How does DHS define and report 'removals' versus 'returns' and 'voluntary departures'?
Executive summary
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) treats "removals" as formal, ordered expulsions while "returns" bundle several non‑order departures — including voluntary departures, voluntary returns, and withdrawals of application for admission — that are not based on an order of removal [1]. Voluntary departure is a specific legal option—granted by an immigration judge or DHS in some contexts—that lets a noncitizen leave at their own expense within a set timeframe to avoid a formal removal order, but it carries strict conditions and penalties for failure to depart [2] [3].
1. What DHS calls a “removal”: the formal, ordered exit
A "removal" in DHS reporting corresponds to an enforcement action resulting from a legal order requiring a noncitizen to leave—what the public often calls deportation—and can include ordinary removal orders, expedited removals, reinstatements of prior removal orders, and administrative deportations [1]. Removals are generated through statutory authorities in the Immigration and Nationality Act and are recorded as formal dispositions in DHS and ICE data systems, creating collateral bars and penalties that affect future admissibility [4] [5].
2. What DHS bundles as “returns”: administrative, non‑order departures
DHS defines a "return" as a confirmed movement of an inadmissible or removable alien out of the United States that is not based on an order of removal, and it explicitly includes voluntary departures, voluntary returns at the border, withdrawals of applications for admission, and certain crew member actions [1]. CBP and ICE use "returns" to capture encounters resolved by immediate departure or administrative disposition—actions that require less paperwork and judicial process than removals [1] [6].
3. Voluntary departure: legal nuance and practical consequences
Voluntary departure is a distinct remedy that lets someone avoid a removal order by agreeing to leave within a statutory time limit—pre‑conclusion or post‑conclusion timeframes set by regulation or a judge—and often requires posting bonds or meeting documentation requirements; missing the deadline converts the grant into a removal with attendant penalties [2] [7]. Advocacy groups note voluntary departure can preserve future legal pathways and reduce the legal impediments to reentry, but they also warn DHS or prosecutors may leverage voluntary departure as a pressure point in cases where alternatives might otherwise exist [8] [2].
4. How DHS reports these categories in its statistics
DHS’s Office of Homeland Security Statistics and related publications separate removals and returns in their tables and describe "repatriations" as the umbrella term covering removals, administrative and enforcement returns, and expulsions; in recent years DHS data and third‑party analysts have shown shifts in the mix—some administrations rely more on returns and expulsions because they are faster and cheaper than full removal proceedings [1] [6]. ICE and CBP sometimes report different datasets—ICE’s interior removal figures exclude CBP border returns—so aggregated totals depend on which component’s data are combined [9].
5. Incentives, operational differences, and political subtext
Operationally, returns are quicker and cheaper: CBP can return people encountered at the border without issuing full Notices to Appear or using immigration judges, while removals often require locating subjects and completing judicial or administrative processes [6] [1]. This creates policy incentives—administrations may prefer returns or expulsions to lower costs and processing time—producing political debate: enforcement‑oriented actors favor more removals, whereas immigration‑rights advocates warn that substituting returns for removals can erode due process and obscure the true scope of coercive expulsions [10] [6].
6. Limits of public reporting and contested terminology
Public sources show DHS provides definitions and separates categories, but datasets and labels can vary across DHS components and over time, and outside observers warn that terms like "voluntary" can mask coercive conditions at the border; moreover, DHS reporting may not capture all legal nuances—such as stipulated orders, the effect of Title 42 expulsions, or local variations in practice—which means readers must treat headline counts with scrutiny and consult source tables for the underlying dispositions [1] [5] [10]. Where available sources do not address specific unreported practices or internal decisionmaking, reporting remains limited and contested [1].