How have CBP Home/CBP One apps been used historically to track or facilitate migrant departures?
Executive summary
CBP One (rebranded CBP Home) began as a logistics tool in 2020 and was expanded from 2022–2023 into a central digital channel for migrants to schedule processing at U.S. land ports of entry, for some parole programs, and later to report or arrange departures—functions that effectively both facilitated orderly entry and created new digital records used by authorities [1] immigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/cbp-one-overview/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[2] [3]. Reporting shows the app has been repurposed over time—from cargo inspections to asylum appointments to a DHS-promoted “self-departure” mechanism—raising questions about access, verification, and how those digital footprints are used to track movements [1] [4] [5].
1. Origins: a cargo-and-traveler scheduling tool turned migration platform
CBP launched the app in October 2020 to let commercial carriers and some travelers schedule inspections and access I-94 functionality, not initially to process undocumented migrants; that baseline purpose explains why the software was later adapted rather than built from scratch for asylum processing [1] [6] [7].
2. Expansion into asylum processing and appointments at ports of entry
Beginning in 2022–January 2023 the Biden administration expanded CBP One so migrants could request appointments at designated southwest border ports of entry and in some parole programs (e.g., Uniting for Ukraine, CHNV-type processes), and by May 2023 it became a primary pathway for many asylum seekers to access CBP inspection rather than attempting unlawful entry between ports [8] [2] [7] [6].
3. How the app created trackable digital interactions (geolocation, biometrics, records)
The app required location verification (limiting appointment-making to central and northern Mexico for many users) and collected photos/biographic data used for identity checks; it also integrated with I-94 and travel-history functions so arrivals and departures could be recorded digitally—tools that produce persistent records authorities can use to verify entry and exit [1] [3] [4] [9].
4. From facilitating arrivals to facilitating departures: policy shifts and new features
After the presidential transition in 2025 the app—renamed CBP Home—was explicitly repurposed by DHS to encourage “voluntary self-departure,” including features to submit an “intent to depart,” upload proof of departure, and in DHS messaging be part of a campaign to incentivize leaving (including advertised travel assistance and bonus claims in DHS materials); reporting shows regulators and officials framed the app as both a gate for lawful processing and a mechanism to expedite or document departures [4] [5] [10].
5. Practical effects and critiques: access, equity, and accuracy concerns
Observers and NGOs documented that the app advantaged those with smartphones, steady internet access, and shelter resources—conditions not evenly available to all migrants—and that geolocation, photo-verification, and language limitations produced errors and rejections that affected vulnerable applicants, creating de facto gatekeeping tied to technology rather than law alone [7] [9] [8].
6. The app as a tracking instrument: what reporting proves and what remains uncertain
Reporting establishes that CBP One/CBP Home produced digital appointment logs, identity data, and I-94 or departure records that could be used to verify who entered and when, and that DHS later directed migrants to use the app to report departures—functions that constitute a form of digital tracking tied to policy goals [2] [3] [4] [10]. What the public reporting does not fully document are the exact downstream uses of those data by enforcement units (e.g., how often departure submissions were cross-checked against travel manifests or used in removal proceedings); those details are not available in the cited sources and therefore cannot be asserted here [3] [6].
7. Competing narratives and institutional motives
Advocates and migrants portrayed the app as a lifeline that provided legal pathways and work authorization for many, while critics and some policymakers argued it facilitated irregular migration or was being misused—responses that reflect distinct agendas: humanitarian organizations stressing access to asylum and the government emphasizing order, and later political leadership reframing the app as a departure tool aligned with deterrence messaging [11] [12] [5].