTION TWO BP-CLASS-3 ICE (7)

256 (b)(6, (b(7)c (b)(6), (b)(7)c,at(- adjustment to the rules and regulations has been poor. He,as received three incident reports since that start of his federal sentence. This current progress report is being prepared for Transfer purposes, A. PROGRAM PLAN: a m attended his Initial Program Review at FCC Coleman, Florida on September 15, 1998, At this review and subsequent reviews,mn was requested to pay his felony assessment, enroll in English as a second language, enroll I educational and vocational classes, maintain clear conduct, good sanitation and good work reports. It should be noted that m has completed numerous educational classes. He did not maintain clear conduct, but did maintain good work reports and good cell sanitation. B. WORK ASSIGNMENTS: is currently unassigned due to being housed in S ecial Housing Unit. ance completing Admission and Orientation Programt, has been assigned to the following work assignment: INST EST EST EST EST EST EST EST EST EST EST EST EST ATL TAL JES 10.AISR T rn MENT SPECIAL HOUSING WORK ASSG COMPOUND ORDERLY 7 AM-10:30AM SPECIAL HOUSING FACTORY SUPPORT FACTORY SUPPORT FACTORY SUPPORT FACTORY SUPPORT UNICOR 12 ORDERLY CA UNASSIGNED SPECIAL HOUSING. UNASSIGNED WORK ASSG - 7:00A-3:00P - 6:00A-2:00P - 7:30A-3:30F WORK ASSG DETENTION CENTER UNASSIGNED IORK ASSG (A-PRE/A-HLD) SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT START DATE STOP DATE CURRENT C. EDUCATTONAL/VOCATIONAL PARTICIPATION: has completed the following classes: EDUCATION INFORMATION FACI IT DESCRIPTION START DATE/TIME STOP DATE/TIME EST ENGLISH PROFICIENT CURRENT EST COMPLETED GED OR HS DIPLOMA CURRENT SUB-FACL EST EST EST EST EST EST EST EST EST 3ST SST.ST?ST CST EDUCATION DESCRIPTION FOOD/PLANT PESTICIDE (E:M#2) WOODWORKING TECHNOLOGY (PG#6) WOL RESIDENTIAL WOOD LV1 (PG#6 INTRO TO QTY ASSURANCE (EM#2) CDL I 6:00-8:OOP (EM#2) PESTICIDE TECHNOLOGY (EM#2) WHEELS OF LEARN-CORE (PG 6) INTRO TO QTY ASSURANCE (EM#2) INTRO TO PEST CONTROL (EM#2) BASIC COMPUTERS 8-9 CAMP (#6) NUTRITION CL 9-10:30 T/TH(HNRl UNICOR STREET SUN 8-9:30A HN41 HPDP CLASS M/W 8-9:30AM (HN#1) EDUCATION TUTOR TRAINING(PG#6) COURSES START DATE STOP DATE CURRENT EVENT AC LV HRS ICE (7)

257 REGNO: H. Preciado was imposed a $200 felony assessment by the Sou'.hern District of Florida. He completed the obligation on March 13, FRP ASSIGNMENT START DATE COMPLT FINANC RESP-COMPLETED I. RELEASE PREPARATION PROGRAM & RELEASE PLANS: It is anticipated, Preciado will release to an INS detainer. CMA ASSIGNMENT (REL PREP) START DATE RPP INELIG RELEASE PREP PGM INELIGIBLE TEN PERCENT DATE: RESIDENCE: To be determined upon release. EMPLOYMENT: To be detenied upon release. USPO: (b)(6), (b)(7)c C e Prooadson Officer United States District Court 315 David W. Dyer Federal Building and United States Courthouse 300 No*rtheast. First Avenue Miami, FL J. RELEASE NOTIFICATIONS: OFFENDER IS SUBJECT TO RELEASE NOTIFICATION PROVISIONS UNDER 18 USC 4042(B DUE TO: CURRENT CONVICTION FOR A DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENSE 18 USC 4042(B) NOTIFICATIONS APPLY TO INMATES RELEASING TO THE COMMUNITY WITH SUPERVISION IS OFFENDER SUBJECT TO RELEASE NOTIFICATION PROVISIONS UNDER 18 USC 4042@) DUE TO A CONVICTION FOR CERTAIN SEXUAL OFFENSES. YES (X) NO 18 USC 4042@) NOTIFICATIONS APPLY TO INMATES RELEASING TO THE COMMUNITY ) DNA TEST STATUS: NOT REQUIRED DNA TES A QUALIFYING OFFENSE DICTATED BY DATE TYPED: 0... )z ja5 - CASE MANAGER EXT 4133 (DATE) REVIEWED BY I b) 7)a UNT U, UNIT MANAGER (DATE) ( VACANT' 'PLS CONTACT 4136 ICE (7)

258 REGNO: HIGH TEST SUBTEST SCORE CASAS LIST CERT LIST PLACE 217,0 READ CERT READ PLACE TEST SCORES TEST DATE TEST FACL FORM STATE MNA 64 MNA LIST MNA 522 MNA READ D. COUNSELING PROGRAMS: t m has access to his Correctional Counselor for informal and individual counseling needs. He has not completed any formal counseling classes to this date, E. INCIDENT REPORTS: m has received the following incident reports: DHO HEARING DATE/TIME: INCIDENT DATE/TIME: APPEAL CASE NUMBER(S): , REFUSING TO OBEY AN ORDER - FREQ: 1 DIS GCT / 13 DAYS / Cs COMP:010 LAW:P DISALLOW 1.3 DAYS GCT DS / 15 DAYS / CS COMP: LAW: 15 DAYS DIS SEG RMV PGM / 365 DAYS / CS COMP. LAW: REMOVE FROM ALL VOCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS AT FCI ESTILL FOR A MINIMUM OF 365 DAYS TRANSFER / CS COMP: LAW, AGAIN RECOMMEND DISCIPLINARY TRANSFER DUE TO APPARENT FIXATION ON PARTICULAR STAFF MEMBER DHO HEARING DATE/TIME: INCIDENT DATE/TIME: APPEAL CASE NUMBERSS: THREATENING BODILY HARM - FREQ: 1 ATI.: SMI DIS GCT / 27 DAYS / CS COMP:010 LAW:? DISALLOW 27 DAYS GCT DS / 30 DAYS / CS COMP: LAW: 30 DAYS DIS SEG TRANSFER / CS COMP: LAW: RECOMMEND DISCIPLINARY TRANSFER DHO HEARING DATE/TIME: INCIDENT DATE/TIME: C 316 BEING IN UNAUTHORIZED AREA - FREQ: 1 DIS GCT / 13 DAYS / CS COMP:010 LAW:P DISALLOW 13 DAYS GCT DS / 15 DAYS / CS COMP: LAW: 15 DAYS DIS SEG F. INSTITUTIONAL MOVEMENT: INSTITUTION EST ASSIGNMENT REASON FOR MOVEMENT TRANSFER RECEIVED EFFECTIVE DATE G. PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH: m is assigned with the medical restriction of no food service work. of mental or emotional health problems. He should be release from federal custody. to regular duty status There is no indication fully employable upon ICE (7)

259 WASHIGTON, D.C. APRIL 03, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ICE OFFICE OF DETENTION AND REMOVAL ORDER DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATIONS 425 I-STREET NW. WASHIGTON-DC. CP BOP. No. TO: MISES. MARCY FORMAN: Fitst thing with all >do re ot, I would appreciate if you could please check my case No. '1,- to see if I' t i - eligible for early deporaation-an me reduction. RE: Stipulated Deportation Order and Pursuant to A.R.S.41l Any foreign born inmate who meets ALL eligibility criteria for-- release pursuant to:a.r.s '.must have a current deporta tion order prior to being release upon reaching One-Half (172)of their imposed sentence RELEASE OF PRISIONER-with detainer: eligibility, revo cation of release. A- Notwithstanding any Law tothe contrary, The director may re-- lease a.prisioner to the custody and.control of The United Sta-- tes Inmigration and Naturalization Service if all of the follo-- wing requirements are satisfied: 1. Thd department receives an order of deportation.from The United States Inmigration and Naturalization Service. 2.-Thepristoer has served at least One-Half (1/2) of the sen-- tence imposed by the Court. 3. The prisioner was convicted of a Class 3,4,5 or 6 felony ---- offense. 4. The prisioner was'not convicted of 'an offense under Title 13, Chapter 11, Section 13-11,01 ct. seq. 5. The prisioner was not convicted of a sexual offense pursuantto*a.r.s , , or The prisioner was.not sentence pursuant B- If a prisioner who release pursuant to this section'returns--, illegally to the 'United States, upon notification from any Fe deral or States Law Enforcement Agency that the prisioner isincustody, the Director shall revoke the prisoner's release. The prisioner shall not be eligible for parole, community supervision or any other release from confinement until the --- remainder of the sentence of imprisonment is served, except - persuant to A.R.S , subsection A or B. Added by Laws-1996, Ch. 257, subsection 10. Amended by Laws Ch. 257.'mi ntion 14, eff April 28, I wi sh to obtain a deportation -- orner, and submit this written request in order to obtain a - 'stipulated deportation order. I-have read the foregoing and - understand the contents there of;. that the same is true of my own knowledge except those matter there in states upon information and belief, are and as to those I believe them to be - true.. I RESPECTFULLY submit this request for a stipulated deporta=tionorder this 03 day of APRIL, ICE (7)

260 Affiant Signature. Printed Name BOP. No. CASE No. GILES W. DALBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 805 NORTH AVENUE F POST, TEXAS ICE (7)

261 C - 'AE-4 cb o> lo W E-4 9e0 P4 ElA E4tM 0 mc\ - S4H * ' MO EQ EH-O4 W H4 QA 6 P4L H x 0 H BM 0* HH H.9* 0 2. HQ O0,9 0 r4 0 *M01-0 (D to 4 ICE (7)

262 GENE McNARY COMMISSIONER OF INS 425 "1" STREET NW WASHINGTON, D.C.. [ RE: Stipulated Deportation Order and pursuant to A.R.S Dear Commissioner, Now comes the Petitioner, a layman Haineas v. Kerner, 404 US 519 4, narris v. Nelson, 394 US 286, (1969), does hereby presents this request, any foreign born inmate who meets ALL eligibility criteria for release pursuant to A.R.S must have a current deportation order prior 'to being relea se upon reaching one-half(k) of their imposed sentence RELEASE OF PRISIONERS with detainers eligibility; revocation of release. A. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the director may releasea prisioner to the custody and control of the United States Immigra-- tion and naturalization service if all of the following requirementsare satisfied: 1.- The department receives an Order of deportation from the United - States Immigration and Naturalization Service. 2.- The prisioner has served at least one-half( ) of the sentence imposed by the court. 3.- The prisioner was convicted of a Class 3,4,5 or 6 Felony Offense. 4.- The prisioner was not convicted of an offense under Title 13, cha pter 11, Section ct seq. 5.- The prisioner was not convicted of a sexual offense pursuant to - A.R.S , , or The prisioner was not sentence pursuant to B. If a prisioner who is release pursuant to this section returns i-- llegally to the United States, upon notification from any federal or- State Law enforcement agency that the prisioner, is in custody, the di rector shall revoke.the prisoner's release. The prisioner shall notbe eligible for parole, community supervision or any other release -- from confinement until the remainder of the sentence of imprisonmentis served, except pursuant to A.R.S , subsection A or B. Added by Laws 1996, CH. 257, subsection 10, amended by laws 1997, CH- 212 subsection 14, eff. April 28, I desire to obtain a deportation orderand I asking you GRANT this petition/request in order to obtain a sti pulated deportation order. signed this /S- day of 2008 Locus Sigilli: c.c. U.S. Attorney General. ICE (7)

263 MAY TO: OFFICE OF PETEWTION 9 REMOVAL OPERATIONS U. S. IMMI RATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 425 I STREET, NW WASHINGTON, DC ATENTION: MR. TIMOTHY S. ROBBINS ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF. The undetagned, Fedea RegisteA No. a6 iteted.ng patg wanu to conjian the legattty and TRUE oj the attached 6oAm. Such AoAml was bought by anothea Fedekat Inmate who was taansmeated jwm a paison i n Texas ao FCI-LWami.- The %eason o6 my investigation is because I meet ALL etlgitity a~ltera 6o,% aebease a 6okeign inate, but I don't know what A.R.S , , , , o& ; , and means. ARE THOSE REFERENCES AN INTERNAL ICE'4 RELATIONS? As scting Chiej o6 Stag jo'. the OFFICE OF DETENTION & REMOVAL OPERATIONS (ICE AGENCY), I am %equesting an OFFICIAL answer xega4ding the legattty o6 the attached 6ou.- you prompt and written tesponse AegaJding my conesn.- NSTITUTION F.U. US 77Y3UU - "A" UNIT MIAMI, ORIVA ICE (7)

264 United States Department of Justice ICE Office of Detention and Removal Orders Field Office Director, RE: Stipulated Deportation Order Pursuant to A.R.S Any foreign born inmate who meets ALL eligibility criteria for release pursuant to A.R.S must have a current deportation order prior to being released upon reaching one half (1/2) of their imposed sentence RELEASE OF PRISONERS with detainers; eligibility; revocation of release: A. Nothwithstanding any law to the contrary, the director may release a prisoner Lo the custody and control of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Sirvice if all of the following requirements are satisfied: 1. The department receives an order of deportation from the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. 2. The prisoner has served at least one half (1/2) of the sentence imposed by the court. 3. The prisoner was convicted of a class 3,4,'5,or 6 felony offense. 4. The prisoner was not convicted of an offense under Title 13, Chapter I, Section ct seq. 5. The pisoner was not convicted of a sexual offense pursuant to A.R.S , , or The p isoner was not sentenced pursuant to B. If a >risoner who is released pursuant to this section returns illegally to the United States, upon notification from any federal or state law enforcement agency that the prisoner is in custody, the director shall revoke the prisoner's release. The prisoner shall not be eligible for parole, community supervision or any other release from confinement until the remainder of the sentence of imprisonment is served, except pursuant to A.R.S , subsection A or B. Added by aws 1996, Ch.257, subsection 10. Amended by Laws 1997, Ch. 212 subsection 14, eff. April 28, , _, wish to obtain a deportation order, and submit this written request in order to obtain a stipulated deportation order. I have read the foregoing and understand the contents thereof; that the same is true of my own knowledge except those matters therein stated upon information.and belief, are and as to those I believe them to be true. I RESPECT ULLY submit this request for a stipulated deportation order thi4 day of,2008. Affiant S, naturee:_ Printed N:me: Notary Public Signature: Date: ICE (7)

265 "-'H 4 H ii H 0. N 0 I- a 4. z U I, -4 I CE (7)

266 JULIE MYERS SECRETARY FOR I.C.E. DIRECTOR INMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AUG WASHINGTON D.C RE: Stipulated Deportation for Federal Inmates; Honorable Director; Please consider this request as a honest attemp at redemption from the guilt and regret at the situation that 1 find myself in and the costs and unnecessary paperwork I have caused the united states goverment. Pursuant to your interesting interviewwith,of USA today and the savings to the united states taxpaper,i wish to apply as a Federal Inmate for the early Deportation for Non-violent Inmigran cr finals for participation in the program.i am at one half or 75% ttei of- Gompletion of my Federal -Sentence, I have no'sexual or Violent offences in my Record. I hereby waive my right to contest the present and any future Deportation proceedings against me,if I can be allowed to participate in the early Deprtation Program. please, consider my request and grant me Participation, thank.you very much for your kind attention. respectfully submitted. D * U. r E.D.C -C.C.A. PO. BOX. 605 EDEN,TEXAS ICE (7)

267 G NE EISighlR "S Mp NARY OF INS. 425 "1" ktrhet NW RAOINGTON, D.C. [20536] Dear Commissioner, CASE* NOV ptjted Deportation Order and pursuant to A S.- 1 6m, ', se upon reaching one-half({) of their imposed sentence RELEASE OF PRISIONERS with detainers eligibility; revocation of release. A. dt withstanding any law to the contrary, the director may releasea prigioner to the custody and control of the United States Immigra-- tion and naturalization service if all.of the following requirementsare satisfied: 1.- The department receives an Order of deportation from the United - States Immigratio d Natpaiza 'o e c, 2.- ThLi ± posed by the court. 3.- The prisioner was con.v ted of a Class 3,4,5 or 6 Felony Offense. 4.- The prisioner was not convicted of an offense under Title 13, cha pter 11, Section ct seq. 5.- The prisioner was not convicted of a sexual offense pursuant to - A.R.S , , or The prisioner was not sentence pursuant to B. If a prisioner who is release pursuant to this section returns i-- 1legally to the United States, upon notification from any federal or- State Law enforcement agency that the prisioner is in custody, the di rector shall revoke the prisioner's release. The prisioner shall notbe eligible for parole, community supervision or any other release -- from confinement until the remainder of the sentence of imprisonmenti.p sarved, excedt oursuant to A.R.S , subsection A or B.,CH- pulacea deportalonsoue rder- a sti Signed this day o 2008 c.c. U.S. Locus Sigilli Attorney GenE ICE (7)

268 GENE McNARY COMMISSIONER OF INS 425 "1" STREET NW WASHINGTON, D.C. [ RE: Stipulated Deportation Order and pursuant to A.R.S Dear Commissioner, Now comes the Petitione( b a layman Haineas v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972), Harris v. Nelson, 394 US 286, (1969), does hereby presents this request, any foreign born-nmate'who meets ALL eligibility criteria for release pursuant to A.R.S must have a current deportation order prior to being relea se upon reaching one-half( ) of their imposed sentence RELEASE OF PRISIONERS with detainers eligibility; revocation of release. A. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the director may releasea prisioner to the custody and control of the United States Immigra-- tion and naturalization service if all of the following requirementsare satisfied: 1.-.The department receives an Order of deportation from the United - States Immigration and Naturalization Service. 2.- The prisioner has served at least one-half( ) of the sentence imposed by the court. 3.- The prisioner was convicted of a Class 3,4,5 or 6 Felony Offense. 4.- The prisioner was not convicted of an offense under Title 13, cha pter 11, Section ct seq. 5.- The prisioner was not convicted of a sexual offense pursuant to - A.R.S , , or The prisioner was not sentence pursuant to B. If a prisioner who is release pursuant to this section returns i-- no, LA"Ps trom conrinement unci.l ene reniainaer or une sentence 01 imprisonmentis served, except pursuant to A.R.S , subsection A or B. Added by Laws 1996, CH. 257, subsection 10, amended by laws 1997, CH- 212 subsection 14, eff. April 28, I MDR]=]) desire to obtain a deportation orderand I asking you GRANT this petition/request in order to obtain a sti pulated deportation order. I Signed this 7 day of r - o... k. -. **< H, 2008 Locus Sigilli: c.c. U.S. Attorney Gener afammamm ssne"mo ICE (7)

269 GENE McNARY COMMISSIONER OF INS 425 "1" STREET NW WASHINGTON, D.C. [20536] RE: Stipulated Deportation Order and pursuant to A R,_ _14 V Dear Commissioner, Now comes the Petitioner, i _, a layman Haineas v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972), Harris v. Nelson, 394 US 286, (1969), does hereby presents this request, any foreign born inmate who meets ALL eligibility criteria for release pursuant to A.R.S must have a current deportation order prior to being relea se upon reaching one-half(k) of their imposed sentence RELEASE OF PRISIONERS with detainers eligibility; revocation of release. A. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the director may releasea prisioner to the custody and control of the United States Immigra-- tion and naturalization service if all of the following requirementsare satisfied: 1I.- The department receives an Order of deportation from the United - Stat-ep Immigration 'and Naturalization Service. 2.- The prisioner has served at least one-half'( ) of the sentence imposed by the court. 3.- The prisioner was convicted of a Class 3,4,5 or 6 Felony Offense. 4.- The prisioner was not convicted of an offense under Title 13, cha pter 11, Section ct seq. 5.- The prisioner was not convicted of a sexual offense pursuant to - A.R.S , , or The prisioner was not sentence pursuant to B. If a prisioner who is release pursuant to this section returns i-- llegally to the United States, upon notification from any federalr- State Law enforcement agency that the prisioner is in custody, thle -i rector shall revoke the prisoner's release. The prisioner shall notbe eligible for parole, community supervision or any other release -- from confinement until the remainder of the sentence of imprisonment- Spxce sat to A.R.S , subsection A or B. I ' and Lasung desire to obtain a deportaion &der- this petfthdn/request in order to obtain a sti pulated deportation order. Signed this _/7day of!_f 2008 Locus Sigilli: c.c. U.S. Attorney General 2< L., I - -. _, A, _ ICE (7)

270 Agast 8, 2009.JULIE MYERS, SECRETARY FOR ICE DIRECTOR IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SEP ,WASUINGON, D. C. re:stipulated Deportation for federal Inmates vhoiborable Secretary; Please consider this request as an honest attempt at redmption from the guilt and regret at the situation that I.find myself in and the costs and unnecessary paperwork I have caused the United States Government. Pursuant to your interview with of USA TODAY I wish to apply, as a federal inmate, for the Early Deportation for NON- VIOLENT Immigrant Criminals Program. I am a non-violent immigrant offender; I am at over one half of my federal sentence; and I have no violent or sexual offenses in my record. I hereby waive my right to contest the present and any future deportation proceedings against, should I be allowed to participate in this Early Deportation Program. Please consider my request and grant my participation. Thank o, gucb foryour kind attention. Respectfully submitted, EDEN DETENTION CENTER/CCA PO BOX 605 EDEN, TEXAS TCE8MT4 5qT7 J-0 0n70-64

271 w 0 S U 6A a Department of Homeland Security US, Citizenship and Immigration Services STA l HERE- Please type or print in black ink. Part 10 Information about you. Given Name Middle Initial OMB No , Expireso6/30/ , Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card FOR USCIS USE ONLY Returned Receipt Ali- Apt. # Ci 1. My status 181 (check one) a. I.rlfiinent Resident - (Not a Commuter) b. Pennanent Resident. (Commuter) c. OJ 94ditional Permanent Resident 2. Reason for iqiplicationt (check one) ) am a P~hiaanent Resident or Conditional Permanent Resident and: a. [O My card was lost stolen or destroyed. b. [ My authorized card was never received c. [.My card is mutilated. d. My card was issued with incorrect information because of a USCIS administrative error. I have attached the incorrect card and evidence of the correct information. e O My name or other biographic information has changed since the card was issued, Status as Verified by Class finitials FD-258 forwarded on 1.89 forwarded on seen and returned (Initials) Photocopy of [-551 verified (Initials) Name Date present card has an expiration date and it is expiring, g.-,m- Jpwye reached my 14t birthday since Iay card was issued. Part 3. i, 1 My status has been automatically converted to pernanent resident J. 1 have an old edition of the card. Mseher% Pirgt Name City/Town/Villi [EMfBirth tcessing Information. Fath: ";-in hiom- ulate where Immigrant Visa was issued SCIS office where status was Adjusted ft.j-ad L of Admission as anli migrant or stment of Status i To Be Completed by Attorney or Representative, If any 9 Fill in box ifg(.28 is attached to represent tej apticant VQlSOn# ATTY State License # " Form 1-90 trcv 07130/07)Y

272 Part 3. Processing information (continued): if you entered the U.S with an Immigrant Visa, also complete the following: Destination in U.S. at Port of Entry where time of Admission Admitted to U.S. Are you in removal/deportation or recission proceedings? RNo [ Yes Since you were granted permanent residence, have you ever filed Form 1-407, Abandonment by Alien of Status as Lawful Permanent Resident, or otherwise been judged to have abandoned your status? [12'No ED Yes if you answer yes to any of the above questions, explain in detail on a separate piece of paper. Part 4. Signature. (Read the information on penalties in the instructions before completing this section. You must ile this application while in the United States.) I certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that this application and the evidence submitted with it is all true and coect. I authorize the release of any information from my records that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services needs to determine eligibility for the benefit I am seeking. Date Da time Phone Number W out this form >rfal to submit required docuunts listed in the instructions, you cannot be found eligibleforthe requested document and this application may be denied Part 5. Signature of person preparing form, if other than above. (Sign below) / declare that I prepared this application at the request of the above person and it is based on all information of which I have knowledge. Signature Print Your Name Date Daytime Phone Number Name and Address olbus1ness/organization (if applicable) I I OQLv Ca ~ ~J~S~k ~ ~A ICE (7)

273 CO The Honorable Paul D. Coverdell United States Senator 100 Colony Square, Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA Dear Senator Coverdell: We regret the delay ires ondin to your letter of April 29, 1998, with an enclosure from Attorn o has been retained to assist ' his efforts to be deported without having to serve his sentence of 110 months. e e ieves that certain criminal aliens convicted of non-violent offenses, in particular, ( b) should be deported prior to the completion of their sentences under provisions of the Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act, which provides for certain non-violent criminal aliens to be deported without completion of their sentence. The stipulated deportation program applies only to persons who so stipulate before their trial on criminal charges has been completed and judgment and sentence imposed. It operates only in those cases where the prosecuting authority is prepared to suspend the trial, sentencing, and imprisonment. We hope that the information provided is useful. If we may be of assistance in the future, please let us know. Sincerely, FOR THE COMMISSIONER Allen Erenbaum Director Congressional Relations ICE (7)

274 Official File ICE (7)

275 CO The Honorable Paul D. Coverdell United States Senator 100 Colony Square, Suite Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA Dear Senator Coverdell: We regret the delay in responding to your letter of April 15, 1998, with an enclosure fro who wants to have her husband, deported before he finishes his prison sentence. In accordance with current immigration law and procedures, certain aliens convicted of non-violent drug offenses may be deported prior to the completion of their sentences. This "stipulated deportation" program applies only to persons who agree to accept a final order of deportation and/or removal prior to their criminal trial and imposition of sentence. It operates in those cases where the prosecuting authority agrees to these same conditions. However, if husband did not agree to accept a final deportation and/or removal order as part of his sentencing agreement, he may nonetheless be expeditiously removed to the Dominican Republic when he is ultimately released from prison. This is a matter best handled by the Immigration and Naturalization (INS) office with jurisdiction over the M ase, i.e. the local district to which he is released by prison officials. We hope that the information provided is useful. If we may be of assistance in the future, please let us know. Sincerely, Allen Erenbaum Director ICE (7)

276 ICE (7)

277 CO The Honorable Phil Gramm United States Senator 2323 Bryan Street, #2150 Dallas, TX Dear Senator Gramm: We regret the delay in responding to your inquiries dated June 9, and August 18, 1997, with an enclosure from the Consulate General of Colombia, ALM (r) Roberto Serrano Avila, who is attempting to obtain information relating to the Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act, which provides for certain nonviolent criminal aliens to be deported without completion of their sentence. The stipulated deportation program referred to applies only to persons who so stipulate before their trial on criminal charges has been completed and judgment and sentence imposed. It operates only in those cases where the prosecuting authority is prepared to suspend the trial, sentencing, and imprisonment. Section 242(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended states: An alien sentenced to imprisonment shall not be deported until such imprisonment has been terminated by the release of the alien from confinement, Parole, supervised release, probation, or possibility of rearrest or further confinement in respect of the same offense shall not be a ground for deferral of deportation. This Section of statute prohibits the Attorney General from deporting any criminal alien until his or her sentence has been completed. Section 242(i) provides: In the case of an alien who is convicted of an offense which makes the alien subject to deportation, the Attorney General shall begin any deportation proceeding as expeditiously as possible after the date of the conviction. ICE (7)

278 The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 did authorize specially designated Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officers to order the deportation of criminal aliens, but did not suspend the requirement that the period of imprisonment be completed. The Honorable Phil Gramm Page 2 Since the regulations which will implement these provisions of law have not completed the promulgation process, many of the questions asked by the Consulate General cannot be answered at this time. We hope to have regulations published in the near future. We hope that the information provided is useful. If we may be of assistance in the future, please let us know. Sincerely, Allen Erenbaum Director Official File ICE (7)

279 CO The Honorable Bob Ney Member of Congress 38 North 4 h Street, Room 502 Zanesville, Ohio Dear Congressman Ney: We regret the delay in responding to our letter of November 5, 1997 enclosure fromin W W " regarding the case of his son,1 The United States Government has entered into agreements with some countries that allow for the deportation of certain criminal aliens, providing that they serve the remainder of their sentence in their own country. The Criminal Division of the Department of Justice has jurisdiction over this issue, and we will forward a copy of your correspondence to that Division for appropriate attention and direct response to you. In addition, provisions of the Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act provide for certain nonviolent criminal aliens to be deported without completion.of their sentence. The stipulated deportation program referred to applies only to persons who so stipulate before their trial on criminal charges has been completed and judgment and sentence imposed. It operates only in those cases where the prosecuting authority is prepared to suspend the trial, sentencing, and imprisonment. Section 242(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended states: An alien sentenced to imprisonment shall not be deported until such imprisonment has been terminated by the release of the alien from confinement. Parole, supervised release, probation, or possibility of rearrest or further confinement in respect of the same offense shall not be a ground for deferral of deportation. ICE (7)

280 The Honorable Bob Ney Page 2 This Section of statute prohibits the Attorney General from deporting any criminal alien until his or her sentence has been completed. Section 242(i) provides: In the case of an alien who is convicted of an offense which makes the alien subject to deportation, the Attorney General shall begin any deportation proceeding as expeditiously as possible after the date of the conviction. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 did authorize specially designated Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officers to order the deportation of criminal aliens, but did not suspend the requirement that the period of imprisonment be completed. Since the regulations which will implement these provisions of law have not completed the promulgation process, many of the questions asked by the Consulate General cannot be answered at this time. We hope to have regulations published in the near future. We hope that the information provided is useful. If we may be of assistance in the future, please let us know. Sincerely, Allen Erenbaum Director Official File ICE (7)

281 -9 WAShIGTON, D.C. APRIL 04, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ICE OFFICE OF DETENTION AND REMOVAL ORDER DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATIONS 425 I'STREET NW. WASHIGTON.DC. CP BOP. NUM. TO: MISES. MARCY FORMAN:-- (b)(7)1 First thing with all do apacpreciate if you could please check my case No. J,,to see if I"M - eligible for early deportt ion anffi time reduction. RE: Stipulated Deportation Order and Pursuant to A.R.S Any foreign born inmate who meets ALL eligibility criteria for-- release pursuant to A.R.S must have a current deporta tion order prior to being release upon reaching one-half (112)of their imposed sentence RELEASE OF PRISIONER with detainer: eligibility, revo cation of release. A- Notwithstanding any Law tothe contrary, The director may re-- lease a prisioner to the custody andcontrol of The United Sta-- tes Inmigration and Naturalization Service if all of the follo-- wing requirements are satisfied: 1. The department receives an order of deportation from The United States Inmigration and Naturalization Service. 2. The prisoner has served at least One-Half (1/2) of the sen-- tence imposed by the Court. 3. The prisioner was convicted of a Class 3,4,5 or 6 felony ---- offense. 4. The prisioner was not convicted of an offense under Title 13, Chapter 11, Section ct. seq. 5. The prisioner was not convicted of a sexual offense.pursuantto A.R.S , , or The prisioner was not sentence pursuant B- If a prisioner who release pursuant to this section'returns-- illegally to the United States, upon notification from any Fe deral or States Law Enforcement Agency that the prisioner isincustody, the Director shall revoke the prisioner1's release. The prisioner shall not be.eligible for parole, community supervision or any other release from confinement until the --- remainder of the sentence of imprisonment is served, except - persuant to A.R.S , subsection A or B. Added by Laws 1996, Ch. 257, subsection 10. Amended by Laws-- 19q7. Ch aiihaan$4on 14, eff April 28, Ilii..l.llii l wish to obtain a deportation -- order, and submit this written request in order to obtain a - stipulated deportation order. I-have read the foregoing and - understand the contents there of; that the same is true of my own knowledge except those matter there in states upon infbrmation and belief, are and as to those I believe them to be - true. I RESPECTFULLY submit this request for a stipulated deporta=tionorder this 04 day of APRIL, ICE (7)

282 Affiant Signi Printed Name BOP. No. CASE No.- GILES W. DALBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 805 NORTH AVENUE F POST, TEXAS ICE (7)

283 0 H> E-4 O0 O)z 5,..J G0. EH El z 0 E-4 t ih 6 'w 4 E4 Ln P4 * Um.>H 0. E z I-4 U IX QP4 0 rxouhh EMM H w H LatWl H UHN C 4 Efn N M0 Z- SOHOO Mu 0 DP Z00004 ICE (7)

284 GENE McNARY COMMISSIONER OF INS 425 "1" STREET NW WASHINGTON, D.C. [20536) RE: Stipulated Deportation Order and pursuant to A.R.S Dear Commissioner, Now comes the Petitioner), a layman Baineas v. Kerner, 404 US 519 narris v. Nelson, 394 US 286, (1969), does hereby presents this request, any foreign born inmate who meets ALL- eligibility criteria for release pursuant to A.R.S must have a current deportation order prior to being relea se upon reaching one-half( ) of their imposed sentence RELEASE OF PRISIONERS with detainers eligibility; revocation of release. A. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the director may releasea prisioner to the custody and control of the United States Immigra-- tion and naturalization service if all of the following requirementsare satisfied: 1.- The department receives an-order of deportation from the United - States Immigration and Naturalizatioh Service. 2.- The prisioner has served at least one-half( ) of the sentence imposed by the court. 3.- The prisioner was convicted 6f a Class 3-,4,5 or 6 Felony Offense. 4.- The prisioner was not convicted of an offense under Title 13, cha pter 11, Section ct seq. 5.- The prisioner was not convicted of asexual offense pursuant to - A.R.S , , or ' The prisioner was not sentence pursuant to B. If a prisioner who is release purquant.to this section returns i-- 1legally 'to the United Statestupon notification from any federal or- State Law enforcement agency that the prisioner is in custody, the di rector shall revoke.the prisioner's release. The prisioner shall notbe eligible for parole, community supervision or any other release -- from confinement until the remainder of the sentence of imprisonmentis served, except pursuanti*to:a.r,.s , subsection A or B. Added by Laws 1996, CH. 267, subsection 10,.amended by laws 1997, CH- 212 subsection 14, eff. April 28, I, and I.as.-..s you exar tis pulated deportation order.. Signed this 13th day, of desire to obtain a deportation orderpetition/request in order to obtain a sti OCvoAR1n 2008 Locus Sigilli: c.c. U.S. Attorney General ICE (7)

285 - - - alas- 4HgIVSWIm McRae Correctional Facility Post Office Drawer 30 APR McRae, Georgia 3105! March 14, 2008 CONFIRMATION NO:. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND 180 SPRING STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT RE: FILING OF MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DEPORTATION;ALIEN# Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed please find copies of Motion To Expedite removal in the above styled cause. Would you please file copies to the immigration Judge, and the immigration prosecutor. I have enclosed copies to be stamped filed. Please return same to me in the self-addressed stamped envelope provided. Thanks for your attention in this regard. Most Sincerely Yours cc: Immigration Judge Julie L. Myers, Immigration and Customs Entorcement Agency Office of the Immigration Prosecutor ICE (7)

286 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ATLANTA, GEORGIA IN RE: ALIEN NO:. FED.REG.NO:. MOTION FOR EXPEDITED REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS TO THE HONORABLE IMMIGRATION JUDGE: COMES NOW,, by and through his legal assistance as establied by the United States Supreme Court in JOHNSON v. AVERY, 393 U.S. 483, 490. n.11 (1969), and pursuant to Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Statute, 8 U.S.C. 1226(c), and all laws, rules, made and providing, the petitioner m, very respectfully moves that Notice To Appear be issued, because he consents to deportation, and requests expeditious deportation to Lagos, or Abuja, Nigeria. In support of this emergency motion, petitioner submits the following: 1. Petitioner r requests Ms. Julie L. Myers, the official in charge of the Immigration and Customs Enforcemnnent Agency, and the Immigration Judge to expressly remove petitioner. ICE (7)

287 2. Petitioner has family crisis in that some members of his family are sick and petitioner needs to be close to. them at this time. 3. Moreover, petitioner intends not to challenge immigration removal.proceedings. As a result, petitioner will save American taxpayers money. 4. Indeed, petitioner has not received his Notice to Appear, and requests same based on his submissions, herein. 5. Petitioner heretofore waives attorney representation in this cause, knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. 6. Petitioner's true name is as shown in his traveling documents, already obtained for petitioner's expedited motion, and deportation by immigration. 7. Additionally, petitioner has been sick lately, due in part for depression, and petitioner fears that prolonged immigration detension will cause substantial injury to petitioner's precarious health. 8. This motion shall be transmitted to petitioner's attorney in the event that this motion is ignored, or petitioner's health turns to worse, including the health of petitioner's sick family members. 9. Petitioner's release date is tentatively on , however, petitioner moves that justice be tempered with mercy based on events not foreseen by petitioner. 2 ICE (7)

288 Petitioner deportation officer is of the Atlanta Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 11. Petitioner perfectly understands his legal rights, and hereby waive them without recitation by the Immigration Judge. 12. Petitioner affix his signature voluntarily, knowinly and intelligently in seeking this expedited deportation to Lagos or Abuja, Nigeria. Petitioner submits that his waiver is without duress from the government. 13. Petitioner vigorously admits all factual allegations in the Immigration charge, and concedes that he is deportable to Nigeria, and/or subject to removal from the United States of America, as charged in the Notice To Appear. 14. Petitioner accepts the Order of Removal, and gives up any right he may have to seek relief. The undersigned does not seek to remain in the United States on any ground in fact or law. 15. Again., Petitioner expressly moves that an.oraer of deportation be issued for deportation to Nigeria, as noted. 16. Petitioner expressly waive his right to any appeal and request a written order for his deportation to the designated country and city. 17. This motion and/or Affidavit should be introduced as exhibit to the record of this petitioner's removal order. ICE (7)

289 18. I seek no legal counsel or attorney and have read these statements or the entire stipulated request to be removed expeditiously. I fully understand my right, and understand the consequences of waiving my right to apply for any relief. FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NAUGHT: MARCH 10, 2008 STATE OF GEORGIA ) PETER OB ALIWESE TELFAIR COUNTY I, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for said State of Georgia, hereby certify that whose name is signed to the foregoing Affidavit, and who is known to me, acknowledged before me, on this day, that being informed of the contents of said instrument, executed same voluntarily, on this day the same bears date. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this of March, _ day (SEAL) PubItcTsW8fr4county, Gwo My commission Expires #y Cambiaion Expes Feb. 13,2:009 ICE (7)

290 U - UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS I IN THE MATTER OF: ) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS PETITIONER. ) STIPULATED REQUEST FOR FINAL ORDER OF REMOVAL AND WAIVER OF HEARING I, Petitioner herein make the following requests, statement, admissions, and stipulations: 1. I have been charged with pending deportation according to my Presentence Report (PSI) date of sentence August 10, 2001, and also specified on my Program Statement Report from the Institution I am presently incarcerated which is at FCI Bastrop See Program Statement dated at Attached Exhibit - A.. 2. I request-that my removal.proceedings be conducted completely on a written record, without a hearing. I waive all my rights and advisals contained in 8 C.P.R. Sec , and , including my right to have a hearing recorded in full, to be advised by the Immigration Judge of any apparent relief from removal proceedings, to present witnesses and evidence on my behalf, and, if needed, to require the government to prove that I am deportable. 3. I admit all the factual allegations contained in for the pending detainer of deporation or removal and concede that I am removable as charged. 4. I agree that I am not eligible, or if eligible, I waive my right to apply for relief from removal proceedings. I am not seeking voluntary departure, asylum, adjustment of status, registry, de novo review of a termination of conditional resident status, de novo review of a denial or revocation of temporary protected status, concellation of removal purusant to section 240A(a) or (b) of the Act, or any other possible relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 5. I consent to the introduction of this "Stipulated Request" as an exhibit to the record of proceedings. 6. I designate for my removal/deportation. Mexico as my country of choice Page 1 ICE (7)

291 A 7. I will accept a written.order for My Deporation to the above country as a final disposition of these deportation proceedings, and I waived appeal of the written order for my deportation from the United States. 8. I understand that by accepting an ORDER of deportation, I give up my right to apply for any relief for which I might have been eligible. I understand that I am a permanent resident or as domiciliar immigrant and that accepting an order of deportation terminates my permanent resident status and or domiciliary. I also understand that I cannot return to the United States legally for five (5) years without special permission from the Attorney General. I also understand that returning without proper consent could result in being deported again or being prosecuted. And that Prosecution for illegal reentry may result in punishment of up to twenty (20) years in prison. 9. In the event that my deportation proceedings are scheduled for a hearing, I waive any right to notice of such hearing. Additionally, I waive my right to be present in person and; I also waive the presence of an attorney. 10. In this Instant Case this entire "Stipulated Request" is made and confirmed thus Petitioner well understand its consequences. And I can unequivocally state that I have submitted this "Stipulated Request" voluntarily, knowlingly and intelligently. I certify that all the information I have given in this "Stipulated Request" is true and correct. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED; THIS PETITIONER/MOVANT. BY AFFIANT. SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OF 20 O_. [NOTARY SEAL) pc ()l 1(1111 rm BAS JTION DATE OF EXPIRATION_. Page 2 M t"1...,... Ii ICE (7)

292 CERTIFICATION OF SENTENCE PLACE OF CONFINEMENT: United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, at Corpus Cristi Div. AND, Recently Incarcerated at FCI Bastrop P.O. Box 730 Bastrop Texas CONVICTED BY: Janis Graham Jack, United States District Judge DATE OF JUDGEMENT: August 16, 2001 LENGTH OF SENTENCE: 7Years Suervised Release DATE OF SENTENCED: q Rla TIME ALREADY SERVED: 4 Years onth from 7 Years/ 3 Months NATURE OF OFFENSE: Poss. w/int. to dist..approx. 20 kilograms of cocaine; 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(a) DATE OF ARREST: March 6, 2001 DETAINER PENDING: INS CODEFENDANTS: None CASES RELATED: None DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEYS: U I,, DECLARE under the penalty of perjury and false swearing that the forgoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that Petitioner is of sound mind and capable of filling out this form. Affiant belief under the penalties of perjury and false swearing. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: - / k 41if, 200. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITHOUT RECURS, UCC P.O. B3UX iuiu BASTROP, TEXAS AFFAINT UTION SUI JURIS, EDICT. SUI JURIS, EDICT. ]1 Page 3 ICE (7)

293 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,, do hereby Certify that a true and correct and *rgina copy of Stipulated Request for final Order of Removal/Deportation and waiver of hearing is sent to be filed for Immediate Deportation pursuant to I.N.S. 240(d) as in 8 U.S.C. 1252(h)(2)(a) for oral hearing is served to the United States Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review Office of the Immigration Judge in Court at 615 E. Houston St., Rm 598, San Antonio Texas by depositing the same in the United States Mail, First Class, Postage Pre-Paid, Addressed as Followed and mentioned herein. RESPECTFULLY PRESENTED, ON THIS DAY OF _? 200. Is/ cc. Presiding Asst. Dist. Cou P.O. Box San Antonio, Texas cc. Consu ad a Mexi Attn: 200 E T.. 00 Austin, Texas B8 cc. cc. Secretaria de Relaciones Esteriores Ricardo Flores Magon # 1 Mexico D.F. CP Attorney General of the United States Constitutional Ave. and Tenth St. N.W. Washington, D.C Page 4 IC E (7)

294 A EXHIBIT I ICE (7)

295 6 b 7 (bys), (b ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS REGISTRO CIVIL EN NOMDRE DEL ESTADO LIBRE Y SOBERANO DE COAHUILA DE ZARAGOZA Y COMO OFFICIAL MAYOR DEL REGISTRO CIVIL EN EL ESTADO, CERTIFICO QUE EN EL LIBRO No., I TOMO No. 1 DEL ARCHIVO GENERAL DEL REGISTRO CIVIL, EN LA FOJA No. 15 SE ENCUENTRA ASENTADA EL ACTA No DE FECHA 121MAYOll956 LEVANTADA POR EL C. OFICIAL 3 DEL REGISTRY CVIL CON RES)DENCIA EN SALTILLO MUNICIPIO DE ENlA CUAL SE CONTIENENOS SIGUIENTES DATOS; ACTA DE NACIMIENTO NOMBRE FEDERICO GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ FECHA DE NACIMIENTO VIvO j MUERTO UtA HURAt1 SEXO 1 MASCUL.INO ] FEMENINO ((6I()NTO tum i~iu ENTiDAD MEXICO PAIS I PADRES AELLFIOS PATERNOS El AD 38 NACIONALIDAD MEXICANA EE AD 32 NACIONALIDAD MEXICANA NACIONALIDAD NACIONALIDAD... CR.I.P ABUELOS MATERNOS.....NACIONALIDAD NACIONALIDAD C.U.R P DEMAS RELATIVOS DE LA LEY REGLAMENTARIA DEL REGISTRO CIVIL PARA EL ESTAU0 DE SEPTIEMBRE DEL 2001 EL C. OFFICIAL MAYOR DEL REGISTRO CIVIL DOY FE..STADO Dy- COAHUIL DE ZAAGOZA PODER EJECUTIVO )IREC i0n ESTATAL )2EL REGISTRO CIVIL TRAMITE No. '* LIC. NOMBRE ICE (7)

296 1- -,.- ~ * 4~ I 0 ':2 I: ~ ~1~ Id 'I '.4 C.'-. ~/ ci Ut ii ~; ~. ~ 0) 4~ ti ~ tzi 4. N I ICE (7)

297 ICE (7)

298 ICE (7)

299 I Consulado General de Mxico Austin, Texas Oficio: Expedies Asunto: El que se indica Austin, Tx, a 29 de Agosto de CONFIDENTIAL P.O. BOX 1010 BASTROP, TX LEGAL MAIL Se le comunica que nuestra Embajada en Washington informo que his autoridades del Departamento de Justicia de los Estados Unidos negaron so solicited de traslado a una prisi6n en IVI6xico. Asimismo, se le informal que el referido Departamento de Justicia revisa cada dos alios las solicitudes, por lo que en Agosto de 2005 used puede solicitar nuevamenute su traslado. Si desea conocer el motive dela negativa, debera dirigir un escrito en ingl6s a la titular de la unidad de trnslado Internacional de Prisioneros del Departamento de Justicia a la Direcci6n siguiente: Ms. Paula A. Wolff Chief, International Transfer Unit U.S. Department of Justice John.C. Keeney Building, 12'" floor. Washington, D.C UH/fae C6nsul Alterno ICE (7)

300 U.S. Department of Justice 10 & Constitution Avnue, N.W. Criminal Division Office of Enforcement Operations International Prisoner Transfer Unit John C. Keeney BUIlding, 121 Floor Washington, D.C Reg. No. - F.C.I. Bastrop P.O. Box 1010 Bastrop, Texas OCT I I(b)V6), (b)(7)c This responds to your letter in which you request the reasons for the denial of your request to transfer to your home country to serve the remainder of your prison term. This office examines many factors in determining whether a prisoner is suitable for transfer. These factors include a prisoner's rehabilitative prospects and the prisoner's ties to his or her home country. The Department of Justice denied your application primarily for the following reason: You are a domiciliary of the United States, through extended residence in the United States and/or the presence of family ties and close family members in the United States; this residence may have been legal or illegal (in your case residence was legal). There is no administrative appeal from this decision. You may reapply in the future. Your application is more likely to be approved in the future if you have maintained the best possible prison record and have attempted to address those reasons for your denial over which you have some control. Except as noted above, you may reapply two years after your denial. If you do reapply, the Department will review the information already in your file as well as any new information you provide. Sincerely, (-t., W) (A-- Paula A. Wolff, Chief International Prisoner Transfer Unit ICE (7)

301 A EXHIBIT 2 ICE (7)

302 EN LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS LA CORTE DISTRITO PARA EL DISTRITO DEL SUR DE TEXAS LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMERICA CONTRA ) EL REPORTE DEL INVESTIGACION ) PARA PRESENTENCIA Docket No. Preparado Para: Honor able Janis Graham Jack EE.UU. Districto Juez Preparado Por: El Fun (361)1 Abogado Assistante de EE.UU. Robert Galvan 606 N. Carancahua, Colecci6n 1400 Co *us Christi. Texas cionario de la Probaci6n Americano Mo hristi Zas EL Consejo de la Defensa John Convery, Jr S. Alamo Street San Antonio. Texas La Fecha de la Sentencia: El 10 de agosto de 2001 La Ofensa: Cuenta Uno: LA POSES16N CON EL INTENTO PARA'DISTRIBUIR APROXIMADAMENTE 20 KILOGRAMOS DE COCAINA; 21 U.S.C. 841 (a)(1) y (b)(1)(a), 10 afios a encarcelamiento de Vida, 5 Aflos Dirigieron el Descargo, $4,000,000 Multa, $100 Valoraci6n Especial, Clasifica A Felonfa Suelte el Estado: Los Detentadores: Los Coacusados: Los Casos Relacionados: Arrest6 el 6 de marzo de 2001, y restos en la custodia INS Ninguno Ninguno El Informed de la fecha Prepar6: El Informe de la fecha Revis6: ICE (7)

303 Los Datos Identificando: La fecha de Nacimiento: La edad: La raza: El sexo: 45 White/Hispanic el Var6n Numero de SSN: Numero de FBI Numero de USM Otro numero de ID: EE.UU. INS numero: La educaci6n: Las personas a cargo: La ciudadanfa: 9 Afios (M6xico) 5 Resident Alien (M~xico) La Direcci6n legal: Los seud6ninos: Ninguno ICE (7)

304 s / o 24a (Rv I98) JassgmeMn m Cra4l o i! t?psi Pistrict o urt Rutitehk Stats Mitrict (da urtu, " retem Southern District of Texas AUS 16?.-1 noteligswooi Corpus Christi :.v.: Ti L '. Clerk*: of C::mt (b)(6). (b)(7)c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGME NT IN A CRIMINAL CASE (For Offenses Cornrnitted On or After November ) Case Number: 0-8w '4 A.* - * S*tl THE DEFENDANT: Defendant's Attoney l pleaded guilty to count(s) a.j}jq pleaded nolo contendere to count(s, which was accepted by the court. H was found guiltv on count(s) Title & Section 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(a) Nature of Offense Possession With Inlent to Distribute Approximately Kilograms of Cocaine Date Offense 03/06/2001 after a plea of not guilty. Count Numberls) 1 O1 s- #Mibonl Cwm 0 Co***or 1*9 - * The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through... of this judgment. The sentence is Imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of O The defendant has been found not gullty on count(s O counts) dismissed on the motion of the United States IT IS FURTHER-ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this district within 30 days of any change of riame, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments Imposed by this judgment are fully paid. Defendatirs Social Seuity No.; Defendartle Date of Birth: Defendatts USM No.. Defendant's Resideice Address: August Date of Inposition of Judgment nature f JudicWialOfcer" Defendanil Mailing Addiess: JAN GRAHAM JACK UNITD STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Namire and Title of Judicial Officer Date ICE (7)

305 DEFENDANT: CASE NUMBER: JudgmenI Pag... of - IMPRISONMENT The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of 87 months) SS"o AddtWWW W~Pe1aQnmWn T&M Sh The Court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons: That the defendant serve his sentence at Three Rivers or at another facility reasonably close to McAllen, Texas, as long as the security needs of the Bureau of Prisons are met. The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal. The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district as notified by the United Slates Marshal. O1 The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the Institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons: 0] by 2 p.m, on as notified by the United States Marshal. O as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office. RETURN I have executed this judgment as follows: Defendant delivered on- _ to at - with a certified copy of this judgment UNITED STATES MARSHAL Deputy U.S. Marshal ICE (7)

306 r DEFENDANT; CASE NUMBER SUPERVISED RELEASE Upon release from Imprisonment, the defendant shall be on supervised release for a term of 4 yearss. Judgment* Pag... of _.L O " X46-1 S".^"d R'm' ' em*-u" The defendant shall report to the probation office in the district to which the defendant is released within 72 hours of release from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, The defendant shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime. The defendant shall not illegally possess a controlled substance. For offenses committed on or after Septomber 13, 1994: The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. The defendant shall submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment and at least two periodic drug tests thereafter, as directed by the probation officer O The above drug testing condition is suspended based on the court's determination that the defendant poses a low risk of future substance abuse. (Check, if applicable) [j The defendant shall not possess a firearm as defined in 18 U.S.C (Check, if applicable) If this judgment imposes a fine or a restitution obligation, it shall be a condition of supervised release that the defendant pay any such fine or restitution that remains unpaid at the commencement of the term of supervised release in accordance with the Schedule of Payments set forth In the Criminal Monetary Penalties sheet of this judgment. The defendant shall comply with the standard conditions that have been adopted by this court (set forth below). The defendant shall also comply with the additional conditions on the attached page. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION 1) the defendant shall not leave the judicial district without the permission of the Court or probation officer; 2) the defendant shall report to the probation officer and shall submit a truthful and complete written report within the first five days of each month; 3) the defendant shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow the Instructions of the probation officer; 4) the defendant shall support his or her dependents and meet other family responsibilities; 5) the defendant shall work regularly at a lawful occupation unless excused by the probation officer for schooling, training, oi other acceptable reasons; 6) the defendant shall notify the probation officer ten days prior to any change in residence or employment; 7) the defendant shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol; B) the defendant shall not frequent places where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered; 9) the defendant shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity, and shall not associate with any person convicted of a felony unless granted permission to do so by the probation officer; '10) the defendant shall permit a probation officer to visit him or her at any time at home or elsewhere and shall permit confiscation of any contraband observed in plain view of the probation officer; 11) the defendant shall notify the probation officer within seventy-two hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer; 12) the defendant shall not enter into any agreement to act as an informer or a special agent of a law enforcement agency without the perrmission of the Court; -13) as directed by the probation officer, the defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by the defendant's criminal record or personal history or characteristics, and shall permit the probation officer to make such notifications and to confirm the defendant's compliance with such notification requirement; 14) it rustitution has been ordered, the defendant shall make restitution as ordered by the Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of Tille 18 U.S.C. 2248, 2259, , 3663, 3663A, andlor The defendant shall also pay the assessment imposed in accordance with Title 18 U.S.C. 3013; 15) the defendant shall notify the U.S. Probation Office of any material change in the defendanfs economic circumstances that might affect the defendants ability to pay restitution, tines, or special assessments, ICE (7)

307 ~n oiftfltons - DEFENDANT: CASE NUMBER STATEMENT OF REASONS O The court adopts the actual findings and guideline application in the presentence report. OR The Court adopts the factual findings and guideline application in the presentence report except: The Court finds that the Safety Valve provision at 211 (b)(6) and are applicable. F Judgmeni -Pago e d Guideline Range Determined by the Court: Total Offense Level: Criminal History Category: Imprisonment Range: JAL to..18., months, Supervised Release Range: -a_ to.l years. Fine Range: - $ to 4 000, Fine waived or below the guideline range because of inability to pay twon. Fm.1ngt on Guidahn. Ap~i.g.tio E.upn. Total Amount of Restitution; O Restitution is not ordered because the complication and prolongation of the sentencing process resulting from the fashioning of a restitution order outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3663(d). O For offenses committed on or afer September 13, 1994; but before April 23, 1996, that require the total amount of loss to be stated, pursuant to Chapters 109A, 110, 110A, 113A of Title 18, restitution is not ordered because the economic circumstances of the defendant do not allow for the payment of any amount of a restitution order, and do not allow for the payment of any or some portion of a restitution order In the forseeable future under any reasonable schedule of E] Partial or no restitution is ordered for the following reason(s): Shoot The sentence is within the guideline range, that range does not exceed 24 months, and the court finds no reason to depart from the sentence called for by the application of the guidelines OR C] The sentence is within the guideline range, that range exceeds 24 months, and the sentence is imposed for the following reason(s): Se AddOorial Ideaons 1o Polag W4akn Rang* - StOR The sentence departs from the guideline range: upon motion of the govemment, as a result of defendant's substantial assistance. [l for the following specific reason(s): Se4 Addfbol Ru.4ns Foa Dopnaue Fro, Tho Gote&'. Range. Shoot ICE (7)

308 DATE: Aigust 10, 2001 TO: THE FINANCIAL SECTION CRIMINAL ACTION NO.: (b)(2)hig NOTICE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT Please note.that JUDGE JANIS GRAHAM JACK has ordered the payment of a special assessment in the total amount of $ , (li6/$ per count) against -. Along with a $ 2A. 4 fine. (defendant) This notice serves as the authority to accept the payment of the special assessment pending the entry of the final judgment. I I The Defendant (or counsel for the Defendant, if the Defendant is unable to do so, may pay on the Defendant's behalf) is directed to take this form immediately following sentencing, to the Financial Section of the United States District Clerk's Office, located on the 1st floor. To be paid by 4:30 p.m.,, to the Financial Section of the United States District Clerk's Office, located on the 1st floor.,,to be paid from the Defendant's Inmate Account, not more than o/. First payment is due 60 days / 90-4ys from Defendants' arrival at his designated facility. Balance due before completion of Defendant's Supervised Release Term. I ] To be paid during Supervised Release Term. First payment is due 30 days after reporting for S.R.T.. Payment amount is to be determined by the U.S. Probation Office. ICE (7)

309 A UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS IN THE.MATTER OF: - ) PETITIONER. DATE: T?~1 1~1~MAVAT. P1~flPPRflTN(S CHARGE: [ I Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) - Admission or Parole Present without [ ] Section 237(a)tl)(B) - In the U.S. in violation of Law [ ] Section 212( )( )( ) - [ ] Section 237(a)( )( )( ) - APPLICATIONS: ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: ASST. DIST. COUNSEL, USINS P.O. BOX SAN ANTONIO, TX DECISION AND ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE Pursuant to a Notice to Appear issued the Petitioner/Defendant is charged with deportability or inadmissibility as indicated above. Petitioner is represented by the Counsel in Behalf of as mentioned, Petitioner has filed a written Stipulated Request not to be present nor appearnace with the Court. In.accordance with the provisions of Section 240(d) of the Act Petitioner has waived by submitting waiver of hearing and request for removal/deportation as requires by law in 8 CFR 3.25 (b). page 1 of 2 ICE (7)

310 Inasmuch as there are no factual or legal issues in dispute or which need to be-resolved at an oral hearing, and inasmuch as Petitioner.seeks no relief from removal/deportation, the court concludes that it is appropriate and in the best interests of justice to grant the request petition and to conduct these proceedings completely on a written record as evidenced by the aforementioned EXHIBITS, I and 2, which are hereby entered into evidence. The Court further finds that the waiver of this Petitioner's right to be present at this bearing is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary based on the record before me. Based upon Petitioner's admissions in the Stipulation, the Court concludes that deportability or inadmissibility has been established by evidence that is clear and convincing. There is no request for relief from removal/deporation, and under the terms of the Stipulation the party have waived appeal. Accordingly, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 240(d) of the Act and 8 CFR 3.25(b), the following ORDER is hereby entered: ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner/Defendant be REMOVED/ DEPORTED from the United States to on the Charge(s) contained in the Notice to Appear. UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION JUDGE page 2 of 2 IC E (7)

311 4 UIN THE MATTER OF: IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS: cm, PETITIONER STIPULATED REQUEST FOR FINAL ORDER OR REMOVAL AND WAIVER OF HEARING. 5/18/2006. I (h)(6). (b)(7), TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, I, the petitioner in the above styled ana causea number a ma ng attachment to his stipulated request for findi order or removal and waiver of hearing in order to comply with law by correcting addresses of the INS Court prior to provide instrument to the proper venue of authority with right jurisdiction. Please place this two correbtd pages to the petitioner's original Request Petition. Under Stipulation. Your Assistance will be greatly appreciated. Thanky You. Sent to each Party as stated in cc. by Petitioner. Page 1 and Page 4 is been corrected. And Sent to Proper Jurisdiction; at In The Court Of Immigration and Natrualization Service 8940 Fourwinds Dr. San Antonio, Texas RESPECTFULLY FILED, DATED JUNE 3RD, BY: F.U. BUX 10U, AUSTIN UNIT BASTROP, TEXAS TION ICE (7)

312 IN THE MATTEPR OF: A IN THE COURT OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE 8940 FOURWINDS DR. SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS PETITIONER. 5 - IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS STIPULATED REQUEST FOR FINAL ORDER OR REMOVAL AND WAIVER OF HEARING I, Pititioner herein made the following requests, statement, admissions, and stipulations: 1. I have been charged with pending deportation according to my Presentence Report (PSI) date of sentence August 10, 2001, and also specified on my Program Statement Report from the Institution I am presently incarcereated which is at FI Bastrop See Program Statement dated at Attached Exhibit - A, 2. I request that my removal proceedings be conducted completely on a written record, without a hearing. I waive all my rights and advisals contained in 8 C.F.R. Sec , and , including my right to have a hearing recorded in full, to be advised by the Immigration Judge of any apparent relief from removal proceedings, to present witnesses and evidence on my behalf, and, if needed, to require the government to prove that I am deportable. 3. I admit all the factual allegations contained in for the pending detainer of deportation or removal and concede that I am removable as charged. 4. I agree that I am not eligible, or if eligible, I waive my right to apply for. relief from removal proceedings. I am not seeking voluntary departure, asylum, adjustment of status, registry, de novo review of a denial or revocation of tiemporary protected status, coneellation of removal pursuant to section 240A(a) or (b) of the Act, or any other possible relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 5. I consent to the introduction of this "Stipulated Request" as an echibit to the record of proceedings. 6. I designate Mexico as my country of choice for my removal/d puruauion. Page 1 ICE (7)

313 A ( bi ) (b ) 7 )c. 7. I will accept a written ORDER for My Deporation to the above country as a final disposition of these deportation proceedings, and I waived appeal of the written order for my deportation from the United States. 8. I understand that by accepting an ORDER of deportation, I give up my right to apply for any relief for which I might have been eligible. I understand that I am a.permanent resident or as domiciliar immigrant and that accepting an order of deportation terminates my permanent resident status and or domiciliary. I also understand that I cannot return to the United States legally for five (5) years without special permission from the Attorney General. I also understand that returning without proper consent could result in being deported again or being prosecuted. And that Prosecution for illegal reentry may result in punishment of up to twenty (20) years in prison. 9. In the event that my deportation proceedings are scheduled for a hearing, I waive any right to notice of such hearing. Additionally, I waive my right to be present in person and; I also waive the presence of an attorney. 10. In this Instant Case this entire "Stipulated Request" is made and confirmed thus Petitioner well understand its consequences. And I can unequivocally state that I have submitted this "Stipulated Request" voluntarily, knowlingly and intelligently. I certify that all the information I have given in this "Stipulated Request" is true and correct. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED; THIS A4 A PETITIONER/MOVANT. BI IANT. SWOP TO BEFORE ME ON THIS 4 DAY OF 200j. P.O. BOX 1010 BA 1010 [NOTARY SEAL] DATE OF EXPIRATION_. Page 2 OWI5IICNwiems ICE (7)

314 _ CERTIFICATION OF SENTENCE PLACE OF CONFINEMENT: United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, at Corpus Cristi Div. AND, Recently Incarcerated at FCI Bastrop P.O. Box 730 Bastrop Texas CONVICTED BY: Janis Graham Jack, United States District Judge DATE OF JUDGEMENT: August 16, 2001 LENGTH OF SENTENCE: 87 Months and 4 Years Supervised Release DATE OF SENTENCED: August 10, 2001 TIME ALREADY SERVED: 4 Years/ 5 Month from 7 Years/ 3 Months NATURE OF OFFENSE: Poss. w/int. to dist. approx. 20 kilograms of cocaine; 21 U.S.C. F 841 (a (1 and (b)a) DATE OF ARREST: March 6, 2001 DETAINER PENDING- INS CODEFENDANTS: None CASES RELATED: None DEFENDANT' S ATTORNEYS: I, m. DECLARE under the penalty of perjury and false swearing that the forgoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that Petitioner is of sound mind and capable of filling out this form. Affiant belief under the penalties of perjury and false swearing. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Aggg A-V i, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITHOUT RECOURS, UCC P.O. BOX IUiU BASTROP, TEXAS AFFAINT JTION SUI JURIS, EDICT. SUI JURIS, EDICT. Page 3 jm :J ICE (7)

315 "'" lm CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, FEDERICO GONZALEZ-HERNANDEZ, do hereby Certify that a true and correct and Original copy of Stipulated Request for final Order of Removal/Deportation and waiver of hearing is sent to be filed for Immediate Deportation pursuant to I.N.S..240(d) as in 8 U.S.C. 1252(h)(2)(a) for oral hearing is served to thescourt of Immigration and Naturalization Service at 8940 Fourwinds Dr. in San Antonio, Texas,78259 *.by depositing the same in the United States Mail, First Class, Postage-Pre-Paid, Addressed as Followed and mentioned herein. RESPECTFULLY PRESENTED, ON THIS / ' DAY OF IS/ cc. cc. cc. cc. REGx. NO. 98UTZ-. Presiding Asst. Dist. Counsel, USINS P.O. Box San Antonio, Texas Consu n** Tex a d Mexico Attn: (b)(),(b(7) 200 E. bt S. * Austin, Texas Secretaria de Relaciones Esteriores Ricardo Flores Magon # 1 Mexico D.F. CP Attorney General of the United States Constitutional Ave. and Tenth St. N.W. Washington, D.C Page 4 ICE (7)

316 IGE-08-14bU(t)-UUU31b

317 I(;L-Wi-14!U()-Uuuji' I