T5 B5 W Hempel's Files 2 Of 2 Fdr- 11-24-03 Fax From Dhs To Hempel- Reference Material 187

•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:

Date: 11/24/03 From: To:

(802) 660-5067

Number of Pages:

/
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

Eastern Reg.Counsel Offl

10:30 FAX

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 Subject: Author:

Forward Header Stowaway issue 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

Si002

03/02/04

10:30 FAX

65^4

65-45

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

ien, security cases, applii and, formerly, transits to this country, particut 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

Pub.325)

-I—*

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 presence here is coupled with freedom from physical restraint, and can be dealt with then only in expulsion proceedings.7

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


§ ^

|2J —Alien Stowaways

ing Requirements

226. 472, 97 L. Ed. 576 (1953) 1954) (stowaway); Rafeedie ise). See generally discussion

EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS

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?

nsidering requires com;ulations.3 Those providing, 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

11 (asylum) and § 242.22 698, 701 (7ih Cir. 1985); (7th Cir. 1985) ("reopening •mulgated regulations estab:ould present new developpening and reconsideration, Cir. 1981). liter of Rangel-Cantu, 12 I.

Eastern Reg.Counsel Offl

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, , Pub. L. 101-649, 104 Slat. 4978.

u'

• 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

Interim Decision #2984

ates consul, which states that her naturalization in Ven3 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 inrelinquishing 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 dehe difficult circumstances surrounding her decision to oiezuelan citizenship. These affidavits notwithstanding, > probative evidence in the record, either new or contemwith 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. Accordappeal will be dismissed. fc The appeal is dismissed.

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 immigrant visa (both applicants) ON BEHALF OF APPLICANTS: Paul M. Douglass, Esquire David W. Chew, Esquire Douglass & Chew 604 Myrtle Avenue El Paso, Texas 79901

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: Guadalupe R. Gonzalez General Attorney

BY: Dunne, Acting Chairman; Maniatis, Morris, and Vacca, Board Members

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

The immigration judge, in a decision rendered August 10, 1984, found that the applicants are amenable only to deportation proceedings and therefore he ordered these exclusion proceedings terminated. 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 Taiwanese 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 Airport 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 deterof their admissibility as TRWOVs at a continued or deipection, 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 sucentering the United States without inspection. They ass 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 es3 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 actuald" the United States and so are subject only to deportasdings. 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 "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 involving the entry issue and synthesized a three-part analysis, concluding 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) freedom 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 entitled 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 United States and remains subject to exclusion proceedings. Matter of Lin, supra. 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 Airport and remained in the custody of the carrier before, during, and after completion of the inspection process. When they sought admission under the TRWOV privilege and were refused such status by the examining immigration officer, the applicants simply remained in the carrier's custody pending their return to Hong Kong. The applicants did not seek to further test their admissibility 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 determination of the immigration officer was final. Thus, this case is readily distinguishable from Matter of Lin, supra, where the alien absconded after being placed in exclusion proceedings and while awaiting a hearing before an immigration judge. Lin's processing for admission was not finalized but his application for admission was a continuing 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 completed and they remained in the carrier's custody within the detention lounge without having actually "landed," i.e., they were in a position legally equivalent to aliens "on the threshhold" and out-

NS X

o

r Iw

M ED as rt CD

1

0 O a as CD

0 Hs

\

.

Interim Decision # 2984 side a United States land border.l In summary, the critical distinction between this case and Lin is that Lin was already in exclusion proceedings (following service of a Form 1-122) and awaiting a formal hearing when he escaped, whereas here the applicants were not in exclusion proceedings pursuing a continuing application for admission, but their application and inspection were completed, the determination was final, and they were merely awaiting return transportation. In effect, the applicants made two separate attempts 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 analogous to that in Matter of A-, supra. There, the alien had been discovered 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 and his removal could be enforced only through deportation proceedings. 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 actually "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. Therefore, 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 immigra1 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).

Interim Decision #2984 tion officer and acceded to that determination and his order that they be detained by the carrier pending removal on its next Available return flight, and subsequently escaped from the carrier's custody, thereby "entered" the United States and so are amenable only' to deportation proceedings. Accordingly, the immigration judge properly ordered these exclusion proceedings terminated. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

en CD

03/02/04

10:32 FAX

Eastern Reg.Counsel Offl

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

11)007

iioos

Eastern Reg.Counsel Offl INS HQ INSPECTIONS

03/02/04 10:32 FAX 01/08/2003 11:29 FAI 2025148345

@]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-

^

ixef 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

o i / u w / z u u a I li:2» KA1 20^5148345

Eastern Reg.Counsel Off! INS HQ INSPECTIONS

Memorandum for Regional Directors, et al. Subject: Security for Crew Detained on Board Ships - IFM Update IN02-28

©009

Igl003/005

Page 2

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

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

©004/005

Page 3

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 01/09/2003 11:30 FAX 2025148345

Eastern Reg.Counsel Offl INS HQ INSPECTIONS

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

1^1005/005

Page 4

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