Skip to main content

DHS implements EO 13767 on "Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements"

  1. Date Announced

    Feb. 20, 2017

    DHS memo announces planned implementation of Executive Order 13767 on border security, declares that DHS will no longer grant parole to categories of immigrants on a group-wide basis. The memo asserts that previous administrations' practice of paroling entire classes of immigrants was unlawful and unwise because it created immigration programs not established by Congress and contributed to the crisis at the border. DHS memo directs the heads of USCIS, ICE, and CBP to exercise parole authority only on a case-by-case basis.

    The memo also: 1) limits the circumstances in which CBP or ICE can release a noncitizen described in INA 235, 2) orders CBP to hire additional Border Patrol agents, 3) directs CBP and ICE to expand 287(g) agreements, 4) directs CBP and ICE to implement contiguous country returns, 5) provides guidance on credible fear determinations, 6) directs allocations of resources to the border, 7) directs processing of UACs at the border, 8) prioritizes prosecutions for immigration offenses committed at the border, 9) directs CBP and ICE to develop standardized reporting of statistical data, among other changes. [ID #10]

    View Policy Document
  2. Effective Date of Change

    Feb. 20, 2017
  3. Subsequent Action

    July 2, 2018

    In Damus v. Nielsen, 2018 WL 3232515 (D.D.C. July 2, 2018), district court grants a preliminary injunction requiring ICE to comply with its 2009 Parole Directive to parole from immigration detention individuals who pass a credible fear interview. As of 10/21/20, motions for summary judgment & permanent injunction remain pending in district court.

    **Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

    Damus v. Nielsen (D.D.C. 2018)
Type of Action: Agency Directive
Agencies Affected: CBP ICE USCIS

Prior Policies

  • Deferred action, in one form or another, dates back to at least the 1960s. Deferred action guidance was previously contained in the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service, Operation Instructions ยง 103.l(a)(l)(ii) (1975). The IO stated: "When determining whether a case should be recommended for deferred action category, consideration should include the following: (1) advanced or tender age; (2) many years' presence in the United States; (3) physical or mental condition requiring care or treatment in the United States; (4) family situation in the United States effect of expulsion; (5) criminal, immoral or subversive activities or affiliations recent conduct."

  • DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson memo on prioritizing enforcement, which prioritized national security, border security and public safety threats (Priority 1); noncitizens convicted of a serious misdemeanor (Priority 2); and noncitizens recently ordered removed (Priority 3).

    Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants (Nov. 20, 2014)
  • In addition to individual grants of parole, prior administrations have established special parole programs designed to address certain populations, but parole decisions but these programs also have required case-by-case adjudication. For example, George W. Bush's administration had established the Cuban Medical Professional Parole program. President Obama had a parole program for people fleeing violence in Central America who failed to secure refugee status.

    2016.07.26 U.S. Expands Initiatives To Address Central American Migration Challenges

Subsequent Action

Please sign in to send feedback.