How do DHS, ICE, and CBP define and count 'removals', 'returns', and 'expedited removals' differently?
Executive summary
DHS treats “repatriations” as an umbrella that includes removals (which carry administrative penalties), returns (which do not carry penalties), and expulsions under public‑health orders, and publishes a consolidated metric across CBP and ICE for that category [1]. ICE publishes its own removals data that exclude many CBP encounters and can show different counts and categorizations, while CBP historically reported large numbers of returns and—since recent policy changes—has increased formal removals and relied on expedited removal authority exercised under DHS delegations [2] [1] [3] [4].
1. What DHS means by “removals” vs “returns”: legal distinction and DHS reporting
DHS defines “removal” as the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or removable alien out of the United States pursuant to a final order of removal and notes that removals carry administrative or criminal consequences on subsequent reentry, whereas “returns” are repatriations that do not carry those administrative penalties—DHS groups both under its Repatriations Key Homeland Security Metric but treats their legal consequences differently [1]. DHS’s public reporting therefore aggregates repatriations (removals, returns, expulsions) to present a single picture of people sent out of the country, but the agency’s own text emphasizes that removals are legally different from returns because removals are tied to final orders and future penalties [1].
2. How ICE counts “removals” and why ICE statistics can diverge from DHS aggregate numbers
ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) reports “removals” as actions completed by ICE that reflect formal removals under final orders and ICE’s internal enforcement disposition codes; ICE’s separate data feed excludes many CBP border encounters, creating two overlapping but distinct datasets—ICE’s operational removals and DHS’s consolidated repatriations—so a person removed by CBP at the border may appear in DHS repatriations but not in ICE’s standalone removals table [2] [1]. Congressional analysts note that ICE can provide grounds for removal in its data—information not consistently available in the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) files—so the choice of data source changes both totals and the level of detail about why someone was removed [2].
3. CBP’s practice: returns, expulsions, and an increased role in formal removals
CBP historically used voluntary returns at the border for many Mexican nationals and other contiguous‑country migrants, a practice that produced large “returns” counts without formal removal orders; since about 2005 CBP moved toward fewer voluntary returns and more formal removals or other dispositions, and CBP custody and transfer statistics now document CBP’s role in removing people with final orders via coordination programs such as ENV and IRI [2] [3]. CBP’s administrative records do not always label repatriations the same way DHS’s KHSM does, and DHS’s repatriation reports note that CBP’s records require estimation and coordination to produce the consolidated repatriation counts, which creates methodological differences between CBP and DHS/ICE tallies [1].
4. “Expedited removal”: statutory origin, practical use, and counting complications
Expedited removal is a statutory fast‑track authority created in 1996 allowing DHS to summarily remove certain inadmissible noncitizens—originally applied at ports of entry and near the border but lawfully extendable by the Secretary to other classes, subject to statutory criteria such as failure to show two years’ continuous presence [5] [6]. DHS’s 2025 notice implemented a broad expansion of expedited removal to the “fullest extent authorized,” directing CBP and ICE to apply it more widely [4] [7], which advocates and legal groups say allows removal without a hearing before an immigration judge [8] [9]. Counting becomes fraught because expedited removals can be recorded by CBP officers in field encounters, by ICE when it executes removals, and by DHS in repatriations totals—so an expedited removal may be reflected in multiple or different datasets depending on which component executed and reported the action [10] [1].
5. Alternative perspectives, stakes, and reporting caveats
Advocacy groups and legal observers warn that the expanded use of expedited removal increases summary deportations without judicial review and shifts many people from parole or other humanitarian programs into removal counts [8] [11] [9], while DHS and proponents argue the broader application simply exercises statutory authority to manage unlawful presence and streamline enforcement [4] [6]. Reporting and counting are further complicated by data ownership and definitions—DHS’s KHSM seeks a single repatriation metric across agencies, ICE maintains operational removals statistics with different filters, and CBP custody records require estimation—so total figures depend on which component’s definition and dataset a reporter or analyst chooses [1] [2]. Where sources are silent about specific internal matching or deduplication procedures, that limitation is noted rather than assumed.