Current Inadmissibility Decisions at U.S. Ports of Entry

Published Nov 11, 2024

In fiscal year 2024 over 1.2 million noncitizens[1] arriving at United States by land, air and sea seeking entry were initially found to be “inadmissible.” While media coverage concentrates on immigration events at the U.S.-Mexico border, half (622,000) of these 1.2 million inadmissible individuals presented at ports not along the US-Mexico border. Given the numbers, what is happening at these ports deserves to receive more attention.

When a border agent finds that a person is not admissible, this simply means these individuals didn’t present document(s) that showed they were clearly entitled to enter the country such as a U.S. passport, visa, or other paperwork authorizing entry. But that doesn’t end the matter. There are many provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act which provide a basis for allowing a person to physically enter the country rather than bar them from entry and deport them. Thus, Office of Field Operations (OFO) personnel have to conduct an examination of each person to determine whether they should be turned away or allowed into the country.

In the following sections, we take a detailed look at these inadmissibility decisions. How have numbers changed over time, which ports have the highest volume, and what are the ultimate decisions port personnel make on whether these individuals are turned away or allowed to enter the U.S.?

Findings are based on an analysis of recently received case-by-case internal port authority records. These records cover periods through the end of fiscal year 2024 (October 2023 – September 2024) and were obtained following a persistent campaign by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Trends Over the Last Decade

The number of inadmissible decisions by port personnel over the last decade has increased every year since FY 2021. See Figure 1.

The total number of inadmissibility dispositions hovered in the low 200,000s until fiscal years 2020 and 2021, during which time the number of people presenting at ports of entry dropped due to the Covid-19 pandemic and many individuals were immediately turned away under Title 42 restrictions barring entry for health reasons. Subsequent increases in inadmissibility decisions have been affected by many factors including the lifting of Title 42 restrictions, the prevalence of global crises abroad, and changing migration patterns affecting the entire Western Hemisphere.

For each person initially classified as inadmissible, port officials decide among five major options. For two, withdrawal and expedited removal, the noncitizen is not allowed entry. The remaining three—issuance of an NTA, humanitarian parole, and credible fear— allow noncitizens temporary entry.[2]

During the Trump administration (FY 2017-2020), humanitarian parole dispositions decreased, while individuals given credible fear screenings increased. Otherwise, pre-Covid fluctuations in the number of the other disposition categories appear marginal by comparison.

Totals in most categories climbed during the Biden administration (FY 2021-2024) apart from expedited removals. These accounted for fewer dispositions than during the Trump years and never rebounded in the post-Covid-19 period. Credible fear referrals were notably fewer. Excluding the two years of Covid restrictions (FY 2020-2021), credible fear referrals during the Biden years amounted to only 35 percent the number of referrals under Trump. Table 1 provides the breakdown, year-by-year, for each of these disposition categories.

In FY 2024, the largest group (45 percent) of inadmissible decisions involved "Notice to Appear" forms, in which noncitizens (often asylum seekers) received orders to attend a future hearing at Immigration Court to contest the government’s request to be allowed to deport them. The next largest category in FY 2024 were individuals given humanitarian parole allowing temporary physical entry.[3] Thirty-five percent (35%) of inadmissibles received this decision. Just one out of a hundred (1%) in FY 2024 were given credible fear screening by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers.

Another 18% of individuals deemed inadmissible in FY 2024 were not allowed to enter the U.S. Of these, 16 percent were allowed to withdraw their entry request without penalty, and 2 percent received expedited removals barring them from reentry for a period of years.

Depending on the location of the port of entry, OFO officials encounter people with different circumstances behind their request for admission. As noted earlier, during FY 2024, only half of all inadmissible decisions occurred at ports in the four OFO Field Offices at the US-Mexico border—El Paso, Laredo, San Diego, and Tucson. The other half of inadmissiblity decisions occurred at other offices around the country. Officials in the Miami OFO office made more inadmissibility decisions (267,000) last year than the entire country in any single fiscal year between 2014 and 2022.

Notices-to-Appear in Immigration Court

OFO officials have issued increasing numbers of NTAs over the last three years. An NTA provides an individual physical entry into the United States but requires the individual to report to Immigration Court for a deportation hearing at a future date. Out of the total of 550,000 NTAs issued by OFO offices in FY 2024, over 99% were issued at ports of entry at the U.S.-Mexico border. Less than one percent of NTAs were issued at other ports throughout the United States. In descending order, OFO offices in Laredo (261,000), San Diego (166,000), El Paso (81,000), and Tucson (39,000) reported issuing the most NTAs in FY 2024. OFO officers issued the most NTAs to people from Cuba (138,000), followed by Venezuela (124,000), and Mexico (106,000).

Humanitarian Parole

The second most common inadmissible determination in FY 2024 was a grant of humanitarian parole. Most people granted humanitarian parole did so under a specific program targeting citizens of specific countries. Recent examples include United for Ukraine or CHNV. The various humanitarian parole programs together during FY 2024 accounted for 432,000 paroled individuals, or 35 percent of all decisions on inadmissibles.

People from Haiti (130,000), Ukraine (73,000), Cuba (66,000), Nicaragua (55,000), and Venezuela (50,000) received the most of these parole determinations.

Most parole decisions are made at locations that are not at the U.S.-Mexico border. More than half of all parole determinations were issued in Miami’s Field Office (248,000). No other location issued more than 40,000 according to CBP numbers. OFO officers at New York’s ports of entry issued 39,000 last year, the second highest number out of all offices, but still more than 200,000 fewer than parole decisions out of Miami.

Credible Fear

While officers at ports of entry can parole individuals into the United States under the specific programs discussed above, officers do not have authority to make asylum determinations. CBP records show that 13,000 dispositions indicated a credible fear claim, in which an individual faces expedited removal but expresses fear of returning to their country of origin to an OFO officer. In such cases, the OFO officer refers the individual to an asylum officer at USCIS for a screening interview.

Individuals can be detained for a limited amount of time while waiting to see an asylum officer.[4] Almost all credible fear claim situations involving OFO officers are located at ports of entry on the U.S. Mexico border. In FY 2024, a little less than half of all given credible fear hearings originated from the OFO San Diego office. That office accounted for 6,042 out of the total of 12,892. The Laredo office was next with 2,505. El Paso was close behind with 2,138. Tucson accounted for 1,262.

During FY 2024, citizens from Mexico (3,300), Russia (2,300), and Venezuela received these outcomes at higher totals than citizens from other countries.

Withdrawal

Some individuals choose to withdraw their request for admission to the United States to prevent the risk of being barred from future attempts at reentry. About 16 percent of people who present at ports of entry and are determined to be inadmissible end up withdrawing their request for admission. This case was most common at northern ports of entry. These included ports in Buffalo (58,000), Seattle (52,000), and Boston (39,000). Comparatively, fewer individuals withdraw their request for admission at the US-Mexico border.

People from Canada, India, Mexico, China, and France all had the most inadmissible decisions resulting in a withdrawn admission attempt in FY 2024.

Expedited Removal

Expedited removal orders are frequently imposed by Border Patrol agents. Not so for port officials. An individual trying to enter at a U.S. port of entry without proper documentation can be removed from the U.S. without any hearing and be barred from reentry for a period of years. However, OFO officials conducted only 22,000 expedited removals in FY 2024, or just 2 percent of all those found inadmissible.

Expedited Removals are more widely distributed across various offices than other dispositions, with Laredo, San Diego, Houston, El Paso, Miami, Los Angeles, and New York all determining between 1,000 and 4,000 removals in FY 2024.

More than half of all expedited removals involved individuals from Mexico. Citizens of Colombia totaled 1,300 expedited removals, second-most but more than 10,000 fewer than Mexico.

Conclusion

As the data on decisions made by officials at U.S. ports of entry show, inadmissibility determinations occur across the country. To dig further into all the details, by nationality, time period, field office, and for some years the specific port, use TRAC’s online Stopping "Inadmissibles" at U.S. Ports of Entry tool found here.