How often does ICE execute I-205 administrative warrants versus arresting people to start removal proceedings?
Executive summary
ICE distinguishes two broad arrest contexts: executing a final order of removal using an administrative I‑205 “warrant of removal,” and making arrests that commence or accompany removal proceedings (often without a judge‑signed warrant), but public reporting and agency documents do not provide a reliable, agency‑wide count that lets outsiders say how often one happens versus the other [1] [2] [3].
1. What an I‑205 is and when ICE says it is used
Form I‑205 is an internal “warrant of removal/deportation” that, by ICE and DHS description, is issued only after an immigration judge has entered a final, executable order of removal; ICE says trained immigration officers may sign and execute I‑205s without a judicial warrant and that it is the instrument used to take people into custody to carry out a removal order [1] [4] [2].
2. How arrests that start removal proceedings typically happen
Separately, ICE commonly makes arrests in the interior to initiate or support removal proceedings using either administrative arrest authority or without any formal I‑205—arrests in public or when probable cause exists are routine and do not require a judicial warrant, and ICE describes officers “on the streets every day” prioritizing arrests of criminal aliens and immigration violators [1] [5] [2].
3. Recent policy changes that likely shifted practice but not publicly reported counts
A May 2025 internal memo and subsequent guidance from ICE’s acting director instructed officers they may rely on administrative I‑205s (and in some drafts related administrative forms) to enter residences and use force in some situations, a change that several outlets say has prompted an uptick in home‑entry arrests based on administrative warrants; DHS and ICE defend the legal basis, while civil‑rights groups and some federal judges have pushed back, and courts in multiple districts have issued conflicting rulings [6] [7] [8] [9] [10].
4. What the public record actually lets reporters measure (and what it does not)
None of the documents or reporting supplied include a clear, agency‑published statistic that breaks down how many interior arrests were executed using I‑205s versus how many arrests were made to initiate removal proceedings without an I‑205; legal primers and watchdogs note that ICE’s administrative warrants are internal forms and that the agency does not historically report them in a way that yields a national frequency comparison [11] [12] [2] [3].
5. Legal and interpretive dispute that colors interpretation of any “increase”
DHS and its general counsel argue I‑205 use is lawful because a final order of removal follows full immigration court process, and agency lawyers assert administrative warrants can satisfy the Fourth Amendment in this context; critics counter that I‑205s lack neutral judicial review, that Payton v. New York and related precedent require a judicial arrest warrant to enter homes, and that memos authorizing forceful home entries have led to lawsuits and injunctions—so counting the use of I‑205s is as much a legal and political fight as an empirical question [4] [13] [9] [3].
6. Practical conclusion: patterns, not precise rates
The verifiable pattern is that I‑205s are the tool ICE uses to effect final removal orders and that ICE has long made arrests to initiate or pursue removal without judicial warrants when the suspect is in public or exception circumstances apply; since mid‑2025 an internal shift made I‑205 reliance for home entries more explicit and led to contested, visible operations, but available sources do not supply an authoritative numeric frequency comparing I‑205 executions to arrests that merely start removal proceedings—thus any precise “how often” answer is not possible from the current public record [1] [6] [3] [5].