•3/02/04 10:29 FAX Eastern Reg.

Counsel O f f l

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

FACSIMILE COVER SHEET

Office of the Principal Legal Advisor

70 Kimball Avenue, Room 103
South Burlington, VT 05403
Phone: (802)660-5043

Fax: (802) 660-5067

Date: 11/24/03 Number of Pages:

From: /</

To: UJ^'

Telephone: FAX:

Message:

WARNINGI This facsimile transmission cover sheet and any documents that accompany it are intended only for the individual or entity it is addressed to and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, YOU ARE
HEREBY NOTIFIED (hat any disseminalion, distribution or copying of Ihis communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the address above via the U.S. Postal Service.
03/02/04 10:30 FAX Eastern Reg.Counsel Offl Si002

Lotus cc:Mail for Thomas F McCarthy

Date: 3/17/99 8:54 AM

Sender: Jack Penca
To: Joseph A Aguilar; Terry Bird; Victoria Christian; Edward L Dunlay; Kent J
Frederick; James W Grable; George W Maugans; Rachel A McCarthy;
Frederick J McGrath; Brian E Meyers; Charles M Parker; Vivian
Reyes-Lopez; Eloise Rosas; Daniel N Vara; Matilda A Baker; Cornelius T
Cashman; Mark Curley; Bruce B Dizengoff; Lisa Dobpsiewicz; Patricia
Gannon; Bill Gossard; Teresita R Guerrero; Wayne Kimball; Thomas
McGrath; John Opaciuch; Theresa Pauling; Riah Ramlogan; Rebeca
Sanchez-Roig; Lloyd Sherman; David Don; Russell A Ezolt; Mary E
Heiskell; George W Katz; Thomas F McCarthy; Suzanne McGregor;
Thomas F Muther; Jon D Staples; Thomas K Ware; Laurence M Zieff
Priority: Normal
Receipt requested
Subject: Fwd: Stowaway issue
The message below recaps General Counsel's conclusions on stowaways. Of
particular note, a stowaway who successfully makes it into the U.S. without
detection is entitled to 240 proceedings. - Jack
Forward Header
Subject: Stowaway issue
Author: Ronald W Whitney
Date: 3/16/99 5:06 PM

All: Just to recap and memorialize our conference call on Thursday, here's
what we concluded:
-An arriving stowaway may be removed upon inspection by an immigration
officer under section 235(a)(2), subject to the right of the stowaway to request
a credible fear interview under that section. This person may not be placed in
section 240 proceedings.
-A stowaway who, upon his arrival, is identified by the INS as a stowaway,
but somehow absconds prior to removal may also be removed under section
235(a)(2) at any time after she absconds. She is not entitled to 240
proceedings.
-A stowaway who is not detected or identified as a stowaway and enters the
U.S. without inspection is not subject to removal under section 235(a){2) even
if it is later determined thafshe entered by means of stowing away. Such
person may be removed under section 240 proceedings as an alien present
without inspection, and she continues to be a stowaway and is inadmissible
under section 212(a)(6)(D).
-We think that this interpretation is consistent with the current regulations.
The person described in the third category above has not "absconded" so
may not be "removed under section 235(a){2) of the Act as if encountered
upon arrival." See 8 CFR 235.1(d)(4). But we will seek to revise the regs to
make this more clear.
-These conclusions affect both the Chicago case, where the woman was
removed under 235(a)(2) although she was not an arriving stowaway (or
identified as a stowaway upon her arrival), and the Boston case, where the
alien is awaiting a credible fear interview. I will speak to Jim Hoofnagle about
the Chicago case. Jack, I believe you were going to let Boston know that in
their case, the person should be put into 240 proceedings.
If I've misstated anything here, please let me know.
--Ron
 03/02/04 10:30 FAX
65^4
nsidering requires com-
;ulations.3 Those provi-
ding, namely, a persua-
: 10 be presented (the
not have been presented
subject of reopening and
ngth in § 3.05[7] supra.
has departed the United
ing Requirements
it may not appear to the
arrival that the applicant
and," the decision as to
idge after hearing.1 But
it, past or current, which
ien, security cases, appli-
i and, formerly, transits
to this country, particu-
t captiously be deprived
en if he was seeking entry
a security risk.2 And it
rably claims to be a U.S.
opportunity to prove his
11 (asylum) and § 242.22
698, 701 (7ih Cir. 1985);
(7th Cir. 1985) ("reopening
, Pub. L. 101-649, 104 Slat. 4978.
•mulgated regulations estab-
:ould present new develop-
pening and reconsideration,
Cir. 1981).
liter of Rangel-Cantu, 12 I.
u'
226.
472, 97 L. Ed. 576 (1953)
1954) (stowaway); Rafeedie
ise). See generally discussion
<Rel.54-»/9l Pub.325)
Eastern Reg.Counsel Offl
65-45
EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS
§
^ -I—*
title. 3 Moreover, there are rights that arise under the Refugee Aci of
1980 to apply for asylum irrespective of the alien's status. 4 How are
these rights to be implemented for such classes of aliens as stowaways
and crewmen, relegated to summary exclusion, under regulations that
generally permit application to a judge in exclusion proceedings?
|2J —Alien Stowaways
An alien stowaway is excluded by the immigration inspector without
formal hearing; the statute prohibits reference of the stowaway's case
to an immigration judge and denies such an alien any right of appeal.5
The Board of Immigration Appeals, however, has refused to deny an
exclusion hearing to a stowaway who was a resident of the United
States, returning from a brief, temporary absence. 6 Such a resident,
it held, has a constitutional right to a fair hearing. Moreover, the
preclusion of hearing and appeal do not apply if the stowaway escapes
and enters the United Slates, even after detention has been ordered.
The stowaway has entered the United States, once his physical pres-
ence here is coupled with freedom from physical restraint, and can
be dealt with then only in expulsion proceedings.7
Under current procedures, a stowaway may present an application
for asylum to a district director, 8 and courts have ruled that if the
application is denied it can be renewed before an immigration judge.9
Consideration by that judge, in such case, would be limited to the
asylum application but would presumably be appealable to the Board.
However, the Board has refused to acquiesce in this view, holding that
3 See generally discussion at § 65.03 supra.
"Section 201 (b). Refugee Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Slat. 109,
codified at INA § 208.
' I N A §§ 235(b), 273(d), 8 U.S.C. §§ I225(b), 1323(d). Stowaways were
inadmissible to the United States under former INA § 212(a)( 18). redesignaied
as § 212(a)(6.)(D) by Sec. 601, Immigration Act of 1990, Aci of Nov. 29, 1990,
• Mailer of B-, 5 1. & N. Dec. 356 (BIA 1954), citing Kwong Hai Chew
v. Colding. 344 U.S. 344, 73 S. Cl. 472, 97 L. Ed. 576 (1953).
7 Matter of A-. 9 L & N. Dec. 356 (BIA 1961). For more recent example
of alien treated as having entered when escaped from carrier custody after
refused admission as TRWOV, see Matter of Ching and Chen, Interim Dec.
No. 2984 (BIA 1984).
*See INA § 208. 8 U.S.C. § J158; 8 C.F.R. § 208.3(a): OI 208.10.
9 Chun v. Sava, 708 F.2d 869 (2d Cir. 1983). Accord: Cheng v. lichen, 698
F. Supp. 825 (N.D. Cal. 1988); Yau v. Gustafson, 623 F. Supp. 1515 (CD.
Cal. 1985) (see comment on this decision in 63 Interpreter Releases 548
(1986)). See § 33.05[2J[b] supra.
IManhcw Bender & Co.. Inc.)
I 91 Pub.325)
 'ecision #2983
ates consul, which states that her naturalization in Ven-
3 undertaken by her voluntarily, and not as a result of
compulsion, force, or duress. Additionally, her affidavit
t this act of naturalization was undertaken with the in-
relinquishing her United States citizenship,
ttal of this evidence the petitioner has offered only self-
'orn statements (drafted more than 5 years subsequent to
Department affidavit) from her husband and herself de-
he difficult circumstances surrounding her decision to
oiezuelan citizenship. These affidavits notwithstanding,
> probative evidence in the record, either new or contem-
with the petitioner's naturalization, that contradicts the
aus content of her 1976 sworn statement to a United
isul.7 Therefore, we conclude that the petitioner has
:arry her burden of establishing her status as a United
zen. Having so failed, the petitioner cannot accord the
j status as the spouse of a United States citizen. Accord-
appeal will be dismissed.
fc The appeal is dismissed.
a its absence from the record is any sworn statement by the petitioner
the speculations raised in her appellate brief that the typed portions of
tpartment affidavit (relating to her intent to relinquish her United
ship) may be unclear, and that her knowledge of English at the time of
t to the consular office may have been insufficient to understand the
je language to which she was attesting,
202
Interim Decision #2984
MATTER OF CHING AND CHEN
In Exclusion Proceedings
A-26923928
A-26923929
Decided by Board November 28, 1384
Aliens who were refused admission and subsequently escaped
from carrier custody while awaiting removal thereby "entered" the
United States and so are subject only to deportation proceedings.
Matter of A-, 9 I&N Dec. 356 (BIA 1961), followed. Matter of Lin, 18
I&N Dec. 219 (BIA 1982), distinguished.
EXCLUDABLE: Act of 1952-Sec. 212(aX20) (8 U.S.C. § 1182(aX20)]-No valid immi-
grant visa (both applicants)
ON BEHALF OF APPLICANTS: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
Paul M. Douglass, Esquire Guadalupe R. Gonzalez
David W. Chew, Esquire General Attorney
Douglass & Chew
604 Myrtle Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79901
BY: Dunne, Acting Chairman; Maniatis, Morris, and Vacca, Board Members
The immigration judge, in a decision rendered August 10, 1984,
found that the applicants are amenable only to deportation pro-
ceedings and therefore he ordered these exclusion proceedings ter-
minated. The Immigration and Naturalization Service appeals. The
appeal will be dismissed.
The applicants are a 22-year-old female and an 18-year-old male,
natives and citizens of the People's Republic of China, each of
whom also holds a valid Hong Kong identification card and a Tai-
wanese passport. They were among a group of five aliens traveling
from Hong Kong to Guatemala via Tokyo and Los Angeles on a
commercial airline. Upon arrival at Los Angeles International Air-
port on July 20, 1984, the carrier (airline) presented the group for
inspection and admission under the transit without visa
("TRWOV") privilege. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 212.1(e)(l), 214.2(cXD (1984).
203
 )ecision #2984
lining immigration officer denied the five aliens entry as
and issued to the carrier a Form 1-259 (Notice to Detain,
lemove, or Present Aliens), formally directing that they be
by the carrier pending their removal on the carrier's next
return flight to Hong Kong. See 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(d) (1984).
s apparently made no attempt to obtain a further deter-
of their admissibility as TRWOVs at a continued or de-
ipection, or to pursue their applications for admission at
ion hearing before an immigration judge but agreed to
the examining immigration officer's decision and return
Kong. They then apparently were kept in isolation in a
rea or lounge within the airport until their final removal
trier could be effected. While in this carrier custody, the
'o applicants surreptitiously left the detention lounge and
ngeles International Airport, abandoning their passports,
kets, and baggage. Two days later they were apprehended
an eastbound commercial bus at the border patrol check
Sierra Blanca, Texas. The Service served each applicant
irder to Show Cause, Notice of Hearing, and Warrant for
Alien (Form I-221S) and held them in custody at a Serv-
;ion facility. The Service later cancelled the Orders to
ise and instead issued to each applicant a Form 1-122
Applicant for Admission Detained for Hearing Before
on Judge) placing them in these exclusion proceedings,
ilicants argued before the immigration judge that the ex-
•oceedings should be terminated because they properly
jet only to deportation proceedings in that they had suc-
entering the United States without inspection. They as-
s result is consistent with a factually analogous case,
A-, 9 I&N Dec. 356 (BIA 1961), where an alien stowaway
m board a vessel awaiting removal who subsequently es-
3 the carrier's custody, landed on shore, and remained in
ry undetected for 2 years was held to have effected an
\d so was amenable only to deportation proceedings. The
untered that this matter is controlled by Matter of Lin,
2C. 219 (BIA 1982), where an alien who absconded from a
tention facility while awaiting an exclusion hearing did
an entry into the United States and was properly placed
>n proceedings. The immigration judge agreed with the
and terminated the exclusion proceedings. This appeal
vice followed.
on of this case turns upon whether the applicants actual-
d" the United States and so are subject only to deporta-
sdings. Section 101(aX13) of the Immigration and Nation-
Interim Decision #2984
.
o
ality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(aX13) (1982), generally defines "entry" as NS
X
o
"any coming of an alien into the United States from a foreign port
or place or from an outlying possession." In Matter of Pierre, 14
I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 1973), we examined prior case precedent involv-
ing the entry issue and synthesized a three-part analysis, conclud- r
Iw
ing that an entry involves (1) a crossing into the territorial limits
of the United States, i.e., physical presence; (2Xa) inspection and
admission by an immigration officer or (b) actual and intentional
evasion of inspection at the nearest inspection point; and (3) free-
dom from official restraint. Id, at 468 (citations omitted). Moreover,
it is well settled that an alien's parole from Service custody into
the United States does not constitute an entry and he is not enti-
tled to deportation proceedings. Section 212(d)(5) of the Act, 8
U.S.C. § 1182(dX5) (1982); Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185
(1958); Luk v. Rosenberg, 409 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1969). Similarly, an
alien detained by the Service, rather than granted parole, pending
an exclusion hearing who escapes from custody does not enter the
M
United States and remains subject to exclusion proceedings. Matter ED
as
of Lin, supra. rt
CD
Under the facts herein, we conclude that the applicants' escape
from carrier custody into the United States constituted an entry.
The applicants arrived by aircraft at Los Angeles International
1
Airport and remained in the custody of the carrier before, during, 0
O
and after completion of the inspection process. When they sought a
admission under the TRWOV privilege and were refused such as
CD
status by the examining immigration officer, the applicants simply
0
remained in the carrier's custody pending their return to Hong Hs
Kong. The applicants did not seek to further test their admissibil-
ity as TRWOVs but ostensibly accepted the immigration officer's
refusal of admission and agreed to return home. It is clear that the
inspection process was not to be ongoing or held in abeyance but
that the applicants' inspection was completed and the determina-
tion of the immigration officer was final. Thus, this case is readily
distinguishable from Matter of Lin, supra, where the alien abscond-
ed after being placed in exclusion proceedings and while awaiting a
hearing before an immigration judge. Lin's processing for admis-
sion was not finalized but his application for admission was a con-
tinuing application throughout the exclusion proceedings. See
Matter of Kazemi, 19 I&N Dec. 49 (BIA 1984). Here, by contrast,
the applicants' inspection and application for admission were com- \
pleted and they remained in the carrier's custody within the deten-
tion lounge without having actually "landed," i.e., they were in a
position legally equivalent to aliens "on the threshhold" and out-
 Interim Decision # 2984 Interim Decision #2984

side a United States land border.l In summary, the critical distinc- tion officer and acceded to that determination and his order that
tion between this case and Lin is that Lin was already in exclusion they be detained by the carrier pending removal on its next Avail-
proceedings (following service of a Form 1-122) and awaiting a able return flight, and subsequently escaped from the carrier's cus-
formal hearing when he escaped, whereas here the applicants were tody, thereby "entered" the United States and so are amenable
not in exclusion proceedings pursuing a continuing application for only' to deportation proceedings. Accordingly, the immigration
admission, but their application and inspection were completed, the judge properly ordered these exclusion proceedings terminated.
determination was final, and they were merely awaiting return ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
transportation. In effect, the applicants made two separate at-
tempts to enter the United States: their first failed when they were
rejected for admission as TRWOVs; their second succeeded when
they slipped away from the detention lounge, evading detection by
either carrier or Service.
We agree with the applicants that their situation is legally anal-
ogous to that in Matter of A-, supra. There, the alien had been dis-
covered on board a commercial ocean vessel as a stowaway before
it arrived in port in the United States. Upon arrival, the alien was
inspected by an immigration officer who determined the alien was
a stowaway and refused him entry. See section 212(aX18) of the Act.
Accordingly, the carrier was ordered to detain the stowaway on
board and remove him when the ship left port. See section 273(d) of
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1323(d) (1982). Thus, formal disposition by the
Service of the stowaway's application for admission was concluded.
However, he later managed to escape from the ship and come
ashore and was not apprehended in the United States until 2 years
later. The Board held that the alien had entered without inspection en
CD
and his removal could be enforced only through deportation pro-
ceedings. This is essentially what occurred in this case as well.
Both here and in Matter of A-, the aliens, although physically
present within this country's territorial jurisdiction, did not actual-
ly "land" in the United States. Their inspections and applications
for admission were completed and a final determination was made
refusing to admit them and ordering them removed, and they were
detained by the carrier pending final removal, during which time
they escaped and made their way into the United States. There-
fore, consistent with Matter of A-, the instant applicants must be
deemed to have entered the United States without inspection.
In conclusion, the applicants, who arrived by aircraft at a United
States airport, were refused admission by the examining immigra-

1 Federal regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(a) (1984) indicate that all persona arriving
at a port in the United States by vessel or aircraft must remain in custody of the
carrier at least until presented to an immigration officer for inspection and that
persons in such carrier custody detained on board the vessel or "at the airport of
arrival" have not "landed" in the United States. See also section 233(a) of the Act, 8
U.S.C. § I223(a) (1982).
03/02/04 10:32 FAX Eastern Reg.Counsel Offl 11)007

Lotus cc:Mail for Thomas F McCarthy

Date: 1/12/2000 3:42 PM

Sender: William B Odencrantz
To: Eleanor A Smith; Virginia C Kice; William C Birkett; Peter L Gordon; Carolyn L Muzyka;
Johnny N Williams; Ronald J Smith; David M Dixon; Cristina Hamilton; Rachel A McCarthy;
Thomas F McCarthy; Arthur E Adams; Robert S Coleman; John W Salter
Priority: Normal
Subject:Stowaway costs
Eleanor:
I've reviewed the statutory and case law applicable to three questions: 1) May INS
charge the aliens with the cost of repatriating these alien stowaways; 2) May the
aliens charge the carriers with costs of maintenance and detention; and, 3) May the
INS charge the aliens with the costs for Service officer time. As part of #2, does the
cost of maintenance include billing the carrier for the costs of medical treatment.
The case law is Dia Navigation Co., Ltd v. Reno. The 3rd Cir. did recognize that
stowaways are different than TWOVs and that INS could charge transportation lines
for detention costs under former section 273 INA. The court found that INS had
failed to implement this requirement by regulation as required by the APA, thus
required significant refunds of past expenses paid by this company.
Subsequent to this decision, Congress stepped in and amended the statute to
clearly define requirements for stowaway maintenance, detention and removal.
Section 241(c)(3) specifically provides that "an owner of a vessel or aircraft bringing
an alien to the United States shall pay the costs of detaining and maintaining the
alien ...(ii) in the case of an alien who is a stowaway, while the alien is being
detained pursuant to,... or (III) section 235(b)(1)(B)ii) for a period not to exceed 15
days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays)...." This is a very abridged
version of the statutory text, which makes a very complex scheme seemingly
simple. I also note that careful analysis also requires looking at subparts (d) & (e)
of section 241 and at section 235(b) INA.
While this isn't a per se legal opinion, simply a quickee review with respect to our
initial game plan,I think the statute makes it clear that the transportation line in these
cases are required to pay for 15 days detention for the stowaways from their
vessels. Since the statute includes both detention and maintenance, there is a
good argument that it also covers alien medical expenses. The implementing
regulations at 8 CFR 241.11 include the medical expenses as assessed costs.
By the same token, these regulations do not include the costs of Service officer time
as covered expenses. The statutory terminology doesn't fit trying to place this as a
detention or maintenance cost. I don't believe INS ever billed these costs under
prior section 273 INA. In addition, there doesn't appear to be a mechanism that
would recoup the costs back to the INS budget even if they could be billed as
collectibles.
Hope this helps as a starting point. We can discuss any or all of it further if anyone
desires.
WBO
 Eastern Reg.Counsel Offl iioos
03/02/04 10:32 FAX
01/08/2003 11:29 FAI 2025148345 INS HQ INSPECTIONS @]002/005

U.S. Department or Justice

Immigration and Naturalization Service

PcAicy Trans le
HQINS 70/6.2.4

Office of the Executive Associate Commissioner

Washington, DC 20536

JAN 8 2003

MEMORANDUM FOR REGIONAL DIRECTORS

CHIEF, U.S. BORDER PATROL
ACTING DIRECTOR
OFFJCE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
OFFICER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING
FACILrTY,G£YNCO
OFFICER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING
T, ARTESIA

FROM: / /"ohnnyN- ^
ixe<K|t»0s"AssociatA Commissioner
>f Field Operations

SUBJECT: \Securitv for Crew/Detained on Board Ships - IFM Update IN02-28

Effective iftHnediater^T the policies and procedures outlined in this document shall be
followed when processing alien crewmen at scaports-of-cntry. To reflect these requirements and
reiterate the proper procedures, the Inspectors Field Manual (IFM) will be updated in a future
release of INSERTS. Please direct any questions relating to this policy to Andy Taub, Assistant
Chief Inspector at (202) 305-9244.

Chapter 23.7 of the IFM is amended by adding paragraphs (e) through (h).

23.7 Deserters and Abscondecs

(e) Initiation of Security Procedures. In a concerted effort to ensure that crew detained aboard
vessels do not abscond and pose a possible threat to the security of the port, the Service
will work jointly with the U.S. Coast Guard at the sea ports-of-entry to insure that proper
security exists to "reduce potential opportunities" (see paragraph (a) of this chapter) for
deserters and abscondees. The Service will follow the procedures below to
coordinate its security efforts with the local U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP).
OT/02/04 1 0 - 3 3 FAX Eastern Reg.Counsel Off! ©009
o i / u w / z u u a I li:2» KA1 20^5148345 INS HQ INSPECTIONS Igl003/005

Memorandum for Regional Directors, et al. Page 2

Subject: Security for Crew Detained on Board Ships - IFM Update IN02-28

After the Service has received and processed crew lists through the law enforcement
databases and is fully satisfied that crewmembers do not pose any security risks to the United
States, the Service will advjse the U.S. Coast Guard that the Service does not have any
information that raises initial security concerns about that vessel, in terms of the Coast Guard
approving the vessel to enter or dock at the port. When making a determination whether a
crewman may pose a "security risk" the following factors should be considered:

1. Preliminary database checks that reveal a prima facie case for inadmissibility based
on criminal history, previous immigration violations, and/or other intelligence data
such as U.S. Customs lookout information or NAILS lookouts. A strong likelihood
should be established that the suspect crewman and the database information are an
exact match.
2. The vessel or shipping line has a history of desertions or other violations of the INA.
3. The nationality of the suspect crewman may be of special interest to the INS or other
law enforcement agencies.

If the Service identifies security concerns, the Service will withhold the inspection of the entire
crew until such time that the Service receives written notification from the agent, owner, or •
master of the vessel stating that sufficient security services have been arranged to ensure the
security of the vessel during its entire stay in port. (The cost for this security is to be borne by the
agent, owner, or master of the vessel.) At that time the Service will advise the U.S. Coast Guard
that it is prepared to inspect the crew.

If sufficient security can not be provided, the Service will notify the COTP. The Service
will request that the COTP forward a letter to the owner, agent, or master requiring that the
vessel remain outside the port area. In those instances where a vessel is permitted to proceed to
port and, upon INS inspection or any time during the vessel's stay in port, it is determined that
certain crew pose a security risk to the United States, the COTP may be asked to exercise its
authority in the issuance of a letter requiring immediate departure of the vessel, unless acceptable
security measures have been promptly provided to ensure that all detained individuals remain on
board the ship.

ff) Standard Operating Procedures for Detained Crew Coastwise Vessels

When Forms 1-259, Notice to Detain, Remove, or Present Alien; 1-410, Receipt of Crew
List; or, 1-418, Passenger List and Crew List, are received from a previous port indicating that a
vessel will arrive coastwise with detained crew on board, a copy of both forms should be faxed
to the Coast Guard's Marine Safety Officer (MSO). In addition, onward port officials (INS and
USCG) should be notified when enhanced security has been required at a prior port.
 Eastern Reg.Counsel Off! IglOlO
ins mi INFECTIONS ©004/005

Memorandum for Regional Directors Page 3

Security for Crew Detained on Board Ships - IFM Update 1N02-28

Upon receipt of these forms, the Service may request written notification from the agent,
owner, or master of the vessel stating that sufficient security services have been arranged to
ensure the security of the vessel during its entire stay in port. If sufficient security cannot be
provided, the Service will notify the COTP- The Service will request that the COTP forward a
letter to the agent, owner, or master requiring that the vessel remain outside the port area.

When the COTP letter is received, a copy of the letter and a copy of the Standard
Operating Procedures Security Services for Detained Crew (see paragraph (g) below) should be
faxed to the agent of the vessel. The agent for the vessel is then required to notify DSTS when
guard service has been arranged.

When notification has been received from the agent and a determination is made that the
arranged security is acceptable, the INS will forward by fax and/or e-mail a letter to the MSO
notifying him that the vessel will be in compliance of the COTP letter when the ship arrives, A
copy of the letter from the INS will also be forwarded to the vessel's agent for his information.
Each port-of-entry should maintain a folder for each vessel for which Forms 1-259,1-410, or I-,
418 are received.

(g) Guidelines

A copy of the following guidelines should be made available to the contracted security
company. All relevant points-of-contact and phone numbers should also be provided.

Contracted security assigned to provide security services arc to ensure that only those
crewmembers authorized to disembark are allowed to do so. The Service will identify to the
security services each alien crewman who must be detained on board.

Contracted security assigned to provide security services at vessels on which the INS has
detained crewmembers are to ensure that:

1) Any attempt to disembark a vessel by crewmembers not authorized to land shall be

reported immediately lo local security services (facility guard posts, facility
managers), the INS, the United States Coast Guard, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, local police departments), and the vessel's agent.
2) Questions related to whether a particular crewmember is allowed to disembark shall
be forwarded to the ship's agent and, if necessary, the INS.
03/02/04 10:33 FAX Eastern Reg.Counsel Offl
01/09/2003 11:30 FAX 2025148345 INS HQ INSPECTIONS 1^1005/005

Memorandum for Regional Directors Page 4

Security for Crew Detained on Board Ships - IFM Update IN02-28

Non-crew may, with proper identification, leave the vessel. This may include vendors and
service providers contracted to the ship (i.c., stevedores, agents). A visitor's log shall be
maintained of all persons leaving or joining the ship.

The INS and/or the U.S.Coast Guard shall conduct random checks of security services and
inadequate security services may result in initiation of administrative penalties against the
agent and/or the vessel and may result in a determination that the contracted security service
cannot bt used for future crew detention.

fli> Sample letter to U.S. Coast Guard

The following sample format may be used as notification to the U.S. Coast Guard.

Pursuant to your Captain of the Port Order dated , 2002 to the vessel
_, the vessel's agent, . __, has made
adequate security arrangements to ensure the security of the vessel and its crew while In
. The agent shall ensure security at the vessel and shall contact the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS), the United States Coast Guard (USCG), the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the Police Department in the event of any attempt by unauthorized
crew to disembark. The INS has notified the agent that the disembarkation of unauthorized crew
shall result in the initiation of fines against the vessel and/or its agent by the INS and notification
to the USCG for initiation of administrative and/or criminal penalties as appropriate.

If additional information is required, please contact , Immigration -

officer, at ( ) - . Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. We look
forward to working closely with you to address national security issues.

Sincerely,

INS Officer