How do DHS monthly tables define and count “encounters” versus “arrests” in border statistics?
Executive summary
The DHS monthly tables count “encounters” as immigration events recorded primarily by CBP—an umbrella tally that includes Border Patrol apprehensions, Office of Field Operations inadmissibles at ports of entry, and (since March 2020) Title 42 expulsions—while “arrests” in DHS publications typically refer to administrative arrests recorded by ICE components and are reported separately from CBP encounters [1] [2]. Encounters are event-level counts (not unique people) and can include repeat attempts and non-arrested inadmissibles, whereas arrests are process-specific actions that initiate ICE removal or custody workflows [2] [3].
1. What DHS means by “encounters” — an event-level tally, not a headcount
DHS’s public reporting and the OHSS monthly tables make clear that the unit of measurement is an “immigration event,” and that encounters aggregate CBP U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) apprehensions plus Office of Field Operations (OFO) inadmissibles and, since March 2020, Title 42 expulsions, all treated as entries in the encounters dataset rather than necessarily distinct individuals [2] [1]. The Office of Homeland Security Statistics explains that encounter data are compiled from CBP administrative systems like the Enforcement Integrated Database and are extracted as event microdata for reporting, which means the same person who tries multiple crossings can be counted multiple times across months or years [4] [5].
2. Why headlines that cite encounters can mislead — repeats, policy changes, and expulsions
The composition and meaning of “encounters” shifted notably in March 2020 when CBP began folding Title 42 expulsions into the encounter total, expanding what had historically been an apprehension-only series, and producing much larger encounter numbers that do not equate to unique new entries into the country [6] [1]. DHS and independent analysts have documented re‑encounter rates that show a material share of encounters are repeat events (e.g., a substantial re‑encounter rate on the Southwest Border), so month-to-month encounter totals can reflect changes in enforcement posture, policy (like Title 42), or migrant behavior rather than only a one-to-one flow of new unauthorized entrants [3] [7].
3. How “apprehensions” relate to encounters and arrests — a spectrum of control
Within the encounters framework, CBP’s defined “apprehensions” are the physical control or temporary detainment of a person by USBP between ports of entry; the agency explicitly notes that such apprehensions may or may not lead to an “arrest” under immigration statutes, meaning custody, administration, or later ICE action depends on case processing and policy [1] [8]. CBP’s dashboards and OHSS analyses treat apprehensions as one component of encounters and warn that live-system data are subject to revision, further complicating simple comparisons across reports [1] [4].
4. What DHS counts as “arrests” — ICE administrative arrests and separate statistical tracks
“Arrests” in DHS monthly tables most often appear as ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) or Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) administrative arrests rather than CBP encounter counts; OHSS uses administrative-arrest datasets to report ICE arrests and distinguishes them from CBP’s encounters, describing both as “initial enforcement actions” in different systems of record [3] [5]. Those administrative arrests feed downstream removal, detention, or prosecutorial processes and are reported separately in the monthly tables so readers can trace enforcement outcomes beyond the initial CBP encounter event [2] [5].
5. Practical implications for interpreting the numbers — context matters
Because DHS labels the unit as “immigration events” and because encounters combine different authorities and case outcomes, equating encounter totals with unique people removed, released, or “crossing into the country” is statistically incorrect without additional breakdowns; the OHSS and CBP pages both caution users about revisions, rounding, and definitional changes, and independent outlets have repeatedly urged readers to interpret encounter data as event-level rather than person-level counts [2] [4] [6]. For policymakers and journalists, the right comparison is to align the metric (encounters vs. ICE arrests vs. removals) with the specific policy question being asked, since each series answers a different operational question [5] [9].