Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
Recommendation on the Central American Minors (CAM)
Refugee/Parole Program

December 21, 2016

Introduction from the Ombudsman
I am pleased to issue formal recommendations to improve administration of the Central
American Minors (CAM) Refugee/Parole program. We undertook this assessment to evaluate
whether, two years after its launch, the CAM program is delivering on its primary objective:
providing a safe, legal, and orderly alternative to the dangerous journey that some children are
currently undertaking to the United States.
Over a decade ago, as an attorney in private practice, I had the privilege of meeting a 10-year old
boy who had traveled on his own from his native Guatemala to the U.S. southern border. Back
then, the number of unaccompanied children arriving at our borders was relatively limited, as
was the public’s awareness of the extreme vulnerabilities faced by migrant children traveling
alone. Though we knew then that war, persecution, and poverty in the Northern Triangle
countries of Central America had forced the migration of individuals seeking safety to the United
States, we had not yet been faced with the regional challenge of a large-scale migration of
children to the U.S. southern border.
As I listened to the child’s story, I became keenly aware of how rampant, uncontrolled violence,
poor living conditions, lack of educational opportunities, and persecution could drive a young
child to travel north in search of safety and stability. I was a witness to the dangers the journey
presented for such a vulnerable population and of their resilience and survival-driven
determination to reach the one country where they hoped to be safe. Years later, the stories are
similar though the dangers in the region have escalated to a hemispheric crisis.
This summer, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s statutory mandate to propose changes to
improve the administration of immigration benefits, I traveled to El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Mexico to evaluate the CAM program launched by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and the U.S. Department of State in late 2014. During our assessment we met with
government and intergovernmental officials, as well as service providers, religious groups, and
other members of civil society. We also met with children from Honduras and El Salvador who
had found shelter in Mexico. We heard accounts of daily encounters with criminal gangs and
other factors that drove them to leave their homes on their own. We also spent time with girls –
some as young as 11 years old – recovering in a Guatemalan shelter from the atrocities of sex
trafficking. These firsthand accounts deepened our understanding of this population and the
violence they have endured, underscoring the need for regional efforts to provide safe passage
and refuge to the tens of thousands of displaced children in the region.

www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman

 The CAM program is an important tool aimed at reuniting qualifying children and certain family
members, whose lives are in danger, with relatives in legal status in the United States. But it is
only one piece of a comprehensive regional response needed to address the Northern Triangle
refugee crisis.
I would like to thank stakeholders both in the United States and the Northern Triangle for their
commitment to serving children under challenging conditions and often with limited capacity
and resources. Their feedback is critical to our understanding of the factors that compel children
to leave their home countries and journey to the United States, as well as areas of improvement
for the CAM program. I would also like to express our appreciation to U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS), the State Department, the International Organization for
Migration, and the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for their
collaboration and dedication to the success of this program. Finally, I would like to thank my
team in the Ombudsman’s Office for their thorough research, stakeholder engagement, and
thoughtful compilation of this recommendation.
This is my last recommendation, regarding one of the most important programs DHS has
developed in the last four years. Using existing authorities, USCIS, and the State Department
have crafted a targeted option for minors to escape violence and join close family in the United
States. I believe such a program has a place in the regional efforts to provide safe passage and
long-term refuge to these displaced children.
Sincerely,

Maria Odom
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

2

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction from the Ombudsman................................................................................................. 1
Recommendation At a Glance ........................................................................................................ 4
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5
Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 7
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Establishment of CAM ................................................................................................................. 13
CAM in Context: U.S. and Regional Response to the Northern Triangle Migration Crisis......... 14
Positive Developments in CAM ................................................................................................... 18
Key Issues of Concern Regarding CAM ...................................................................................... 20
Recommendations to USCIS ........................................................................................................ 31
Further Actions Needed ................................................................................................................ 34
Appendix I: CAM Eligibility Criteria and Applicant Process ...................................................... 37
Appendix II: CAM Program Data and Outcomes........................................................................ 44
Acronym Key ................................................................................................................................ 48

3

 RECOMMENDATION AT A GLANCE

Key Issues of Concern
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)

Lengthy processing times
Need for enhanced protection mechanisms for particularly vulnerable
qualifying children
Restrictive eligibility criteria
Costs associated with DNA testing
Uncertainty regarding program eligibility, application process, and case status
Insufficient funding for resettlement agencies’ CAM-related activities
Lack of access to counsel during CAM interviews
Barriers for CAM parolees, such as travel costs, lack of resettlement assistance,
and adjustment of status limitations

Recommendations to USCIS
The Ombudsman recommends that:
1)

2)
3)

4)

USCIS, in coordination with DOS,
should increase the volume of
interviews and associated Refugee
Access Verification Unit (RAVU)
processing of CAM cases
USCIS should permit access to
counsel in CAM interviews
USCIS, in coordination with DOS,
should create a plain language,
comprehensive CAM “Information
Guide”
USCIS, in coordination with DOS,
should publish and regularly update
CAM case processing times

Further Actions Needed
The Ombudsman urges USCIS’ attention to
and support for the following further actions
needed to better meet the program’s
objectives:
1)

2)

3)

Augmentation of Resettlement
Support Center (RSC) Latin
America staff
Enhancement of safety
mechanisms for particularly
vulnerable qualifying children
through improvements in expedite
and safe shelter protocols
Establishment of RSC Latin
America website offering a
“Check Case Status” feature and
improvement of notification
protocols relating to approved
CAM parolees

4

 Under Section 452 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Ombudsman’s mandate is, inter
alia, “[t]o identify areas in which individuals and employers have problems in dealing with …
Citizenship and Immigration Services” and “[t]o the extent possible, to propose changes in the
administrative practices of … Citizenship and Immigration Services to mitigate [those]
problems….” 1 In 2016, the Ombudsman reviewed the Central American Minors Refugee/Parole
program established by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the U.S. Department of
State in late 2014.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In recent years, unprecedented numbers of unaccompanied children from the “Northern
Triangle” of Central America — El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras — have made the
difficult journey to the United States. 2 Many of these minors flee their home countries to escape
victimization, 3 only to endure further harm on the journey north in the form of extortion,
abduction, rape, or other exploitation.4
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), along with the U.S. Department of
State (DOS), launched the Central American Minors (CAM) Refugee/Parole program in
December 2014 to “…provide a safe, legal, and orderly alternative to [this] dangerous
journey.…” 5 Through CAM, parents lawfully present in the United States may apply for their
children at risk in the Northern Triangle countries to be considered for relocation to the United
States as refugees or parolees. 6 Unlike most refugee programs, CAM is an “in-country”
processing program, 7 meaning that the child applicants generally remain inside their home
1

Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) § 452(b), Pub. L. No. 107-296.
See CBP Webpage, “United States Border Patrol Southwest Family Unit Subject and Unaccompanied Alien
Children Apprehensions Fiscal Year 2016” (Oct. 18, 2016); https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-borderunaccompanied-children/fy-2016 (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
3
See UNHCR Report, “Children on the Run” at 6-7 (Mar. 2014); http://www.unhcr.org/aboutus/background/56fc266f4/children-on-the-run-full-report.html (accessed Aug. 22, 2016).
4
See “Review of the President’s Emergency Supplemental Request,” before the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, 113th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2014) (statement of DHS Secretary Johnson);
http://www.dhs.gov/news/2014/07/10/statement-secretary-homeland-security-jeh-johnson-senate-committeeappropriations (accessed Mar. 1, 2016); International Crisis Group Report, “Easy Prey: Criminal Violence and
Central American Migration” at 11-14 (Jul. 28, 2016); https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-america-caribbean/centralamerica/easy-prey-criminal-violence-and-central-american-migration (accessed Aug. 23, 2016); Amnesty
International Webpage, “Most Dangerous Journey: What Central American Migrants Face When They Try to Cross
the Border” (Feb. 20, 2014); http://blog.amnestyusa.org/americas/most-dangerous-journey-what-central-americanmigrants-face-when-they-try-to-cross-the-border/ (accessed Aug. 22, 2016).
5
DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Program for Minors in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras With
Parents Lawfully Present in the United States” (Nov. 14, 2014);
http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2014/234067.htm (accessed Aug. 22, 2016).
6
USCIS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM)” (Nov. 15, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/CAM (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
7
DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Program for Minors in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras with
Parents Lawfully Present in the United States” (Nov. 14, 2014);
http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2014/234067.htm (accessed Aug. 22, 2016).
2

5

 countries while their applications are processed. After the establishment of the CAM program,
some minors who might otherwise journey to the U.S. southern border may — through a
formalized process that includes security vetting — seek lawful relocation to the United States.
For the over 10,700 vulnerable children and family members seeking relocation or who have
already relocated through the program, 8 CAM is proving a vital lawful alternative to this
dangerous trek. Nonetheless, nearly two years after the program’s launch, concerns remain
regarding CAM’s implementation and current operations. 9 Accordingly, the Ombudsman
conducted an independent assessment of the program in the spring and summer of 2016.
As with all U.S. refugee programs, USCIS and DOS share authority over CAM, administering
separate but interlinked areas of the program. For example, through the DOS-contracted
Resettlement Support Center (RSC) in Latin America, DOS directs prescreening of CAM
applicants. 10 USCIS later interviews those applicants. 11 USCIS’ capacity to interview CAM
applicants depends in part on the pace of DOS-directed pre-screening as well as space
availability within the DOS-contracted facilities where USCIS interviews occur. 12
Due to such shared responsibilities, various “Issues of Concern” in this Recommendation
necessarily implicate facets of CAM outside USCIS authority. While the Ombudsman issues
formal recommendations exclusively to USCIS, 13 the bifurcated nature of this program dictates
that USCIS adoption of some proposals will require DOS action and cooperation. The
Ombudsman also recognizes that even those recommendations that lie squarely within USCIS’
scope of responsibility in the CAM program may have an impact on DOS responsibilities,
affirming interagency collaboration is critical to the success of the program.
With recognition of these operational complexities, the Ombudsman has identified the following
key issues of concern in CAM program operations:
1) Lengthy processing times;
2) Need for enhanced protection mechanisms for particularly vulnerable qualifying children;
3) Restrictive eligibility criteria;
4) Costs associated with DNA testing;
5) Uncertainty regarding program eligibility, application process, and case status;
6) Insufficient funding for resettlement agencies’ CAM-related activities;
7) Lack of access to counsel during CAM interviews; and

8

Information provided by USCIS (Dec. 19, 2016).
Information provided by stakeholders.
10
See DOS Webpages, “U.S. Refugee Admissions Program;” http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/admissions/ (accessed
Aug. 23, 2016); “U.S. Refugee Admissions Program Central American Minors Flowchart” (Jan. 22, 2015);
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/580e4274e58c624696efadc6/t/583c496a20099ed67c51f2ea/1480345963566/C
AM+Handout.pdf (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
11
See DOS Webpage, “U.S. Refugee Admissions Program Central American Minors Flowchart” (Jan. 22, 2015).
12
Information provided by USCIS (Nov. 21, 2016).
13
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) § 452(b)(3), Pub. L. No. 107-296.
9

6

 8) Barriers for CAM parolees, such as travel costs, lack of resettlement assistance, and
adjustment of status limitations.
After a complete review of the program, and based on extensive engagement with governmental,
nongovernmental, and intergovernmental groups in the United States, Mexico, and the Northern
Triangle, the Ombudsman recommends the following to USCIS:
1) USCIS, in coordination with DOS, should increase the volume of interviews and
associated Refugee Access Verification Unit (RAVU) processing of CAM cases.
2) USCIS should permit access to counsel in CAM interviews.
3) USCIS, in coordination with DOS, should create a plain language, comprehensive
CAM “Information Guide.”
4) USCIS, in coordination with DOS, should publish and regularly update CAM case
processing times.
The Ombudsman also urges USCIS’ attention to and support for a number of further actions
needed to better meet the program’s objectives. The actions suggested below are not formal
recommendations to USCIS, as they pertain to areas predominantly within DOS’ authority.
However, as these measures may bear upon USCIS processes or require USCIS cooperation,
they have been included.
These actions are:
1) Augmentation of RSC Latin America staff;
2) Enhancement of safety mechanisms for particularly vulnerable qualifying children
through improvements in expedite and safe shelter protocols; and
3) Establishment of an RSC Latin America website offering a “Check Case Status” feature
and improvement of notification protocols relating to approved CAM parolees.
Implementation of the above recommendations and further actions needed would substantially
strengthen CAM’s efficiency, safety protocol, accessibility, and overall program effectiveness.
METHODOLOGY
In preparing this report, the Ombudsman met with governmental, nongovernmental, and
intergovernmental agencies both domestically and abroad. In the United States, the Ombudsman
engaged with officials from USCIS; DOS’ Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
(PRM); U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP); U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE); DOS’ Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons; and the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID). The Ombudsman also discussed the program
with domestic CAM stakeholders, including over 30 representatives from 14 nongovernmental
and intergovernmental organizations, as well as “qualifying parents” — individuals residing in
the United States whose children live in the Northern Triangle and are seeking safe relocation to
the United States through CAM.

7

 In May 2016, the Ombudsman traveled to Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala to assess country
conditions and observe the program’s implementation in the region. The Ombudsman met with
U.S. government officials, host country government officials, and representatives of over 15
intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations during that assessment. These meetings
included discussions with USCIS’ Refugee Affairs Division (RAD) as well as the International
Organization for Migration (IOM), which operates the overseas RSC supporting CAM. The
Ombudsman observed RSC pre-screening interviews and USCIS interviews of CAM applicants.
The Ombudsman also met with a number of children and adults not participating in CAM but
who had fled homes in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras in pursuit of safety.
BACKGROUND
In recent years, record numbers of boys and girls — many of them 12 years old or younger 14 —
have made the hazardous journey, without parental accompaniment, from El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras to the U.S. southern border. 15 In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 CBP
apprehended 3,993 16 such “Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs).” 17 In FY 2014 that figure
surged to 51,705, a nearly 1300% increase in three years’ time. 18 Though apprehensions of
these minors dropped to 28,387 in FY 2015, 19 this decline stemmed in large measure from the
Mexican government’s increased interception of minors attempting to reach the United States,
rather than a decrease in the attempts themselves. 20 Despite Mexico’s heightened enforcement,
the number of Northern Triangle UACs apprehended by CBP grew to 46,893 in FY 2016, the
second-highest annual total on record. 21

14

See Pew Research Center Webpage, “Children 12 and under are fastest growing group of unaccompanied minors
at U.S. border” (Jul. 22, 2014); http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/22/children-12-and-under-are-fastestgrowing-group-of-unaccompanied-minors-at-u-s-border/ (accessed Aug. 23, 2016).
15
See CBP Webpage, “United States Border Patrol Southwest Family Unit Subject and Unaccompanied Alien
Children Apprehensions Fiscal Year 2016” (Oct. 18, 2016); https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-borderunaccompanied-children/fy-2016 (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
16
Id.
17
“UACs” are certain foreign national children without parental support and lawful immigration status. HSA § 462.
18
See CBP Webpage, “United States Border Patrol Southwest Family Unit Subject and Unaccompanied Alien
Children Apprehensions Fiscal Year 2016” (Oct. 18, 2016) https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-borderunaccompanied-children/fy-2016 (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
19
Id..
20
See, e.g., Congressional Research Service, “Unaccompanied Children from Central America: Foreign Policy
Considerations” at 26-28 (Apr. 11, 2016); https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43702.pdf (accessed Aug. 23, 2016).
21
See CBP Webpage, “United States Border Patrol Southwest Family Unit Subject and Unaccompanied Alien
Children Apprehensions Fiscal Year 2016.”

8

 Northern Triangle UACs Apprehended by CBP

51,705

60,000
40,000

28,387

20,805
20,000
0

3,304

4,444

3,933

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

46,893

10,146

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

Source: CBP Webpage, “United States Border Patrol Southwest Family Unit Subject and Unaccompanied Alien Children
Apprehensions Fiscal Year 2016” (Oct. 18, 2016) https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompaniedchildren/fy-2016 (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).

The factors triggering this continued surge of children are complex and interrelated. A prevalent
driver is the pervasive violence and crime in the countries of origin. 22 The most recent United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Global Study on Homicide identified Central
America, along with southern Africa, as suffering the highest homicide rate of any sub-region in
the world. 23 UNODC data also shows that in 2014 Honduras had the highest homicide rate of
any country, 24 while the International Crisis Group, a non-profit, non-governmental organization
that carries out field research on violent conflict and advances policies to prevent, mitigate or
resolve conflict, found that in 2015, El Salvador eclipsed all other nations in this measure. 25 The
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), in a 2014 report focusing on crimes against children,
determined that El Salvador and Guatemala were the two countries with the highest homicide
rates of children under 18. 26

22

See U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Central America: Information on Migration of Unaccompanied
Children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras” at 4, GAO-15-362 (Feb. 2015);
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668749.pdf (accessed Aug. 23, 2016).
23
See UNODC Report, “Global Study on Homicide 2013” at 12 (2014);
https://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf (accessed Aug. 23,
2016).
24
See UNODC Webpage, “Intentional homicide, counts and rates per 100,000 population;”
https://data.unodc.org/#state:1 (accessed Aug. 23, 2016).
25
International Crisis Group Report, “Easy Prey: Criminal Violence and Central American Migration” at 1 (Jul. 28,
2016); https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-america-caribbean/central-america/easy-prey-criminal-violence-andcentral-american-migration (accessed Aug. 23, 2016).
26
UNICEF Report, “Hidden in Plain Sight: A statistical analysis of violence against children” at 36 (2014);
http://files.unicef.org/publications/files/Hidden_in_plain_sight_statistical_analysis_EN_3_Sept_2014.pdf (accessed
Aug. 23, 2016).

9

 Organized criminal actors have fueled this violence and criminal activity. 27 The Northern
Triangle’s two most prominent criminal gangs — Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, and the 18th
Street Gang, or Barrio 18 — have an extensive presence in the region and endanger broad
segments of the population through theft, assault, extortion, kidnapping, human trafficking,
murder, and rape. 28 Children are frequent MS-13 and Barrio 18 victims. 29 Gang members have
been known to kill children who refuse to join their ranks 30 and force “…girls as young as 11
years old…” to become “…sex slaves.” 31 Altogether, “[t]his level of violence makes daily living
in much of the Northern Triangle a potentially fatal gamble.” 32
Such victimization compels many children to flee the Northern Triangle. 33 A 2015 Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report examined the rise in UACs from the Northern Triangle
crossing the U.S. southern border. 34 The report presented the results of GAO’s survey of nine
U.S. government officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USAID, and
DOS — stationed in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras — concerning the causes of this
surge. 35 All nine identified violence and crime as drivers. 36 The United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which interviewed 404 unaccompanied children who
arrived in the United States from the Northern Triangle, lent support to GAO’s conclusion. 37
UNHCR found that 66% of the interviewed children who fled El Salvador “cited violence by
organized armed criminal actors as a primary motivation for leaving …,” while 44% of the
interviewed children from Honduras “were threatened with or were victims of violence by
organized armed criminal actors.” 38 Another study conducted in 2015 study found 65% of
27

See, e.g., Congressional Research Service, “Unaccompanied Alien Children: Potential
Factors Contributing to Recent Immigration” at 7-9 (Jul. 3, 2014); https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43628.pdf
(accessed Aug. 23, 2016).
28
See Foreign Policy Webpage, “Central America’s Gangs Are All Grown Up” (Jan. 19, 2016);
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/19/central-americas-gangs-are-all-grown-up/ (accessed Aug. 23, 2016); see also
Congressional Research Service, “Unaccompanied Alien Children: Potential
Factors Contributing to Recent Immigration” at 7-9; see generally U.S. Department of State Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices for 2015, El Salvador,
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2015&dlid=253013 (accessed Oct. 21,
2016); U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015, Honduras,
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2015&dlid=253023 (accessed Oct. 21,
2016); U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015, Guatemala,
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2015&dlid=253017 (accessed Oct. 21, 2016).
29
See, e.g., Human Rights First, “Closed Doors: Mexico’s Failure to Protect Central American Refugee and Migrant
Children” at 19 (Mar. 2016); https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/mexico0316web_0.pdf (accessed
Oct. 2, 2016).
30
Foreign Policy Webpage, “Central America’s Gangs Are All Grown Up” (Jan. 19, 2016).
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
See, e.g., Congressional Research Service, “Unaccompanied Alien Children: Potential
Factors Contributing to Recent Immigration” at 4; UNHCR Report, “Children on the Run” at 6-7 (Mar. 2014).
34
U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Central America: Information on Migration of Unaccompanied
Children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras” GAO-15-362 (Feb. 2015);
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668749.pdf (accessed Aug. 23, 2016).
35
See U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Central America: Information on Migration of Unaccompanied
Children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras” at 4.
36
Id.
37
UNHCR Report, “Children on the Run” at 5 (Mar. 2014).
38
UNHCR Report, “Children on the Run” at 9-10 (Mar. 2014).

10

 children ages 10 to 17 who were deported from Mexico to Honduras indicated violence was the
“main reason” for their flight. 39
Violence, of course, is not the only factor. Economic concerns, including poverty and the
absence of economic opportunity, represented the other driver cited by all nine officials surveyed
in the GAO report. 40 The U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
estimated that as of 2014, approximately 68% of the Guatemalan population and 42% of the
Salvadoran population lived in poverty, while roughly 74% of the Honduran population lived in
poverty as of 2013. 41 Additional factors influencing children’s migration include the desire to
reunify with family members residing in the United States and to escape domestic abuse. 42
Thus, multiple factors often form the motivation for this perilous journey. 43 For example, of the
104 Salvadoran children UNHCR interviewed for its “Children on the Run” report, 69 of them
pointed to “organized armed criminal actors” as a principal reason for flight from their countries
of origin. 44 But only 12 of those 69 cited such violence as the exclusive reason. 45
Though a substantial number of youth flee the Northern Triangle to escape violence and abuse,
they often endure further victimization during the flight itself. 46 Amnesty International reports
that “…as many as six in ten migrant women and girls are raped on the journey.” 47 Smuggling
networks sometimes force them into prostitution in Mexico, before reaching their presumed
destination. 48 Criminal groups such as the Zeta Cartel also carry out abductions of migrants in
Mexico. 49 In a March 2016 report, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed
concern over the disappearance of child migrants in Mexico. 50

39

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, “Childhood and Migration in Central and North America: Causes,
Policies, Practices and Challenges” (Feb. 2015);
http://cgrs.uchastings.edu/sites/default/files/Childhood_Migration_HumanRights_FullBook_English.pdf (accessed
Aug. 23, 2016).
40
See U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Central America: Information on Migration of Unaccompanied
Children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras” at 4.
41
U.N Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean Briefing Paper, “Social Panorama of Latin
America” at 17-18 (2015); http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/39964/1/S1600226_en.pdf (accessed
Aug. 23, 2016).
42
See U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Central America: Information on Migration of Unaccompanied
Children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras” at 5-6.
43
See, e.g., UNHCR Report, “Children on the Run” at 9 (Mar. 2014).
44
Id.
45
Id.
46
See, e,g., “Review of the President’s Emergency Supplemental Request” before the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, 113th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2014) (statement of DHS Secretary Johnson);
http://www.dhs.gov/news/2014/07/10/statement-secretary-homeland-security-jeh-johnson-senate-committeeappropriations (accessed Mar. 1, 2016).
47
Amnesty International Webpage, “Most Dangerous Journey: What Central American Migrants Face When They
Try to Cross the Border” (Feb. 20, 2014); http://blog.amnestyusa.org/americas/most-dangerous-journey-whatcentral-american-migrants-face-when-they-try-to-cross-the-border/ (accessed Aug. 22, 2016).
48
International Crisis Group Report, “Easy Prey: Criminal Violence and Central American Migration” at 14.
49
See. e.g., Congressional Research Service, “Unaccompanied Children from Central America: Foreign Policy
Considerations” at 27.
50
See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Report, “The Human Rights Situation in Mexico” at 87 (Dec.
31, 2015); http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Mexico2016-en.pdf (accessed Aug. 23, 2016).

11

 Even children who do not fall victim to crimes like abduction or trafficking often are stopped
prior to reaching the United States. 51 Under its “Southern Border” plan introduced in July 2014
with the support of the U.S. government, the Mexican government significantly strengthened its
immigration enforcement activities, including sharply increased apprehensions on its own
southern border with Guatemala and along established migration routes. 52 This has resulted in
dramatically higher apprehension of Northern Triangle nationals in Mexico, from 102,000 in FY
2014 to 167,000 in FY 2015, 53 including the apprehension — and subsequent removal — of over
30,000 minors. 54
To date, the escalation of immigration enforcement in Mexico has outpaced its capacity for
humanitarian protection, compromising the proper screening of children from Northern Triangle
countries and consequently limiting access to humanitarian relief for those fleeing persecution. 55
Stakeholders report the Instituto Nacional de Migración (National Institute of Migration), which
is responsible for immigration enforcement in Mexico, lacks adequate screening capacity and
consistent protocols for identifying children with bona fide humanitarian protection claims. 56
Meanwhile, the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance, which adjudicates asylum
applications, is severely understaffed, having at the time of the Ombudsman’s in-country
assessment only 15 asylum officers nationwide as of May 2016. 57 Moreover, despite Mexican
law requiring prompt transfer of unaccompanied children into shelters, these minors are often
reportedly placed in detention centers occupied by adults. 58 In view of such constraints, children
with legitimate protection claims may find it challenging to obtain relief in Mexico.
At the same time, recent efforts have signaled Mexico’s willingness to enhance its humanitarian
protection system. In 2015, Mexico granted humanitarian visas to approximately 1,150 Northern
Triangle nationals, compared to only 483 such visas issued in 2014. 59 Also, in the July 2016 San
Jose Action Statement, a product of the UNHCR Roundtable on Protections Needs in the
Northern Triangle of Central America, 60 Mexico committed to “[i]ncreasing the capacity of the
international protection system in Mexico . . . through strengthening the presence of the Mexican
Commission for Refugee Aid (COMAR) throughout the country, with UNHCR’s support.” 61
51

See. e.g., Congressional Research Service, “Mexico: Background and U.S. Relations” at 22 (Mar. 30, 2016);
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42917.pdf (accessed Aug. 23, 2016).
52
See Congressional Research Service, “Mexico: Background and U.S. Relations” at 22.
53
Congressional Research Service, “Unaccompanied Children from Central America: Foreign Policy
Considerations” at 9.
54
Congressional Research Service, “Unaccompanied Children from Central America: Foreign Policy
Considerations” at 27.
55
Information provided by stakeholders.
56
Id.
57
Information provided by stakeholders; see also Congressional Research Service, “Unaccompanied Children from
Central America: Foreign Policy Considerations” at 28.
58
See., e.g., Georgetown Law Human Rights Institute, “The Cost of Stemming The Tide, How Immigration
Enforcement Practices in Southern Mexico Limit Migrant Children’s Access To International Protection” at 28-31
(Apr. 13, 2015); https://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/centers-institutes/human-rights-institute/factfinding/upload/HRI-Fact-Finding-Report-Stemming-the-Tide-Web-PDF_English.pdf (accessed Aug. 23, 2016).
59
Congressional Research Service, “Mexico’s Recent Immigration Enforcement Efforts” (Mar. 9, 2016);
http://www.centerforhumanrights.org/PFS_Petition/Ex18_CRS_PFS_Report030916.pdf (accessed Oct. 20, 2016).
60
Addressed in the CAM in Context section of this Recommendation.
61
UNHCR, “San Jose Action Statement” at 6-7 (Jul. 7, 2016); http://www.refworld.org/docid/57a8a4854.html
(accessed Oct. 6, 2016) (emphasis in original). Prior to these developments, Mexico enacted legislation in 2010

12

 The U.S. government, Northern Triangle governments, and intergovernmental organizations
have noted the humanitarian dimensions of the situation in the Northern Triangle and the plight
of unaccompanied children fleeing the region. DHS Secretary Jeh C. Johnson has referred to
conditions in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras as a “humanitarian crisis.” 62 The
governments of these nations have proclaimed their youth exodus, specifically, an “immigration
crisis.” 63 IOM echoed this judgment, describing the displacement of thousands of minors from
the region as a “child migration crisis.” 64 There is widespread recognition that the threats facing
these children — whether organized criminal actors targeting them in their home countries or the
dangers present during their journey north — represent an urgent humanitarian challenge.

ESTABLISHMENT OF CAM
CAM constitutes a significant component of the U.S. government’s response to the abovedescribed humanitarian challenge. USCIS and DOS established CAM in December 2014 “…to
provide a safe, legal, and orderly alternative to the dangerous journey that some children are
currently undertaking to the United States.” 65 Under this program, “qualifying parents” who live
in the United States and who have “qualifying children” living in the Northern Triangle may
initiate an application process through which these children may seek to relocate to the United
States as either refugees or parolees. 66
This makes CAM the most recent in a decades-long tradition of U.S. refugee programs offering
parole to some applicants. 67 From 1988 through 2011, for example, the legacy Immigration and
establishing a form of “complementary protection,” defined by UNHCR as “protections which states afford people
who are at risk of serious human rights violations in their country of origin, but who do not qualify as ‘refugees’
under the 1951 Refugee Convention …” See UNHCR Webpage, “New Issues in Refugee Research” at 1 (May
2012); http://www.unhcr.org/4fc872719.pdf (accessed Dec. 7, 2016).
62
DHS Webpage, “Statement by Secretary Jeh C. Johnson on Southwest Border Security and Immigration
Enforcement Priorities” (Jul. 7, 2016); https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/07/07/statement-secretary-johnsonsouthwest-border-security-and-immigration-enforcement (accessed Aug. 23, 2016).
63
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, “Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity in The Northern Triangle: A Road
Map” at i (Sep. 2014); http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=39224238 (accessed Aug. 23,
2016).
64
IOM Webpage, “US Supports IOM Aid to Returned Migrant Children, Families in Honduras” (Feb. 20, 2015);
https://www.iom.int/news/us-supports-iom-aid-returned-migrant-children-families-honduras (accessed Aug. 23,
2016).
65
DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Program for Minors in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras With
Parents Lawfully Present in the United States” (Nov. 14, 2014);
http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2014/234067.htm (accessed Oct. 20, 2016).
66
See USCIS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and
Guatemala (Central American Minors – CAM)” (Nov. 15, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/CAM (accessed Dec. 13,
2016).
67
See “Eroding the Law and Diverting Taxpayer Resources: An Examination of the Administration’s Central
American Minors Refugee/Parole Program” before the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest of
the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 2nd Sess. 3 (2015) (written statement of Joseph Langlois,
Associate Director, Refuge, Asylum And International Operations Directorate, United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services); https://www.uscis.gov/tools/resources-congress/presentations-and-reports/eroding-law-anddiverting-taxpayer-resources-examination-administrations-central-senate-committee-judiciary-april-2015-uscisassociate-director-joseph-langlois (accessed Aug. 23, 2016).

13

 Naturalization Service (INS) and, subsequently, USCIS extended parole to certain applicants
from the former Soviet Union found not to qualify for refugee status. 68 Likewise, from 1989 to
1999, INS provided parole to various Vietnamese applicants who did not qualify for refugee
status through the Orderly Departure Program. 69 As of December 16, 2016, over 960 vulnerable
children and family members have already relocated to safety in the United States through
CAM’s parole option. 70 This dual refugee/parole framework strengthens the program’s
effectiveness as an orderly and legal alternative to hazardous journeys to and across the U.S.
border.
As CAM is an in-country processing program, 71 qualifying children generally undergo the entire
application process, including the prescreening interview, DNA testing, and USCIS interview, in
their home countries. Only upon the successful completion of the application process, which
mandates thorough security vetting, can these children relocate through CAM to the United
States. 72
A more thorough description of the CAM eligibility criteria and application process, including
program mechanisms for protecting the safety of particularly vulnerable qualifying children, is
found in Appendix I. 73

CAM IN CONTEXT: U.S. AND REGIONAL RESPONSE TO THE NORTHERN
TRIANGLE MIGRATION CRISIS
CAM is a vital lawful alternative to the dangerous journey to U.S. southern border made by
many Northern Triangle children. Yet it is only one part of a larger set of programs and policies
— some of which the United States and foreign governments have begun to develop but have not
yet implemented — necessary to address the Northern Triangle’s displacement crisis. These
programs and policies lie outside the scope of this Recommendation. However, to illustrate
efforts beyond CAM to address this crisis and to highlight opportunities for greater U.S. policy
alignment to fully achieve the nation’s protection objectives for deserving Northern Triangle
nationals, this section briefly examines three areas: 1) the announced Protection Transfer
Arrangement and related in-country refugee referral system for Northern Triangle nationals; 2)
the growing regional response to the crisis; and 3) relevant U.S. domestic policies and programs.
1) Announced refugee processing programs in Central America
Although CAM focuses on the protection of vulnerable minors in the region, the recent surge in
departures from the Northern Triangle to the United States has not been confined to children.
68

Id.
Id.
70
Information provided by USCIS (Dec. 19, 2016).
71
See DOS Webpage, “Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2016” (Oct. 1, 2015);
http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/docsforcongress/247770.htm (accessed Aug. 23, 2016).
72
See DOS Webpages, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Program for Minors in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras
With Parents Lawfully Present in the United States” (Nov. 14, 2014);
“U.S. Refugee Admissions Program Central American Minors Flowchart” (Jan. 22, 2015).
73
As the remainder of this Recommendation references information provided in Appendix I, readers unfamiliar with
program criteria and procedures may wish to read it before proceeding.
69

14

 Adults have also fled in vast numbers. 74 The volume of individuals apprehended at the U.S.
southwest border as part of family units — that is, parents or guardians traveling together with
their children — soared from 14,855 total individuals in FY 2013 to 70,407 individuals from the
Northern Triangle alone in FY 2016. 75
In light of such large-scale movement of people with potential protection needs extending
beyond CAM’s mandate, in July 2016 the U.S. government noted the following:
“…what we have seen is that our current efforts to date have been insufficient to address the
number of people who may have legitimate refugee claims, and there are insufficient pathways
for those people to present their claims for adjudication.” 76
In the same statement, the U.S. government announced new developments concerning its refugee
processing operations in Central America. 77 First, under a Protection Transfer Arrangement
(PTA) with Costa Rica and in conjunction with UNHCR and IOM, “Costa Rica will serve as a
temporary host site for [Northern Triangle] applicants awaiting refugee processing and onward
resettlement to the United States or another third country.” 78 Applicants must undergo prescreening in their countries of origin before gaining eligibility to relocate to Costa Rica through
the PTA. 79 Assistant Secretary for PRM Anne Richards noted that “[t]he PTA being set up in
Costa Rica is aiming to host 200 individuals at a time for a period of six months.” 80 Second, for
Northern Triangle cases “not requiring immediate transfer to Costa Rica,” the U.S. government
will implement an “in-country referral program” through which additional Northern Triangle
applicants may seek safe relocation to the United States as refugees. 81
The Ombudsman welcomes and will monitor the establishment of these programs, which will
extend needed protection to at-risk Northern Triangle nationals. In addition, in anticipation of
the full implementation and continued growth of existing and announced U.S. refugee programs
in Central America, the Ombudsman emphasizes the need for increasing the U.S. refugee
admissions ceiling for the Latin America and Caribbean region, set at only 5,000 for FY 2017, 82
in future.
2) Regional response to the Northern Triangle migration crisis
The United States is not alone in the Western Hemisphere in experiencing a significant wave of
asylum seekers. UNHCR indicates that the number of documented asylum applications by
74

See, e.g., CBP Webpage, “United States Border Patrol Southwest Family Unit Subject and Unaccompanied Alien
Children Apprehensions Fiscal Year 2016” (Oct. 18, 2016); https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-borderunaccompanied-children/fy-2016 (accessed Dec. 13, 2016); UNHCR, “Regional Response to the Northern Triangle
of Central America Situation” at 19 (Jun. 2016); http://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/UNHCR%20%20NTCA%20Situation%20Supplementary%20Appeal%20-%20June%202016.pdf (accessed Aug. 24, 2016).
75
Id.
76
“On-The-Record White House Press Call on Central American Refugee Processing” (Jul. 26, 2016) (on file with
the Ombudsman).
77
Id.
78
Id.
79
Id.
80
Id.
81
Id.
82
White House Webpage, Presidential Determination -- Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2017 (Sep. 28, 2016);
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/28/presidential-determination-refugee-admissions-fiscal-year2017 (accessed Oct. 19, 2016).

15

 Northern Triangle citizens in 2015 represented an increase of more than 881% from 2005. 83 For
example, in 2015, there were 164% more asylum seekers in Mexico than in 2013. 84 Costa Rica
took in 176% more asylum claims in 2015 than two years prior. 85 Belize’s asylum application
receipt volume in 2015 was 1000% greater than the previous year’s total. 86 Likewise, Panama
and Nicaragua also have recently seen marked increases in asylum requests. 87 These influxes of
displaced Northern Triangle citizens seeking humanitarian protection reveal a regional
phenomenon that requires a cooperative regional response which must include leading efforts by
the United States.
Upon reflection of the regional scope of these outflows, UNHCR convened a “Roundtable on
Protection Needs in the Northern Triangle of Central America” in July 2016 in Costa Rica 88 to
examine and formulate a “regional framework” for addressing the humanitarian challenges this
displacement presents. 89 Roundtable participants included nongovernmental organizations,
intergovernmental organizations such as the World Bank and Inter-American Development
Bank, and senior government representatives from the United States, Mexico, Canada, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Panama. 90
In his opening remarks at the Roundtable, UNHCR’s High Commissioner noted that “[f]orced
displacement is an increasingly determining factor in the regional migration from and within the
Northern Triangle of Central America. It is a regional situation requiring a regional response.” 91
In the San Jose Action Statement produced by participating governments in connection with this
Roundtable, they recognized “the need for comprehensive actions to enhance protection and
respond to the most urgent needs of asylum seekers, refugees, internally displaced persons
(IDPs), migrants and returnees with protection needs as well as other affected populations in the
Northern Triangle of Central America…” and that measures taken by these nations “need to be

83

UNHCR Discussion Paper, “Call to Action: Protection Needs in the Northern Triangle of Central America,
UNHCR, Discussion Paper (Draft), A Proposal for a Strategic Regional Response” at 4;
https://s3.amazonaws.com/unhcrsharedmedia/2016/2016-07-06-NTCAroundtable/CalltoActionDiscussionPaper12June2016cleanfinal-draft.docx (accessed Aug. 24, 2016).
84
UNHCR Webpage, “UNHCR calls for urgent action as Central America asylum claims soar” (Apr. 5, 2016)
http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/latest/2016/4/5703ab396/unhcr-calls-urgent-action-central-america-asylumclaims-soar.html (accessed Aug. 24, 2016).
85
Id.
86
Id.
87
Id.
88
UNHCR Webpage, “High-Level Roundtable 6-7 July 2016: ‘Call to Action: Protection Needs in the Northern
Triangle of Central America” (Jun. 30, 2016); http://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2016/6/5775200d4/high-levelroundtable-6-7-july-2016-call-action-protection-needs-northern.html (accessed Aug. 24, 2016).
89
UNHCR Discussion Paper, “Call to Action: Protection Needs in the Northern Triangle of Central America,
UNHCR, Discussion Paper (Draft), A Proposal for a Strategic Regional Response” at 12.
90
UNHCR Webpages, “High-Level Roundtable 6-7 July 2016: ‘Call to Action: Protection Needs in the Northern
Triangle of Central America” (Jun. 30, 2016); “A Call to Action: Protection in the Northern Triangle of Central
America – Proposal for a regional response – Concept Paper” at 3;
http://www.acnur.org/fileadmin/scripts/doc.php?file=fileadmin/Documentos/BDL/2016/10645 (accessed Aug. 24,
2016).
91
UNHCR Webpage, “Opening Remarks” at 3 (Jul. 6, 2016);
http://www.acnur.org/t3/fileadmin/scripts/doc.php?file=t3/fileadmin/Documentos/BDL/2016/10691 (accessed Aug.
24, 2016).

16

 reinforced by cooperation at regional and international levels with the support of relevant states,
the UN system … as well as civil society organizations …” 92
Thus, just as CAM is one component of a larger protection strategy being developed by the
United States, that response in turn is one part of a growing regional approach to this
humanitarian crisis.
3) U.S. domestic policies and programs relevant to Central American populations
Stakeholders have expressed concern not only over elements of CAM’s implementation abroad,
but also over certain domestic U.S. protection policies that impact Northern Triangle
populations. Key among these is DHS’ continued practice of family detention, under which ICE
temporarily holds certain mothers and children in “family residential centers” in the United
States. 93 The DHS Advisory Committee on Family Residential Centers, appointed by DHS
Secretary Johnson, has observed in its “Consolidated Draft Subcommittees’ Recommendations
Report” that “the vast majority of families…subjected to family detention are fleeing the
Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.” 94 Stakeholders contend
that the harmful psychological toll of detention conditions undermines the capacity of
traumatized Northern Triangle family members to properly present their asylum claims and
obtain protection. 95 In its draft report, the Advisory Committee cited a host of concerns with the
practice of family detention, concluding that “DHS should discontinue the general use of family
detention, reserving it for rare cases…following an individualized assessment of the need to
detain because of danger or flight risk that cannot be mitigated by conditions of release.” 96
Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which already serves as a vital protection for over 200,000
Salvadorans and Hondurans in the United States (who received this relief following natural
disasters in their home countries), 97 also features in stakeholder dialogue concerning protection
mechanisms for Northern Triangle nationals. Stakeholders have called for a new TPS
designation for El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala as an additional prong of the U.S.
government’s response to the region’s humanitarian crisis. 98 At the same time, there is concern

92

UNHCR, San Jose Action Statement (Jul. 7, 2016); http://www.refworld.org/docid/57a8a4854.html (accessed
Oct. 6, 2016).
93
See generally DHS Advisory Committee on Family Residential Centers, ACFRC Consolidated Draft
Subcommittees’ Recommendation Report, “Report of the DHS Advisory Committee on Family Residential Centers”
(Sep. 30, 2016); https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report/2016/ACFRC-sc-16093.pdf (accessed
Oct. 6, 2016).
94
See DHS Advisory Committee on Family Residential Centers, ACFRC Consolidated Draft Subcommittees’
Recommendation Report, “Report of the DHS Advisory Committee on Family Residential Centers” at 6.
95
See, e.g., CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project Letter, “Re: Ongoing Concerns Regarding the Detention of
Fast-Track Removal of Children and Mothers Experiencing Symptoms of Trauma” at 2 (Mar. 28, 2016);
http://www.aila.org/advo-media/press-releases/2016/cara-crcl-complaint-concerns-regarding-detention (accessed
Oct. 6, 2016).
96
See DHS Advisory Committee on Family Residential Centers, ACFRC Consolidated Draft Subcommittees’
Recommendation Report, “Report of the DHS Advisory Committee on Family Residential Centers” at 2
97
See Congressional Research Service, “Temporary Protected Status: Current Immigration Policy and Issues” at 4,
8-9 (Feb. 18, 2016); https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RS20844.pdf (accessed Aug. 28, 2016).
98
See, e.g., Refugees International, “Northern Triangle Temporary Protected Status National Letter” (Jan. 25, 2016);
http://www.refugeesinternational.org/advocacy-letters-1/2016/2/1/northern-triangle-temporary-protected-statusnational-letter (accessed Oct. 19, 2016).

17

 that TPS does not lead to legal permanent residence, leaving individuals under this status without
key legal safeguards accorded to permanent residents. 99
Finally, a substantial backlog of pending asylum cases has developed in both the U.S.
immigration courts and at USCIS asylum offices, meaning that Northern Triangle nationals
seeking asylum in the United States often must wait years before attending a USCIS asylum
interview or individual hearing before an immigration judge. 100 During these lengthy waits,
asylum seekers frequently remain separated from family members who remain outside the
United States and suffer mental health consequences related to the delays. 101
While this Recommendation aims to identify measures that would make CAM more effective,
CAM alone cannot meet the scale and scope of the crisis.

POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS IN CAM
The Ombudsman commends a number of positive developments in the CAM program that under
USCIS and DOS’ administration have bolstered CAM’s reach, efficiency, and protection
protocol:
1. Expansion of eligibility criteria for in-Country family members of qualifying
children
As noted in Appendix I, in November 2016 the U.S. government began implementing an
expansion in the categories of family members of qualifying children eligible to participate in
CAM. 102 This makes CAM available to a broader group of individuals who need protection and
will more effectively unify the families of qualifying children. Though this development does
not address certain segments of vulnerable children in the Northern Triangle that remain
ineligible for CAM, the Ombudsman welcomes this expansion of CAM’s protection radius.
2. Increase in CAM receipts
DOS has experienced a significant increase in receipts of Form DS-7699, Affidavit of
Relationship (AOR) for Minors Who Are Nationals of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras
(CAM-AOR) since the program’s establishment. By December 12, 2016, the total number of
filed CAM-AORs amounted to 9,916 cases. 103 Although challenges persist in educating the
99

See Claire Bergeron, “Temporary Protected Status after 25 Years: Addressing the Challenge of Long-Term
‘Temporary’ Residents and Strengthening a Centerpiece of US Humanitarian Protection”
JMHS Volume 2 Number 1 (2014): 22-43, at 30-32; jmhs.cmsny.org/index.php/jmhs/article/download/23/17
(accessed Oct. 6, 2016).
100
See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2016, at 13-17 (describing the factors that have contributed to the worsening
asylum backlog including high volumes of requests for credible and reasonable fear determinations and a substantial
rise in new affirmative asylum applications); see generally Human Rights First, “In the Balance: Backlogs Delay
Protection in the U.S. Asylum and Immigration Court Systems” (Apr. 16, 2016);
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/HRF-In-The-Balance.pdf (accessed Oct. 6, 2016).
101
See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2015, at 60-61; see Human Rights First, “In the Balance: Backlogs Delay
Protection in the U.S. Asylum and Immigration Court Systems” at 10-14.
102
DOS Webpage, “Expansion of the Central American Minors (CAM) Program” (Nov. 15, 2016);
http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/cam/index.htm (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
103
Information provided by USCIS (Dec. 19, 2016).

18

 community about eligibility for the CAM of their eligibility for the program, 104 the growth in
these receipts indicates increased awareness of the program.
3. Rise in volume of RSC pre-screenings and USCIS interviews of CAM cases
The RSC in Latin America and USCIS have increased the volume of CAM case pre-screenings
and USCIS interviews. In the first quarter of FY 2016, USCIS conducted interviews in 508
CAM cases, which represented virtually all prescreened cases at that time. 105 In contrast, during
the third quarter of FY 2016, USCIS interviewed 2,009 CAM cases — which necessarily also
were prescreened by the RSC — representing a nearly 400% increase from two quarters prior. 106
Moreover, USCIS projected it would continue to increase CAM interviews, conducting 1,986
interviews in the fourth quarter of FY 2016 and 1,963 in the first quarter of FY 2017. 107 USCIS
anticipated that it would interview 80% of CAM applicants by the close of the second quarter of
FY 2017. 108 Although higher volumes of RSC pre-screenings and USCIS interviews are still
needed to shorten the CAM processing timeframe given the dangers facing qualifying children
applying for protection while in their home country, the Ombudsman commends the increase in
interviews.
4. concurrent performance of certain CAM application processing stages
DOS and USCIS are now initiating and conducting certain stages of the CAM application
process, such as RAVU and DNA testing, concurrently rather than sequentially. 109 Once USCIS
has completed RAVU, a case may proceed to the USCIS interview prior to the receipt of DNA
test results. 110 USCIS can then make conditional decisions contingent on DNA verification. 111
Such concurrent processing marks a significant enhancement to program efficiency. Because
DNA tests must still confirm the claimed biological relationships before USCIS issues final
approvals, this enhancement does not compromise program integrity.
5. Institution of Best Interests Assessments
The RSC’s use of “Best Interests Assessments” for certain qualifying children 112 represents
another positive program development. Best Interests Assessments provide the program with a
valuable mechanism for helping safeguard particularly vulnerable qualifying children. While
many qualifying children may need enhanced resources over and above these assessments, Best
Interests Assessments have the potential to address some of the key risk factors confronting these
minors.

104

Information provided by stakeholders.
Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 14 and Nov. 21, 2016).
106
Information provided by USCIS (Sep. 28, 2016).
107
Id.
108
Information provided by USCIS (Dec. 19, 2016).
109
Information provided by USCIS (Sep. 28, 2016).
110
Id.
111
Id.
112
Information provided by DOS (May 2, 2016); Information provided by RSC (May 17 and Aug. 3, 2016).
105

19

 KEY ISSUES OF CONCERN REGARDING CAM
The Ombudsman recognizes CAM as an effective protection measure for eligible Northern
Triangle youth to travel to the United States to be reunited with family. However, certain
programmatic issues remain and are discussed below. Given CAM’s interagency structure, some
of those issues are necessarily outside of USCIS’ purview.
1. Lengthy processing times
As of August 22, 2016, the average processing time for a CAM case — from the date of the
CAM-AOR’s receipt by the resettlement agency to the date of arrival of CAM applicants in the
United States — is 410 days for refugees and 402 days for parolees. 113 CAM processing times
are approximately twice as fast as average U.S. refugee case processing times worldwide, 114
almost all of which are being processed in third countries. However, CAM processing times
have grown as the program has expanded. 115
It is important to note that the processing time measure cited here encompasses delays related to
a variety of actors and factors, including financial hardships endured by qualifying parents, who
may require extended time to gather the funds necessary to pay DNA testing costs or, in the case
of parolees, to cover the costs of travel to the United States. Moreover, stakeholders
acknowledge that the CAM timeframe remains significantly faster than for similar refugee
programs. 116
Notwithstanding these considerations, processing times are overly long. Because CAM is an incountry processing program and applications are processed in a region beset by violence,
qualifying children continue to be subject to substantial risks while awaiting resolution of their
cases. 117 Indeed, some qualifying parents have shared that their children receive threats on a
daily basis. 118
For many qualifying children, the above-cited timeframe does not represent the full waiting
period. This is because, as a result of insufficient funding for resettlement agencies working on
CAM cases, various agencies have reported lengthy waiting periods before potential qualifying
parents are able to submit CAM-AORs. 119 The longest waiting period reported by stakeholders
to the Ombudsman is 12 months. 120 This raises the prospect of an end-to-end timeframe, taking
into account both affiliate office backlogs and CAM processing times, of over two years for
some potentially eligible children.

113

Information provided by USCIS (Sep. 28, 2016).
Ombudsman Annual Conference 2016, “Regional Refugee Resettlement Issues and the Central American Minors
Program Panel” (Dec. 6, 2016).
115
As of March 21, 2016, the average processing time, averaging parolee and refugee arrivals together, was 331
days. Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 14, 2016).
116
Information provided by stakeholders.
117
Id.
118
Id.
119
Id.
120
Id.
114

20

 2. Need for enhanced protection mechanisms for particularly vulnerable qualifying
children
The special safety procedures described in Appendix I are vital to the protection of certain
particularly vulnerable qualifying children. Two of these procedures — case expedites and
shelter referrals — need enhancements to offer sufficient protection to CAM applicants.
Some stakeholders have noted the absence of clear, specific protocols guiding the submission of
CAM expedite requests. 121 In 2011, PRM published a Fact Sheet with guidance on expedited
processing for refugee cases generally. 122 This document, however, does not include
information specific to CAM and the program’s in-country processing system, with its
heightened need for efficiency in removing the qualifying individual(s) from sources of danger.
Stakeholders also have observed a lack of uniform notification regarding the outcomes of
expedite requests. 123 The lack of clear protocols and follow-up communication can leave
stakeholders without a firm understanding of: 1) how to appropriately seek expedition of
deserving CAM cases; 2) whether expedite requests have been granted; and 3) the impact of the
expedite, in terms of processing speed, on the case.
Moreover, though the RSC refers certain vulnerable qualifying children to in-country
government-operated shelters, to date this referral mechanism reportedly has proven
unsuccessful. Stakeholders have expressed concern that shelters in El Salvador, the country
where the substantial majority of pending qualifying children live, are unable to house minors for
the duration of the CAM application process. 124 In light of the minors’ urgent protection needs,
the absence of a broadly-employed, effective safe shelter system leaves a sizable gap in CAM’s
safety protocol.
3. Restrictive eligibility criteria
Stakeholders have expressed concern that CAM eligibility criteria are too limiting, leaving other
vulnerable Northern Triangle children, as well as their family members, without access to the
program. 125 The recent expansion of eligibility criteria 126 helps address this. However, other
minors who face persecution and other dangerous conditions in the Northern Triangle still cannot
access CAM, prompting stakeholders to advocate for additional expansions to the program. 127
121

Id.
DOS Webpage, “Expedited Protection and Resettlement of Refugees” (Oct. 24, 2011);.
123
Information provided by stakeholders.
124
Id.
125
Id.
126
Under this expansion, certain in-country caretakers, biological parents of qualifying children who are not married
to the Qualifying Parents, and children of qualifying parents — irrespective of age and marital status — are able to
participate in CAM. See DOS Webpage, “Expansion of the Central American Minors (CAM) Program” (Nov. 15,
2016).
127
As of March 3, 2016, approximately 89% of qualifying parents were Salvadoran or Honduran TPS holders.
Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 14, 2016). However, TPS is available only to those Salvadorans and
Hondurans who, among other requirements, have been continuously physically present in the United States since
March 9, 2001 and January 5, 1999, respectively. See USCIS Webpages, “Temporary Protected Status Designated
Country: El Salvador” (Sep. 9, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status/temporaryprotected-status-designated-country-el-salvador (accessed Dec. 13, 2016); “Temporary Protected Status Designated
Country: Honduras” (Aug. 11, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status/temporaryprotected-status-designated-country-honduras (accessed Aug. 28, 2016). The population of Salvadoran and
122

21

 4. Costs associated with DNA testing
CAM participants receive reimbursement of DNA testing fees after test results confirm the
validity of claimed familial relationships. 128 However, the upfront costs for DNA testing, which
can range upwards of $500 or $600 per tested relationship, 129 are prohibitive for some
families. 130 Other families may need significant time to collect the required money — an effort
that can delay an already time-sensitive CAM application process. 131 While the benefits of DNA
testing to the program are apparent, these costs and delays impede CAM access and delay case
completion.
5. Uncertainty regarding CAM eligibility, application process, and case status
Despite growing program participation and an array of helpful public resources, 132 stakeholders
continue to report that many potential and actual qualifying parents remain unaware, underinformed and confused about CAM eligibility requirements, the application process, and the
status of pending CAM cases. 133
USCIS and DOS have hosted a variety of public engagements on CAM, including nationwide
English and Spanish-language teleconferences and a roundtable event hosted by USCIS Director
León Rodríguez. 134 In May 2016, USCIS’ Customer Service and Public Engagement Directorate
traveled to the Northern Triangle to learn more about opportunities to improve community
education and program participation. In addition, USCIS, DOS, and the RSC have created
materials to help the public better understand the program, including Frequently Asked
Questions; 135 a USCIS webpage on CAM; 136 an additional USCIS webpage for applicants
conditionally approved for parole through CAM; 137 and an RSC-produced pamphlet to help
qualifying children grasp the CAM application process. 138

Honduran TPS holders in the United States is steadily shrinking. From approximately 2007 to 2016, for instance,
the estimated number of Honduran TPS holders dropped by roughly 25%. See Congressional Research Service,
“Temporary Protected Status: Current Immigration Policy and Issues” at 5 (Jan. 27, 2006);
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P332.pdf (accessed Aug. 28, 2016); “Temporary Protected Status: Current
Immigration Policy and Issues” at 4 (Feb. 18, 2016); https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RS20844.pdf (accessed Aug.
28, 2016). The dominant pool of Qualifying Parents is therefore undergoing an ongoing incremental contraction.
128
See DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” at 6 (Nov. 2016);
http://www.wrapsnet.org/s/CAM-Frequently-Asked-Questions-November-2016.docx (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
129
Information provided by stakeholders.
130
Id.
131
Id.
132
See, e.g., DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and
Guatemala (Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” (Nov. 2016).
133
Information provided by stakeholders.
134
See Engagement Invitation: Roundtable with USCIS Director León Rodríguez (on file with the Ombudsman).
135
DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” (Nov. 16).
136
USCIS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM)” (Nov. 15, 2016).
137
USCIS Webpage, “Central American Minors (CAM) Refugee/Parole Program: Information for Conditionally
Approved Applicants” (Aug. 31, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian-parole/central-americanminors-cam-refugee (accessed Oct. 20, 2016).
138
Information provided by RSC (May 17, 2016).

22

 Despite these significant efforts, stakeholders report that confusion persists over program
eligibility criteria. 139 For example, a misconception that only TPS holders may become
qualifying parents has taken root among some potential applicants. 140 Resettlement agency
affiliate offices are unable to easily correct these misunderstandings and educate local
populations about the program because they often lack the resources to offer comprehensive CArelated services, including community education about the program. 141
Stakeholders also express concern that many qualifying parents and qualifying children are
uncertain about the CAM application process and the status of their cases. 142 CAM is more
complex, and features more processing stages, than many other immigration programs.
However, despite the availability of outreach materials, a comprehensive guide that explains
each of these stages in detail is not currently available.
Moreover, RSC Latin America does not have a website containing a “Check Your Case Status”
feature for pending applicants, though the website for the RSC for the Middle East and North
Africa (also operated by IOM) offers that feature. 143 Therefore, CAM applicants and their
qualifying relatives cannot independently ascertain their case status. Phone numbers and email
addresses are available, however, through which applicants may contact the RSC. 144
Stakeholders have called attention, in particular, to a frequent lack of awareness of case status
among qualifying parents whose children were denied refugee status but approved for parole. 145
The RSC indicated to the Ombudsman that IOM representatives in the United States contact
qualifying parents directly with such updates. 146 USCIS also recently posted a webpage
containing information relevant to children conditionally approved for parole through CAM. 147
However, stakeholders emphasize that many qualifying parents remain uninformed and confused
about the status of their children’s cases. 148 Status information for parolees is necessary, among
other things, to make needed travel arrangements to the United States. 149
Finally, neither USCIS nor DOS publish current processing times for CAM cases, some of which
involve children subject to ongoing threats while in-country processing takes place. USCIS
publishes “normal processing times” for many other application types. 150 Generally, however,
those applications remain exclusively within USCIS’ jurisdiction. CAM cases, like other refugee
cases, undergo processing not only by USCIS, but also DOS, which oversees program functions

139

Information provided by stakeholders.
Id.
141
Id.
142
Id.
143
IOM Webpage, “Resettlement Support Center: Middle East and North Africa;”
https://www.jordan.iom.int/refinfo/ (accessed Aug. 24, 2016).
144
Information provided by USCIS (Nov. 21, 2016).
145
Information provided by stakeholders.
146
Information provided by RSC (May 17, 2016).
147
USCIS Webpage, “Central American Minors (CAM) Refugee/Parole Program: Information for Conditionally
Approved Applicants” (Aug. 31, 2016).
148
Information provided by stakeholders.
149
Id.
150
See USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Processing Time Information;”
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processTimesDisplayInit.do (accessed Dec. 7, 2016).
140

23

 including intake, prescreening, and “out-processing” events such as medical exams and travel. 151
Furthermore, factors external to USCIS and DOS, such as delays in qualifying parents’ payment
of DNA testing fees, impact CAM processing times. 152 For these reasons, the “normal
processing times” calculations that USCIS employs for other applications are inapplicable to
CAM cases. Nonetheless, relevant CAM processing times are measurable. As noted, as of
August 22, 2016, the average processing time for a CAM application — from the date of the
CAM-AOR’s receipt by the resettlement agency to the date of the CAM applicant’s arrival in the
United States — is 410 days for refugees and 402 days for parolees. 153 Still, USCIS and DOS do
not regularly publish and update these times. This information would allow qualifying children
and their family members to much better project the length of their wait, take steps to safeguard
their security, and prepare for the outcome of their cases.
Owing in part to these information gaps, qualifying parents frequently contact overburdened
resettlement agency affiliate offices to request clarification concerning the CAM application
process and to seek updates on their cases, which drains already stretched resources. 154
6. Insufficient funding for resettlement agencies’ CAM-related activities
As noted in Appendix I, resettlement agencies serve an integral role in the CAM application
process. They coordinate the filings of CAM-AORs, manage CAM cases subsequent to those
filings, educate local populations on the program, and facilitate reception and placement services
to CAM refugees arriving in the United States. 155
For each refugee relocated to the United States, DOS provides the coordinating resettlement
agency with a one time, per-capita “reception and placement” grant. 156 DOS also provides some
funding to resettlement agency headquarters that is distinct from the per-capita grants. Most of
the per-capita grants go to the temporary provision of basic needs support for the refugee. 157 A
smaller portion of the grant may help meet the associated administrative costs borne by the
resettlement agency affiliate. 158 DOS has long employed this per-refugee reimbursement model
throughout its refugee program portfolio. 159
CAM differs from most other refugee programs in that approved applicants relocate to the
United States as either a refugee or as parolees. 160 Indeed, parolees have comprised a majority of

151

See DOS Webpage, “U.S. Refugee Admissions Program Central American Minors Flowchart” (Jan. 22, 2015);
information provided by USCIS (Nov. 21, 2016).
152
Information provided by stakeholders.
153
Information provided by USCIS (Sep. 28, 2016).
154
Information provided by stakeholders.
155
Id.
156
See DOS Webpages, “The Reception and Placement Program;”
http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/receptionplacement/ (accessed Aug. 24, 2016); “Increase to the Refugee Reception
and Placement Per Capita Grant” (Jan. 25, 2010); http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/01/135800.htm (accessed
Aug. 24, 2016).
157
See, e.g., DOS Webpage, “Increase to the Refugee Reception and Placement Per Capita Grant” (Jan. 25, 2010);
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/01/135800.htm (accessed Aug. 24, 2016).
158
See, e.g., DOS Webpage, “Increase to the Refugee Reception and Placement Per Capita Grant” (Jan. 25, 2010).
159
Information provided by DOS (May 2, 2016).
160
See USCIS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and
Guatemala (Central American Minors – CAM)” (Nov. 15, 2016).

24

 noted CAM arrivals to date. 161 Resettlement agencies receive no per-capita reimbursement from
DOS, USCIS, or other federal agency for parolees. 162 This leaves resettlement agencies without
reimbursements to help cover the underlying administrative costs essential to effectively process
CAM applications. 163 Qualifying relatives may only file a CAM application through a
resettlement agency authorized by DOS.
While certain resettlement agencies receive funding from other sources, such as private donors,
to support CAM-related services, other agencies do not. 164 The lack of reimbursement for CAM
parolee processing, combined with insufficient alternative funding streams, has created
substantial resource constraints that impair many affiliates’ capacity to adequately administer
their CAM operations. 165
At the same time that these resettlement agencies experience demands on their resources in
connection with CAM, the sharp increase in the U.S. refugee admissions ceiling from 70,000 in
FY 2015 to 110,000 in FY 2017 166 places resource strain on the government agencies
responsible for carrying out those admissions, e.g., DOS and USCIS. DOS has emphasized the
importance of receiving sufficient appropriations to fund its resettlement efforts. 167
One key consequence of the CAM funding shortfall among resettlement agencies is a substantial
CAM backlog in certain affiliate offices. 168 Stakeholders have reported that at some of those
offices, potential qualifying parents must wait as long as 12 months simply to obtain an initial
consultation. 169 This consultation is a necessary precursor to filing a CAM-AOR. During those
lengthy wait times, potential qualifying children may suffer ongoing threats of harm in the
Northern Triangle or even age out of eligibility for the program. 170 This funding gap also
restricts affiliates’ ability to engage in public outreach to educate local populations about the
program. 171
7. Lack of access to counsel during CAM interviews
Currently, the majority of CAM applicants are granted parole rather than refugee status after a
USCIS interview. 172 Given the differences in relief available to CAM applicants, the impact on
161

Information provided by USCIS (Dec. 19, 2016) (By December 12, 2016, 849 individuals were admitted into the
United States as refugees through CAM. By December 16, 2016, 969 individuals had arrived through the program
as parolees).
162
Information provided by stakeholders.
163
Id.
164
Id.
165
Id.
166
DOS Webpage, “Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2017” (Sep. 15, 2016);
http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/docsforcongress/261956.htm (Oct. 20, 2016).
167
Roll Call, “Lawmakers Must Do More to Respond to Refugee Crisis, State Department Says” (Oct. 21, 2015);
http://www.rollcall.com/news/lawmakers_must_do_more_to_respond_to_refugee_crisis_state_department_says244332-1.html#sthash.5sxB9l1Y.dpuf (accessed Oct. 6, 2016).
168
Information provided by stakeholders.
169
Id.
170
Id.
171
Id.
172
As of August 22, of CAM applicants for which statistical information was available, 63% had been
recommended for parole, 25% of CAM applicants were approved or conditionally approved for refugee status, less
than 1% were denied, and the remaining applicants were held for further review. Information provided by USCIS
(Sep. 28, 2016). Although both statuses ultimately offer protection in the United States, the difference in benefits is

25

 long-term protections those distinctions make, and the complexity of the findings made by
interviewing officers, it is critically important the child present the strongest case possible.
Access to counsel would help ensure the child most effectively presents relevant facts supporting
a refugee claim.
At this time, children who seek refugee status through CAM have no access to counsel during
their refugee interviews. This is consistent with USCIS’ longstanding, worldwide policy for
refugee applicants. 173 Thus, a child must describe the harm or fear of harm upon which the
refugee claims is based in an interview with a USCIS officer without an attorney present.
Though these interviews are designed to be detailed and non-adversarial and officers are trained
to elicit relevant testimony, stakeholders have reported that even well-trained adjudicators 174 and
the testimony of a parent or guardian who may be present at the interview 175 do not provide an
adequate substitute for legal counsel.
In some cases, without the help of counsel, children participate in refugee interviews without a
clear understanding of the legal analysis that will take place in response to their statements.
Stakeholders have noted, for example, violence has become so commonplace for children from
Northern Triangle countries that some children do not perceive certain acts of violence as
noteworthy, and therefore, despite pointed questions from adjudicators, 176 might not share
significant. As discussed in more detail in Appendix I, children entering the United States as refugees have access to
refugee assistance and community-based programs, and after meeting certain eligibility criteria may apply to
become permanent residents and eventually United States citizens. By contrast, parolees are not eligible for refugee
assistance and other services and have no path to permanent status.
173
See USCIS Memorandum, “Representation and Appearances and Interview Techniques; Revisions to AFM
Chapters 12 and 15; AFM Update AD 11-42” at 1-2 (May 23, 2012);
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2012/May/AFMs5-23-12.pdf (accessed Dec. 13,
2016) (“In the refugee processing context, among other differences in interviewing procedures, refugee applicants
do not have the right to representation as such applicants are deemed to be applicants for admission”).
174
USCIS provided some information to the CIS Ombudsman’s Office regarding the extensive training received by
asylum and refugee officers who conduct CAM interviews. In addition to the basic training required of all USCIS
officers, refugee officers receive 5 weeks of specialized training that includes comprehensive instruction on all
aspects of the job, including refugee law, interviewing techniques, credibility analysis, and country conditions
research. Before deploying overseas, officers also receive a 3 day pre-departure training, which focuses on
adjudications on CAM circuit rides. This training includes information on the types of refugee claims they are likely
to encounter and detailed country of origin information. Officers conducting interviews for CAM circuit rides also
receive specialized training on interviewing minors from a qualified professional familiar with these populations.
Within USCIS, RAD coordinates closely with the Asylum Division and Office of Chief Counsel to provide guidance
on how to elicit testimony relevant to making a refugee determination for children from these countries.
Information provided by USCIS (Nov. 21, 2016). See also RAIO Combined Training Course, “Interviewing –
Introduction to the Non-Adversarial Interview” Part 3.2 (June 6, 2013) (refugee officers are required to provide
basic information to the interviewee that includes the 1) the purpose of the interview and the interview process; 2)
the roles and responsibilities of all persons involved in the interview; and 3) what the interviewee can expect to
happen after the interview).
175
The policy guidance given to CAM teams by RAD is that the parent/guardian should be interviewed on the
applicant’s behalf if the decision is parole and the guardian is present. Information provided by USCIS (Sep. 28,
2016). See also DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and
Guatemala (Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” at 2 (Nov. 16); (accessed Dec. 19,
2016) http://www.wrapsnet.org/s/CAM-Frequently-Asked-Questions-November-2016.docx (“A parent, guardian, or
trusted adult may be present at interviews to provide testimony for a child who is unable to speak for him/herself”).
176
Officers do not use a template or questionnaire when conducting CAM interviews. Information provided by
USCIS (Sep. 28, 2016). During pre-departure briefings, however, RAD suggests lines of questioning for CAM

26

 experiences relevant to a refugee claim with a USCIS adjudicator. 177 In the CAM context, where
the refugee applicant is a child who may have experienced traumatizing levels of violence,
stakeholders have emphasized the particularly acute need for access to counsel to assist children
in presenting their claims. 178 In particular, children who are survivors of violence are especially
vulnerable. Because of their age, even if they do not suffer recognizable mental health
consequences as a result of their victimization, without assistance from attorneys, they find the
interview process challenging. 179
Counsel is not permitted in CAM interviews (or other refugee interviews) despite the general
regulatory right to representation in “an examination” before USCIS. 180 USCIS takes the legal
position that this regulation does not apply to an “applicant for admission” and that refugee
applicants are “applicants for admission.” 181 USCIS has taken this position since 1992 when the
legacy INS General Counsel reasoned refugee applicants fell within the regulatory exception to
the right to counsel because they were “applicants for admission.” 182 This was a reversal of
INS’s position, set forth in earlier policy documents, in support of attorney access in refugee
interviews, emphasizing that a refugee interview is an “examination” under the regulation and
similar to other types of interviews where representation was “accorded as of right.” 183

cases and highlights mandatory topics that should be addressed during an interview. Id. In addition, a circuit ride
team leader may suggest questions to officers and individual officers may develop their own lines of questioning
based on the particular facts of a case. Id. During the interviews, adjudicators systematically ask children about
harm or violence they have experienced, observed, heard about, or fear. Information provided by USCIS (Nov. 21,
2016). Adjudicators request detail and ask children about their experiences in a variety of settings including their
home, school, and work. Id.
177
Information provided by stakeholders.
178
Id.
179
See Letter from Kids in Need of Defense et al. to DHS Secretary Johnson et al. (May 4, 2016);
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/16_5_4_refugee_access_to_counsel_sign-on_letter_final.pdf
(accessed Dec. 13, 2016) (urging DHS to permit counsel to attend refugee interviews, in part because “[c]hildren on
their own … find both the process and the refugee interview particularly challenging and confusing….”).
180
See 8 C.F.R. § 292.5(b). The regulation states in its entirety:
Right to representation. Whenever an examination is provided for in this chapter, the person
involved shall have the right to be represented by an attorney or representative who shall be
permitted to examine or cross-examine such person and witnesses, to introduce evidence, to make
objections which shall be stated succinctly and entered on the record, and to submit briefs.
Provided, that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to provide any applicant for admission
in either primary or secondary inspection the right to representation, unless the applicant for
admission has become the focus of a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody.
181
Legacy INS Memorandum, “Representation of an Applicant for Admission to the United States as a Refugee
During an Eligibility Hearing” (Nov. 9, 1992);
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/foia_documents/accesstocounsel_uscis_1-31-13.pdf
(accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
182
Legacy INS Memorandum, “Representation of an Applicant for Admission to the United States as a Refugee
During an Eligibility Hearing” (Nov. 9, 1992);
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/foia_documents/accesstocounsel_uscis_1-31-13.pdf
(accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
183
See Legacy INS Memorandum, “Representation in Section 207 Processing” (Jan. 14, 1986);
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/foia_documents/accesstocounsel_uscis_3-20-13.pdf
(accessed Dec. 13, 2016) (citing, e.g., regulatory provisions applicable to third and sixth preference immigrant visa
petitions and adjustment of status).

27

 USCIS’ current interpretation barring access to counsel is in conflict with the plain language of 8
C.F.R. § 292.5(b). The regulation states that a person involved in an examination by USCIS has
the right to be represented unless that person is an “applicant for admission in either primary or
secondary inspection ….” 184 USCIS chooses to interpret this phrase to mean “no applicant for
admission -- even one who is in secondary inspection … has a right to representation ….” 185 In
other words, USCIS treats the qualifying phrase “in either primary or secondary inspection” not
as language limiting the group of individuals who have a right to representation, but merely as
examples of the types of proceedings to which an applicant for admission may be subject.
Although refugee applicants clearly are not “in either primary or secondary inspection” when
they are interviewed, USCIS continues to bar their access to counsel.
In addition to a regulatory right, a statutory right to counsel exists pursuant to section 555(b) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This provision states “[a] person compelled to appear
before an agency or representative thereof is entitled to be accompanied, represented, and
advised by counsel or, if permitted by the agency, by [an]other qualified representative.” 186 A
refugee must appear before USCIS for an interview in order to be granted refugee status: “[e]ach
applicant 14 years old or older shall appear in person before an immigration officer for inquiry
under oath to determine his or her eligibility for admission as a refugee.” 187 The term “shall” in
this context, where there is no waiver or other exception to the regulatory requirement that a
child appear in person, means a child is required — or compelled — to comply with the
interview requirement, or his or her case will not be considered. 188
The heightened needs of children also should be taken into consideration. Children who have
access to counsel are better prepared for interviews, better understand the process in which they
are participating and are better able to provide relevant information to the adjudicator. 189 There is
widespread agreement individuals — both children and adults — who are represented in
immigration court proceedings in the United States fare much better than those who are

184

8 C.F.R. § 292.5(b) (emphasis added).
Legacy INS Memorandum, “Representation of an Applicant for Admission to the United States as a Refugee
During an Eligibility Hearing” (Nov. 9, 1992),
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/foia_documents/accesstocounsel_uscis_1-31-13.pdf
(accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
186
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Pub. L. 79–404; 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).
187
8 C.F.R. § 207.2(a) (emphasis added).
188
See USCIS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and
Guatemala (Central American Minors – CAM)” (Nov. 15, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/CAM (accessed Dec. 12,
2016) (“Eligibility for refugee status is determined on a case-by-case basis through an interview with a speciallytrained USCIS officer”).
189
Information provided by stakeholders; see also Letter from William C. Hubbard, President, American Bar
Association to DHS Secretary Johnson et al., “Re: Department of Homeland Security policy of banning counsel
from refugee interviews” at 6 (Jul. 24, 2015);
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/GAO/2015july24_counselrefugeeapplicants.authcheckd
am.pdf (access Dec. 15, 2016) (describing how the process is more “efficient and just” in circumstances where
counsel has been present in Iraqi and Afghan refugee interviews); see also Amy C. Harfeld, Symposium: The Right
to Counsel Landscape after Passage of the ABA Model Act – Implications for Reform, 36 Nova L. Rev. 325, 326
(2012) (describing the varied support from child advocates, attorneys and state courts for the right to counsel for
children in dependency hearings).
185

28

 unrepresented. 190 Even while it opposes government-appointed counsel for children in removal
proceedings, the U.S. government has recognized the benefits of representation for immigrant
children in proceedings. 191 Though refugee interviews, unlike proceedings in immigration court,
are non-adversarial, the agency also has recognized the importance of counsel in non-adversarial
USCIS interviews outside of the refugee context. 192
Consistent with stateside policies recognizing the benefit of legal representation for minors in
both adversarial and non-adversarial proceedings, a child seeking refugee status through the
CAM program should not be prevented from appearing at a USCIS interview with counsel to
present his or her strongest refugee claim.
Acknowledging the legitimacy of some of these concerns, as a matter of policy, USCIS is
evaluating the prospect of legal representation of children in CAM refugee interviews. 193 USCIS
has stated, however, that it must also consider other potential trade-offs related to permitting
counsel at interviews, including the additional administrative burden on PRM’s RSC and a
possible loss of efficiency resulting from longer interviews and fewer interviews conducted by
each USCIS officer, or fewer prescreening interviews by each RSC caseworker, per day. 194 The
Ombudsman concurs in a review of the interplay of these competing concerns; for example,
longer interviews may not necessarily be the norm, as interviewees with counsel are far likelier
to be less fearful, more prepared and more forthcoming with facts relevant to establishing
eligibility.
In addition, to best ensure children who need protection receive it, it is critical that RAIO
continue to evaluate new bases for refugee grants as new fact scenarios develop in CAM cases.
For instance, because some of the children’s cases will involve persecution based on membership
190

Ingrid Eagly, Esq. & Steven Shafer, Esq. American Immigration Council Report, “Access to Counsel in
Immigration Court” at 2 (Sep. 2016);
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/access_to_counsel_in_immigration_court.p
df at 1-2 (accessed Dec. 13, 2016) (analyzing data from over 1.2 million deportation cases decided between 2007
and 2012 to find that represented immigrants were more successful than unrepresented immigrants in removal
proceedings; for example, “[r]epresented immigrants who were never detained were nearly five times more likely
than their unrepresented counterparts to obtain relief if they sought it….”); U.S. Government Accountability Office
Report, “Asylum: Variation Exists in Outcomes Across Immigration Courts and Judges” GAO-08-940 (Nov. 2016);
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-72 (accessed Dec. 19, 2016).
191
Department of Justice Press Release, “Justice Department and CNCS Announce $1.8 Million in Grants to
Enhance Immigration Court Proceedings and Provide Assistance to Unaccompanied Children” (Sep. 12, 2014);
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-cncs-announce-18-million-grants-enhance-immigrationcourt-proceedings (announcing the Justice Americorps initiative – a program supporting 100 lawyers and paralegals
who represent children in removal proceedings).
192
USCIS Memorandum, “Representation and Appearances and Interview Techniques; Revisions to Adjudicator’s
Field Manual (AFM) Chapters 12 and 15; AFM Update AD11-42” at 1 (May 23, 2012);
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2012/May/AFMs5-23-12.pdf (accessed Dec. 12,
2016)(acknowledging the “meaningful role of attorneys and other representatives in the interview process …”). In
addition, unaccompanied children are to be provided access to counsel “to the greatest extent practicable ….” See 8
U.S.C. § 1232(c)(5) (“The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) shall ensure, to the greatest extent
practicable and consistent with section 292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1362), that all
unaccompanied alien children … have counsel to represent them in legal proceedings …”).
193
Information provided by USCIS (Nov. 21, 2016).
194
Id.

29

 in a particular social group, 195 USCIS must continue to explore and recognize particular social
groups that reflect current country conditions and evolving characterizations of persecutors and
victims in Northern Triangle countries. 196 It is also increasingly vital that USCIS acknowledge
the strength of political opinion claims from children from Northern Triangle countries. 197 The
power and influence of gangs have increased dramatically in Northern Triangle countries in
recent years. Experts describe gangs that have reached a level of “politicization, sophistication,
and international reach to qualify them as ‘third generation’ gangs … [that] function as de facto
governments….” 198 These gangs have extensive resources, control large amounts of territory
and wield control over the lives of community members. 199 To the extent these gangs function
as de facto governments, opposition to their activities, whether expressed or imputed, may be
categorized as a political opinion for purposes of a refugee claim. 200
To better understand the CAM application adjudication trends, including the types of claims that
do not result in refugee grants, the Ombudsman will continue to gather information about the
profiles of the children that have come to the United States and to monitor USCIS’ decisionmaking process.
195

Information provided by USCIS (May 26, 2016).
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 251 (BIA 2014) (earlier Board decisions should not be interpreted as
"a blanket rejection of all factual scenarios involving gangs"); Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1083 (9th Cir.
2014) (BIA could not reject a particular social group of individuals in Guatemala “taking concrete steps to oppose
gang membership and gang authority” only because “it had previously found a similar group in a different society to
lack social distinction or particularity,” finding that “[s]ocial group determinations are made on a case-by-case
basis”) (citations omitted).
197
Children might express a political opinion, despite not having a formal affiliation with a political party or
organization that opposes gangs, and may not even characterize their beliefs as “political.” See Deborah Anker and
Palmer Lawrence, “’Third Generation’ Gangs, Warfare in Central America, and Refugee Law’s Political Opinion
Ground,” 14-10 Immigr. Briefings 1 at 4 (Oct. 2014).
198
Deborah Anker and Palmer Lawrence, “Third Generation” Gangs, Warfare in Central America, and Refugee
Law’s Political Opinion Ground, 14-10 Immigr. Briefings 1, at 1 (Oct. 2014) (describing how the Mara Salvatrucha
(MS-13) “rules entire municipalities in countries such as El Salvador”).
199
UNHCR, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers
from El Salvador at 12, 28 (Mar. 15, 2016); http://www.refworld.org/docid/56e706e94.html (accessed Oct. 21,
2016) (“In the particular context of El Salvador, where gangs are reported to exercise high levels of social control
over all aspects of life of the members of population in the areas under the gangs’ control … it would frequently be
appropriate for applications for international protection from applicants who flee gang-related forms of persecution
to be analysed in relation to the ground of (imputed) political opinion.”); UNHCR, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines
for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Honduras at 44 (Jul. 27, 2016);
http://www.refworld.org/docid/579767434.html (accessed Oct. 21, 2016) (imputed political opinion may be a basis
for gang-related forms of persecution in Honduras); see generally, International Crisis Group Report, Guatemala:
Squeezed Between Crime and Impunity at 12 (Jun. 22, 2010); http://www.refworld.org/docid/4c2847a72.html
(accessed Oct. 21, 2016) (describing, inter alia, how street gangs control daily life and have “crippled many
communities”).
200
See, e.g., Regalado-Escobar v. Holder, 717 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 2013) (BIA erred when it did not recognize
opposition to violent activities conducted by the National Liberation Front for Farabundo Marti (FMLN) might
constitute a political opinion); Martinez-Buendia v. Holder, 616 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir. 2010) (persecution based on
political opinion when a humanitarian worker refused recruiting attempts by the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias
de Colombia (“FARC”); but see Matter of S-E-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 579, 588 (BIA 2008) (no political opinion basis for
asylum where respondents failed to show, inter alia, “political motive” in resistance to gang recruitment); MayorgaVidal v. Holder, 675 F.3d 9, 18 (1st Cir. 2012) (finding no political opinion grounds for asylum where young
Salvadoran men did not present evidence anti-gang opinions were expressed to gang members or anti-gang opinion
was publicly known).
196

30

 8. Barriers for CAM parolees, such as travel costs, lack of resettlement assistance, and
adjustment of status limitations
Stakeholders have voiced concern regarding various barriers faced by CAM parolees including
the costs borne by qualifying parents for their children’s travel to the United States. 201 DOS
provides loans to CAM refugees to cover these costs through a program administered by IOM,
consistent with worldwide refugee operations, but not parolees. 202 Stakeholders have indicated
that this travel expense, particularly in combination with other program expenses like DNA
testing fees, can have the effect of delaying qualifying children’s arrival to safety in the United
States while the qualifying parent obtains the necessary funds. 203
Stakeholders have further expressed concern about the immediate and long-term welfare of
CAM parolees who relocate to the United States. 204 While all CAM applicants come to join
family members, those who are parolees, unlike refugees, do not receive PRM-funded reception
and placement benefits, such as assistance with school registration and job training. 205
Moreover, while refugees can apply for permanent residence in the United States after one
year, 206 parole in and of itself does not lead to a permanent immigration status in the United
States. 207 Parolees are eligible to apply for work authorization and renewal of their parole
status, 208 but the lack of a pathway to permanent residence raises the prospect that these minors
will have limited status indefinitely.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO USCIS
In view of the above-noted concerns, and with the aim of strengthening this important program’s
efficiency, safety protocol, accessibility, and transparency, the Ombudsman makes the below
recommendations to USCIS. As noted, while these recommendations are directed exclusively to
USCIS, the Ombudsman acknowledges DOS’ integral role in relevant program areas. Their
201

Information provided by stakeholders.
See DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” at 5 (Nov. 2016);
http://www.wrapsnet.org/s/CAM-Frequently-Asked-Questions-November-2016.docx (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
203
Information provided by stakeholders.
204
Id.
205
See DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” at 5 (Nov. 2016);
http://www.wrapsnet.org/s/CAM-Frequently-Asked-Questions-November-2016.docx (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
206
See USCIS Webpage, “Green Card Through Refugee or Asylee Status” (Oct. 29, 2015);
https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-through-refugee-or-asylee-status (accessed Aug. 24, 2016).
207
See DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” at 5 (Nov. 2016).
208
See DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” at 5 (Nov. 2016); USCIS Webpage, “In-Country
Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala (Central American Minors –
CAM)” (Nov. 15, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/CAM (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
202

31

 shared operational authority over CAM requires USCIS and DOS to cooperate in the adoption of
certain Ombudsman recommendations.
Recommendation #1
USCIS, in coordination with DOS, should further increase the volume of USCIS interviews and
associated RAVU processing of CAM cases.
Addresses:
Key Issue of Concern #1 – Lengthy processing times
Key Issue of Concern #2 – Need for enhanced protection mechanisms for particularly vulnerable
qualifying children
As referenced in the Positive Developments in CAM section of this Recommendation, USCIS
and DOS have already significantly enhanced the volume of CAM interviews. Moreover, CAM
processing times remain considerably faster than for other refugee programs. 209 Despite USCIS
and DOS’ efforts, however, CAM processing times remain too long in view of the severe risks
facing many CAM-eligible youth. In light of these risks, the expectation of larger numbers of
CAM-AOR receipts, and the recently announced program expansion, the Ombudsman
recommends that USCIS, in coordination with DOS, increase the volume of USCIS interviews
and associated RAVU processing of CAM cases.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that this recommendation comes during a period of substantial
demand on RAD and RAIO generally, as well as on PRM. The 64% increase in the refugee
admissions ceiling over the past two years — from 70,000 in FY 2015 to 85,000 in FY 2016 and
110,000 in FY 2017 210 — has imposed steep operational challenges and resource strain. For
example, the Asylum Division estimated in February 2016 that it would place 200 Asylum
Officers on approximately 2-month assignments to RAD to help address its increased
caseload. 211 Nonetheless, the countervailing weight of the time-sensitivity of CAM cases and
vulnerability of qualifying children makes this recommendation necessary.
The Ombudsman further acknowledges that DOS controls the pace of pre-screenings of the
CAM applicants that USCIS interviews. 212 DOS also has authority over the RSC facilities where
these interviews occur, and where space limitations can constrain prescreening and interview
volume. 213 In the Further Actions Needed section below, this Recommendation observes that
augmentation of RSC staff, coupled with any required enhancements relating to the RSC
facilities themselves, is necessary to increase the volume of pre-screenings of CAM applicants.
Taken together, a larger volume of CAM pre-screenings, RAVU, and USCIS interviews will
help shorten the overall CAM processing timeframe. Shorter timeframes will lessen the safety
risks to qualifying children and allow USCIS and DOS to more effectively expedite cases.
209

“Ombudsman Annual Conference 2016, “Regional Refugee Resettlement Issues and the Central American
Minors Program Panel” (Sep. 28, 2016).
210
DOS Webpage, “Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2017” (Sep. 15, 2016).
211
See USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting Notes at 2 (Feb. 5, 2016).
212
Information provided by USCIS (Nov. 21, 2016).
213
Id.

32

 Recommendation #2
USCIS should permit access to counsel in CAM interviews.
Addresses:
Key Issue of Concern #5 – Uncertainty regarding CAM eligibility, application process, and case
status
Key Issue of Concern #7 – Lack of access to counsel during CAM interviews
Qualifying children who are interviewed by USCIS have a regulatory right to counsel pursuant to
the plain language of 8 C.F.R. 292.5(b) and a statutory right to counsel under the APA. They are
vulnerable children living in extraordinarily dangerous circumstances where decisions regarding
their cases have profound consequences for their safety and well-being.
A process, including a pilot program, to permit access to counsel in USCIS CAM interviews may
provide a child with a better opportunity to present the most relevant and important facts to an
interviewing officer as well as provide reassurance to a child who is attempting to navigate a
complicated immigration process.
Recommendation #3
USCIS, in coordination with DOS, should publish a plain-language, comprehensive CAM
Information Guide.
Addresses:
Key Issue of Concern #5 – Uncertainty regarding CAM eligibility, application process, and case
status
An Information Guide would consolidate explanations of CAM eligibility requirements,
application stages, anticipated program costs, and other information helpful to program
stakeholders. To maximize comprehension and value, the guide would be available in multiple
languages, make substantial use of visual representations, and cater to readers with a range of
educational levels. Moreover, for stakeholders needing it, USCIS could format the guide, or key
portions thereof, into audio recordings accessible through mobile phones and other devices so
that literacy is unnecessary.
The creation and wide dissemination of this Information Guide would significantly alleviate
uncertainty among relevant populations regarding their eligibility for the program, while
improving current program participants’ understanding of the complex CAM process. In turn,
the Information Guide would reduce the volume of CAM inquiries directed to resettlement
agencies and the RSC, preserving resources.
Recommendation #4

33

 USCIS, in coordination with DOS, should publish and regularly update current CAM processing
times.
Addresses:
Key Issue of Concern #5 – Uncertainty regarding CAM eligibility, application process, and case
status
The publication of current CAM case processing times would provide a better understanding of
the timeframe for cases that are acutely time-sensitive. 214 The Ombudsman recognizes that
CAM cases, unlike various application types for which USCIS posts “normal processing times,”
are a shared DOS and USCIS responsibility. Further, the “normal processing times” metrics that
USCIS employs for other applications are not applicable to CAM. Nonetheless, processing
times appropriate to CAM are already calculated. 215 USCIS, with the cooperation of DOS, could
publish and update those processing times regularly. This would help CAM applicants take
measures to protect their safety while their cases remain pending and prepare for potential postarrival arrangements in the United States.
FURTHER ACTIONS NEEDED
In addition to the above recommendations to USCIS, the Ombudsman urges USCIS’ attention to
and support for additional steps to better meet the program’s objective. The suggestions
described below are not formal recommendations to USCIS, nor do they call for a USCIS
response. Rather, they are actions relating to program areas predominantly within DOS’
authority that would in some cases influence USCIS functions or require USCIS’ cooperation.
They are included in this Recommendation to encourage and inform interagency dialogue and
collaboration in these issues.
Further Action Needed #1: Augmentation of RSC Latin America staff
Addresses:
Key Issue of Concern #1 – Lengthy processing times
Key Issue of Concern #2 – Need for enhanced protection mechanisms for particularly vulnerable
qualifying children
Key Issue of Concern #5 – Uncertainty regarding CAM eligibility, application process, and case
status
DOS, in connection with the announced CAM eligibility expansion, in-country referral program,
and PTA, noted that “…we can expand the staffing and the resources necessary, working through
our partner there, the International Organization for Migration.” 216 The Ombudsman welcomes
these staff and resource additions. However, even without this expansion of CAM criteria or
these new programs, the RSC will require additional staff, along with any associated
214

Information provided by stakeholders.
“Ombudsman Annual Conference 2016, “Regional Refugee Resettlement Issues and the Central American
Minors Program Panel” (Sep. 28, 2016).
216
“On-The-Record White House Press Call on Central American Refugee Processing” (Jul. 26, 2016).
215

34

 enhancements to space availability at the RSC facilities, to optimally process its growing CAM
caseload. Additional staff at the RSCs will augment capacity to pre-screen and prepare CAM
cases in lockstep with the higher volume of USCIS interviews and associated RAVU processing
of CAM cases, and to shortening the overlong CAM processing timeframe generally. Additional
staff also would help the RSC perform other program functions more expeditiously, including
conducting Best Interests Assessments and fielding case inquiries submitted by qualifying
children.
Further Action Needed #2: Enhancement of safety mechanisms for particularly vulnerable
qualifying children through improvements in expedite and safe shelter protocols
Addresses:
Key Issue of Concern #2 – Need for enhanced protection mechanisms for particularly vulnerable
qualifying children
Clear, specific CAM expedite request procedures, particularly to the resettlement agencies that
submit the majority of such requests, would bring transparency and common understanding to
this critical protection mechanism, resulting in better use of the expedite process. Such
information would go beyond the guidance provided by DOS Department in 2011, 217 prior to the
establishment of CAM, regarding expedited processing of refugee cases generally. Also, a
uniform response process through which requesters receive timely and clear updates about their
requests and any associated impacts on case processing would resolve confusion over request
outcomes. Altogether, these improvements would make the CAM expedite mechanism a more
effective resource for vulnerable qualifying children.
Further, a reevaluation of the current CAM shelter referral mechanism and the development of a
more robust safe shelter protocol would make program participants substantially safer. 218 An
effective safe shelter model, while requiring significant efforts and coordination, is critical to the
success of the program’s protection system.
Further Action Needed #3: Establishment of RSC Latin America website offering “Check Case
Status” feature and improvement of notification protocols relating to approved CAM parolees.
Addresses:
Key Issue of Concern #5 – Uncertainty regarding CAM eligibility, application process, and case
status
A dedicated website, the equivalent of which IOM has already made available for the RSC in
North Africa and the Middle East, 219 would allow CAM applicants to immediately and
confidentially determine case status without needing to contact or arrange an appointment with a
217

DOS Webpage, “Expedited Protection and Resettlement of Refugees” (Oct. 24, 2011);
http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2011/181021.htm (accessed Dec. 7, 2016).
218
By “safe shelter,” the Ombudsman refers generally to facilities affording temporary and effective security. This
Recommendation does not examine different safe shelter models, address the relative efficacy of those models, or
endorse any specific model.
219
IOM Webpage, “Resettlement Support Center: Middle East and North Africa;”
https://www.jordan.iom.int/refinfo/ (accessed Aug. 24, 2016).

35

 resettlement agency affiliate office or the RSC. This resource would set more realistic
expectations and alleviate ongoing uncertainty regarding case developments, as well as reduce
the volume of inquiries made to resettlement agencies and the RSC concerning application
statuses, enabling those agencies to concentrate their limited resources more fully on case
processing and related functions.
Stakeholders have indicated that, in particular, qualifying parents of CAM applicants approved
for parole are often uninformed of their children’s case statuses. 220 A reexamination of the
current notification protocols for CAM parolees, coupled with consideration of more effective
practices, is needed. One possible option is the provision by the RSC of continuing case status
notifications to resettlement agencies regarding pending cases. However, program partners must
ensure, whether through signed privacy waivers or alternative measures, that this practice would
comply with relevant confidentiality provisions and other applicable laws.
The adoption of the above recommendations and completion of these further actions would
significantly enhance this program’s effectiveness.

220

Information provided by stakeholders.

36

 APPENDIX I: CAM ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND APPLICANT PROCESS
For children in the Northern Triangle to be eligible for CAM as qualifying children, they must
be: 221
1)
2)
3)
4)

Under 21;
Unmarried;
A national of and residing in El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras; and
Have at least one “qualifying parent”

A qualifying parent must be 18 years or older and lawfully present in the United States under one
of the below categories: 222
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

Temporary Protected Status
Lawful Permanent Resident
Parolee
Withholding of Removal
Deferred Action
Deferred Enforced Departure

In addition, certain family members of the qualifying child may also be eligible for CAM,
including: 223
1) Unmarried children of qualifying children
2) Certain parents who live with qualifying children in El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras
and who are legally married to the qualifying parents. Such in-country parents must
independently demonstrate refugee claims to acquire refugee status through CAM
3) Certain unmarried children of parents who live with qualifying children in El Salvador,
Guatemala, or Honduras, when those parents are legally married to the qualifying parents
On July 26, 2016, the U.S. government announced an expansion of CAM eligibility criteria
under which additional categories of family members of qualifying children would be eligible to
participate in CAM. 224 On November 15, 2016, DOS began accepting Forms DS-7699, Affidavit
of Relationship (AOR) for Minors Who Are Nationals of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras
(CAM-AORs) listing these relatives. 225 In certain instances, this expansion can apply
retroactively. 226 The additional categories of family members are: 227

221

See USCIS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and
Guatemala (Central American Minors – CAM)” (Nov. 15, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/CAM (accessed Dec. 12,
2016).
222
Id.
223
Id.
224
See “On-The-Record White House Press Call on Central American Refugee Processing” (Jul. 26, 2016) (on file
with the Ombudsman).
225
See USCIS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and
Guatemala (Central American Minors – CAM)” (Nov. 15, 2016).
226
DOS Webpage, “Expansion of the Central American Minors (CAM) Program” (Nov. 15, 2016);
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/11/264332.htm (accessed Dec. 13, 2016) (a qualifying parent who filed a
CAM-AOR between December 1, 2014 and November 30, 2016 and who seeks access for any of the expanded

37

 4) Certain in-country biological parents of qualifying children who are not legally married
to the qualifying parents
5) Certain in-country “caregivers” of qualifying children who are related to the qualifying
parent or qualifying child
6) Certain in-country children of qualifying parents, irrespective of the children’s age and
marital status
To obtain refugee status through CAM, each member of these expanded relative categories must
establish independent refugee claims. 228 On an individual case basis, USCIS considers
unmarried in-country biological parents and caregivers for parole. 229 When USCIS denies
refugee status to in-country children of qualifying parents who are married and/or age 21 years
or older, those children may seek parole by filing Form I-131, Application For Travel Document
with USCIS. 230
The CAM application process involves numerous stages, many of which are outlined below:
1) CAM-AOR Filing
As an initial step, the qualifying parent files Form DS-7699, Affidavit of Relationship
(AOR) for Minors Who Are Nationals of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (CAMAOR) in the United States through an affiliate office of a domestic resettlement
agency. 231
Domestic resettlement agencies are nongovernmental organizations that have cooperative
agreements with PRM to facilitate the resettlement of refugees into the United States. 232
There are over 300 offices located throughout the United States that are affiliated with
these resettlement agencies. 233 To initiate the CAM application process, qualifying
parents must file the CAM-AOR through and under the guidance of one of these affiliate
offices. 234 Parents are the only relatives who may file the CAM-AOR. 235 The affiliate
office sends the CAM-AOR to the associated resettlement agency’s headquarters. The
relative categories must file an amended AOS before September 30, 2017; certain limitations may apply to the
categories of qualifying relatives eligible to receive access retroactively).
227
Id.
228
Id.
229
Id.
230
Id.
231
See DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” at 1-2 (Nov. 2016);
http://www.wrapsnet.org/s/CAM-Frequently-Asked-Questions-November-2016.docx (accessed Dec. 14, 2016).
232
See DOS Webpage, “The Reception and Placement Program;” http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/receptionplacement/
(accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
233
See DOS Webpage, “Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration Office of Admissions Refugee Processing Center Affiliate Directory” (Nov. 28, 2016);
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/580e4274e58c624696efadc6/t/583c95959de4bb5951736960/1480365461934/
Public+Affiliate+Directory+11-28-16.pdf (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
234
See DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” at 1-3 (Nov. 2016).
235
See DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” at 1-3 (Nov. 2016).

38

 resettlement agency’s headquarters then submits the form to DOS’ Refugee Processing
Center. 236
In addition to assisting with these CAM-AOR filings, resettlement agencies and their
affiliates are responsible for such key program functions as outreach to relevant local
populations concerning CAM, continued coordination of the CAM-AOR application
process following the initial filings, responding to questions and concerns from
qualifying parents, and the administration of resettlement benefits for qualifying children
who relocate to the United States as refugees through CAM. 237
2) The Pre-Screening Interview
The Refugee Processing Center, upon accepting the CAM-AOR, sends this form to the
RSC in Latin America. 238 PRM funds and directs nine such RSCs located around the
world. 239 They are typically nongovernmental or intergovernmental organizations that
perform a range of administrative functions associated with refugee processing abroad. 240
The IOM manages the RSC in Latin America. 241 In May 2016, IOM indicated that its
CAM RSC would be relocating from Quito, Ecuador to San Salvador, El Salvador. 242
The RSC schedules a prescreening interview with the qualifying child, during which an
RSC caseworker collects biographical and case information that, among other uses, aids
USCIS during ensuing stages of the application process. 243
3) DNA Testing, RAVU Processing, and Security Checks
After the prescreening interview, the DNA testing process, RAVU processing, and
security checks begin and proceed concurrently. 244
DNA Testing — The qualifying parent and all biological qualifying children claimed on
the CAM-AOR must undergo DNA testing to confirm the claimed familial
relationships. 245 The qualifying parent pays upfront for these DNA tests, which can
range upwards of $500 or $600 (U.S). 246 No waivers of the testing fees are available. 247

236

Information provided by stakeholders.
Id.
238
Id.
239
See DOS Webpage, “U.S. Refugee Admissions Program;” http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/admissions/ (accessed
Dec. 13, 2016).
240
Id.
241
Information provided by RSC (May 17, 2016).
242
Id.
243
See DOS Webpage, “U.S. Refugee Admissions Program Central American Minors Flowchart” (Jan. 22, 2015);
DOS Webpage, “U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.”
244
Information provided by USCIS (Sep. 28, 2016).
245
See DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” at 5 (Nov. 2016).
246
Information provided by stakeholders.
247
Information provided by stakeholders; information provided by DOS (May 5, 2016).
237

39

 If the tests confirm all claimed and tested biological relationships, DOS reimburses the
qualifying parent for the testing costs. 248
RAVU — RAVU verifies the relationship of the qualifying parent to claimed qualifying
children and, if applicable, an in-country parent. 249 RAVU also confirms the qualifying
parent’s eligibility to file the CAM-AOR. 250
Security Checks — USCIS conducts rigorous security vetting of CAM applicants. “All
applicants under the CAM Program will be subject to thorough background screening,
including biographic and biometric security checks. These are among the most thorough
for any immigration benefit.” 251 Across all refugee programs “[r]efugee applicants are
subject to intensive biographic and biometric security checks. Through close coordination
with the federal law enforcement and intelligence communities, these checks are
continually reviewed and enhanced….” 252
Moreover, as part of its adjudication of both refugee and parole status, addressed below,
USCIS assesses “the credibility [of CAM applicants] and evaluates whether the
applicant’s testimony is consistent with known country conditions and all available
evidence.” 253 Interviewing officers receive training on inadmissibility grounds, fraud
prevention, and security issue identification for use during adjudications. 254
4) USCIS Interview
After completion of RAVU, USCIS conducts interviews of qualifying children “… to
determine who will be admitted as a refugee or offered parole to the U.S.…” 255
Permanent Refugee Officers or other USCIS officers temporarily assigned perform these
interviews.

248

See DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” at 5-6 (Nov. 2016).
249
Information provided by USCIS (Nov. 21, 2016).
250
Id.
251
See Eroding the Law and Diverting Taxpayer Resources: An Examination of the Administration’s Central
American Minors Refugee/Parole Program,” before the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest of
the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 2nd Sess. 3 (2015) (written statement of Joseph Langlois,
Associate Director, Refuge, Asylum And International Operations Directorate, United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services).
252
USCIS Webpage, “Refugee Processing and Security Screening” (Dec. 3, 2015);
https://www.uscis.gov/refugeescreening (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
253
See “Eroding the Law and Diverting Taxpayer Resources: An Examination of the Administration’s Central
American Minors Refugee/Parole Program,” before the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest of
the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 2nd Sess. 3 (2015) (written statement of Joseph Langlois,
Associate Director, Refuge, Asylum And International Operations Directorate, United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services).
254
Information provided by USCIS (May 18, 2016); USCIS Webpage, “Refugee Processing and Security
Screening” (Dec. 3, 2015); https://www.uscis.gov/refugeescreening (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
255
See DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” at 4 (Nov. 2016).

40

 CAM cases for which DNA test results have not been received may advance to the
interview stage as long as RAVU has been completed. 256 In cases where USCIS
conducts interviews prior to the receipt of DNA test results, USCIS issues conditional
decisions and provides the RSC with decision letters. 257 The RSC, however, does not
share these letters with applicants until DNA test results verify biological relationships. 258
5) Adjudication of Refugee Status
After completion of the interview, USCIS determines whether the child qualifies for
refugee status. 259 To qualify for refugee status, the individual must demonstrate, among
other requirements, persecution or fear of persecution on account of race, religion,
nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, as well as
admissibility into the United States. 260 Children denied refugee status cannot appeal the
decision but may submit a Request for Review (RFR) of the decision. 261
6) Adjudication of Parole Status if Refugee Status Denied
When USCIS denies the qualifying child refugee status, USCIS determines on a “caseby-case basis” whether the qualifying child qualifies for parole for “urgent humanitarian
reasons or significant public benefit.” 262 A separate parole application is not required. 263
7) Post-Approval Stages
Qualifying children approved by USCIS for refugee or parole status must complete
additional steps before receiving authorization to relocate to the United States through
CAM. 264 The elements of this post-approval process depend on which status is
granted. 265
•

Qualifying Children Approved For Refugee Status

256

Information provided by USCIS (Sep. 28, 2016).
Id.
258
Id.
259
See DOS Webpage, “U.S. Refugee Admissions Program Central American Minors Flowchart” (Jan. 22, 2015).
260
USCIS Webpage, “Refugees” (May 25, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/refugees
(accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
261
See USCIS Webpage, “Request for Review Tip Sheet” (Apr. 9, 2014);
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/refugees/request-review-tip-sheet (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
The RFR must contain “[a] detailed explanation of a significant error made by the adjudicating officer,” “[n]ew
information that would merit a change in the decision,” or both. Generally, the RFR must be postmarked or
received by USCIS within 90 days of the date of the denial notice.
262
USCIS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM)” (Nov. 15, 2016).
263
Id.
264
See DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” at 4-5 (Nov. 2016).
265
Id.
257

41

 Qualifying children approved for refugee status through CAM must undergo a
medical exam as well as a cultural orientation designed to help prepare them for
integration into the United States. 266
IOM provides the child with a loan covering the costs of the child’s travel to the
United States. 267 Once in the United States, the child, like other refugees, is the
beneficiary of a “Reception and Placement per capita grant” furnished by PRM to the
coordinating resettlement agency in the form of a “per-capita” reimbursement. 268
Much of this grant goes directly to the temporary support of the arriving refugee’s
basic needs, such as housing, clothing, and school registration, if applicable. 269
Refugees also may receive other temporary benefits. 270 Refugees are eligible to
apply for permanent residence one year after their lawful admission into the United
States. 271
•

Qualifying Children Approved for Parole
Qualifying children denied refugee status but approved for parole must pay for their
own mandatory medical exams as well as their travel to the United States through a
USCIS-sanctioned process. 272 Parolees who relocate to the United States through
CAM do not receive PRM-funded reception and placement benefits. 273 They also are
not eligible to apply for permanent residence based on the grant of parole. 274

Special Procedures for Particularly Vulnerable Qualifying Children
For certain cases involving particularly vulnerable qualifying children, the CAM program
affords special procedures aimed at protecting those children’s safety and welfare during the
application process, separate from the CAM refugee and parole assessments. 275 These
procedures include case expedites, Best Interests Assessments, and shelter referrals.
1) Case Expedites. DOS and USCIS “expedite,” that is, process on an accelerated basis,
certain CAM cases presenting exigent circumstances. 276 Generally, it is resettlement
agencies that request expedites, though qualifying children or their guardians also may
266

See DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” at 4 (Nov. 2016).
267
See IOM Webpage, “United States of America” (Feb. 2016); https://www.iom.int/countries/united-statesamerica#rtl (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
268
See DOS Webpage, “Increase to the Refugee Reception and Placement Per Capita Grant” (Jan. 25, 2016);
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/01/135800.html (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
269
See DOS Webpages, “The Reception and Placement Program;”
http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/receptionplacement/ (accessed Dec. 13, 2016); “Increase to the Refugee Reception
and Placement Per Capita Grant” (Jan. 25, 2010); http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/01/135800.htm (accessed Dec. 13, 2016).
270
See DOS Webpage, “The Reception and Placement Program.”
271
See USCIS Webpage, “Green Card Through Refugee or Asylee Status” (October 29, 2015);
https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-through-refugee-or-asylee-status (accessed Dec. 14, 2016).
272
See DOS Webpage, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala
(Central American Minors – CAM): Frequently Asked Questions” at 5 (Nov. 2016).
273
Id.
274
Id.
275
Information received from DOS (May 2, 2016); information received from RSC (May 17, 2016).
276
Information provided by DOS (May 2, 2016).

42

 provide information directly to the RSC that results in an expedite. 277 DOS categorizes
CAM case expedites; “urgent” cases often feature extenuating factors like sexual abuse,
domestic violence, or medical requirements. 278
2) Best Interests Assessments. The RSC administers Best Interests Assessments in
connection with CAM cases on an “as-needed basis.” 279 The RSC may perform these
assessments, for example, in instances where qualifying children are homeless, suffer
child abuse, or do not wish to disclose pregnancy to their parents. 280 The purpose of the
assessment is to analyze the child’s best interests and recommend actions that could
include counseling, medical assistance, or “alternative care arrangements.” 281 The
RSC’s Child Protection Officer coordinates these assessments. 282
3) In-country Shelter Referrals. The RSC recommends and supplies contact information
for in-country government-operated shelters to qualifying children deemed “in need of
protection." 283 However, stakeholders have indicated that shelters in El Salvador — the
country of nationality of most qualifying children — cannot provide shelter to applicants
for the duration of the CAM application process. 284 DOS and the RSC have indicated
that, to date, children have largely declined to reside in recommended shelters. 285 The
RSC does not maintain statistics on the rates of qualifying children who use
recommended shelters, nor are referred minors or shelters required to report use of the
shelters to the RSC. 286 The RSC has indicated that although around 50% of its CAM
caseload involves applicants ages 18 and older, some shelters admit only minors under
the age of 18, meaning that a substantial portion of program applicants would lack
eligibility to stay at those shelters. 287

277

Information provided by DOS (May 2, 2016); information provided by RSC (May 17, 2016).
Information provided by DOS (May 2, 2016).
279
Information provided by RSC (May 17, 2016).
280
Information provided by RSC (May 17 and Aug. 3, 2016).
281
Information provided by RSC (Aug. 3, 2016).
282
Id.
283
Id.
284
Information provided by stakeholders.
285
Information provided by DOS (May 2, 2016); information provided by RSC (May 17 and Aug. 3, 2016).
286
Information provided by RSC (Aug. 3, 2016).
287
Id.
278

43

 APPENDIX II: CAM PROGRAM DATA AND OUTCOMES
The information below provides data on CAM program receipts, applicant composition, and case
outcomes to date.
1) CAM Cases
CAM-AORs filed as of December 12, 2016 amounted to approximately 9,916 cases representing
10,758 individuals. 288 The latter figure includes both qualifying children and their eligible
family members. The overwhelming majority of these individuals — approximately 86% —
were from El Salvador. 289 Roughly 12% were from Honduras, and about 2% from Guatemala. 290

Total CAM Cases and Individuals Represented on Cases as of
9211
August 22, 2016
8505
Cases
Individuals

255
236
Guatemala

1292
1175

Honduras
Source: Information provided by USCIS (Sep. 28, 2016).

El Salvador

2) Breakdown by CAM Applicant Type
Through August 1, 2016, approximately 84% of CAM applicants were qualifying children,
approximately 10% in-country parents, and 6% derivative children. 291

288

Information provided by USCIS (Dec. 12, 2016).
Information provided by USCIS (Dec. 12, 2016).
290
Information provided by USCIS (Dec. 12, 2016).
291
Information provided by USCIS (Sep. 28, 2016).
289

44

 CAM Applicants by Type
as of August 1, 2016
84.18%
80%
70%
60%

9.80%

50%

6.02%

40%
30%

Derivative Children

20%

In-Country Parents

10%

Qualifying Children

0%

Source: Information provided by USCIS (Sep. 28, 2016).

3) Immigration Status of Qualifying Parent
Temporary Protected Status, by a dominant margin, is the most common immigration status of
qualifying parents. 292

Immigration Status of Qualifying Parents as of
March 2, 2016

89%

Temporary Protected
Status
8%

Lawful Permanent
Resident
Other

3%

Source: Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 14, 2016).

292

Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 14, 2016).

45

 4) CAM DNA Tests
Of CAM DNA tests, 99% have confirmed the claimed biological relationships. 293

DNA Testing of CAM Applicants*
1%

Confirmed DNA
Relationship
Negative DNA
Results

99%

Source: Information provided
by USCIS (Apr. 14, 2016).

5) CAM Adjudication Outcomes
As of August 22, 2016, of all CAM cases for which adjudication statistics were available —
3,253 interviews representing 3,416 individuals — USCIS had:
•

Approved or conditionally approved for refugee status 802 cases representing 873
individuals, or about 25% of the cases 294

•

Recommended for parole 2,086 cases representing 2,151 individuals, or
approximately 63% of the cases 295

•

Denied less than 1% of the cases 296

•

Held the remainder of the cases for “additional review” 297

Since the receipt of information from USCIS through September 28, 2016, USCIS completed an
additional 1,952 CAM interviews representing 2,335 individuals. This nearly doubles USCIS’
total to 5,205 CAM interviews representing 5,588 individuals. 298 USCIS projects that it will
interview 80% of CAM applicants by the end of the second quarter of FY 2017. 299
293

Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 14, 2016).
Information provided by USCIS (Sep. 28, 2016).
295
Id.
296
Information provided by USCIS (Sep. 28, 2016).
297
Id.
298
Information provided by USCIS (Nov. 21, 2016).
299
Information provided by USCIS (Dec. 19, 2016),
294

46

 CAM Adjudication Outcomes:
Refugee Status v. Parole*
64.5%

60.8%

62.8%

*For which statistics were available as
of Aug. 22, 2016

Sum of Parole Grants
Sum of Refugee Grants
21.6%

51
Guatemala

25.7%

24.9%

417
Honduras

2785
El Salvador

Applicant Totals

Source: Information provided by USCIS (Sep. 28, 2016).

6) Arrivals in the United States through CAM
As of December 12, 2016, 849 individuals had gained admission into the United States as
refugees through CAM. By December 16, 2016, 969 individuals had arrived as parolees. In
total, the program has enabled over 1800 children and family members to relocate to the United
States.

47

 ACRONYM KEY
CAM

Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program

CAM-AOR

Form DS-7699, Affidavit of Relationship (AOR) for Minors Who Are Nationals of
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras

CBP

Customs and Border Protection

DHS

Department of Homeland Security

DOS

Department of State

GAO

Government Accountability Office

ICE

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

INS

Legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service

IOM

International Organization for Migration

PRM

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

PTA

Protection Transfer Arrangement

RAD

Refugee Affairs Division

RAVU

Refugee Access Verification Unit

RSC

Resettlement Support Center

TPS

Temporary Protected Status

UAC

Unaccompanied Alien Children

UNHCR

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNICEF

United Nations Children’s Fund

UNODC

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

USCIS

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

48