Which agencies publish annual figures on voluntary departures and how reliable are those numbers?
Executive summary
Government agencies, academic projects and news outlets all report figures on “voluntary departures,” but they use different definitions and data streams — creating widely divergent counts. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components (ICE, CBP, EOIR) publish or supply some removal and voluntary-departure figures (e.g., DHS/ICE cited totals and pilot programs) while independent analysts and watchdogs (Deportation Data Project/Mapping Deportations/Migration Policy Institute) and media outlets produce alternative tabulations; DHS recently claimed 1.6 million voluntary self‑deportations amid reporting gaps and method disputes [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Who publishes annual or near‑annual figures — the official roster
Federal agencies involved in enforcement or immigration adjudication are the primary official sources. The Department of Homeland Security and its subcomponents — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge/Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) — provide counts of removals, returns and voluntary departure grants or programs in their public releases and reports [5] [6] [7]. EOIR court records and trackers also report numbers of “removal and voluntary departure orders” issued by immigration judges [8]. DHS press statements have also given headline totals for people “removed” or “self‑deported” [1].
2. Who else produces numbers and why they differ
Non‑governmental researchers, media and advocacy projects compile different datasets and interpret federal or survey inputs in differing ways. Mapping Deportations aggregates long‑term historical counts and argues voluntary departure has been the dominant form of coercive expulsion historically [3]. News organizations (e.g., Newsweek) and think tanks (Migration Policy Institute) have analyzed ICE FOIA releases and partial DHS data to estimate recent totals and to separate formal removals from voluntary departures reported by agencies [4] [5]. Academic and investigative projects such as the Deportation Data Project feed reporting like Stateline’s on specific cohorts granted voluntary departure [9].
3. Important definitional splits that undermine comparability
“Voluntary departure,” “voluntary return,” “self‑deportation,” and “return/exit” are not consistently coded. EOIR tracks judicially granted voluntary departures; CBP may count voluntary self‑reported exits or border returns; ICE counts detainees who end detention by agreeing to depart. DHS’s recent “self‑deportation” claims mix app‑facilitated voluntary exits, returns recorded at the border, and model‑based survey inferences — producing large headline numbers that do not match EOIR or ICE case‑level tallies [10] [6] [1] [2].
4. Data quality and reliability concerns flagged by reporters and fact‑checkers
Multiple sources warn of gaps and caveats. Migration Policy Institute notes DHS has increasingly released only selective statistics, complicating tracking [5]. Axios and other analysts flagged that DHS has stopped regular historical reporting and that some voluntary‑departure figures are drawn from surveys or administrative pilots rather than exhaustive case records [2]. Fact‑checkers have questioned the 1.6 million “voluntary” departures cited by officials, noting that number appears to derive from a think‑tank estimate based on BLS/Census survey data with a small sample and large margin of error and that the figure could encompass deportations, deaths, or status changes as well as voluntary exits [11].
5. New initiatives complicating interpretation — CBP’s pilot and apps
CBP’s Voluntary Self‑Reported Exit (VSRE) pilot and the “CBP Home” app add new administrative streams intended to record exits (including facial images and self‑reports), but these are pilots and do not yet create a single comprehensive exit registry — and CBP acknowledges exits not reported to CBP can lead to undercounting of departures [6]. DHS statements about app usage and payments (e.g., $1,000 offers) have been cited in media but come with limited transparency about how many departures were mediated through those channels [2] [1].
6. What journalists and analysts should watch for next
Look for clear methodological notes accompanying any headline total: which agency produced it, which legal categories are included (EOIR voluntary departure orders vs. CBP returns vs. ICE detainee departures), whether figures come from administrative records or sample surveys, and whether pilots like VSRE are being scaled. Independent trackers such as Mapping Deportations and the Deportation Data Project will continue to supply alternative tabulations, but their line‑by‑line comparisons to EOIR/ICE/CBP records are essential to judge reliability [3] [9] [8].
Limitations: available sources show disagreements among agencies, media and researchers and flag methodological gaps; they do not provide a single reconciled annual “true” count [5] [2] [11].