What is the process for ICE to obtain and verify criminal records of individuals facing deportation?
Executive summary
ICE identifies and documents criminal history for people facing removal primarily by checking criminal justice records, jail/prison intake interviews, and interagency databases; ICE says custody determinations “take into account…criminal records” and the agency runs targeted enforcement against convicted noncitizens through programs like the Criminal Alien Program (CAP) [1] [2]. Reporting and data trackers show large numbers of detainees without convictions—which reporters and analysts note reflects distinctions among “convicted,” “pending charges,” and “other immigration violators” that affect how ICE labels and uses criminal-record information [3] [4] [5].
1. How ICE typically finds and compiles criminal records — the mechanics
ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) relies on routine contact with the criminal justice system and databases: officers screen people arrested or in custody, interview incarcerated noncitizens before release, and pull law‑enforcement and court records to determine prior convictions or pending charges; ERO also says it uses “law enforcement and intelligence‑driven leads” for targeted enforcement and prosecutions [2] [1]. ICE’s public materials describe custody decisions as individualized and explicitly list criminal history and immigration history among the factors considered [1].
2. Databases and programs ICE uses to verify criminal history
Available reporting and ICE webpages point to built‑in programs—like the Criminal Alien Program (CAP)—and ICE’s access to federal, state and local criminal records and intelligence systems to identify removable noncitizens with criminal records and pursue prosecutions with U.S. Attorneys when appropriate [2] [1]. Migration Policy’s explainer notes that ICE interviews people serving sentences in federal, state and local facilities so they can be processed for removal upon release, which implies cross‑checking prison/jail records with immigration files [6].
3. What “criminal record” means in ICE data — a major source of confusion
Independent analysts and fact‑checkers underscore that ICE’s public tallies separate people into “Convicted Criminal,” “Pending Criminal Charges,” and “Other Immigration Violator,” so headline figures about “no criminal record” depend on definitions. Snopes explains ICE data showing about 71.7% without a criminal conviction as of mid‑2025, while noting that many detainees have pending charges and that definitions vary [3]. The Guardian, Fortune and TRAC reporting all highlight that detainee counts without convictions rose and that policy choices affect who is arrested and detained [4] [5] [7].
4. How ICE assigns threat levels and uses criminal-history info operationally
ICE assigns detainees a threat level (1–3) based partly on convictions and charges; those with “no criminal record” are categorized as having “no ICE threat level” in agency data releases, and a large share of detainees in some snapshots had no assigned threat level, complicating claims that ICE is focused only on “the worst of the worst” [5]. ICE says it is “legally obligated to detain” some people with certain criminal histories and that custody decisions are individualized, but the presence or absence of an assigned threat level is not the same as absence of scrutiny [1] [5].
5. Limits and vulnerabilities in verification — what the sources show and don’t
Reporting warns of operational and verification challenges. Snopes and migration‑policy style explainers emphasize that pending charges, jurisdictional record gaps, and differing definitions can make “criminal record” an unstable label in public data [3] [6]. The provided sources do not offer a step‑by‑step internal ICE checklist showing every database or cross‑check used; they describe programs and practices but do not publish a full technical verification protocol—“not found in current reporting.”
6. Competing perspectives and potential agendas in the debate
ICE and DHS officials defend targeted enforcement of “the worst of the worst” and count pending charges alongside convictions when framing criminality, which supports a stricter enforcement narrative [5] [1]. Independent trackers and news outlets emphasize that a majority of detainees in some snapshots lacked convictions and warn that mass interior enforcement produces many non‑convicted detainees and collateral arrests—an interpretation that casts policy choices, not purely criminal‑history verification, as central to who is detained [7] [4] [8]. Fact‑checkers like Snopes stress definitional nuance rather than taking sides [3].
7. Practical takeaway for people impacted or watching policy
If you or someone you represent faces ICE enforcement, understand that ICE will draw on criminal/court records, jail/prison interviews, and interagency databases to build the file; custody and removal actions reflect both documented convictions and pending charges, and public numbers can mislead unless you parse ICE’s categories [1] [2] [3]. For deeper procedural specifics (for example, the exact databases and cross‑match steps), available sources do not provide a complete internal checklist—those operational details are not published in the cited reporting [3] [6].
Sources cited: ICE webpages and programs [1] [2], database/definition context and fact‑checks [3], reporting and data analysis on detainee criminality [7] [4] [5] [8], broader context on interior enforcement [6].