How often do ICE applicants fail polygraphs and still obtain security clearances?
Executive summary
There are no publicly available, agency-wide statistics showing how often ICE applicants who “fail” polygraphs nevertheless obtain security clearances; the record in open reporting is silence on quantitative outcomes [1]. Officials and practitioners describe polygraph results as one factor among many in adjudications—a failed or technical call can trigger follow-up and adverse action but does not mechanically end a clearance process in every case [2] [3].
1. What “fail” means in practice: technical calls, deception findings, and follow-up interviews
Polygraph outcomes are not binary in routine reporting: examiners report “No Deception Indicated (NDI),” deception indicated, or technical/inconclusive calls, and agencies often conduct a follow-up interview to interpret results before adjudicating security eligibility [4] [3]. Legal and trade-advice sources emphasize that many apparent “failures” lead to additional interviews or re-testing and that physiological responses, anxiety, or misunderstandings can produce non‑NDI outcomes that investigators must resolve through the broader background investigation [5] [3].
2. ICE’s documented policy context: polygraphs are used selectively and reviewed
ICE’s publicly posted vetting guidance states that law-enforcement applicants for roles such as Criminal Investigator and Deportation Officer may be subject to pre-employment polygraphs and that results feed into suitability and clearance adjudications; ICE also notes polygraph quality-control review by senior examiners [1] [6]. The agency’s materials instruct applicants to be forthcoming and stress that polygraph results are part of the larger adjudicative process rather than an automatic pass/fail gate for all positions [6] [1].
3. The adjudicative reality: polygraphs inform but rarely stand alone
Specialized legal counsel and security-clearance analysts consistently state that polygraph results “contribute” to the final clearance decision but are not the sole determinant—background checks, interviews, financial records, foreign contacts and other investigative evidence are combined in adjudication [2] [3]. That framing explains how some candidates with problematic polygraph outcomes can ultimately receive favorable adjudications when corroborating information, mitigating evidence, or credible explanations resolve the examiner’s concerns [3] [5].
4. Where polygraphs carry the most weight—and where they don’t
Polygraphs are most consequential for TS/SCI and other sensitive-intelligence roles administered by IC agencies that routinely use personnel polygraph programs; by contrast, collateral Secret/Top Secret clearances processed via OPM often do not involve polygraphs at all, so an ICE applicant who was “failed” by one program might not face the same barrier in other clearance streams [4] [2]. Industry reporting and consultancy sources warn that CBP and ICE have at times used suitability processes to act on past polygraph technical calls in ways that affect hiring—even when SEAD policy limits certain uses—highlighting uneven application across agencies [7].
5. Why there’s no reliable public rate of “fail but cleared” outcomes
Open-source reporting, agency guidance, and practitioner commentary uniformly lack numerical universe-level data on how many ICE applicants with a polygraph deception or technical finding nonetheless receive security clearances; none of the cited ICE materials or legal advisories publish statistics on reversal or mitigation rates, leaving the precise frequency unknown to the public [1] [6] [3]. Analysts and lawyers can describe mechanisms—follow-up interviews, adjudicative balancing, re-tests, and the weight of other investigative evidence—but cannot produce a verified percentage because agencies do not disclose that aggregated outcome data in the sources provided [2] [4].
6. Bottom line and alternative perspectives
The measured, evidence-based bottom line is this: failing a polygraph increases scrutiny and can lead to denial of suitability or clearance in many cases—especially if the finding indicates deception or counter-measures—but it is not an automatic, universal bar and some applicants do get cleared after adjudication or clarification [3] [5]. Advocates and defense attorneys stress that failures can often be mitigated through explanation, documentation, or re-testing [3], while critics and some policy analysts warn of false positives and inconsistent agency practices that can unfairly derail candidates [8] [7]. Public reporting does not contain the raw numbers necessary to say “how often” with statistical confidence [1] [4].