How do ICE and CBP differ in reporting deaths in custody and which deaths are included in each agency’s statistics?
Executive summary
ICE and CBP maintain separate death-reporting streams: ICE publishes a dedicated “detainee death” reporting system and policy for deaths that occur while individuals are in ICE custody, while CBP’s reporting is folded into CBP/Border Patrol use‑of‑force and in‑custody review processes overseen by separate investigative offices (ICE: [1]; CBP: p1_s2). Independent reviews and oversight frequently compare and combine the two agencies’ tallies — but methodology, timeliness, and inclusion rules differ, producing frequent confusion about which deaths are counted where (OIG review and congressional compilations: [2]; [3]; p1_s8).
1. How the agencies are organized and why that matters
ICE and CBP are distinct components inside DHS with different missions and custody models: ICE primarily operates detention centers and tracks “detainee deaths” that occur in those facilities or while a person remains under ICE custody, whereas CBP (including the U.S. Border Patrol) primarily detains people at ports of entry, stations and in short‑term field custody and routes many individuals into ICE custody — a separation that produces separate reporting channels and records (agency roles: [4]; ICE reporting scope: [1]; OIG review scope: [2]0).
2. Which deaths each agency says it counts
ICE’s public policy and online guidance describe that any death “in ICE custody” — including deaths at detention centers, in agency field offices, and those who die in hospital while still under ICE custody — should be reported and posted as detainee deaths; ICE also posts news releases and formal death reports tied to those events (ICE policy and public site: [1]; examples of hospital deaths while under ICE custody: [2]1). CBP’s public process requires immediate reporting and triggers reviews for in‑custody deaths and certain other incidents (including shootings and use‑of‑force), handled through CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility or referred to other investigative entities; CBP deaths reviewed by the OIG were counted separately from ICE deaths in the FY2021 audit (CBP procedures and use‑of‑force review: [5]; OIG FY2021 breakdown: [2]; [2]0).
3. The formal reporting procedures and timelines
ICE’s 2021 “Notification, Review, and Reporting Requirements for Detainee Deaths” requires field directors to notify headquarters within 12 hours and to post public reports within timelines established by Congress (ICE posting and notification rules; public posting obligations: p1_s4). CBP’s immediate response protocol entails initial reviews by on‑scene and internal oversight entities and may involve external law enforcement depending on the incident; that investigatory pathway differs from ICE’s detention‑center review model (CBP review process and referral to investigative agencies: p1_s2).
4. Gaps, overlap and why tallies diverge
Independent researchers and watchdogs note two common gaps: deaths of people released from custody shortly before dying can be omitted from ICE’s official “died in custody” listings, and ICE’s public death page has at times lagged updates, creating undercounts for recent periods (study limitation: excludes CBP deaths and released individuals who later died: [6]; ICE page update lag noted by congressional and UN observers: p1_s8). Oversight work — including the DHS OIG review that examined five ICE and five CBP in‑custody deaths in FY2021 — treats the agencies’ deaths as distinct categories for audit purposes, which also contributes to split tallies even when commentators combine totals (OIG FY2021 review: [2]; [2]0).
5. What oversight finds and political actors say about comparability
OIG analysis of FY2021 deaths analyzed specific incidents across both agencies and found that in nine of ten deaths it reviewed no single systemic policy or practice was identified as the proximate cause, a finding that illustrates the OIG’s case‑by‑case focus rather than a wholesale validation of agency reporting practices (OIG FY2021 findings: p1_s1). Meanwhile, lawmakers, NGOs and UN officials routinely aggregate ICE and CBP deaths into joint counts to measure overall DHS custody mortality, producing headline figures and political pressure that can mask the technical definitional differences between the agencies (congressional letters and aggregated counts: [7]; p1_s7).
ICE and CBP therefore differ not just in mission and custody settings but in the boundaries and bureaucratic paths that determine whether a death appears in one agency’s public statistics or the other’s; independent audits, academic studies and advocacy groups frequently cross‑reference both agencies and hospital records to construct fuller tallies precisely because official streams do not always align or update in lockstep (study scope and use of ICE reports: [6]; OIG cross‑agency review: [2]0).