How do secondary screenings at U.S. ports of entry work and what rights do travelers have during them?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Secondary inspection is a separate, more detailed interview and examination area at U.S. ports of entry where Customs and Border Protection (CBP) resolves documentation questions, immigration or customs concerns, watchlist hits, or conducts random checks; roughly 3% of travelers were referred to secondary in FY2025, and electronic device searches are rare (under 0.01% of arrivals) but possible [1]. Travelers face extended questioning, possible searches of belongings and devices, and sometimes hours-long detention—rights differ by immigration status and the administrative nature of the process [1] [2].
1. What secondary inspection actually is and why it happens
Secondary inspection is an administrative, nonpublic interview area separate from primary lanes where officers verify identity, documentation, and admissibility, conduct further research, or investigate potential violations of customs, immigration, or criminal laws; referrals may be routine, random, or prompted by watchlist or document flags [1] [3] [4]. Universities, law firms, and CBP all describe it as a place to verify facts without delaying other travelers and as a step taken when primary cannot quickly resolve a concern [5] [2] [3].
2. What CBP officers typically do in secondary
In secondary, officers may conduct extended questioning, inspect luggage and personal effects, run database checks, consult Unified Secondary systems and TECS records, and—on a case-by-case basis—search or temporarily detain electronic devices, which they log and may retain consistent with CBP policy [6] [1] [7]. Multiple government and legal sources note the possibility of multi‑agency participation and documentation of examinations in centralized systems [8] [6].
3. Device searches, data retention, and transparency limits
CBP asserts statutory authority to search persons and devices at the border and records examinations, but device searches are narrowly used (CBP reports <0.01% of arrivals had devices searched in FY2025); data from examinations can be entered into TECS/Unified Secondary and retained per DHS privacy assessments [1] [6]. Legal guides advise travelers to document searches, request receipts, and observe that practices vary in transparency—CBP issues records of detentions or seizures but travelers’ access to full transcripts or immediate copies is not guaranteed in the sources reviewed [1] [9].
4. Core rights—and important limits—to assert during secondary
All persons at ports of entry are subject to inspection, including U.S. citizens [4], but travelers retain some rights: non‑citizens generally must answer basic identity and admissibility questions yet may invoke limited silence for other questions, and travelers can refuse to sign documents like voluntary abandonment of status [10] [11]. Crucially, there is no absolute right to an attorney during initial CBP questioning at the border—CBP treats secondary as administrative and often will not permit counsel during interview, though presenting a Form G‑28 can facilitate representation in later immigration proceedings [12] [11].
5. Consequences and options: detention, withdrawal, and expedited removal
CBP can detain travelers for hours and sometimes overnight while investigating; travelers may be offered the option to withdraw their application for admission to avoid expedited removal, and refusing to sign waivers or voluntary abandonment does not automatically remove procedural protections like issuance of a Notice to Appear when CBP believes inadmissibility merits immigration court review [2] [11] [8]. Law firms warn that visa holders and green‑card holders should not sign away status without counsel because administrative decisions made in the secondary setting can carry long-term consequences [11].
6. Conflicting perspectives, enforcement priorities, and where reporting falls short
CBP frames secondary as essential for border security and professional discretion to detect illicit activity [4] [1], while civil‑rights advocates and legal counsel emphasize risks of overreach, inconsistent disclosure, and practical limits on legal access—reporting in legal advisories focuses on how to mitigate harm (carry documents, clean devices, request receipts), but publicly available sources do not settle how often officers deny requests for legal contact or how frequently retained device data leads to prosecution [10] [1] [2]. These gaps suggest reliance on counsel before travel and careful documentation when secondary occurs [11] [9].