Fact check: How many asylum applications were filed at U.S. ports of entry and between ports of entry each year 2021–2024 according to DHS/CBP?

1. What the supplied materials actually claim and what they omit — a clear gap in the record

The set of source analyses repeatedly signals a lack of explicit yearly asylum-application counts for the requested 2021–2024 period. Multiple summaries state that the cited CBP and DHS releases discuss reductions in southwest border encounters, policy changes like the CBP One app and Presidential Proclamations, and broader enforcement statistics, yet none of the provided texts reproduces the numeric asylum counts broken out by filings at ports of entry versus between ports of entry ^{[1] [4] [5] [3]}. The custody and transfer summaries and enforcement statistics mentioned in the analyses hint that CBP maintains detailed statistics on credible-fear and inadmissible determinations, but the supplied extracts do not include the specific application totals by year and location that you requested ^{[2] [6]}.

2. Where the necessary numbers are most likely to be found — reading between the citations

CBP’s Enforcement Statistics, Office of Field Operations (OFO) reports, and Border Patrol encounter tables are the official repositories for the type of breakdown you seek; the provided analyses explicitly point to these sources as containing relevant data even though they do not quote the figures ^{[2] [3]}. DHS’s monthly and fiscal-year updates likewise often publish tables showing encounters, inadmissibles, credible fear referrals, and asylum filings by channel (ports of entry vs between ports). The supplied summaries of CBP monthly updates mention shifts in encounter totals and operational measures but do not reproduce the annual port vs between-port asylum application counts, creating a reporting gap you must close by downloading the specific CBP statistical tables referenced in the analyses ^{[1] [4]}.

3. Conflicting emphases across the provided analyses — enforcement vs asylum-case detail

The materials emphasize enforcement trends and policy effects—declines in southwest border encounters, lowest Border Patrol apprehensions in decades, and operational tools like CBP One—rather than providing raw asylum-application tallies by filing location ^{[5] [4]}. This divergence reflects different institutional priorities: CBP public messaging highlights encounter trends and policy outcomes, while custodial and transfer data hold the granular asylum-processing numbers analysts seek. The custody-and-transfer summaries in the dataset indicate those more specialized reports contain asylum-related metrics (credible fear inadmissibles, Title 8 inadmissibles), but the provided excerpts did not extract the annual port vs between-port filings for 2021–2024 ^[6].

4. How to reconcile the gap: precise next-document steps to get authoritative counts

Obtain the CBP Enforcement Statistics datasets for fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024—specifically the Office of Field Operations and Border Patrol breakdown tables—and the DHS monthly migration update spreadsheets. These are the primary documents the source analyses point to; downloading the CSV or PDF tables will reveal counts of asylum applications or credible-fear referrals filed at ports of entry versus between ports. The custody and transfer report referenced in the analyses likely contains complementary data on transfers and inadmissible determinations; cross-referencing that with OFO and USBP encounter tables will produce the year-by-year port/between-port tallies you requested ^{[2] [6] [3]}.

5. Alternative explanations and possible reporting biases to watch for when you retrieve the data

When you access CBP and DHS tables, expect variation in definitions and fiscal-year labeling—CBP frequently reports on a fiscal-year basis, differentiates “encounters,” “inadmissibles,” and “applications,” and may report credible-fear screenings separately from formal asylum filings. The supplied analyses already show differences in emphasis: monthly updates stress operational outcomes, while custody/transfer documents capture procedural metrics; this can produce apparent discrepancies if one pulls numbers from different report types without harmonizing definitions. Watch for possible institutional framing: enforcement-leaning releases emphasize deterrence metrics, whereas statistical tables and DHS Office of Immigration Statistics publications provide granular case counts that are more neutral but require careful alignment by date and definition ^{[1] [4] [6]}.

6. Bottom line and immediate actionable recommendation

The current evidence set does not supply the requested numeric asylum-application counts by year and filing location for 2021–2024; authoritative figures exist in CBP’s Enforcement Statistics and custody/transfer tables but were not included in the provided extracts ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Retrieve the CBP Enforcement Statistics fiscal-year tables and the Custody and Transfer Fiscal Year 2024 dataset, then extract the OFO (ports of entry) and USBP (between ports) asylum-application or credible-fear referral columns for FY2021–FY2024 to produce the precise totals. Once those tables are obtained, I can parse and present the year-by-year counts and explain any definitional caveats in the official reporting.