Unseen Prisoners - Report on Women in Immigration Detention AZ, UA, 2009

• Feb. 25, 2016 • Locations: United States of America -> Arizona • Topics: Gender Discrimination -- Women, Immigration

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

UNSEEN PRISONERS:

A Report on Women in
Immigration Detention Facilities in Arizona
fAt
~ THE UNIVERSllY
~. OF ARIZONA.
Southwest Institute for Research on Women, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Bacon Immigration Law and Policy Program, James E. Rogers College of Law

January 2009

Unseen Prisoners:
A Report on Women in Immigration Detention Facilities in Arizona
Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................i
I. Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
A.
The basics of immigration detention ............................................................... 1
B.
Women in immigration detention ..................................................................... 4
1. A growing population............................................................................................ 4
2. A population with distinctive characteristics and needs ............................... 5
C. The facilities............................................................................................................. 5
D. Applicable standards............................................................................................. 9
1. Detention standards.............................................................................................. 9
2. Other applicable standards ............................................................................... 10
3. Gender specific standards ................................................................................. 11
II. Methodology................................................................................................................. 12
III. Conditions .................................................................................................................. 18
A.
Medical care ........................................................................................................... 18
1. General concerns................................................................................................. 18
2. Women’s distinctive health concerns.............................................................. 20
B.
Mental health ......................................................................................................... 22
C. Security .................................................................................................................... 25
1. Mixed population ................................................................................................. 25
2. Use of shackles and strip searches................................................................... 27
3. Treatment by guards .......................................................................................... 28
D. Telephone access ................................................................................................. 29
E.
Access to legal counsel and other assistance ............................................. 33
F.
Visitation ................................................................................................................. 36
1. Attorney visitation .............................................................................................. 36
2. Family visitation .................................................................................................. 36
G. Food and provisions ............................................................................................ 37
H. Activities.................................................................................................................. 39
1. Jobs........................................................................................................................ 39
2. Classes and resources ......................................................................................... 40
3. Recreatiion ........................................................................................................... 41
I. Transfer....................................................................................................................... 42
IV. Key concerns ............................................................................................................. 44
A.
Family separation ................................................................................................. 44
B.
ICE’s discretionary determinations ................................................................. 47
C. Expedited removal ............................................................................................... 49
V. Recommendations........................................................................................................ 53
Addendum............................................................................................................................. 61
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ 62
Appendix A: Summary of ICE Detention Standards.................................................. 63
Appendix B: Informed Consent Forms ......................................................................... 73

Executive Summary
Roughly three hundred women are currently detained in immigration
detention facilities in Arizona. Large scale detention of immigrants is a relatively
recent phenomenon, and detention of women in significant numbers is even more
recent. Women have only been detained in immigration detention facilities in the
state since 2001. They have been placed in facilities that largely house other
populations, either male immigration detainees or people serving criminal
sentences of either sex. There is little public information about or awareness of
immigration detention facilities, and in light of the small numbers of women and
their recent addition, even less information or awareness about their treatment.
The University of Arizona’s Southwest Institute for Research on Women
(SIROW), with support from the Bacon Immigration Law and Policy Program of the
James E. Rogers College of Law, undertook this report in order to fill this
information gap and determine the extent to which immigration detention facilities
in Arizona are responsive to the needs of women detainees. Over a twelve month
period from September 2007 through August 2008, SIROW researchers and law
students conducted interviews with over forty people who have knowledge about
the facilities, including currently and previously detained women, family members
of detainees, and attorneys and social service providers who have worked with
women in immigration detention facilities.
The three facilities that currently house women immigration detainees in
Arizona are in Florence and Eloy, two small remote desert towns a significant
distance from the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas. The government agency
in charge of the detention and removal of immigrants, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), contracts with the private for-profit prison company
Corrections Corporation of America to run two of the three facilities. The third
facility is a county jail in Florence in which ICE contracts for bed space for
immigration detainees.
Based on its research, this report identifies the following key concerns about
the conditions of confinement for women in these three immigration detention
facilities. The list below includes a few highlights from women interviewed in the
report. Many more detailed accounts that support these findings are described in
the body of the report.
Inadequate medical care

A was detained while six months pregnant. She spent over a month in
detention, and during this time was unable to receive appropriate prenatal
care, including monitoring of a potentially dangerous ovarian cyst,
prenatal vitamins, or extra padding for her bed.

L received a diagnosis of cervical cancer just prior to her detention.
Despite her repeated requests, she waited for months to see a nurse after
she arrived in detention. When she eventually had the nurse’s visit, she
was given aspirin. Only after an emergency arose one month later did she
finally succeed in seeing an oncologist.

Failure to recognize the mental health needs of women detainees

M, an undocumented 25 year old woman, arrived in detention straight
from the hospital, where she was taken after her abusive partner severely
beat her and turned her over to ICE. She received no mental health care or
counseling during her five months in detention.

Mixing women immigration detainees with people serving criminal
sentences

T was one of many women who described being terrified of the federal
prisoners in her cell block. She routinely skipped meals for fear of
encountering them in the dining hall.

Family separation

The majority of women interviewed were separated from at least one U.S.
citizen child under the age of 10.
The majority of women interviewed were transferred to Arizona from out
of state. As a result, they were hundreds or at times thousands of miles
away from their families and communities during their time in detention.
L was in detention after her abusive husband reported her to ICE. He
visited her in detention to inform her he was taking their two young U.S.
citizen children with him to Mexico. Despite his history of abusive behavior
and her constant efforts, L was unable to communicate with Child
Protective Services or any other government entity to help her remove the
children from his care. At the time of her interview, she had been unable
to communicate with her children for the entire eight months of her
detention.

Inadequate access to telephones and legal materials

Numerous women interviewed were unable to place even a single call to
their families for weeks after their arrival at the detention facility. They
described exorbitant rates for phone calls, including calls to attorneys and
consulates.

Most women are unable to obtain legal counsel. The legal materials
provided in the facilities are limited and some are only available in English.

Severe penal conditions for women who are not serving criminal
sentences

Immigration detainees are in administrative rather than criminal
proceedings. Yet women described conditions of confinement that are in
many cases more restrictive than in county jails or prisons, including
limited access to recreation, a complete absence of programming or
activities, frugal provision of food and other supplies, and the routine use
of strip searches and shackling during transport.

Aggressive government prosecution and detention of women who pose
no security threat or flight risk

Attorneys reported that ICE routinely appeals decisions to release
pregnant women on bond, rejects or does not respond to applications for
humanitarian parole of victims of domestic violence, refugees, or women
with serious health conditions, and refuses to reduce bonds for families
unable to pay.

The following recommendations, discussed at greater length throughout the
body of the report and in its final section, emerge from this research. It is
important to note that many of the recommendations identified extend to the
treatment of all detainees, men and women alike. At the same time, one of the
goals of this report is to highlight the unique needs of women. Their distinctive
characteristics – medical, psychological, social, and cultural – shape the concerns
and recommendations identified.
This report’s recommendations address the need for changes at multiple
levels. It is impossible to examine any aspect of the immigration detention system
without addressing the federal legislation and agency policies that have led to the
current state of affairs. Thus, the report includes general recommendations and
three key concerns of women detainees that Congress and executive agencies
should address at the national level. At the same time, there are many specific
concerns about conditions of detention in Arizona that could be addressed without
the need for national policy changes. Therefore, the report also offers a detailed
list of recommendations for the facilities and government agencies to undertake at
the state and local level.
In December 2008, ICE district and facility personnel met with SIROW to
discuss the report’s findings and recommendations. Agency representatives denied
that most of the problems outlined in this report exist. At the time of publication,
the extent to which ICE will take any responsive measures remains unclear.

iii

(1) GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Congress: Eliminate or reduce the statutory grounds for mandatory
detention. Amend immigration laws to provide all individuals with the
opportunity for a bond hearing before a judge in which their individual
circumstances are considered.
2. Congress/Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Codify the detention
standards so that they are legally enforceable with outside oversight.
3. DHS: Establish gender specific regulations to address the needs of women
detainees.
4. DHS/Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): Release detention
population statistics broken down by gender.

(2) KEY CONCERNS OF WOMEN IMMIGRATION DETAINEES
A. Family Separation
1. Congress:
Amend immigration laws to expand eligibility for
individualized bond hearings. In these hearings, require that the impact
of detention on families be one of the factors considered in deciding
whether detention is necessary.
2. DHS/ICE: Consider the impact of detention on families in making
determinations regarding the availability of bond and parole.
3. DHS/ICE: Establish and implement a policy that states that in cases
where detention is necessary and parole is not an option, ICE officials
shall place primary caregivers of minor children in facilities near where
their children are residing and only permits transfer in documented
emergencies.
4. ICE and Child Protective Services (in Arizona and other states):
Develop policies to facilitate parent detainees’ ability to communicate
about custody issues.
B. ICE’s Discretionary Determinations
1. Congress and DHS: Expand the use of community-based alternatives to
detention that apply restrictions on freedom of movement proportional
to the individual’s flight and security risk.
2. DHS/ICE: Expand the use of parole and ensure that parole criteria are
consistently and fairly applied.

C. Expedited Removal
1. Congress: Limit or eliminate the use of expedited removal.
2. DHS/ICE: Require ICE officers and detention facility personnel to be
trained to recognize and appropriately respond to survivors of domestic
and sexual violence and gender-based persecution.

(3) CONDITIONS CONCERNS
A. Medical Care
1. Congress: Pass legislation to require DHS to establish legally enforceable
procedures for the timely and effective delivery of medical care to
immigration detainees.
2. DHS: Provide enforceable regulations to guarantee women appropriate
gynecological and obstetrical care.
3. ICE: Halt or strictly limit the practice of detaining nursing mothers and
pregnant women to cases in which no alternative arrangements exist.
4. ICE, Central Arizona Detention Center (CADC), Eloy Detention Center
(Eloy), and Pinal County Jail (PCJ): Respond to medical requests in a
timely fashion.
5. ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Provide onsite or telephonic translation
assistance for appointments with medical staff.
B.

Mental Health Care
1. Congress: Pass legislation to require DHS to establish legally enforceable
procedures for the timely and effective delivery of mental health care to
immigration detainees.
2. ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Facilitate detainees’ access to on-site
psychiatrists and psychologists and increase the availability of counseling
services to be used in conjunction with, or instead of, medication.

C. Security
1. ICE: Increase the use of community-based alternatives to the detention
of nonviolent detainees who pose minimal security or flight risk.
2. ICE: Limit the use of shackles and eliminate it altogether for pregnant
detainees.

3. ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Train facility personnel to be familiar with the
circumstances of ICE detainees and understand the differences between
immigration detainees and people serving criminal sentences.
4. ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Encourage bilingual guards to communicate
with detainees in their native language or use translation or
interpretation services.
5. ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Facilitate onsite or telephonic translation
assistance for non-English speaking detainees, particularly during private
meetings with case managers.
6. ICE, CADC: Refrain from mixing ICE detainees with people in pre-trial
criminal detention or those who are serving criminal sentences.
7. ICE, CADC: Halt routine strip searches and, if necessary because of
specific security concerns, conduct strip searches individually rather than
in groups.
D. Access to Telephones
1. ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Ensure that all detainees can place at least
one free domestic telephone call upon arrival at the detention facility.
2. ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Ensure that detainees can make free calls to
legal service providers and consulates.
3. ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Ensure that indigent detainees can make free
calls to courts and for personal and family emergencies.
4. ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Protect detainees from phone card systems
with exorbitant rates.
E. Access to Legal Counsel/Assistance
1. ICE: Require Deportation Officers and/or case managers to provide
detainees with regular individual information about the status of their
case.
2. ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Provide detainees with access to writing
supplies, photocopies, and public notaries without charge.
3. ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Provide detainees with legal materials in
languages other than English.
F. Visitation
1. ICE, CADC: Provide privacy for attorney visits.

2. ICE, PCJ: Provide dedicated space for regular contact visits for attorneys
and families.
G. Food and Provisions
1. ICE, CADC, Eloy and PCJ: Provide indigent detainees a means of
obtaining food after the final meal of the day at 4 p.m.
2. ICE, CADC, and PCJ: Improve the quality of the food.
3. ICE, PCJ: Ensure that women detainees receive provisions, including
hygienic and sanitary supplies, on a regular basis and in sufficient
quantity.
H. Activities
1. ICE, CADC, Eloy and PCJ: Allow detainees to spend a minimum of one
full hour of each day at recreation time.
2. ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Provide job opportunities, activities, and nonEnglish language reading materials to ICE detainees.
3. ICE, Eloy and PCJ: Provide women detainees
opportunities for movement outside their pod.

with

increased

4. ICE, Eloy and PCJ: Provide women detainees with equal access to the
dining hall, library, recreation facilities, and medical clinic.
5. ICE, PCJ: Provide an outdoor recreation area.
I. Transfer
1. DHS/ICE: Develop a centralized system for family members to locate
detainees.
2. ICE: Ensure that attorneys and family members are notified in advance
of detainee transfers.
3. ICE: Improve the conditions of transport, and in particular, increase
sensitivity to women’s mental and physical health concerns during
transit.
4. ICE: Ensure that at least one officer of the same gender as the detainee
is present at all times during transfer.
5. ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Ensure that transferred detainees can place a
call to their family and attorney within 24 hours of arrival at the
detention facility.

vii

Background
A. The basics of immigration detention

Immigration detention is the fastest growing form of incarceration in the
United States. 1 On any given day, there are 28,700 people in immigration
detention, housed in over 350 different facilities around the country. 2 In Arizona,
five detention facilities house 3,000 immigration detainees, and this number is
expected to grow significantly in the coming years. 3
Immigrants may be placed in detention facilities while they go through the
legal process called removal, which determines whether they are eligible to stay in
the United States. In addition, at the conclusion of the removal proceedings, if
they are subject to a final order of removal, they may remain in detention while
the U.S. makes arrangements for their deportation. Immigration detainees can
spend weeks, months, and even years in detention, depending on the degree of
complexity of their removal proceedings and travel arrangements and whether they
or the government choose to pursue all available appeals. 4
The population of immigration detainees can be roughly broken down into
two groups. First, there are detainees who have been convicted of a crime in the
United States that triggers deportation proceedings. The list of deportable
offenses has been vastly expanded in recent years to include virtually all criminal
convictions, including misdemeanor non-violent theft offenses such as shoplifting
and minor drug offenses. Many of the immigrants in this group have lived in the
country for years as legal permanent residents prior to their conviction, and the
conviction itself may be several years in the past. They often have significant
community and family ties in this country, including U.S. citizen children.
Importantly, these individuals are not in detention for the purpose of “serving
time” for their crime. They are placed in detention after already serving any
sentence imposed by the criminal justice system. In many cases, the court

Nina Bernstein, Few Details on Immigrants Who Died in U.S. Custody, NEW YORK TIMES (May 5, 2008).
ICE Policies Related to Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration Detention Facilities, Department of
Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General 1 (June 2008); see also ICE website
http://www.ice.gov/partners/dro/dmp.htm?searchstring=endgame.
3
In 2007, ICE added 625 new bed spaces for detainees in Florence, Arizona. See
http://www.ice.gov/pi/dro/facilities/pinal.htm. ICE anticipates growth of over 500 new beds in Eloy, Arizona,
in 2008. Phone interview with Brian Martin, Public Information Officer for Corrections Corporation of America,
Eloy Detention Center, June 2008.
4
According to ICE data for 2007, 25% of detainees remain in detention for more than 44 days, ten percent
(nearly 3,000 individuals) remain for more than 85 days, and two percent (over 500 individuals) remain for over
210 days. Alien Detention Standards: Telephone Access Problems Were Pervasive at Detention Facilities;
Other Deficiencies Did Not Show a Pattern of Noncompliance, Gov't Accountability Office 48 (July 2007),
available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07875.pdf (hereafter “GAO Report on Alien Detention
Standards”).
1

imposed no sentence or a very brief sentence for the crime that triggers
deportation. 5
The second group of detainees have not been convicted of any crime. They
are charged only with a civil, rather than criminal, violation of immigration law for
entering the country or arriving at a port of entry without proper documentation.
According to ICE data, more than half of the detainees in ICE custody at any given
time have never been convicted of any crime. 6 These immigrants may have been
apprehended at the border without travel documents, or swept up in interior
enforcement actions in the interior of the country. For Mexican nationals
attempting to cross into Arizona, this detention is often short-term, since they are
rapidly repatriated back across the border. However, immigrants from other
countries often spend a significant period of time in detention awaiting their
deportation.
For individuals in either of these groups, if they have any claim for legal
relief from deportation, they frequently remain detained until their legal case is
resolved. For example, there is a significant population of detainees who are
asylum-seekers. Under current law, these refugees must be detained until they
establish a “credible fear of persecution” in their home countries, which renders
them eligible to apply for relief from deportation. 7 Even after such a finding is
made, the government may continue to detain asylum-seekers while their legal
claim for relief is adjudicated. It takes a minimum of months, and can take years
if there are appeals, to resolve legal claims for relief from deportation.
Immigration detention has grown exponentially over the past decade due to
provisions in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
(IIRIRA), federal legislation passed by Congress in 1996. IIRIRA mandates detention
for certain broad categories of noncitizens, including virtually any noncitizen with
a criminal conviction and arriving aliens who lack proper documentation.
Mandatory detention means that there is no consideration of whether individuals
that fall under one of these categories pose a flight risk or threat while their
deportation is pending. Instead, noncitizens in these categories must be detained
for the entire duration of their removal proceedings. Unlike in the criminal justice
context, where there is an individual judicial determination of the availability and
amount of bail, noncitizens subject to mandatory detention have no judicial review
of the determination to detain them nor consideration of release on bond.

See Forced Apart: Families Separated and Immigrants Harmed by U.S. Deportation Policy, Human Rights
Watch (July 2007), available at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/us0707/index.htm (hereafter “Forced
Apart”).
6
See GAO Report on Alien Detention Standards, supra note 4, at 48 (reporting that, as of 2006, 58% of
detainees were noncriminal aliens).
7
See In Liberty’s Shadow: U.S. Detention of Asylum Seekers in the Era of Homeland Security, Human Rights
First (January 2004), available at
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/asylum/libertys_shadow/Libertys_Shadow.pdf (hereafter “In Liberty’s
Shadow”).

In addition, even noncitizens who are not in a category in which detention is
mandatory are often detained. Although ICE has the authority to grant detainees
who are not subject to mandatory detention humanitarian parole or release on
bond, it does not often exercise its discretion to authorize such releases. 8 In cases
where detainees are given a bond, it is often too high for them to pay to gain
release. 9
The growth of detention has accelerated further in the aftermath of
September 11. In response to the terrorist attacks, Congress passed the USA
PATRIOT Act, which among other things gives the Attorney General the right to
detain anyone who the Attorney General has “reasonable grounds” to believe is
involved in terrorist activities or in any other activity that endangers national
security. 10 In addition, with the passage of the Homeland Security Act, Congress
transferred many of the enforcement responsibilities of the former Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) to a new agency, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), part of the newly created Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). In 2003, ICE adopted the strategic plan, “Operation Endgame,” which aims
to remove all removable aliens by 2012 through the development of enforcement
and detention infrastructure and strategies. 11 In 2004, Congress passed the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which requires DHS to increase
detention beds by 40,000 by the year 2010. 12
As a result of all these laws and initiatives, there has been a drastic increase
in immigration detention over the past decade. While in 1996, INS had the capacity
to detain 8,270 people per day, in 2001, just five years later, daily detention
capacity reached 19,702. 13 As of 2008, ICE has received funding for 32,000 detention
beds, representing a 73 percent increase since 2005. 14

Immigration Enforcement: ICE Could Improve Controls to Help Guide Alien Removal Decision Making, U.S.
Gov't Accountability Office 23 (2007), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0867.pdf (noting ICE’s
need for guidance in the use of discretion in encounters with noncitizens who present humanitarian issues or
who are not ICE targets); Audit Report: Detention and Removal of Illegal Aliens, DHS, Office of the Inspector
General 31 (April 2006), available at http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_06-33_Apr06.pdf,
(between 2001 and 2004, of a total of 998,481 apprehensions, only eight percent were released on bond).
9
By statute, the lowest bond an Immigration Judge can order for an immigration detainee is $1,500. INA §
236(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2) (2006).
10
See Alison Siskin, Immigration-Related Detention: Current Legislative Issues, Congressional Research Service
Report for Congress (updated January 25, 2007).
11
An Assessment of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Fugitive Operations Teams, DHS,
Office of the Inspector General 5 (March 2007); see also Endgame: Office of Detention and Removal Strategic
Plan, 2003-2012: Detention and Removal Strategy for a Secure Homeland, ICE: Office of Detention and
Removal Operations (2003).
12
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638 (2004).
13
GAO Report on Alien Detention Standards, supra note 4, at 1.
14
Semi-Annual Report on Compliance with ICE National Detention Standards, ICE Office of Detention and
Removal Operations 5 (January-June 2007) (hereafter “Semi-Annual Report”), available at
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/semi_annual_dmd.pdf.

B. Women in immigration detention
1. A growing population
Women make up a growing share of the population of immigration detainees.
According to ICE, women now account for ten percent of the daily population
detained by ICE, which would suggest roughly 3,000 women are held in immigration
detention on any given day. 15
The increasing number of women in detention is due to the interplay of
several factors.
Federal criminal prosecution of immigration violations has
increased dramatically in recent years, resulting in more women as well as men
charged with immigration violations. 16 Immigrant women also make up a growing
share of the low-wage immigrant workforce. 17 With this increase in women
workers, those who are undocumented are inevitably affected by interior ICE
enforcement, specifically workplace raids. 18
Finally, over the past several
decades, increased prosecution of drug offenses and harsh mandatory sentencing as
part of the “war on drugs” has resulted in a drastic rise in the number of women in
both prison and jail. 19 It has also corresponded with an increase in noncitizens
prosecuted for drug offenses. 20
All these factors – increased prosecution of immigration violations,
workplace raids, and harsh sentencing for drug offenses – have resulted in a
growing population of noncitizen women in prison and jail. Given the scope of
mandatory detention and ICE’s rare use of parole, these women are highly likely to
be transferred to immigration custody during or after their sentences. In addition,
women are migrating to the United States, both with and without legal

Email sent to the National Immigrant Justice Center from Kendra Wallace, National Outreach Coordinator,
Office of Policy, ICE (May 14, 2008) (on file with SIROW).
16
From 1996 to 2000, the number of prosecutions for immigration offenses more than doubled. Of the 14,540
defendants charged with immigration offenses in 2000, 7.7% were women. See John Scalia and Marika F. X.
Litras, Immigration Offenders in the Federal Criminal Justice System, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
Department of Justice 4 (August 2002).
17
According to census data, women made up 44% of the country’s low-wage immigrant work force in 2002.
Urban Institute, A Profile of the Low-Wage Immigrant Workforce (November 2003), available at
http://www.urban.org/publications/310880.html.
18
For example, in a raid in Houston, Texas on a rag-exporting factory in June 2008, 130 of the 166 people
detained were women. James Pinkerton, Employer Arrests Could Follow Houston Immigration Raid, HOUSTON
CHRONICLE (June 26, 2008). This raid was just one of many. According to ICE statistics for the 2007 fiscal year,
ICE made 863 criminal arrests and 4,077 administrative arrests across the nation solely as a result of worksite
enforcement efforts. Id. As of August 2008, ICE was on pace to far surpass these numbers for the 2008 fiscal
year. See http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/worksite.htm.
19
The number of women incarcerated in state or federal prisons nationwide increased nearly eight fold
between 1990 and 2000. The increase in the rate of imprisonment for women has outpaced the increase for
men every year since the mid-1980’s. Barbara Bloom et. al., Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research,
Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders 3, National Institute of Corrections (2003) (hereafter
“Gender-Responsive Strategies”). While the major factor driving growth in the male prison population is
violent offenses, the major factor for women prisoners is increased drug charges. Id.
20
Immigration and Criminal Justice System Fact Sheet, Women in Prison Project (April 2007), available at
http://www.womensadvocateministry.org/.

authorization, in ever-growing numbers. 21 As the number of women migrants
increase, the number of those apprehended and detained for civil violations of
immigration law increases as well.
2. A population with distinctive characteristics and needs
The overall increase in women, both citizen and noncitizen, in the criminal
justice system over the past several decades has resulted in a growing literature on
the distinctive needs women prisoners present. Key differences include:

Unique medical needs. 22
High prevalence of survivors of physical and/or sexual abuse. 23
Distinctive mental health needs. 24
High prevalence of primary caregivers to dependent children. 25
Tendency to have committed nonviolent crimes, and unlikely to be violent
in custody. 26
Tendency to be viewed by facility staff as “inconvenient and difficult to
work with in a system designed to supervise the behavior of men.” 27

This report’s findings indicate that many of these factors are relevant to the
population of women immigration detainees as well. Their applicability is
described in greater detail in the forthcoming sections of the report.
C. The facilities
Removal proceedings are a civil administrative process, rather than a
criminal one. Yet detention facilities are indistinguishable from jails, and in fact,
jails and prisons often house immigration detainees along with people serving or
awaiting criminal sentences. There are four main types of facilities that ICE uses
to house immigration detainees.
1. Service Processing Centers (SPCs): ICE operates these facilities directly.
There are eight SPCs throughout the country, and they house
approximately 13 percent of all ICE detainees. 28
21

In 2005, women accounted for 54.6% of all new permanent residents in the United States. In 2002, a census
survey estimated that over forty percent of undocumented adult migrants are women. Migration by Region:
North America 2, United Nations Population Fund, available at
http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2006/presskit/docs/factsheet_namerica.doc.
22
Gender-Responsive Strategies, supra note 19, at 39.
23
According to a study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, just under half of the women in correctional
populations but only 1 in 10 men indicated past abuse. Id. at 41.
24
Women are twice as likely to be diagnosed with depression as men, and two to three times as likely to
experience anxiety disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder. Id. at 43. They are also more likely
than men to somaticize, which refers to physical symptoms that cannot be fully explained as a medical
conditions. Id. at 44.
25
Id. at 16. Approximately 70% of all women under correctional supervision have at least one child younger
than the age of 18. Id. at 7.
26
Id. at 16.
27
Id. at 24.

2. Contract Detention Facilities (CDFs): ICE contracts with private prison
companies to run these facilities, of which there are seven throughout
the country. They house about 17 percent of ICE detainees.
3. Intergovernmental Services Agreements (IGSAs): ICE contracts for bed
space in state and local jails on a reimbursable basis through IGSAs.
There are over 350 facilities with these contracts. They house the
majority of ICE detainees, approximately 67 percent. 29
4. Federal Bureau of Prison (BOP) facilities: ICE jointly uses five such
facilities throughout the country, which house three percent of ICE
detainees. 30
Women detainees are slightly more likely to be housed in IGSAs or CDFs than
are men. ICE recently estimated that approximately 68% of women detainees are
in IGSAs, 25% are in CDFs, and 7% are in SPCs. 31 Fifty percent of all female
detainees are held in ten facilities in Texas, Florida, Arizona, Alabama, California,
and Washington. 32 The remaining half are primarily held in hundreds of local and
state jails and prisons with IGSAs throughout the country. The prevalence of
women in IGSAs may be attributable to the rapid increase in the number or women
detained. Other than the ten facilities referenced above that house women in
significant numbers, ICE arranges for small numbers of beds in already existing jail
or prison facilities, where women are intermixed with people in the criminal
justice system.
In Arizona, there are five ICE facilities that house adult detainees for 72
hours or more: Florence Service Processing Center (FSPC), Central Arizona
Detention Center (CADC), Florence Correctional Center (FCC), Pinal County Jail
(PCJ), and Eloy Detention Center (Eloy). The first four of these facilities are
located in Florence, Arizona, a small town approximately 65 miles from both the
Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas. There are nine correctional institutions
Of the
located in Florence, three of which hold immigration detainees. 33
estimated 25,500 people who live in Florence, close to 17,000 are behind bars,
including over 700 immigration detainees. 34
28

Although ICE reports running eight SPCs, only seven are currently operational since the abrupt closure of San
Pedro Service Processing Center in October 2007. See Ben Ehrenreich, Death on Terminal Island, LOS ANGELES
MAGAZINE (Sept. 1, 2008).
29
Like CDFs, IGSAs can be run by private companies, which are contracted by the state or local entities. For
example, ICE has an IGSA with Williamson County, Texas, to run the T. Don Hutto Correctional Center, and the
county has in turn contracted with Corrections Corporation of America to operate the 512-bed facility. See
http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/huttofactsheet.htm.
30
The statistics provided on the number and proportional share of each type of facility can be found on ICE’s
website: http://www.ice.gov/partners/dro/dmp.htm.
31
Email from Kendra Wallace, supra note 15.
32
The detention facilities that house 50% of all women detainees are Pearsall (CDF in Pearsall, TX), Broward
(CDF in Pompano Beach, FL), Willacy (IGSA in Raymondville, TX), Pinal County Jail (IGSA in Florence, AZ),
Hutto (IGSA in Taylor, TX), Etowah County Jail (IGSA in Gadsen, AL), San Diego (CDF in San Diego, CA), Houston
(CDF in Houston, TX), Tacoma (CDF in Tacoma, WA), and Port Isabel (SPC in Los Fresnos, TX). Id.
33
http://www.town.florence.az.us/
34
Amy Goldstein and Dana Priest, In Custody, In Pain, WASHINGTON POST (May 12, 2008).

The fifth detention facility is located in Eloy, Arizona, approximately 30
miles southwest of Florence. Eloy has close to 11,000 residents. The Corrections
Corporation of America has built three facilities on the outskirts of town, including
the Eloy Detention Center, making it the largest town employer. 35
Of these five facilities, all but one, FCC, house or have housed women
detainees. ICE began detaining women in Arizona in significant numbers in 2001,
at first housing them either in Florence SPC or CADC. In 2006, ICE established
additional contracts with Eloy and PCJ to detain women. Currently, Florence SPC
no longer houses women detainees for more than 72 hours. The largest population
of women is housed in PCJ, which holds roughly 150 women. Eloy currently holds
roughly 100 and CADC holds an additional 50, bringing the total number of women
detained in the state to approximately 300. This is roughly 10 percent of the total
population of immigration detainees in the state. Basic information about each of
the four facilities that house women is provided in the following charts. 36

PINAL COUNTY JAIL (“PCJ”)
Facility Operator
Address
Type of Facility
People housed
History

Current Facility Capacity
Total Number of Immigration
Detainees (as of June 2008)
Female : Male Immigration Detainees

Pinal County
951 N Pinal Parkway
Florence, AZ 85232
County Jail with a DHS
Intergovernmental Service Agreement
County inmates
Immigration detainees
• 1996: Opened with a maximum
capacity of 472 county inmates.
• 2006: Added DHS contract.
• April 2006: Began housing women
immigration detainees.
1,506 total
625 ICE detainees
494
152 : 342

Shelley Shelton, Fourth Prison in Eloy Area to Hold 3,060, ARIZONA DAILY STAR (Oct. 9, 2007).
The information in this paragraph and the charts was drawn from the following sources: Josh Kelley, Pinal
Plans Newest Jail to Hold ICE Migrants; U.S. Would Pay County to Hold 625 Detainees, THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC
(Sept. 20, 2005); phone interview with PCJ Commander Deborah Powell (June 2008), phone interview and
email exchange with Brian Martin, Public Information Officer, CCA Eloy (July 2008); phone interview and email
exchange with Ryan Henricks, Public Information Officer, CADC (January 2008); Division of Immigration Health
Services website, http://www.inshealth.org/Facilities/Florence.shtm; ICE website,
http://www.ice.gov/pi/dro/facilities/florence.htm.
36

CENTRAL ARIZONA DETENTION CENTER (“CADC”)
Facility Operator
Address
Type of Facility
People housed

History
Current Facility Capacity
Total Number of Immigration
Detainees
(as of November 2007)
Female : Male Immigration Detainees

Corrections Corporation of America
1155 N Pinal Parkway
PO Box 1048
Florence, AZ 85232
Contract Detention Facility
U.S. Marshals Service inmates
Inmates in transit through TransCor
Immigration detainees
Pascua Yaqui inmates
United States Air Force inmates
Opened in 1994 with 512 beds
3200
52
52 : 0 (currently no male detainees)

FLORENCE SERVICE PROCESSING CENTER (“FSPC”)
Facility Operator
Address
Type of Facility
People housed
History

Current Facility Capacity
Total Number of Immigration
Detainees
Female : Male Immigration Detainees

Immigration and Customs Enforcement
3250 N. Pinal Parkway
Florence, Arizona 85232
Run by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
Immigration detainees
• 1942-1948: WWII internment camp
for enemy soldiers.
• 1948: Converted to a detention
center for first time offenders.
• 1983: INS acquired the facility.
422
422
0 : 422 (currently no female
detainees)

ELOY DETENTION CENTER (“ELOY”)
Facility Operator
Address
Type of Facility
People housed
History

Current Facility Capacity
Total Number of Immigration
Detainees
(as of July 2008)
Female : Male Immigration Detainees

Correction Corporation of America
1705 E Hanna Road
Eloy, AZ 85231
Contract Detention Facility
Immigration detainees
• 1994: Opened to house both
Bureau of Prison (BOP) inmates and
ICE detainees
• 2006: Lost BOP contract, began
housing ICE female detainees
1,500
1,500
93 : 1,407

D. Applicable standards
1. Detention standards
In 2000, the Attorney General and INS, in consultation with the American Bar
Association, developed a set of national standards for detention facilities. They
are currently contained in the “Detention Operations Manual” (“DOM”) and consist
of 38 standards, covering everything from visitation policies to food service to
access to legal materials. Appendix A provides a summary of the standards. They
are intended to apply to all SPCs and CDFs, and to IGSAs that house immigration
detainees for more than 72 hours.
Importantly, the Detention Standards are not codified as laws or regulations,
making them practically unenforceable. ICE states that it is committed to ensuring
that the detention standards are met by all facilities. 37 It has established a
Detention Standards Compliance Unit, which conducts over 350 inspections a year
in authorized detention facilities. 38 As of 2007, ICE has hired two outside
contractors and established an internal Detention Facilities Inspection Group, actions
which are intended to add additional levels of review and expertise to the inspection
and compliance process. 39
Despite these steps, noncompliance with the detention standards is
widespread. The Government Accountability Office recently conducted a review of
37

Detention Management Program, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (last modified Jan. 26, 2007)
available at www.ice.gov/partners/dro/dmp.htm.
38
Id.
39
Semi-Annual Report, supra note 14.

ICE’s implementation of the detention standards and found significant problems
with noncompliance in the 23 facilities it visited. 40 The Department of Homeland
Security’s own Inspector General conducted an audit that found serious
noncompliance in five facilities as well. 41 Other advocacy and human rights
organizations have also conducted studies and undertaken litigation that have
documented widespread violations of the detention standards. 42
On September 12, 2008, ICE announced new “Performance-Based” Detention
Standards. These standards redrafted the 38 standards in the DOM and added four
new standards. 43 In its announcement of the new standards, ICE stated: “The
performance based standards . . . focus on expected outcomes and contain clear
practices and outcome measures. Each outcome measure demonstrates how well a
detention facility's protocols, procedures, and practices are achieving the desired
result.” 44 ICE aims to have the new standards take full effect in all facilities
housing ICE detainees in January 2010, however, there will remain no enforcement
mechanism to ensure facility compliance with the new standards.
2. Other applicable standards
In addition to the detention standards, there are general standards of
treatment under domestic and international law that apply to immigration
detention facilities. Domestically, under the U.S. Constitution, immigration
detainees, as civil detainees rather than convicted prisoners, may not be detained
in conditions that amount to punishment. 45 Furthermore, the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” sets a bare minimum level of

40
GAO Report on Alien Detention Standards, supra note 4, at 1. The GAO selected 8 of the 38 detention
standards to review at 23 detention facilities from May 2006 through May 2007. The review discovered
systematic noncompliance regarding telephone access and site specific deficiencies in several of the other
examined standards, including medical care, use of force, food service, recreational opportunities, access to
legal materials, and overcrowding.
41
Audit Report: Treatment of Immigration Detainees Housed in ICE Facilities, DHS, Office of Inspector General
(December 2006) (documenting multiple instances of non-compliance with detention standards related to
health care, environmental health and safety, general conditions of confinement, and the reporting of abuse).
42
See, e.g., Voices from Detention: A Report on Human Rights Violations at the Northwest Detention Center,
OneAmerica and Seattle University School of Law (July 2008); Locking up Family Values: the Detention of
Immigrant Families, Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children and Lutheran Immigration and
Refugee Service (2007); Behind Bars: The Failure of the Department of Homeland Security to Ensure Adequate
Treatment of Immigration Detainees in New Jersey, ACLU of New Jersey (2007); Chronic Indifference:
HIV/AIDS Services for Immigrants Detained by the United States, Human Rights Watch (December 2007); Nina
Bernstein, Immigrants Challenge Federal Detention System, NEW YORK TIMES B3 (May 1, 2008); Landmark
Settlement Announced in Federal Lawsuit Challenging Conditions at Immigrant Detention Center in Texas,
ACLU Press Release (August 2007), available at
http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/detention/31469prs20070827.html; Orantes-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 504
F.Supp.2d 825, 876 (C.D. Cal., 2007) (finding significant violations of detention standards regarding access to
legal materials, telephone use, and attorney visits).
43
The four new standards are News Media Interviews and Tours, Searches of Detainees, Sexual Abuse and
Assault Prevention and Intervention, and Staff Training.
44
See ICE press release, available at http://www.ice.gov/pi/icedetaineeinfo.htm.
45
Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S 228, 237 (1896).

treatment of convicted prisoners that immigration detention facilities must meet
or surpass. 46
In addition, international law requires the humane treatment of all people in
custody. The United States has binding legal obligations under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) (specifying, among other things,
that “all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with
respect for the inherent dignity of the human person”) and the Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”)
(obligating the United States to educate personnel who are involved in the
confinement of detainees about the anti-torture provisions of the convention). In
addition, there are several international agreements that, while not legally
binding, set out important guiding principles applicable to immigration detainees,
particularly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) (prohibiting
torture, including cruel and inhumane treatment), the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“CERD”) (protecting against
discrimination in the use of detention and in the conditions throughout its
duration), and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment (outlining 39 principles for the humane
treatment of prisoners and detainees). 47
3. Gender specific standards
The current detention standards make little reference to the distinctive
needs of women detainees. Only four of the 38 detention standards refer
specifically to women detainees. The standard entitled “Admission and Release”
addresses the appropriate personal hygiene supplies that women may and may not
receive in detention. 48 The “Hold Rooms” standard specifies that pregnant women
in holding cells must be given regular access to food. 49 The standard regarding
transportation specifically requires that women be provided with alternate means
of transportation for trips lasting over six hours and instructs transporting officers
to avoid the use of restraints on women unless there are exceptional
circumstances. 50 Finally, the “Use of Force” standard states that pregnant
detainees present special considerations. 51
The new performance-based standards (PBNDS) include some additions and
minor alterations to the DOM’s references to women’s needs. In particular, the
PBNDS standard on medical care requires that female detainees receive access to
46

Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004) (conditions of confinement for civil detainees must be superior
to convicted prisoners and pre-trail criminal detainees).
47
For a discussion of human rights standards applied to immigration detention, see Michelle Brané and
Christiana Lundholm, Human Rights Behind Bars: Advancing the Rights of Immigration Detainees in the United
States through Human Rights Frameworks, 22 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 147 (2008).
48
DOM, “Admission and Release.”
49
DOM, “Hold Rooms in Detention.”
50
DOM, “Transportation.”
51
DOM, “Use of Force.”

pregnancy management services, which include “routine prenatal care, addiction
management, comprehensive counseling and assistance, nutrition, and post-partum
follow up.” It also requires gender appropriate examinations for all detainees.
The “Transportation Standard” adjusts and expands the former specifications for
the land transportation of women. 52
The body of this report details the many needs of women detainees that are
unaddressed by the current detention standards and the PBNDS. Other related
bodies of law have recognized the importance of incorporating gender specific
considerations into incarceration policies. For example, the U.N. Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners states that institutions housing
women prisoners should make arrangements for the treatment of pregnant and
post-natal prisoners. 53 Similarly, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women calls for governments to ensure that incarcerated
women receive free services for pregnancy and post-natal conditions. 54
In the context of women asylum-seekers and refugees, both the U.S.
Department of Justice and Department of State have issued guidelines for
incorporating gender-sensitive insights into both substantive and procedural
aspects of the asylum and refugee determination process. 55 The guidelines
emphasize the need to be aware of cultural and societal factors, and to be
sensitive to the prevalence of sexual and domestic violence, when interviewing
women and adjudicating their claims.
II.

Methodology

This report is based on information drawn from interviews conducted with
women currently and formerly detained in immigration detention facilities in
Arizona and attorneys and social service providers who have worked closely with
women detainees in the state. The SIROW researcher and trained law students
conducted interviews between August 2007 and August 2008. All interviewees
reviewed and signed informed consent forms, which described the voluntary and
confidential nature of the research (see Appendix B), prior to their interviews.

Specifically, it prohibits bus trips for women detainees of more than 10 hours, provides that they must be
seated in the front of the vehicle, limits searches by officers of the opposite sex to extreme circumstances,
and requires officers to account for their time when transporting detainees of the opposite gender.
53
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Article 23.
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/treatmentprisoners.htm
54
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Article 12, available at
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/. Although helpful guidance, the Convention is not binding
since the U.S. is the only developed country that has not ratified this convention.
55
Considerations for Asylum Officers Adjudicating Asylum Claims From Women, memorandum from Phyllis
Coven, Office of International Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice (May 26, 1995), INS Publishes Gender
Persecution Guidelines, 72 No. 22 INTERPRETER RELEASES 771, 771 (June 1995); Gender Guidelines for Overseas
Refugee Processing, Department of State (2000), available at
http://cgrs.uchastings.edu/documents/legal/gender_guidelines/US_DOS_Overseas_Gender_Guidelines.pdf.

After several months of negotiations, SIROW received permission from ICE to
conduct five days of interviews in October 2007 in the two CDFs that house women
detainees in Arizona, Central Arizona Detention Center (CADC) and Eloy Detention
Center (Eloy). SIROW repeatedly requested permission to interview ICE and facility
personnel. These requests were denied. In addition, SIROW repeatedly requested
permission from ICE to interview detainees in Pinal County Jail (PCJ). These
requests were also denied.
Staff of the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project (FIRRP), a
nonprofit organization that provides legal assistance and support to immigration
detainees in Arizona, introduced the study to women detainees during group “Know
Your Rights” presentations in the week preceding the interviews. Detainees
interested in volunteering to be interviewed provided their names and alien
registration numbers (“A numbers,” the identification system used by ICE) to the
FIRRP staff to relay to SIROW. On the designated days, the detainees who had
volunteered were called to visitation.
The research team interviewed a total of 17 detainees: ten in CADC and
seven in Eloy. Interviews of detainees were conducted in private rooms. 56 ICE
prohibited the use of audio-recording equipment in the detention facilities, so all
information from the detainee interviews is based on the researchers’ handwritten
notes.
In addition to the interviews with current detainees, the research team
interviewed 19 attorneys and social service providers, four previously detained
women, and two family members of detainees. Participating attorneys and social
service providers were identified by FIRRP staff and through word of mouth.
Previous detainees and family members were identified by FIRRP and participating
attorneys from among their former clients. Data from these interviews is drawn
from a combination of notes taken during the interview and transcriptions of audiorecorded interviews. Direct quotes from interviews appear as block quotes or in
quotation marks, all other information is paraphrased.
Tables 1-3 summarize the characteristics of the interview subjects. It is
important to note that the small group of current and former detainees who
volunteered to participate is not necessarily reflective of the overall population of
detainees. Of particular note, none of the current detainees was in detention
directly after an attempt to cross the border. Instead, all the participants had
lived in this country for a significant period of time and nearly all were in
detention after being convicted of a deportable offense. This may be attributed to
the fact that women willing to participate in such a study were more likely to be
56

For the detainees in Eloy, the interviews were conducted in the rooms ordinarily used for attorney visitation.
For the detainees in CADC, on the day preceding the interviews, ICE informed SIROW that the detainees would
be transported to Florence SPC for their interviews. As a result, the interviews were conducted in a private
room in SPC rather than at CADC. Upon arrival at the facility at 9 a.m., when the interviews were scheduled to
begin, the SIROW researcher learned that the detainees had been roused at 4 a.m. in order to be transported
ten minutes down the road to SPC for their interviews.

acculturated to the United States and/or in detention for a lengthy period of time.
In addition, a high proportion of interviewees had attorney representation, another
factor that may have made them more comfortable volunteering to participate. 57
Because ICE denied SIROW’s requests to interview detainees in PCJ, the
report draws information on this facility from a variety of direct and indirect
sources. First, a few of the current detainees interviewed had been detained in
PCJ before they were transferred to CADC. In addition, several attorneys
interviewed had clients in PCJ, and two of the FIRRP staff interviewed worked in
the facility on a routine basis. In addition, women detainees in PCJ wrote a letter
detailing significant concerns with the facility and sent it to FIRRP in January 2008.
The letter requests that FIRRP share the document with organizations that could
help address its concerns. The University of California Davis Immigration Law Clinic
conducted an independent verification process of the letter’s concerns and drafted
a summary report. Both the letter and summary report are cited as additional
sources of information in this report.
The report should be read with the limitations of the study in mind. The
information is drawn from a relatively small number of participants that is not
necessarily representative of the entire detainee population.
Because the
researchers were not permitted to interview ICE or facility personnel, all
information was obtained from detainees and their advocates. Finally, the
researchers relied entirely on self-reporting and did not conduct independent
corroboration of the information provided by interview subjects.
Table 1: Current Detainees
In order to protect their anonymity, only certain characteristics are included in the following tables,
and age ranges rather than specific ages are provided. The current and former detainees
interviewed came from the following countries: England, Mexico, Jamaica, Colombia, Philippines,
Cuba, Argentina, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Panama, and Guatemala.
Age

Length
of time
in U.S.

Length of
time in
detention
at time of
interview

Legal
status

Family status
and location (in
Arizona, out of
state, or abroad)

Attorney

Eventual outcome
(if known as of
August 2008)

20-30

20 years

8 months

Legal
Permanent
Resident
(LPR)

2 U.S. citizen girls
(3 and 4 years old)
out of state

Yes

Deported

30-40

31 years

2 months

LPR

3 U.S. citizen
children (9 month
old, 11 and 13 year
olds) in AZ

Unknown

In the overall population of immigration detainees, only about one in ten has an attorney. Dana Priest and
Amy Goldstein, Careless Detention: Medical Care in Immigrant Prisons, WASHINGTON POST A1 (May 11, 2008).

Age

Length of
time in
U.S.

Length of
time in
detention at
time of
interview

Legal
status

Family status and
location (in
Arizona, out of
state, or abroad)

Attorney

Eventual outcome (if
known as of August
2008)

40-50

23 years

6 months

Undocumented
(Undoc.)

2 foreign-born
daughters living in
U.S. (23 and 25)
and 2 U.S. citizen
daughters (8 and 9)
in AZ

Released; legal case
still pending

20-30

7 years

2 months

Undoc.

No children. Aunt
and cousin in AZ

Released on bond;
legal case pending

40-50

19 years

2 years (first
6 mos. in
SPC; rest in
CADC)

LPR

2 daughters,
youngest now
finishing high
school out of state

Deported

30-40

25 years

6 months
(brief initial
detention
out of state,
then 1
month in
PCJ, 5
months in
CADC)

LPR

Mother and 2 U.S.
citizen children: 14
year old boy and 12
year old girl, all
out of state

Yes

Deported

40-50

25 years

6 months
(same as D6)

LPR

Husband and 2 U.S.
citizen children: 20
year old boy and 18
year old girl, all
out of state

Yes

Deported

40-50

12 years

15 mos.

LPR

U.S. citizen
husband and 3
children: 2 U.S.
citizens (10 and 6)
and one Canadian
citizen (12), all out
of state

Still detained

20-30

12 years

3 months
and 1 week

Undoc.

Husband and 4 U.S.
citizen children:
two boys (6 and 4)
and two girls (2
and 1)

Released on parole
and granted relief
from deportation

D10

30-40

10 years

8 months
(first 3 in
county jail
out of state;
next 5 in
CADC)

Undoc.

Husband, 3 U.S.
citizen children (4,
6, and 8), 2
teenage daughters
from previous
marriage, and
mother and father
(all out of state)

Yes

Deported

D11

20-30

21 years

8 months

Visa
petition
pending

Most of family out
of state, including
U.S. citizen son (9)

Deported

Age

Length of
time in
U.S.

Length of
time in
detention at
time of
interview

Legal
status

Family status and
location (in
Arizona, out of
state, or abroad)

Attorney

Eventual outcome (if
known as of August
2008)

D12

40-50

16 years

1 year

LPR

U.S. citizen
husband and 5 U.S.
citizen children

Still detained

D13

30-40

12 years

7 months

Undoc.

One U.S. citizen
son (10 years old)

Yes

Unknown

D14

30-40

29 years

20 days

LPR

2 U.S. citizen
children: 6 year old
daughter and 9
year old son,
staying with
mother

Granted relief from
deportation and
released

D15

30-40

16 years

6 weeks

LPR (with
potential
claim of
citizenship)

Mother and brother
out of state

Unknown

D16

20-30

14 years

2 months

Undoc.

1 year old U.S.
citizen son in AZ

Deported

D17

20-30

21 years

7 months

LPR

5 year old U.S.
citizen son out of
state

Still detained

Table 2: Previous Detainees
Age

Length
of time
in U.S.
when
detained

Duration
and
location of
detention

Legal
status

Family status and
location

Attorney

Eventual outcome
(if known)

PD1

30-40

Apprehended at
the border

8 months in
Eloy

Undoc.

6 children in country
of origin

Yes

Granted asylum

PD2

20-30

22 years

2 weeks in
Eloy

LPR

3 U.S. citizen
children, 2 boys and
one 2 month old girl
(breastfeeding) in AZ

Yes

Released on bond with
case pending

PD3

40-50

27 years

10 days in
Eloy

Undoc.

4 children: 18, 14,
13, and 8 (youngest
is U.S. citizen), all in
AZ except oldest has
been deported

Yes

Released on bond with
case pending

PD4

20-30

23 years

Detained in
CADC twice:
first for one
month, then
lost bond
appeal and
returned for
~ 6 wks

Undoc.

Married to U.S.
citizen; 6 months
pregnant with first of
2 U.S. citizen sons
when detained

Yes

Released on bond; over
one year later granted
relief from deportation

Table 3: Attorneys and Social Service Providers
Participants were located in Florence, Phoenix, Tucson, and Florida.
Type of practice

Experience with women detainees

Paralegal

Provided “Know Your Rights” Presentations and follow up
assistance to women in Eloy

Pro bono attorney

Represented 1 woman asylum seeker in Eloy

Social worker

Provides social services to women detained in all facilities

Private immigration
attorney

Women detainees make up about 10% of his clients; works
regularly in all the detention facilities

Private immigration
attorney

Represents immigrants and occasionally detainees; has represented
~5 women in Eloy and Florence

Private immigration
attorney

Women detainees make up about 20% of his clients; works in both
Florence and Eloy

Pro bono attorney

Represented 1 woman asylum seeker in Eloy

Private immigration
attorney

Has represented a handful of women detainees

Private immigration
attorney

Has represented many women detainees; works regularly with
detainees in both Eloy and Florence

A10

Private immigration
attorney

Has represented ~6 women detainees

A11

Private immigration
attorney

Has represented 2 women detainees in CADC, works regularly with
male detainees in Florence and Eloy

A12

Public, private and pro
bono attorney

Has represented several women detainees in Florence and Eloy

A13

Private immigration
attorney

Represents 3-4 detained women each month in Florence and Eloy

A14

Non-profit attorney

Conducts “Know Your Rights” presentations, provides pro se
assistance, representation at bond hearings, and occasionally
further representation to women detainees in Florence

A15

Non-profit attorney

Conducts “Know Your Rights” presentations and provides pro se
assistance and occasional representation to women detainees in
Florence SPC and CADC

A16

Non-profit attorney

Conducted “Know Your Rights” presentations and provided pro se
assistance and occasional representation to women detainees in
Florence

A17

Non-profit attorney

Represented one woman detained in PCJ

A18

Paralegal

Conducts “Know Your Rights” presentations and follow up
assistance to women detainees in Eloy

A19

Non-profit attorney

Coordinates pro se assistance and Know Your Rights presentations
for detainees in Florence and Eloy

III.

Conditions

The following sections detail the concerns about conditions identified
through SIROW’s research. General concerns identified are discussed in each
section, with the specific interviews or other sources for the information noted in
footnotes. Detailed comments from interviewees are also contained in footnotes.
In order to maintain the anonymity of interviewees, the citations refer to the
source of each comment by numbers assigned to each subject, preceded by either
“D” for current detainee, “PD” for previous detainee, or “A” for attorney or social
service provider. In addition, detainees’ stories that illustrate a given concern use
pseudonyms and are provided in separate gray boxes throughout the remainder of
the report. Each section concludes with recommended actions to address the
concerns identified, which are further elaborated upon in the final section of this
report.
A. Medical care
1. General concerns
The Detention Standards require that all detainees have access to medical
services that promote detainee health and general well being. 58 Yet as discussed
below, nearly every detainee interviewed described receiving poor quality medical
care for problems ranging from routine health concerns to grave conditions.
Delay was the most common complaint voiced by detainees about the
facilities’ provision of medical care. Detainees repeatedly described waiting for
weeks at a minimum for responses to their medical requests. At CADC, seven of
the ten women interviewed described waiting several weeks for responses to their
requests for help. 59 Detainees described similarly long waiting times in Eloy. 60
In addition, several detainees reported that when they did finally receive
medical attention, it was inadequate to the point of being humiliating and/or
dangerous. A few examples follow:
58

DOM, “Medical Care.”
D1 (long delays in response to request for treatment of knee pain and cyst in armpit), D2 (waited over a
month for response to request for treatment of migraines and psychiatric visit), D3 (waited for weeks for a
response to request for treatment of the flu), D4 (in her experience it takes 3-4 weeks to respond to medical
requests), D6 (waited over a month for response to request for treatment of stinging skin condition on her
face), D7 (waited for months and filed three separate requests for treatment of migraines, anxiety, and
stomach pain, including vomiting and bleeding. Finally saw a doctor but still has received no treatment. Even
requests for an extra blanket and Advil have been ignored or refused), D10 (waited two weeks for response to
request for treatment of the flu; by the time of response, it was no longer a problem. She also knows other
women whose requests were finally processed after they had been deported).
60
D11 (takes weeks to respond to medical requests), D12 (waited for several months to see a nurse about her
cervical cancer, which was diagnosed prior to her arrival in Eloy; waited another month to see an oncologist),
D14 (requested Ibuprofen for carpal tunnel since day she arrived, 20 days ago, and still has received no
response), PD2 (requested treatment for migraines 3 times in 2 weeks of detention, and finally the nurse
responded with Ibuprofen).
59

A detainee in Eloy had received a diagnosis of cervical cancer while she
was in a New Jersey jail prior to her detention. After she arrived in
detention, despite repeated requests, she waited for several months to
see a nurse. When she eventually had the nurse’s visit, she was given
aspirin. Only after an emergency arose one month later did she finally
succeed in seeing an oncologist. 61

One detainee in CADC with severe knee pain reported that she was given
30 days of Ibuprofen, told to lose weight, and refused further treatment.
At times the pain was so debilitating she could not walk to pill call to
receive the Ibuprofen. 62

One attorney recounted the experience of one of her clients detained in
CADC, who had undergone female genital mutilation (“FGM”) in her home
country before she fled to the United States. While in detention, she
began to have severe lower abdominal pain, which was most likely a longterm effect of FGM. She was told to exercise and watch her diet. After
nearly six months in detention without care, she was taken to a public
hospital where an ultrasound found a cyst that had grown to be the size of
a five-month-old fetus. Although ICE had actively opposed efforts to
release her up to this point, she was abruptly released within days of
receiving this news, with no money or health insurance to cover the
surgery. At the time the attorney was interviewed for this report, her
client had still not been able to receive the surgery. 63

Another attorney described extremely negligent care received by her
client in PCJ, who entered the facility with complex and serious health
problems including advanced cancer and psychiatric problems. Her client
spent over a year in the facility, and was consistently denied the urgent
medical attention she required. Requests were denied or ignored for
everything from a biopsy to determine the extent of her cancer to an extra
blanket for the pus exuding from her leg. 64

In addition to concerns about the timing and quality of medical care,
detainees also raised serious privacy concerns. The Detention Standards require
that the facilities protect the privacy of detainees’ medical information. 65 They
specifically require that for initial medical screenings, if language difficulties
prevent communication, the health care officer in the facility must obtain
translation assistance. However, women described no formalized translation
assistance and few medical personnel who could speak languages other than
English. In both CADC and Eloy, detainees reported that non-English speaking

D12.
D1.
63
A16.
64
A17.
65
DOM, “Medical Care.”
62

detainees are expected to bring another detainee to translate for them in medical
appointments. 66
Access to medical records was another issue raised repeatedly by detainees
and their representatives in describing the problems with the medical care system
in detention. One detainee in Eloy described waiting for seven months and filing
numerous requests before she was able to obtain her own medical records. 67
The women detainees in Pinal County Jail who wrote a letter to FIRRP in
January 2008 detailing their concerns with their treatment devoted a substantial
portion of their letter to medical issues. Their description of the medical care
echoes the problems described by the detainees interviewed in the other facilities.
In their own words:
Medical care that is provided to us is very minimal and general. Basic
care for most of us: “Drink a lot of water and Ibuprofen.” Some of
the detainees come with open sores, to have a nurse see them is a
long process. Daily we have to constantly remind the officers that the
detainees need help. If you do not speak English, you cannot fuss, the
only thing you can do is go to bed and suffer. Going to ICE medical,
we are at the mercy of the nurse’s mood. We have no privacy when
our health record is being discussed. You get your diagnosis in front
of non-medical staff and other detainees. . . When we have
complained to the nurses we get ridiculed with replies like, “You
should have made better choices… ICE is not here to make you feel
comfortable … our hands are tight [sic] … Well we can’t do much you
are getting deported anyway . . . learn English before you cross the
border . . mi casa no es su casa.”
2. Women’s distinctive health concerns
The facilities are particularly unresponsive to women’s distinctive health
needs. One woman interviewed was detained for nearly a month in CADC while she
was six months pregnant. She was shackled during transport to and from the
facility. At the facility, she was denied monitoring or treatment for an ovarian cyst
that posed a risk to herself and the fetus, and received no response to her requests
for prenatal vitamins or extra padding for her bed. 68 (Her case is described more
fully in the box below.) Another woman interviewed was separated from her
breastfeeding baby daughter, who was less than two months old, while she was
detained in Eloy for two weeks. Her request for a pump was denied and she had to
express her milk supply manually. In addition, it took the facility four days to

D7, D11, D12.
D12.
68
PD4.
67

respond to her requests for attention to the residual bleeding she was experiencing
from childbirth. 69
In addition to these direct accounts, attorneys described several cases of
disregard for the health needs of women detainees. Since 2006 alone, three
women told FIRRP staff that they suffered miscarriages while detained. In all three
cases, their detention continued for several months after the miscarriage. 70
Attorneys also described that the government routinely fights their efforts to get
pregnant detainees released on bond. 71 One private attorney knew of a nursing
mother held for ten days in Eloy without access to a pump to relieve and maintain
her milk supply. 72 She was unable to continue breastfeeding upon release. Finally,
two detainees at CADC reported observing negligent or abusive treatment of
pregnant detainees. 73
Ana was born in Agua Prieta, Mexico, a border town just south of the Arizona border,
and came to the United States as a baby. She has lived in Tucson for her whole life. When
she was 17, she was an honor roll student at a Tucson public school. She and her mother
were undocumented; her younger two siblings were U.S. citizens. She had a job at a store in
the mall. One day her mother came to the store and asked her to buy several hundred
dollars worth of merchandise from the store with a credit card that her mother said belonged
to a friend of her stepfather. In fact, the credit card was a fake and Ana and her mother were
charged with receipt of stolen property.
Several years later, the district attorney’s office initiated a prosecution for the crime.
By this time, Ana was engaged to a U.S. citizen. The judge reduced her sentence to a
misdemeanor, and she served a brief sentence in county jail. She was then immediately
transferred to CADC, as ICE initiated deportation proceedings against her.
The immigration judge in Florence granted her bond after one month of detention.
ICE appealed the bond decision. Ana commented, “A lot of people [say], ‘well maybe because
they thought you were a threat to flee.’ [But] why would I want to go anywhere if I’ve been
here my whole life. Where would I go?”

PD2.
A16 (woman fleeing domestic violence in Mexico was arrested coming across the border. During her
interrogation by Border Patrol, she miscarried in the bathroom. She didn’t tell anyone in CADC, but eventually
told A16. After 8 months in detention and advocacy on her behalf by FIRRP, ICE released her on humanitarian
parole); A18 (in less than six months, worked with two women who miscarried while detained in Eloy. One
requested a doctor and received only sanitary pads to deal with the bleeding).
71
A14, A19.
72
A12.
73
D1 (recalls a detainee who was pregnant as a result of rape in the desert. She was severely depressed, and
didn’t come out of her cell for her special meal call [an extra serving due to her pregnancy]. One of the guards
yelled at her so intensely that she fainted. The rest of the girls in the pod came together and complained
about the guard and he was eventually removed from their unit); D6 (during her time in CADC, has observed
two pregnant detainees receive little attention to their medical needs).
70

ICE won the appeal and Ana was sent back to Florence. At this point, she was six
months pregnant. She was transported back to the facility in shackles. She, her attorney,
and her doctor all alerted ICE of her pregnancy but she remained in detention. Prior to her
detention, her doctor instructed her to have periodic monitoring of a cyst in her ovary in
order to ensure that it did not grow to a size that would endanger herself and the fetus. Yet
despite repeated written and verbal requests, she never received a sonogram while in
detention.
Finally, after over a month in detention, ICE abruptly released Ana. During her time in
detention, she had one visit with a doctor. She was assigned a top bunk but managed to
trade with another detainee. Her requests for extra padding for the bed and prenatal
vitamins were ignored. She recalls often feeling hungry after meals. But throughout her
interview, she emphasized that she was one of the lucky ones. She had money in her account
to buy food at the commissary. It was junk food, but at least it filled her stomach.
Concerns identified in this section support the following recommendations:
Æ Congress: Pass legislation to require DHS to establish legally enforceable
procedures for the timely and effective delivery of medical care to
immigration detainees.
Æ DHS: Provide enforceable regulations to guarantee women appropriate
gynecological and obstetrical care.
Æ ICE: Halt or strictly limit the practice of detaining nursing mothers and
pregnant women to cases in which no alternative arrangements exist.
Æ ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Respond to medical requests in a timely fashion.
Æ ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Provide onsite or telephonic translation assistance
for appointments with medical staff.

B. Mental health
The Detention Standards make little reference to mental health care in the
facilities, other than requiring staff to be trained to recognize signs and situations
potentially indicating suicide risk. 74 This is a notable gap in the standards, given
the significant mental health needs of the population housed in the facilities.
Many detainees come to the facility with preexisting mental health conditions. Of
the 17 detainees interviewed, five required psychiatric treatment for preexisting
conditions. 75 While most were able to eventually resume prescriptions for
psychiatric medications, they described significant delays, along with limited to

DOM, “Suicide Prevention and Intervention.”
D2, D5, D10, D11, D17.

nonexistent access to non-medical treatment options such as therapy or
counseling. 76
Other detainees arrive in detention as a direct result of recent trauma or
violence. Other studies have demonstrated that asylum-seekers who are placed in
detention are likely to suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, major
depression, or other mental health problems. 77
These disorders may be
78
particularly prevalent among women detainees.
Several social service providers
and attorneys interviewed emphasized the high proportion of women detainees
with whom they have worked who are victims of violence. 79 Of the 21 current and
former detainees interviewed, five divulged during their interviews that they were
survivors of domestic violence. Two of the five were in detention as a direct result
of the violence. 80 In addition, two attorneys interviewed commented on the
prevalence of rape victims among border crossers who end up in detention
facilities. 81 Yet the facilities have no personnel or programs in place to address
the potential mental health needs of recent victims of violence.
Many detainees need treatment for the mental strain and anxiety created by
detention itself. Several attorneys and service providers interviewed commented
on the distinctive psychological strain of immigration detention. One social service
provider described the “first traumatic moment of the detention experience” for
post-criminal conviction detainees. They often have no warning that they are
going to be detained after serving their criminal sentences. As he described it, the
jail or prison “will go through the motions of releasing you – they’ll give you all the
possessions and sign you out and then, as they’re opening up the cell, they take
you to another holding area where ICE picks you up. Then you’re transported to
God knows where…” 82 Several of the detainees interviewed described the shock of
detention upon leaving jail, having received no forewarning that they would be
detained and possibly deported at the end of their criminal sentence. 83
76

D2 (took CADC one month to respond to request to meet with psychiatrist or psychologist [detainee was
unsure which]); D17 (took Eloy 3 or 4 weeks to respond to her request to meet with a psychiatrist).
77
From Persecution to Prison: The Health Consequences of Detention for Asylum Seekers, Physicians for
Human Rights and the NYU/Bellevue Center for Survivors of Torture 1-2 (June 2002).
78
Refugee Women at Risk: Unfair Laws Hurt Asylum Seekers, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights 11 (2002);
available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/refugees/reports/refugee_women.pdf (“For survivors of torture,
rape and other forms of gender-based persecution, detention often exacerbates the symptoms of posttraumatic stress and depression.”)
79
A1 (40%); A3 (vast majority); A4; A12; A14 (well over half); A15 (vast majority), A18.
80
D4 (in detention after boyfriend beat her and dropped her off at border patrol); D10 (in detention after
abusive spouse reported her use of false identity documents to border patrol).
81
A12, A14 (during her three years as an attorney working in the detention facilities, had personal experience
with two women who were rape victims and knew of others anecdotally).
82
A3.
83
D1 (LPR who had lived in this country since she was 6 years old, learned of immigration hold a few weeks
before scheduled release from jail, but told it was simply a matter of protocol and she would be home soon.
Instead, she was in detention for over 8 months and was eventually deported, shortly after her interview for
this report); D2 (LPR who had lived in this country since she was 3 months old, was incarcerated for six months
in county jail for a probation violation and had no warning of her immigration detention until the day of her
schedule release); D6 and D7 (LPR sisters who had lived here since they were 10 and 16 were picked up by ICE
during a routine parole visit 3 years after they had served their jail sentences); D14 (LPR for 18 years,
unexpectedly picked up by ICE on the day of her scheduled release from jail); PD3 (undocumented mother

In addition to the initial shock, the indefinite nature of detention presents
another distinctive psychological challenge experienced by detainees. As one
attorney put it, “Unlike a criminal sentence, which you usually know ‘all right, I’m
here for six months, if I do whatever the time is,’ with immigration proceedings, it
feels indefinite.” 84 Detention can last days, weeks, months, or even years. The
length of detention depends not only on how long legal proceedings take but also
how long arrangements for deportation take even after a final order of
deportation. One detainee interviewed had received a final order of deportation
after five months of detention, and at the time of her interview had been waiting
an additional two months to actually be deported. In her interview, she described
the strain of not knowing whether she would be deported the next day or months in
the future. 85
One indication of the psychological strain of detention was the recurring
mention by attorneys of clients who told them they felt like they were going to die
in detention. 86
The facilities make no discernable effort to address the psychological harm
of the detention experience.
Detainees can obtain prescriptions for
antidepressants and anxiety medications, but psychological counseling support is
far more difficult to obtain. Several detainees described symptoms of severe
anxiety and depression, yet if they were not previously on some sort of prescription
medication, they were unlikely to seek out help. For example, one detainee at
CADC who spoke openly of her struggles with depression said she knew antidepression medication was available, but in her view, it was for the federal
marshal prisoners. She explained that she didn’t like pills, and it had never
occurred to her to request a visit with a psychologist or psychiatrist. 87
Another detainee described suffering an anxiety attack after nearly two
months of detention in Eloy. 88 She did not know what was happening to her. She
spent the day of the attack in the clinic. The following day a doctor came to visit
her. She is a monolingual Spanish-speaker, and was forced to ask a guard to
interpret during the doctor’s visit. The doctor did not offer her any medication or
follow up support.

detained by ICE when she was picking up her son from his probation visit, in transit for 24 hours without access
to phone, unable to call anyone to pick up her other children from school).
84
A4.
85
D10.
86
A4, A17, A19.
87
D3.
88
D16.

Maria is 25 years old. She was born in Mexico and came to this country when she
was 17. She and her family are undocumented and work as seasonal farmworkers. At the
time of her interview, she had been detained in CADC for two months.
Maria’s detention was the culmination of an abusive relationship. Her boyfriend
kidnapped her, severely beat her, and turned her in to ICE. She was taken to a hospital for
treatment of her injuries, and then transferred directly to CADC. The facility has not
responded in any way to the traumatic circumstances of Maria’s arrival. She has received no
psychiatric attention.
Maria is eligible for a special visa for victims of domestic violence. Her deportation
proceedings have been placed on hold while she applies for the visa. Although the visa
application can take a significant period of time to process and Maria has no criminal record,
the government has refused to release her while her case is pending. Since her family cannot
afford the $1,500 bond, she remains detained. None of her relatives have come to visit her
because of their undocumented status.

Concerns identified in this section support the following recommendations:
Æ Congress: Pass legislation to require DHS to establish legally enforceable
procedures for the timely and effective delivery of mental health care to
immigration detainees.
Æ DHS: Require ICE officers and detention facility personnel to receive training
in recognizing and responding to survivors of domestic and sexual violence
and gender-based persecution.
Æ ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Facilitate detainees’ access to on-site
psychiatrists and psychologists and increase the availability of counseling
services to be used in conjunction with, or instead of, medication.

C. Security
1. Mixed population
The detention standards state that detainees should be housed according to
a classification system, in which detainees with minor and nonviolent criminal
records are separated from higher risk detainees. 89 However, the mixing of women
detainees with inmates in the criminal justice system, as well as the mixing of high
and low security risk women detainees, was one of the concerns most frequently
raised by both detainees and their advocates.
89

DOM, “Detainee Classification System.”

At the time interviews were conducted in October 2007, women detainees at
CADC were held in the same pod as federal marshal prisoners. 90 Nine of the ten
detainees interviewed talked at length about the negative consequences of this
mixing of populations. 91 Several detainees described the constant fear and bullying
they experienced as a result of the federal marshal prisoners. 92 One detainee
described it as a “ticking time bomb,” emphasizing that it is just a matter of time
before something terrible happens to one of the ICE detainees. 93
In Eloy, there are no federal prisoners, but the women do not appear to be
separated by level of security risk. As a result, there is a similar dynamic of fear
between the less acculturated detainees, including recent border-crossers, and
some of the post-criminal conviction detainees. When asked about the social
dynamics in her pod, one detainee described that the undocumented live in fear of
the women who have been in jail. 94 Another detainee interviewed, an asylumseeker fleeing traumatic circumstances in her home country, described refusing to
leave her cell because the other women scared her. 95
Several of the attorneys interviewed also identified the mixed population in
the pods as one of the most significant concerns for women detainees. One
attorney said it is the main problem voiced by his clients when asked if they feel
safe in detention. He explained,
First, it’s a cultural difference, if you see a woman with a
tattoo… people are afraid of that. You have somebody here
who’s from Guatemala who’s indigenous… they’re being told to
get in back of the line, they take their food, they want money
from them. . . they’re frightened, physically frightened. . . 96
Another attorney noted the imbalance of power between the different
populations. On the one hand, the federal marshal prisoners don’t have much to
lose by behaving aggressively, because many may be facing long sentences and may
be accustomed to the culture of incarceration. On the other hand, the ICE
90

Federal marshal prisoners are individuals arrested by any federal agency and held in custody by the U.S.
Marshal Services from the time they are brought into federal custody until they are either acquitted or
incarcerated.
91
D1, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10.
92
D1(the federal marshals are terrifying for many ICE detainees); D4 (federal marshals are more aggressive);
D5 (many of the younger girls who don’t speak English get scared and bullied); D6 (very fearful of the federal
marshals. They cut in front of her in line, and she stays quiet); D7 (she is scared of the federal marshals
because they are bigger and American. They are treated better by the guards); D8 (federal marshals bully and
manipulate ICE detainees, especially recent border crossers. The federal marshals get preferential treatment
in terms of services, clothing, and sleeping arrangements); D9 (lots of intimidation, fighting, and yelling from
natives [federal marshals], who call the ICE detainees “illegals.” They always receive preferences for jobs);
D10 (she is scared to be sleeping in the same room with these dangerous women who might be murderers.
Fights often break out between ICE and federal marshals. They are treated better by the guards because they
can speak English).
93
D3.
94
D16.
95
PD1.
96
A4.

detainees have everything to lose, since they are often far from any kind of support
network, have no idea how long they will remain detained, and in many cases have
no familiarity with prison culture. 97
2. Use of shackles and strip searches
Many of the detainees expressed intense frustration at the extensive security
measures taken by the facilities despite the fact that the detainees are not serving
criminal sentences. In particular, the facilities’ use of shackles and strip searches
often appear out of step with the actual risk posed by the detainees.
The detention standards only permit the use of restraints on women in
exceptional circumstances. 98 However, women described the routine use of
shackles in situations that posed minimal flight or security concerns. For example,
one woman apprehended at the border who was fleeing violence in Guatemala was
taken in arm and ankle shackles on a multi-hour bus and plane trip to Eloy. 99 Even
many months later, when recounting the experience during her interview for this
report, she broke down. In another example, one woman interviewed was
routinely transported in shackles to CADC and for any visits outside the facility
when she was six months pregnant. 100
Strip searches are a security measure of particular concern for women
detainees. The detention standards recognize the gravity of strip searches. They
instruct facilities to only use the invasive practice after a legal visit if there is a
reasonable suspicion that the detainee is concealing contraband. The standards
also state that if strip searches are normally required after a contact visit in a
facility, there should be an alternative procedure available to allow for a noncontact visit. 101
Despite these standards, CADC detainees described being subject to routine
strip searches after legal visits. Many detainees described these experiences as
humiliating and traumatizing. The strip searches are conducted in groups. One
detainee described being strip searched in front of numerous other detainees while
she was menstruating. 102 Another said she was depressed for days after the first
strip search, and noted that many women leave the strip search crying. 103 At Eloy,
detainees did not report frequent strip searches.

A15.
DOM, “Transportation.”
99
PD1. Similarly, D14 described being shackled at various stages during a two day long transport via bus and
plane from California, where she had completed her jail sentence, to Arizona.
100
PD4 (laughing and commenting on the use of shackles, “Where are we going to go? I’m really going to get
far!”).
101
DOM, “Visitation.” The new performance-based detention standards have removed this provision. They still
require reasonable suspicion prior to a strip search.
102
D7.
103
D3.
98

3. Treatment by guards
On the whole, detainees reported mixed treatment by the guards in all three
facilities, with some supportive and helpful and others disrespectful and
intimidating. Inability to communicate with the guards due to language barriers
was one of the biggest problems identified by detainees. The non-English speaking
detainees interviewed described routinely needing to ask bilingual (in English and
Spanish) detainees to translate for them. 104 This practice raises particular privacy
concerns for conversations with medical personnel and case managers. 105 Two
monolingual Spanish-speaking detainees in CADC reported that all the case
managers in the facility speak only English, which has made it difficult for them to
report concerns about their personal safety in the facility. 106
Detainees in Eloy complained that some of the guards give preferential
treatment to some of the detainees. 107 The favorites are usually the post-criminal
conviction English-speaking detainees, who tend to be more acculturated and
“tougher.” 108 One monolingual Spanish speaking detainee, who was in detention
for working with false papers, said that she felt safer during her brief time in
county jail. 109 At the detention facility, she doesn’t believe that the guards will
protect her from the other detainees, who often bully her. On multiple occasions
she reported that she and other undocumented detainees have skipped meals
rather than go into the dining hall and interact with the other detainees.
PCJ has only been under contract with ICE since 2006; the facility was
previously used as a county jail and the majority of its pods continue to house
county inmates. Attorneys observed that the guards at PCJ are particularly out of
touch with the distinctive needs of immigration detainees as opposed to people
serving criminal sentences. 110 One attorney was struck by this when she reminded
a guard that the detainees needed access to a photocopier and he replied, “What
would they need copies for?” She noted that, given the fact that the vast majority
of detainees have pending immigration court cases and are representing
themselves pro se, this comment reflects a lack of awareness on the part of the
PCJ staff.
Attorneys raised additional concerns about the unique power dynamics
between women detainees and guards. Several attorneys commented that women
in particular are frequently pressured by guards into signing agreements to accept
deportation. 111 Two service providers described cases in which women had their
104

D1, D6, D7.
As discussed in the section on medical care, this practice violates the detention standard on medical care,
which requires that facilities protect the privacy of detainees’ medical information. DOM, “Medical Care.”
106
D6, D7.
107
D12, D13, D14, D16.
108
D13, D16.
109
D16.
110
A14.
111
A1, A5, A8.
105

hand physically grabbed and maneuvered in an effort to have them sign the
required documents. 112 In addition, some attorneys observed that women are
sexualized by the guards, receiving better treatment if they are flirtatious. 113
Concerns identified in this section support the following recommendations:
Æ ICE: Limit the use of shackles and eliminate it altogether for pregnant
detainees.
Æ ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Train facility personnel to be familiar with the
circumstances of ICE detainees and understand the differences between
immigration detainees and people awaiting or serving criminal sentences.
Æ ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Encourage bilingual guards to communicate in
detainees’ native language or use translation or interpretation services.
Æ ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Facilitate onsite or telephonic translation
assistance for non-English speaking detainees, particularly during private
meetings with case managers.
Æ ICE, CADC: Refrain from mixing ICE detainees with people awaiting or serving
criminal sentences.
Æ ICE, CADC: Halt routine strip searches and, if necessary because of specific
security concerns, conduct strip searches individually rather than in groups.

D. Telephone access
Given the isolated location of the detention facilities, telephone access is a
crucial issue for immigration detainees. Phone calls are often their only means of
contact with their families, attorneys, consulates, and social service providers.
The importance of phones is acknowledged in the Detention Standards, which state
that “[f]acilities holding [ICE] detainees shall permit them to have reasonable and
equitable access to telephones.” The Detention Standards also require that
detainees be permitted to make free calls to free legal service providers and
consulates, and indigent detainees be further permitted to make free calls to
courts and for personal or family emergencies. 114 In addition, the detention
standard regarding transfers requires that indigent detainees be permitted one
domestic phone call at government expense upon arrival at a new facility. 115
The phone systems in all three contract facilities were not in compliance
with the Detention Standards. The problem most frequently raised in interviews
was the inability of detainees to contact family members in the United States
112

A1, A5.
A14, A15.
114
DOM, “Telephone Access.”
115
DOM, “Detainee Transfer.”
113

initially upon arrival at the facility because they had no money available to place
even a single call. In CADC, five of the ten detainees interviewed reported that,
upon arrival in the facility, they were unable to reach their family for anywhere
from two weeks to over a month. 116 Three women detained in Eloy described
similar problems. 117 One woman previously detained in CADC was unable to reach
her family for the entire ten days of her detention. 118
Even well after initial arrival, detainees continued to struggle to
communicate with their families. The most common obstacle described by
detainees was expense. At both CADC and Eloy, detainees can either deposit
money into an account to be charged or they can call collect. The accounts are
prohibitively expensive for the majority of detainees. 119 In addition, detainees
described significant delays in getting money into their accounts so that they could
place calls. 120 Many detainees described that women with accounts would help
those who could not afford them by lending out phone time or asking their families
to pass along messages to other detainees’ families. 121
Despite the Detention Standard’s provisions regarding free calls to attorneys
and consulates, numerous detainees reported that they were either unaware of this
rule or that it was not put into practice. 122 Detainees at both CADC and Eloy
reported consistent problems in reaching FIRRP, the only free legal service provider
available to detainees. 123 FIRRP has an automated system that initially picks up all
calls to the office. Not only does this make it impossible to place a collect call
(which they should not have to do according to the Detention Standards), but even
if they used their own funds for the call, the phone system at CADC does not
connect to answering machines so detainees cannot leave messages. Attorneys
interviewed at FIRRP described receiving calls in which one woman would manage
to get through to them by phone, and then pass the phone around among several
detainees who all had various messages to relay. 124 Since nearly all outside counsel
116

D2 (unable to reach family for 2 weeks upon arrival); D3 (unable to make a phone call for 3 weeks after
transfer from SPC to CADC due to expense and delay in transferring money to her account); D6 and D7 (unable
to call families throughout transfer from east coast to Arizona because no opportunity to access a phone); D9
(unable to call family after arrived at facility for almost a month due to lack of funds. She complained to her
case manager and in response was given 3 pieces of paper and envelopes).
117
D13 (unable to call family when arrived until another detainee lent her three minutes of phone time); D14
(unable to call mother to tell her she had been picked up by ICE until one week after she had been released
from jail, when she finally used someone else’s phone card); PD2 (could not call family for 2 days until account
was set up. Family could not locate her; did not have her A number and could find no central number to call).
118
PD3 (unable to call family because lacked money to cover even a single call).
119
D6 and D7 (went 20 days without speaking to family because couldn’t afford to place the call); D10 (can’t
reach family because of the expense. Has spoken to family twice in 8 months); D14 (has mostly communicated
by mail, only talked to family on phone once in 20 days she’s been in detention).
120
D3, D8, D9, A14 (all describing delays in getting money into account ranging from one to three weeks).
121
D7 (sometimes she will have her family call other families of desperate detainees who can’t afford an
account), PD3, PD4.
122
D4 (never heard of free calls to attorneys. Would be hard to arrange since case manager only speaks
Spanish); D6 (facility recently posted that there are free calls for emergency but she doesn’t know how to
request it).
123
D1, D2, D9.
124
A14 and A15.

are in Tucson or Phoenix, most represented detainees lack sufficient funds to call
their attorneys. 125
With regard to calls to consulates, two detainees specifically reported that
they were unable to place free calls to their consulates from within the facility. 126
Another obstacle to phone access is loss of personal property. One attorney
noted that many of her clients have no way to obtain the phone numbers of those
whom they wish to contact. Because their property is taken when they are
detained, they are without contact information, particularly numbers stored in
their cell phones. 127
One final problem of particular concern for women and unacknowledged by
the Detention Standards is the need to place calls to Child Protective Services
(CPS). One detainee described her intense frustration in being unable to place
calls to Phoenix Child Protective Services to determine the whereabouts of her own
son. She had no money in her account and CPS would not accept collect calls. 128
At the time of her interview, she had been unable to communicate with CPS for the
entire duration of her two month stay in detention.
Linda was born in a South American country and came to the United States 10 years
ago on a temporary visa. After her visa expired, she continued to live here without legal
status, working for a dairy company in Utah. She married a Mexican man who was physically
and emotionally abusive. He was so determined to keep control of her that he destroyed her
identity documents and had false Mexican identity documents made for her to carry on her
at all times. He wanted to ensure that if she were ever picked up by the immigration
authorities, she would be deported to Mexico, where he could find her, rather than to her
home country.
The abuse finally became intolerable and Linda left him. In an act of revenge, her
husband called the police and reported that she was carrying false identity documents. She
was prosecuted for forgery, and although she had no prior criminal record and had never
used the identity documents for any purpose, she was convicted and deportation proceedings
were initiated. Because her forgery charge is considered an aggravated felony under federal
immigration law, she had virtually no hope of relief from deportation. As she put it, “My only
crime was leaving a life of violence.”
125

D13 (hasn’t called attorney because no money); A17 (client in PCJ unable to call her so they communicate
through her husband).
126
D10 (at time of interview, had been trying for four months to place a call from CADC to her consulate. Had
made 14 requests to the facility, they respond that they are not authorized to arrange the call. To her
knowledge, the only consulate detainees have successfully called from the facility is the Mexican consulate);
D12 (while detained in Eloy, she made repeated requests for free calls to her consulate that were unanswered.
Eventually she paid for these calls).
127
A15.
128
D16.

At the time of her interview, Linda had been in detention for 8 months. She spent the
first 3 months detained in a county jail in Utah and was then transferred to CADC. After
three more months of fighting her case from CADC, she exhausted all legal avenues of relief
and spent the two months before her interview simply awaiting her deportation. Her
deportation was delayed because of her lack of identity documents, compounded by the fact
that her home country does not have a sizable population of repatriated detainees and
therefore processing travel arrangements are not routine for consulates.
Linda had spent the entirety of her time in CADC trying without success to place a
phone call to her consulate in order to resolve the problem with her identity documents. The
facility’s prepaid phone account system would not connect to the automated system at the
consulate. While at CADC, she had made 14 requests for help in placing this phone call, but
her requests were either ignored or denied. In her observation, only detainees from Mexico
could successfully place calls to their consulate.
As a result of the expense of the phone system, Linda had spoken with her family
twice over the past five months. Her frustration with this limited ability to communicate with
the outside world escalated as she struggled for information about her own children. Just
before she was transferred from Utah to Arizona, her abusive husband visited her at the
county jail to inform her that he was taking their three children, U.S. citizens ages 4, 6, and 8
years old, to Mexico. Since then, she had been unable to get anyone to help her track down
her children. ICE told her it was not their problem. The Utah police said it was not their
problem. Her relatives in Utah were unwilling to come forward because they are
undocumented and especially fearful after what had happened to Linda.
Linda described the empty days awaiting her deportation in stark terms, saying it is a
form of torture to leave a mother with nothing to do all day long but worry about her
children.

Concerns identified in this section support the following recommendations:
Æ ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Ensure that all detainees can place at least one
free domestic telephone call upon arrival at the detention facility.
Æ ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Ensure that detainees can make free calls to free
legal service providers and consulates.
Æ ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Ensure that indigent detainees can make free
calls to courts and for personal and family emergencies.
Æ ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Protect detainees from phone card systems with
exorbitant rates.
Æ ICE, Arizona Child Protective Services: Develop policies to facilitate parent
detainees’ ability to communicate about custody issues.

E. Access to legal counsel and other assistance
Unlike individuals facing criminal charges, individuals facing civil
immigration violations have no right to free legal counsel. However, they do have
a right to counsel at their own expense. 129 This right is seriously undermined by the
remote location of the detention facilities. The fact that all three facilities are
located in remote desert areas over an hour away from both Tucson and Phoenix
makes it much more difficult for detainees to access legal service providers. The
limited financial means of the vast majority of detainees makes it all the more
unlikely that they will be able to retain counsel. Many of the detainees spoke of
their inability to hire a lawyer because of limited finances. 130 The Florence
Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, the main pro bono legal service provider for
detainees in Arizona, could not possibly provide individual representation for all
the detainees. Instead it predominantly provides assistance to detainees in
representing themselves pro se.
The Detention Standards recognize this reality and have several provisions
to enable detainees to adequately represent themselves. Facilities must provide
access to a law library at least five hours per week, and the library must provide
specific immigration and legal materials, computers, writing implements, paper,
and office supplies for legal proceedings. Detainees must be able to obtain
photocopies of legal materials for court proceedings. Unrepresented detainees
who do not speak English must be provided with more than English legal materials.
Facilities must also assist unrepresented detainees with services such as a notary
public and certified mail for legal proceedings. 131
All three facilities fail to comply with these provisions. At CADC, detainees
reported that all the law library materials are in English. 132 At Eloy, legal materials
are provided to the women on a cart that does not contain the Spanish
materials. 133 At PCJ, there are few legal materials available and those that are
provided are all in English. 134 Detainees at both CADC and Eloy reported charges
for writing implements and limited supplies of paper and pens. 135 Detainees at all
three facilities had significant problems obtaining photocopies. 136 At both CADC

129

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 292, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006).
D5, D8, D9, D12, D14, D16, D17.
131
DOM “Access to Legal Materials.”
132
D4, D9.
133
A18.
134
PCJ Letter and UC Davis Summary Report.
135
D2 (difficult to get paper and pens); D3 (had to submit a request and it’s a “big deal” to get a hold of pens
and paper; she didn’t have this problem when she was detained at SPC); D4 (the facility gives detainees
without any money 3 sheets of paper and 3 envelopes, but any more must be purchased and must pay for pens
and pencils); D8 (although representing herself pro se, she has had to buy paper, pens, and pay for legal
mailings); D9 (has had to buy pens from the commissary); D16 (relies on friends to lend her money for
envelopes and stamps in exchange for plucking people’s eyebrows); PD3 (charged for paper, pens, and
envelopes).
136
D2 (couldn’t make copies at CADC so had to ask the security guards at SPC to make her copies just before
her last hearing commenced); D5 (had to ask a favor of case manager to get copies made); D9 (no copies made
130

and Eloy, detainees reported delays of several weeks in receiving the services of a
notary public. 137 One attorney reported that her clients in PCJ were also having
problems receiving the services of a notary. 138 Timely access to a notary is
especially crucial for primary caregivers, who often need notarized statements to
make arrangements for their dependents’ care while they are detained.
In addition to the limited supplies and materials, the facilities also lack
personnel equipped to provide a minimal level of support to detainees through the
legal process. Each detainee is assigned a deportation officer (DO), who is
intended to oversee all aspects of the deportation process. However, no detainee
interviewed found her DO to be a helpful resource. Most detainees either did not
know who their DO was or found the DO to be unavailable or unhelpful. 139
Detainees in CADC also complained that the “case managers,” who are guards
intended to help with individual questions and concerns, were unhelpful because
they did not speak Spanish and lacked information. 140 In addition, one detainee
expressed frustration that although ICE officials would visit the facility every few
weeks and women would line up with questions and concerns, the officials never
had any information or guidance to share. 141 Several detainees considered the lack
of information available about their case to be the most difficult aspect of
detention. 142
Finally, for those detainees who do have representation, funded either
through their own means or through pro bono assistance, access to counsel is
undermined by the telephone access issues discussed in the foregoing section.
Teresa was born in Michoacán, Mexico, and came to this country when she was 14
years old. At the time of her interview, she was 28 years old and had been in detention in
Eloy for almost 2 months.
When she first came to the United States, she had worked in a restaurant in Kansas
for many years. At one point, one of her coworkers told her she could help her get her legal
status. They went to an office with American flags on the wall, she signed some papers, paid
$1,500, and got a new identity document. She was told it was necessary to change her name
to obtain lawful status. Years later, after she had moved to Phoenix, she was charged with
in facility; when asked, told to do so at SPC); D11 (has had to pay for photocopies); UC Davis Summary Report
(inadequate access to photocopies at PCJ).
137
D10 (waited over 2 weeks in CADC to get a statement notarized that would allow her to obtain her
children’s medical records from Utah); D11 (waited two weeks to get statement notarized in Eloy); D14 (had to
harass guards for at least a week to get a letter notarized so she could grant guardianship to her mother in
order for her children to start school).
138
A14 (clients report that they were told that the notary was only for the county inmates).
139
D9 (DO unavailable); D10 (DO’s are useless, never have information; D11 (No contact with DO); D12 (DO
insults her, says she’s risk to society); D13 (doesn’t know DO); PD4 (not sure she ever met her DO).
140
D1, D6 (neither case manager speaks Spanish, so you have to have another detainee translate if you want to
talk to one of them about a problem), D7, D8, D9.
141
This also raises a concern that ICE is failing to comply with the “Staff Detainee Communication” detention
standard, which requires ICE to conduct visits to detention facilities at least once per week.
142
D2, D4, D11.

working with a false name. She spent 6 months in Maricopa county jail and then arrived in
Eloy while her deportation proceedings were underway.
Teresa fled her abusive husband two years ago. The last straw was when he pushed
her out of the car when she was two months pregnant, breaking her leg and jaw. After that
incident, she left her husband and raised her son on her own.
When she was sent to jail, her son was turned over to Child Protective Services (CPS).
While in jail, CPS informed her that her former husband was fighting for custody of their son.
She has been unable to reach CPS since she has been in detention to learn the whereabouts
of her son. She is terrified that he is with his father.
Teresa has no attorney for her deportation proceedings. She thinks she has an
attorney through CPS but can’t reach anyone. She has no money in her account and CPS
won’t accept collect calls so there is no way to reach them. She called her consulate when
she first arrived and they told her there was nothing they could do for her.
Friends lend her money for envelopes and stamps, so she can write letters to try to
find help. She’s written to Chicanos por la Causa and the church, asking for someone to help
her. In exchange for the money for the mailing, she plucks people’s eyebrows.
After her interview, Teresa wrote a letter to the researcher, which read in part:
Dear Sra. XXXX, God willing you are well. I write you this letter because I feel very
alone and without hope to move forward. How and when I am going to see my son? If it is
that I keep living it is because God has given me strength to arise, but there are very difficult
days and without any help because I don’t have money. Oh Sra.XXX . . . how I wish with all
my heart that I could recover my son and that they would give me a few days to leave and
recover my son. This is the best and only wish that I ask of God and I wish that I had a lawyer
or a person that would help me. . . . [Translated from Spanish]
Concerns identified in this section support the following recommendations:
Æ ICE: Require Deportation Officers and/or case managers to provide detainees
with individual information about the status of their case.
Æ ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Provide detainees with access to writing supplies,
photocopies, and public notaries without charge.
Æ ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Provide detainees with legal materials in
languages other than English.

F. Visitation
1. Attorney visitation
The Detention Standards require that legal visitation must be permitted
seven days a week for at least eight hours on weekdays and four hours on
weekends/holidays. They state that a private room should be provided. 143 Despite
these clear requirements, the hours and procedures for arranging for attorney visits
vary at each facility. Several attorneys who regularly practice in the detention
facilities commented on the difficulty posed by the lack of standardized procedures
for visitation. 144
Attorneys raised particular concerns about legal visits in CADC, which
despite the detention standard’s requirement of a private room, are conducted in a
large group room. Attorneys sit with their clients at one of several tables inside.
The walls are plexiglass and male detainees sit outside awaiting meetings or phone
calls. Both detainees and attorneys commented on the stressful dynamic this
creates for women detainees and their attorneys, who are often the subject of
stares and inappropriate catcalls from the male detainees outside the room. 145
Pinal County Jail has a particularly harsh visitation policy. The default for
all visits is video-conferencing, in which the detainee communicates via video
screen with the visitor. Attorneys can arrange “contact” visits (in which the
detainee and attorney are separated by glass but in the same room) 24 hours in
advance. One attorney objected to this system, stating that in some cases it is
difficult to arrange for advanced notice and the video-monitoring is an
unacceptable option. He questioned, “How are you supposed to conduct an
attorney-client visit through this delayed television monitor on a telephone? . . .
[I]t takes away from personal contact, and you’re talking about a detained person,
this is one of their limited contacts with the outside world.” 146
2. Family visitation
For non-attorney visits, the Detention Standards state that at a minimum,
visits should be permitted during set hours on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
They also state that “to the extent practicable, the facility shall accommodate the
scheduling needs of visitors for whom weekends and holidays pose a hardship.” 147
Each facility appears to have different rules for non-attorney visits. In
CADC, visitation is permitted three days per week for two hours per day (6 hours
total). In Eloy, generally visitation is permitted between 8:00 a.m and 3:30 p.m on
143

DOM, “Visitation.”
A6, A9.
145
D6, D7, A4 (even as a male attorney, he does not feel safe at CADC, with all the men leering at his clients),
A14, A15.
146
A4.
147
DOM, “Visitation.”
144

weekends and federal holidays (15 hours total). The facility also states that
arrangements can be made for special family visits on weekdays between 8:00 a.m
and 3:30 p.m with permission in advance.
For the majority of detainees, these regulations are beside the point,
because visits from friends and family are rare or nonexistent. The majority of
detainees have been transported hundreds or thousands of miles away from their
home communities. 148 The time and expense involved in coming to the facility
from out of state is insurmountable for most detainees’ families. Even those with
families in Arizona often have relatives without legal status who fear coming to the
facility and risking deportation themselves. 149 Tellingly, of all the detainees
interviewed for this study, the only one who spoke of regular family visits was a
Cuban detainee whose family in Phoenix came to visit nearly every week. Because
Cubans cannot be repatriated, they face no current risk of deportation. 150
Finally, non-attorney visits at PCJ raise perhaps the greatest concern of all.
PCJ’s policy is that all non-attorney visitors have no alternative other than through
video-conferences. As a result, detainees are unable to have contact visits with
their loved ones during the entire duration of their detention. One attorney with a
client whose family is in Florida described the frustration experienced by her
client’s husband, who has not made the trip out to Arizona because he would only
be able to see his wife on video screen, which he can already do from Florida
during court hearings. 151
Concerns identified in this section support the following recommendations:
Æ ICE, CADC: Provide privacy for attorney visits.
Æ ICE, PCJ: Provide dedicated space for regular contact visits for attorneys
and families.

G. Food and provisions
The detainees interviewed were consistent in their assessment of the quality
of the food at each of the facilities. Detainees who had spent brief stays in the
Service Processing Center all commented on the higher quality of food there. 152

148

Of the 17 detainees interviewed, 12 were from out of state.
D7 (too difficult for family to come all the way from Florida; it would require 8 days off work to come by
bus, and the plane is too expensive); D16 (no one has come to visit her because they don’t have papers; they
are scared to come to the facility); PD4 (mother couldn’t come visit because undocumented); A11 (client’s
sister had just received her green card and didn’t come visit because too nervous).
150
D9.
151
A17.
152
D3, D5, D6, D7, D8 (only place where she had fruit and meat).
149

Detainees had serious complaints about the quality of the food at CADC and PCJ. 153
At Eloy, most detainees interviewed found the food acceptable. 154
Detainees at both CADC and Eloy complained about small portions. 155 This is
particularly problematic for detainees who lack the resources to buy additional
food at the commissary. At all the facilities, dinner is served at 4 p.m. Since
detainees are not permitted to take food back to their cells, they go to bed hungry
if they don’t have money to buy commissary food. 156
Two women interviewed at CADC had spent time in PCJ and said the food
there was even worse than at CADC. 157 Current detainees at PCJ devoted a
substantial section of their complaint letter to the food. They wrote:
We also have the rights to receive 3 nutritious meals a day. Breakfast
is by far the only nutritious meal given to us. Our meals are not
nutritiously balanced. Lunch and dinner consist of bread, beans,
pasta, and potatoes. The trays are cold and dirty from the previous
day. The food is all mix, pudding in the bread, the rice and beans full
of water. If we get a professional and compassionate officer, she will
make sure we have a decent tray to eat. Most of the officers will
reply “welcome to prison or jail” or “I am sure the food is better than
the desert’s food” . . . . The kitchen at PCJ does not follow proper
handling guidelines with food temperature. The majority of us are
taking some kind of medication for upset stomache [sic].
The Detention Standards require the regular issuance and replenishment of
personal hygiene items and clothing. 158 However, all the facilities presented
problems with the provision of basic necessities such as shoes, clothing, and
hygiene supplies. At CADC, three detainees expressed frustration that they were
not issued new shoes and clothing even when their current supply was in
disrepair. 159 During her interview, one detainee was wearing visibly broken shoes
and explained that her repeated requests for new shoes had not been answered. 160
She explained that detainees knew that the only way to get new shoes was to swap
with a detainee who was about to be deported.
153

D2, D3, D4, D5, D6 (all commenting on the bad quality of food at CADC).
D11, D12, D13, D16, PD2.
155
D7 (federal marshal prisoners serve food and give larger portions to friends. She has lost weight during her
months in detention); PD4 (detained in CADC while pregnant and was often hungry, even though she received
on extra sandwich due to her pregnancy); D12 (food at Eloy is not bad but not enough. She tries to collect
some extra food for those who lack money to go to commissary); D16 (food in Eloy is not bad but not enough.
She tries to keep some hidden in her cell for later because dinner is at 4pm).
156
D4 (early meal times are difficult if can’t afford to buy food at commissary); D10 (can’t afford food at
commissary, would rather use money to call daughter); PD1 (she’d get hungry because fed so early and had no
money to buy from commissary); PD2 (meal times are too early given that you can’t save food).
157
D6, D7.
158
DOM, “Admission and Release” and “Issuance and Exchange of Clothing, Bedding and Towels.”
159
D6, D7, D8.
160
D7.
154

At Eloy, detainees must buy sandals from the commissary to wear in the
shower if they prefer not to shower barefoot. More than one detainee specifically
mentioned this as a cost that is difficult to afford for many of the detainees. 161
They are also issued soap only, not shampoo, so detainees without money for the
commissary must use the soap for shampoo. 162
One detainee who had spent time previously at PCJ described the tiny
amount of shampoo issued was not enough to get through the week. 163 One social
service provider who works closely with detainees in PCJ described the cultural
insensitivity of the small and infrequent provision of necessary supplies. Many
women detainees feel humiliated or ashamed to ask the guards for items such as
shampoo, soap, and feminine hygiene products, and are therefore forced to go
without these products for weeks at a time. 164
Concerns identified in this section support the following recommendations:
Æ ICE, CADC, Eloy and PCJ: Provide indigent detainees a means of obtaining
food after the final meal of the day at 4 p.m.
Æ ICE, CADC and PCJ: Improve the quality of the food.
Æ ICE, PCJ: Ensure that women detainees receive provisions, including
hygienic and sanitary supplies, on a regular basis and in sufficient quantity.

H. Activities
1. Jobs
The Detention Standards state that all facilities with a work program will
provide detainees who are physically and mentally able to work with the
opportunity to do so. 165 Most detainees are anxious to obtain a job as a means of
earning money (jobs pay one dollar per day) and breaking up the monotony of the
day.
However, women detainees at all three facilities reported limited
opportunities for work.
At CADC, detainees expressed frustration about the limited jobs available to
them. They are only permitted to work jobs within the pod, unlike the federal
marshal prisoners, who can work in positions in other parts of the facility as well.
Despite this restriction, the few jobs that do not require leaving the pod are often
assigned instead to federal prisoners rather than detainees. 166
161

D14, PD2.
D14.
163
D6.
164
A3.
165
DOM, “Voluntary Work Program.”
166
D1, D9.
162

More detainees at Eloy had jobs.
However, detainees in Eloy also
commented on the difficulty of receiving a job, particularly for recent detainees
who are not “favorites” of the guards, which often correlates with being Englishspeaking and more acculturated to the United States. 167
2. Classes and resources
Lack of programming was a repeated concern raised by the detainees in all
the facilities. Detainees who had previously served criminal sentences stated that
their time spent in jail was actually easier than the time spent in immigration
detention because there were classes and activities to fill the time in jail. 168
Several detainees said that the lack of activities was the hardest aspect of their
experience in detention. 169
At the time detainees were interviewed in CADC, the facility was offering a
few classes for the first time, but detainees repeatedly voiced frustration that they
were unable to attend them because the limited spaces available were filled by
federal marshal prisoners. 170 One detainee reported that when she complained
about the preference for the federal marshal prisoners, an official explained to her
that the ICE detainees come and go so quickly that they don’t get priority. 171 At
the time of her interview, she had been detained eight months.
In addition to the lack of programming, all the reading materials in the CADC
library are in English except the Bible and a legal handbook produced by FIRRP. 172
At Eloy, there are no classes whatsoever. The monotony and confinement is
particularly intense for the women detainees at Eloy because they virtually never
leave their pod. The men leave their living area to go to the dining hall, the
medical clinic, and church services. In contrast, all of these services are brought
to the women’s pod. In order for women to move anywhere in the facility, they
must have security escorts. As a result, the facility attempts to minimize the
mobility of the women detainees. They eat their meals in the common area of
their pod. 173 Their medical appointments take place in a cell within their pod. 174
Church services take place in the pod. 175 The library comes to them in the form of
a cart of books. 176 One detainee attributed the frequent conflicts between the
women to being confined in one room all day long with nothing to do. 177
167

D14, D16.
D10, D16 (in jail they could go to parenting, drug rehabilitation classes; here there is nothing).
169
D7, D10 (it is a form of torture for mothers separated from their children to be forced to sit and worry about
their children all day long), D14.
170
D7, D8, D10.
171
D10.
172
D6, D10.
173
A19.
174
D12, D14.
175
D12, D14.
176
A18.
177
D14.
168

PCJ presents a similar situation. The ICE detainees are in a separate pod
from the county inmates, and the facility is scrupulous about keeping the
populations separate. As a result, however, women rarely leave their pod. The
medical area is adjacent to their pod, the library comes to them in the form of a
cart of books, they eat all their meals in the pod rather than going to a separate
dining hall, and as discussed at greater length below, there is no outdoor
recreation. 178
One attorney interviewed noted that there are important legal implications
to the lack of programming available in the facilities. 179 One of the only forms of
relief from deportation for many immigrants is called “cancellation of removal.” In
order to determine whether an immigrant qualifies for this form of relief, the court
undertakes a balancing test, weighing various factors for and against granting
relief. One of the key factors in favor of relief is evidence of rehabilitation.
However, the lack of programming in the facilities makes it impossible for women
to demonstrate that they have in fact taken steps towards rehabilitation. 180
3. Recreatiion
The detention standards require at least one hour a day of recreation time,
five days per week for all facilities and seven days a week for all but the IGSAs. 181
At CADC, detainees consistently reported that they received less than one
hour of recreation per day. Of the ten detainees interviewed, seven estimated
recreation time to be in the range of 20-40 minutes rather than the required one
hour. 182 They also described it occurring at all hours, even as early as 6 a.m. 183
Detainees reported similar problems in Eloy. 184 In addition to the short
amount of time allowed for recreation, in Eloy the women were also frustrated by
their limited access to the yard. 185 The men detained in the facility have access to
four yards, including a walking track. The women, on the other hand, were only
permitted to use one small section of the yard, which has no walking track.
PCJ presents an especially serious concern regarding recreational time. The
facility has no available outdoor recreation area. 186 Recreation time takes place in
an indoor room with one basketball and one basketball hoop. 187 The Detention
178

A14.
A14.
180
A14.
181
DOM, “Recreation.”
182
D1 (often reduced to 25-30 minutes); D2 (anywhere from 20-60 minutes); D4 (30-60 minutes); D7 (20-40
minutes, usually 30); D8 (usually under an hour); D9 (often 20-30 minutes, never a full hour); D10 (never one
hour, usually half).
183
D2; D8; D10.
184
D11, D14, D16.
185
D11; D14.
186
D7; A14.
187
A14; UC Davis Summary Report.
179

Standards state that all detainees should have outdoor recreation, and if none is
available, after six months, ICE must consider transfer to another facility.
However, there are numerous detainees in PCJ who have been in the facility for six
months and more without the consideration of transfer. 188
Concerns identified in this section support the following recommendations:
Æ ICE, CADC, Eloy and PCJ: Allow women to spend a minimum of one full hour
of each day at recreation time.
Æ ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Provide job opportunities, activities, and nonEnglish language reading materials to ICE detainees.
Æ ICE, Eloy, and PCJ: Provide women with increased opportunities for
movement outside their pod.
Æ ICE, Eloy, and PCJ: Provide women with equal access to the dining hall,
library, recreation facilities, and medical clinic.
Æ ICE, PCJ: Provide an outdoor recreation area.
I. Transfer
For purposes of this report, transfer refers to the transportation of detainees
from one detention facility to another or from incarceration in one state to
detention in another. As noted above, 12 of the 17 detainees interviewed were
transferred from out of state. This small sample appears to accurately reflect the
overall makeup of detainees in the facilities. 189
The “Transfer” detention standard states that in the case of represented
detainees, ICE must notify the attorney of transfer while the detainee is en
route. 190 One attorney whose client was transferred from Florida to Arizona
received no notification from ICE at any point during or after the transfer, first to
Florence SPC and then to PCJ. 191 She only learned of the transfer from her client.
An additional provision of the “Transfer” detention standard requires that
detainees have the ability to place one domestic call upon arrival at their final
destination, and if they are indigent, the call must be at government expense. 192
As discussed in Section III.D on telephone access, numerous detainees reported
significant difficulties in placing phone calls to their families for weeks after they
arrived at the facility. 193 In addition, several attorneys noted the lack of a uniform
system for concerned family members to locate detainees. 194 Detainees can be
188

A14.
In fact, the Public Information Officer at Eloy reported that 90% of the detainees are transferred from out of
state. Email exchange with Bryan Martin, May 23, 2008.
190
DOM, “Detainee Transfer.”
191
A17.
192
DOM, “Detainee Transfer.”
193
See supra, notes 116-118.
194
A6, A13, A19.
189

lost to their family members for days or weeks because they are unable to call and
their families have no central number to call to locate them. 195
Detainees and attorneys identified significant concerns with the physical
transport of detainees to the facility. Three illustrative experiences follow:

A detainee in Eloy who had developed cancer while she was serving a jail
sentence out of state described her traumatic transfer to Arizona. On the
flight, she urinated on the seat because she was not permitted to get up
and use the bathroom. One of the officers repeatedly shouted at the
detainees, calling them “f*cking illegals” and other obscenities. 196

Another detainee in Eloy was transferred to Arizona from California over
the course of two days in which she was shackled, transported by bus and
plane, held in several different holding rooms, and never told where she
was going or given the opportunity to contact her family. 197 On the flight,
she had to use the bathroom but was afraid to go past all the men (she
was one of four women on the flight). She asked for her shackles to be
removed because she had her period. Her request was denied and a guard
had to help her with her pants.

An asylum-seeker was apprehended at the U.S./Mexico border in
California. She told the Border Patrol she was terrified to return to her
home country. She was then transported, shackled at the ankles and
wrists, by bus and plane to Eloy. 198

Concerns identified in this section support the following recommendations:
Æ DHS/ICE: Increase the use of alternatives to detention that permit women to
stay in or near their home communities.
Æ DHS/ICE: Develop a centralized system for family members to locate
detainees.
Æ ICE: Ensure that attorneys and family members are notified in advance of
transfers.
Æ ICE: Improve the conditions of transport, and in particular, increase
sensitivity to women’s mental and physical health concerns during transit.
Æ ICE: Ensure that at least one officer of the same gender as the detainee is
present at all times during transfer.
Æ ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Ensure that transferred detainees can place a
call to their family and attorney within 24 hours of arrival at the detention
facility.
195

A13.
D12.
197
D14.
198
PD1.
196

IV.

Key concerns

In addition to the conditions of confinement detailed above, the interviews
also identified three key areas of particular concern about the impact of the
immigration detention system on women. The following three sections highlight
detention’s destructive impact on families, ICE’s failure to exercise its discretion
to release particularly vulnerable or needy detainees, and the ways in which the
legal process known as expedited removal endangers the lives of women refugees
and asylum-seekers.
A. Family separation
More than any other issue, separation from their families was identified by
women as the most difficult aspect of detention. 199 Table 4 captures the impact of
detention on the family of each woman interviewed. As the table reflects, of the
21 women interviewed, all but three were separated from U.S. citizen children.
The majority of these children were under the age of 10. Not only were the
women separated from their families, but in many cases their families were in
different states, making visitation extremely unlikely. Twelve of the seventeen
currently detained women were transferred to Arizona from out of state.
Four women described their frustrating attempts to communicate with Child
Protective Services (CPS) from within detention. They confronted significant
obstacles and severe distress in attempting to locate their children and/or
negotiate their placement. In two of these cases, the women were unable to
locate their children during their detention, and were fearful that they had been
turned over to abusive spouses by CPS. 200 Two other women were struggling to
communicate with CPS over custody disputes from within detention. 201
Several of the attorneys interviewed emphasized the legal implications of
family separation. Many women abandon their claims because they simply cannot
stand the separation from their children necessitated by a stay in detention while
their legal case is proceeding. 202 As one attorney explained,
What makes working with women particularly difficult, I think, is the
fact that . . . they have the responsibility of their children who are
left outside. Just worrying about them and wanting to be with them
becomes their number one objective. Sometimes they are willing to
199

D5, D6, D7, D9, D10, D11, D16, D17.
D10, D16.
201
D3 (detained while in the middle of a custody dispute over her 8 and 9 year old daughters. At the time of
her interview, had been detained for 5 months, and spent the entire time struggling to communicate with CPS.
It was hard to afford the phone calls, and when she would place the call, she was often unable to reach anyone
or leave a message. She signed a paper for the FIRRP social worker to represent her in communicating with
CPS, but CPS would not accept this arrangement); D17 (gave a friend temporary custody of her 5 year old son
while she was in prison, but at the time of her interview, was concerned this was not a good arrangement and
for 7 months had been unable to reach anyone to help her make new arrangements for his care).
202
A13, A14, A16, A18.
200

forego forms of relief just to get deported so they can get out and
come back and be able to be with their children. . . .Their needs are
so different from men. All they want is their children. So it’s very
hard to work with them because they don’t want to . . . hear “you
have to be here four months fighting your case.” They just say, “You
know, I don’t care about my case; I care about my kids.” 203
Table 4: Impact of Detention on Families
Family members impacted

Location of family

Two U.S. citizen girls, 3 and 4 years old, will be
adopted

California

Separated from 9 month old baby and 11 and 13 year
old sons, all U.S. citizens.

Arizona

U.S. citizen daughters, 8 and 9 years old, are with
Child Protective Services

Arizona

Has not seen her 2 U.S. citizen children, 14 year old
boy and 12 year old girl, in 6 months. Rarely able to
speak on the phone.

Florida

Has not seen her husband or 2 U.S. citizen children,
20 year old boy and 18 year old girl, in 6 months.
Rarely able to speak on the phone.

Florida

Separated from husband and 3 children, 2 U.S.
citizens (6 and 10 years old) and 1 Canadian citizen
(12 years old)

California

D10

3 U.S. citizen children, 4, 6, and 8 years old, are
missing, most likely taken by abusive father to
Mexico. Parents and 2 teenage daughters from
previous marriage, all undocumented, are unable to
visit due to cost and risk of apprehension

Utah

D11

9 year old U.S. citizen son in California has been
placed with his uncle by CPS while she is detained

California

D12

Husband and 5 U.S. citizen children are in Florida

Florida

D14

2 U.S. citizen children, 6 year old daughter and 9
year old son, are with mother

California

D16

Unable to communicate with CPS regarding her 1
year old U.S. citizen son. Concerned he may be with
abusive father

Arizona

D17

5 year old U.S. citizen son in temporary custody of
friend who is dying of AIDS

California

203

A13.

Family members impacted

Location of family

PD1

6 children in Guatemala

Guatemala

PD2

Separated from 2 young sons and 2 month old
daughter for 2 weeks while breastfeeding

Arizona

PD3

Unable to call her 4 children, 17, 14, 13, and 8 years
old (youngest is US citizen), during entirety of her 10
day detention. On the day of her apprehension, no
one arrived to pick them up from school. Eventually
they stayed with their uncle and aunt during her
detention

Arizona

PD4

Had 2 U.S. citizen sons in course of her detention and
deportation proceedings. Detained while pregnant
with the first

Arizona

Angela and Raquel are sisters from a South American country. They lived in Florida as
legal permanent residents since they were 10 and 16 years old. At the time of their
interviews, they were 35 and 41 and had spent the past six months in detention in CADC.
Each one has 2 U.S. citizen children, ranging in age from 12 to 20 years old, all of whom are
currently living with their mother and Raquel’s husband in Florida.
Their problems began in 2004 when they were involved in a drug transaction. They
were convicted and spent less than a year in jail. While serving their sentence, the
government offered to release them on parole and remove their immigration hold if they
served as informants. They agreed and were released on a 10 year parole. They reported to
their parole officer faithfully every 8 weeks for two years. Then one day they arrived at their
regular parole visit and ICE agents were there to pick them up.
Their detention came as a complete surprise. Despite their agreement with one
branch of the government, they found themselves detained by another branch of the
government, facing deportation proceedings for an aggravated felony.
After a short time in two different detention facilities in Florida, they were abruptly
transferred to Arizona. The had no prior notice of the transfer, and were unable to call their
family to let them know they were leaving the state until after the plane fight, arrival in
Arizona, and processing at the facility.
Eventually their family hired an attorney to represent them in fighting their
deportation. Their entire family – their mother, Raquel’s husband, and all four children –
moved into a one room apartment in order to afford the attorney. They made a claim for
relief under the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits the government from returning
anyone to a country where they will more likely than not face torture. Angela and Raquel
believed they faced torture and possibly death in their home country due to their role in the

government’s prosecution of the druglords. In August, after nearly 4 months in detention,
they won their case.
The government appealed, however, and at the time of their interviews, they
remained in detention. They were ineligible for release on bond because they each had
originally been convicted of an aggravated felony. As a result, they faced at least several
more months in detention while the appeal was pending. Both sisters talked about the strain
the distance placed on their families. But the plane flight was prohibitively expensive, and it
would require 8 days off of work to come by bus. Even phone calls were difficult. At one
point they went for 20 days without talking to their children because their family in Florida
could not pay the phone bill.
Several months after their interviews for this report, Angela and Raquel lost their
appeal. No brief was filed on their behalf because they couldn’t afford to retain their
attorney for the appeal. They were unable to bear the thought of further months in
detention and therefore waived further appeal. They were deported after spending nearly 10
months in detention.

Concerns identified in this section support the following recommendations:
Æ Congress: Amend immigration laws to expand eligibility for individualized
bond hearings. In these hearings, require that the impact of detention on
families be one of the factors considered in deciding whether detention is
necessary.
Æ DHS/ICE: Consider the impact of detention on families in making
determinations regarding the availability of bond and parole.
Æ DHS/ICE: Establish and implement a policy that places primary caregivers of
minor children in facilities near where their children are residing and only
permits transfer in documented emergencies.
Æ ICE, Child Protective Services: Develop protocol to facilitate parent
detainees’ ability to communicate about custody issues.

B. ICE’s discretionary determinations
Within the current legal framework, if an immigrant does not fall into one of
the categories for which detention is mandatory, ICE can exercise its discretion in
determining whether to release the detainee pending his or her court hearing.
When making this determination, ICE guidance instructs officers to consider a
number of factors, including humanitarian issues, flight risk, availability of
detention space, and threat to the community. 204
If release is deemed
204

8 C.F.R. §236.1

appropriate, ICE has several options. It can offer parole, “release on an order of
recognizance” (ROR), in which the detainee agrees to report to officers regularly
and appear at court hearings, or release on bond, in which the detainee must pay a
bond that is retrievable at the conclusion of proceedings. In addition, in certain
circumstances, ICE can release the detainee into one of two “supervised release”
programs that use electronic monitoring devices and various reporting devices to
ensure that immigrants appear at their scheduled court hearing. 205
If ICE chooses not to exercise its discretion in favor of release, a detainee
who is not subject to mandatory detention can request a bond hearing before an
immigration judge (IJ). The IJ may grant release on bond no less than $1,500.
However, ICE can appeal this determination. 206
In 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted an audit to
determine whether ICE ensures that its discretion in the apprehension and removal
process is used in the most fair, reasoned, and efficient manner possible. The
report concluded that ICE was not providing officers with sufficient guidance in
making discretionary determinations regarding detention. 207
The findings here illustrate the serious concerns raised by ICE’s resistance to
exercise its discretion to release eligible detainees. In case after case of women
interviewed in this report, ICE not only refused to release detainees, but actively
opposed efforts by detainees and their advocates to request ROR, bond, or
humanitarian or medical parole.
A few particularly striking examples, some of which are described at more
length in other sections of the report, follow:

Maria, an undocumented seasonal farmworker who wound up in detention
when her abusive boyfriend beat her and dropped her off at border patrol,
remains in detention because her family cannot afford the $1,500 bond.
ICE has rejected her advocate’s requests that she be released on her own

205

The first program, the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), requires participants to comply
with a variety of requirements, including wearing electronic monitoring devices, home and local office visits,
employment verification and curfews. Initiated as a pilot program in 2004, ISAP is now implemented in 12
cities nationwide (none of which is in Arizona). The second program, Enhanced Supervision/Reporting (ESR),
was established more recently, in 2007, and employs similar methods but has fewer home and in-person
reporting requirements. ESR is available in 24 field offices around the country. See ICE Fact Sheet on
Alternatives to Detention, available at
http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/080115alternativestodetention.htm.
206
8 C.F.R. §236.1.
207
Immigration Enforcement: ICE Could Improve Controls to Help Guide Alien Removal Decision Making, U.S.
Gov't Accountability Office 23 (2007), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0867.pdf. A memo from
the Commissioner of the INS in 2000 demonstrates that these problems have a long history in the institutional
culture of immigration enforcement. The memo reviews the importance of discretion and reminds officers that
its use does not lessen the agency’s commitment to enforce immigration laws. Memorandum from Doris
Meissner, Comm'r of INS to Regional Directors, et al. 1 (Nov. 17, 2000). The GAO Report suggests that, if
anything, the tendencies identified in the 2000 memo have only grown stronger in the years since its issuance.

recognizance pending her application for a special visa for victims of
domestic violence. 208

Ana, an undocumented immigrant convicted of a minor nonviolent crime
she committed when she was 17, was granted bond by an Immigration
Judge after one month in detention. ICE appealed and reversed the bond
determination. When Ana was returned to detention, she was six months
pregnant. She spent over a month of her pregnancy detained before ICE
agreed to release her on bond. 209 One attorney confirmed that this is not
an outlier case. In her experience, ICE routinely appeals bond hearings for
pregnant women. 210

Lourdes fled domestic violence in Mexico, was apprehended at the
border, and suffered a miscarriage during her Border Patrol interrogation.
Her attorney described fighting for eight months to get her client released
on humanitarian and medical parole in light of her miscarriage and fragile
emotional state. 211

Laura had an advanced stage of cancer in her leg and groin area, arthritis,
liver cysts, and had been diagnosed with bipolar anxiety disorder when she
arrived at PCJ. Her attorney waited for over six months for ICE to respond
and reject her request for humanitarian parole for her client. Only after
15 months in detention and the filing of a federal lawsuit was Laura
released. 212

Concerns identified in this section support the following recommendations:
Æ Congress/DHS: Expand the use of community-based alternatives to detention
that apply restrictions on freedom of movement proportional to the
individual’s flight and security risk.
Æ DHS/ICE: Expand the use of parole and ensure that parole criteria are
consistently and fairly applied.

C. Expedited removal
Expedited removal is a process in which certain immigrants who lack
authorized travel documents may be summarily removed by immigration officials
without any opportunity for judicial review or a hearing before a judge. The
procedure was established in 1996 in the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant
Responsibility Act. The 1996 law requires that immigrants subject to expedited
removal be placed in detention pending their deportation. The statute attempts to
208

D4, A14.
PD4.
210
A14.
211
A16.
212
A17.
209

protect refugees and asylum-seekers from expedited removal by requiring that if
an immigrant expresses a fear of return to her country, she must be granted a
credible fear interview by an asylum officer, which is subject to judicial review. In
addition, it grants the government discretion to release on parole detained asylumseekers after their credible fear interviews while they are awaiting their asylum
hearing.
Since the law’s passage, advocacy groups have raised significant concerns
about the expedited removal process. 213 A full appraisal of the many problems
with the law is beyond the scope of this report. However, several interviewees
raised specific concerns about its impact on women detainees.
First, several attorneys commented that detainees in expedited removal are
a virtually invisible population – even more so than the rest of the detainees
because they have no access to court. FIRRP rarely comes into contact with
detainees subject to expedited removal because it gives “Know Your Rights”
presentations only to detainees who have scheduled court hearings and has limited
time to see detainees that do not have court hearings. 214
Much of the expedited removal process occurs before women arrive in
detention, at the time they are apprehended. However, an immigrant who
expresses a fear of return at any point short of her final deportation order should
be permitted a credible fear interview. One attorney commented on how unlikely
it is that a detainee would articulate her fear in the detention setting:
[The] credible fear process is so opaque, it is so difficult to
understand what is happening, they would have to be a real survivor
to articulate it in that setting, being held in the pods . . . Really, it
would be difficult for any of us in that situation and particularly with
someone who actually has a fear and doesn’t know how to articulate
it in accordance with the laws of the U.S. . . . .The ones who have the
most fear and the best cases are going to be the least able to
articulate it in that setting. 215
In one exceptional case, a former FIRRP staff member had the opportunity to
interview a woman in expedited removal and took her declaration. It provides a
213

Most notably, in 1998 Congress created an independent and bipartisan commission, the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), to conduct a study of expedited removal to determine how the
procedure was affecting asylum-seekers. After extensive research, the USCIRF issued its Report on Asylum
Seekers in Expedited Removal in February 2005. The Report found serious deficiencies in the implementation
of expedited removal. See
http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1892&Itemid=1. Two years later,
USCIRF issued a report card announcing that most of the initial report’s recommendations have not been
implemented. Expedited Removal Study Report Card: Two Years Later, United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom 5 (2007) (hereafter “USCIRF Report Card”), available at
http://www.uscirf.gov/images/stories/pdf/scorecard_final.pdf.
214
A14, A15, A19.
215
A15.

vivid account of how the detention facilities fail to provide women with a realistic
opportunity to express their fear of return. The detainee described the following
scene, which had occurred in Eloy on the day she first spoke with FIRRP about a
possible asylum claim based on domestic violence.
[A]t 3:00 in the afternoon, an official came to find me in my cell. He
called for me to come down and began speaking to me in English.
When he saw that I did not understand what he was saying, he got
angry and began to yell at me in broken Spanish. I understood very
little of what he was saying, but he kept screaming “miedo” [fear] at
me, loudly in front of all the other women detainees. He also seemed
to be saying that I was already deported and demanded to know why I
had told the other official that I was not afraid to go back to my
country and was now telling the Florence Project that I was. He was
standing very close to me. He is a big man with tattoos on each arm. I
was quite intimidated by him.
I told him that I had not told the official in Phoenix that I was afraid
to go back because that official had not really asked me, but instead
asked if I had committed murder in my country or been in jail there.
The woman from the Florence Project, I told him, had asked me
simply if I was afraid to return and the truth is that I am. . . . Then he
took me aside and asked me why I was afraid. I told him that I was
afraid of my husband. He got very angry and started yelling at me,
saying that he did not care if my husband hits me or even kills me,
that he only wanted to know if I had “miedo” [fear]. I said that I did
have “miedo” [fear]. 216
Eventually this detainee received a credible fear interview and was found to
have a credible fear of return. Detention is no longer mandatory after the credible
fear interview, and the court agreed that she could be released on bond.
However, she was unable to pay her $5,000 bond. She told FIRRP that she could
not withstand the strain of detention any longer, so she chose deportation rather
than waiting in detention for her asylum hearing. 217
One of the previous detainees interviewed provides a glimpse into expedited
removal gone awry, as she was deported despite her viable asylum claim. As
described below, she was able to flee again and eventually received asylum. Her
story demonstrates both the high stakes of expedited removal and the problems of
detaining asylum seekers both in and out of expedited removal.

216
217

Signed statement provided to FIRRP and shared in redacted form with SIROW (on file with SIROW).
A1, A14.

Cristina is a 39 year old from a Central American country. In 2006‐2007, she spent
eight months detained in Eloy. At the time of her interview, she had been released from
detention for three months. Cristina fled an abusive spouse in her home country. During her
journey north, she was kidnapped and tortured by bandits but managed to escape. When
she reached the border, she was apprehended by Border Patrol. According to her account,
when she spoke with the two Border Patrol agents who apprehended her, she begged them,
“Please don’t send me back, in the name of God, don’t send me back. I am scared to return.”
She recalls that if you look at photos of her face then, she looked like death. Despite her
pleas, she was placed in expedited removal and after 12 days in a short‐term detention
facility near the border, she was deported.
She returned to the same danger she had fled, and almost immediately was forced to
flee again. Again she was caught by Border Patrol, and again she told the agent she was
afraid to return. This time she had an agent who recognized her right to a credible fear
interview. Rather than being deported, she was shackled around the ankles and wrists and
transported by bus and plane to Eloy. During her interview for this report, she broke down as
she recalled this trip.
In Eloy, she met with the Florence Project before her court hearing, and after learning
about the circumstances of her flight from her home country, they arranged for pro bono
counsel. Eventually, after 8 months in detention, Cristina was granted asylum.
She had a difficult time during her interview speaking in detail about her time in
detention, but did offer a few glimpses of her experience. She said she spent nearly the
entire time in her own cell. She didn’t like to spend time in the common area of the pod
because the other women scared her. Unlike some of the women whose relatives would send
them money, she had no one to contact and no source of money. Sometimes she would go to
bed hungry because dinner was so early. Other women bought food and provisions like
shampoo and soap. But she had to use the soap they provided as shampoo, which was very
rough and made her hair feel awful. She knew no one in the country to come visit her. She
missed fresh air.

Concerns identified in this section support the following recommendations:
Æ Congress: Limit or eliminate the use of expedited removal.
Æ DHS/ICE: Require ICE officers and detention facility personnel to be trained
to recognize and appropriately respond to survivors of domestic and sexual
violence and gender-based persecution.

V. Recommendations
The following recommendations address the concerns identified in the
foregoing sections. The recommendations are directed to Congress, DHS, ICE, and
each of the facilities, and are discussed in three parts: (1) General
recommendations that address over-arching concerns; (2) Recommendations that
respond to the three key concerns identified in the report: family separation, ICE’s
discretionary determinations, and expedited removal, and (3) Specific
recommendations to address conditions concerns.
1. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Congress: Eliminate or reduce the statutory grounds for mandatory
detention. Amend immigration laws to provide all individuals with the
opportunity for a bond hearing before a judge in which their individual
circumstances can be considered.

As discussed in the background section of this report, the increase in women
in detention is a result of immigration policies that make detention mandatory for
many immigrants in deportation proceedings. Many of the women interviewed in
this report were subject to mandatory detention because they had been convicted
of crimes that are categorized as aggravated felonies. Many of the women were
first time offenders, the crimes were minor and non-violent, and/or the women
have life circumstances that make their flight risk extremely low. None of these
considerations could be taken into account, however, under the current law.
Similarly, one woman interviewed and many women who could not be
reached to participate in this study are subject to mandatory detention because
they arrived at the border without entry documents. Many of these women are
fleeing persecution and violence and yet, like the woman interviewed for this
report, are placed in detention for months while their application for asylum or
another form of relief is pending. Again, their life circumstances make the risk
that they will abscond prior to their legal proceedings highly unlikely, yet the
current law requires that they are detained.
In response, Congress should amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act in order to grant more discretion in the use of
detention so that women are not needlessly separated from their families and
subjected to potentially traumatizing conditions. 218

218

In making this recommendation, this report joins a growing chorus of voices urging that this country’s
detention system be reformed. See, e.g., Editorial, Dying in Detention, NEW YORK TIMES (June 11, 2008)
(“Recent news reports from The Times, The Washington Post and CBS News have shone a harsh light on the
immigration detention system, finding alarming evidence of shoddy care, inadequate staffing, lax standards,
secrecy and chronic ineptitude.”); Immigration Policy in U.S. Is Criticized by U.N. Aide, NEW YORK TIMES (March
8, 2008) (report by expert on migrant rights at the United Nations Human Rights Council condemns the overuse
of detention); In Liberty’s Shadow, supra note 7.

Congress/Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Codify the detention
standards so that they are legally enforceable with outside oversight.

This report has documented multiple instances in which the facilities are in
open and obvious violation of the detention standards. Other audits and reports
have documented similar patterns of noncompliance in other facilities. There is
currently no legal means of addressing this high degree of noncompliance.
Congress should order DHS to codify the detention standards into legally binding
regulations so that the protections they offer can be enforced. 219

DHS: Establish gender specific regulations to address the needs of
women detainees.

At a minimum, regulations should address the distinctive medical needs of
women, including treatment of pregnant and post-natal detainees, access to
female health service providers and interpreters, access to routine gynecological
exams, and the provision of basic needs such as sanitary supplies. 220
The proposed gender specific regulations should also address the mental
health needs of women in detention who are either asylum seekers or victims of
recent violence. For women who are survivors of torture, rape, and other forms of
gender-based violence and persecution, detention can exacerbate symptoms of
post-traumatic stress and depression. 221 Regulations should provide for services
and trained personnel to address these mental health impacts. 222

219

Recently, a group of nonprofit organizations and former detainees filed a law suit against Michael Chertoff,
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, demanding comprehensive, enforceable advocacy
standards. The lawsuit is currently pending in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. See Nina Bernstein,
Immigrants Challenge Federal Detention System, NEW YORK TIMES B3 (May 1, 2008); see also Complaint available
at http://www.nationalimmigrationproject.org/
220
No provisions in the current Detention Standards address the specific needs of pregnant and post-natal
women for medical treatment, nutritional provisions, and physical accommodations. The new Performance
Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS), which DHS states will be fully implemented by facilities by 2010,
are a step in the right direction. The new standard on medical care requires that female detainees receive
access to pregnancy management services, which include “routine prenatal care, addiction management,
comprehensive counseling and assistance, nutrition, and post-partum follow up.” It also requires gender
appropriate examinations for all detainees. It does not give further specificity to these requirements, nor does
it include mention of preventive gynecological screenings such as pap smears and mammograms. More
importantly, these new standards, like the DOM, are not legally enforceable and have no outside oversight.
221
Refugee Women at Risk, supra note 78.
222
Again, the new PBNDS on medical care is a step in the right direction. It requires that all facilities have a
mental health program that provides for an initial screening and subsequent treatment and evaluation of all
detainees. The PBNDS also includes a new “Staff Training” standard that requires all staff to receive an initial
orientation that covers cultural diversity, and that in addition, staff with regular contact with detainees
receive initial and annual training in social and cultural lifestyles of the detention population. The specific
mental health needs of women detainees outlined in this report should inform the facilities’ implementation of
these new standards.

DHS/Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): Release detention
population statistics broken down by gender

DHS should maintain current statistics about the number of women in
detention, the number who are asylum seekers, the length of their detention, and
the number and location of all facilities, including local jails, used to hold women
detainees. All such statistics should be made publicly available.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS 3 KEY CONCERNS
Family separation

Congress: Amend immigration laws to expand eligibility for individualized
bond hearings. In these hearings, require that the impact of detention on
families be one of the factors considered in deciding whether detention is
necessary.

In reconsidering the grounds for mandatory detention as recommended
above, Congress should ensure that immigration courts have the discretion to
consider the impact of detention on families. Other studies have demonstrated
that the United States is “far out of step with international human rights standards
and the practices of other nations, particularly nations that it considers to be its
peers . . . in not weighing family ties or providing for some proportionality analysis
in all of its deportation proceedings.” 223 At the very least, this proportionality
analysis should apply to determinations of the necessity of detention pending
deportation.

DHS/ICE: Consider the impact of detention on families in making
determinations regarding the availability of bond and parole.

DHS/ICE: Establish and implement a policy that places primary caregivers
of minor children in facilities near where their children are residing and
only permits transfer in documented emergencies.

ICE/Child Protective Services: Develop policies that facilitate parent
detainees’ ability to communicate about custody issues.

ICE’s Discretionary Determinations

Congress and DHS: Expand the use of community-based alternatives to
detention that apply restrictions on freedom of movement proportional to
the individual’s flight and security risk.

This report has highlighted many cases in which the needs of women
immigration detainees would be better served by some form of parole or
223

Forced Apart, supra note 5.

supervised release. Other studies have documented the cost-effectiveness and
successful appearance rates of many such programs. 224 The Inspector General of
DHS itself recently concluded that alternatives to detention programs should be
expanded. 225 Congress should appropriate more funding to the development of
community-based alternatives to detention. 226 At the same time, DHS should
expand its use of such programs for people who are not otherwise eligible for
release.
It is important to note that not all alternatives to detention are alike. ICE’s
current alternatives programs all employ electronic monitoring devices that raise
significant concerns about their health effects, the social stigma associated with
their use, and the significant restrictions they place on their wearers’ freedom of
movement. 227 In most cases, less restrictive methods, such as enrollment in
community or faith-based programs, are sufficient to ensure appearance at
scheduled hearings.

DHS/ICE: Expand the use of parole and ensure that parole criteria are
consistently and fairly applied.

ICE should reform the current institutional culture that expends agency
resources fighting to detain immigrants who pose no flight risk or security threat.
In addition, DHS should take steps to ensure the consistency and fairness of parole
determinations. One important step would be to draft enforceable regulations to
replace the current guidelines regarding parole determinations and permit judicial
review of these determinations. 228

224

Between 1997 and 2000, the Vera Institute of Justice coordinated a highly successful alternative program
through a contract with legacy INS. See http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/aapfinal.pdf.
225
Detention and Removal of Illegal Aliens, DHS Office of Inspector General (April 2006) (including as one of
three recommendations the expansion of alternatives to detention) available at
http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_06-33_Apr06.pdf.
226
Current legislation pending in Congress, the Secure and Safe Detention and Asylum Act (S. 3114), would
increase funds allocated to alternatives to detention programs, among other changes.
227
See letters from the American Civil Liberties Union and National Immigration Law Center to ICE regarding
concerns raised by the use of electronic monitors in recent worksite raid, on file in redacted form with SIROW.
Current bills pending in Congress, the Protect Citizens and Residents from Unlawful Raids and Detention Act (S.
3594) and the Immigration Oversight and Fairness Act (H.R. 7255), would help to ensure that ICE focus on
community-based alternatives to detention programs. Rather than electronic monitoring, these programs rely
on community support and legal education to ensure compliance with court appearances.
228
The need for such regulations specifically with regard to the parole of asylum-seekers is discussed at length
in the report In Liberty’s Shadow, supra note 7, and in the recently updated USCIRF Report Card, supra note
213. The Secure and Safe Detention and Asylum Act, the Protect Citizens and Residents from Unlawful Raids
and Detention Act, and the Immigration Oversight and Fairness Act, supra notes 226 and 227, would establish
consistent criteria for parole determinations for asylum-seekers and allow review of parole decisions by
immigration judges.

Expedited Removal

Congress: Limit or eliminate the use of expedited removal.

This small scale research study uncovered at least two instances in which
expedited removal resulted in the deportation of women with bona fide asylum
claims. Undoubtedly there are countless such cases that never come to light, given
the rapidity of the procedure and the invisibility of the women it affects. 229 The
procedure runs counter to fundamental principles of due process. It should be
eliminated or strictly limited to emergency situations.

DHS/ICE: Require ICE officers and detention facility personnel to be
trained to recognize and appropriately respond to survivors of domestic
and sexual violence and gender-based persecution.

As discussed in Section I.D.3 on applicable standards, other government
agencies have recognized the need for sensitivity and guidance in working with
women refugees and asylum-seekers. ICE should look to the guidelines published
by the Department of Justice and Department of State for guidance. 230
3. RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION
Medical care

Congress: Pass legislation to require DHS to establish legally enforceable
procedures for the timely and effective delivery of medical care to
immigration detainees. 231

DHS: Provide enforceable regulations to guarantee women appropriate
gynecological and obstetrical care.

ICE: Halt or strictly limit the practice of detaining nursing mothers and
pregnant women to cases in which no alternative arrangements exist. 232

229

See USCIRF Report on Expedited Removal and USCIRF Report Card, supra note 213.
See supra note 55. This training should be incorporated into the required training in cultural diversity and
social and cultural lifestyles referenced in the new PBNDS on Staff Training.
231
The Detainee Basic Medical Care Act is proposed legislation that is a step in the right direction. This Act,
recently introduced in both the House and Senate (H.R. 5950 and S. 3005), would require DHS to implement
procedures that provide better care to detainees as well as improve oversight of the medical care system. The
bill was introduced shortly after the New York Times and Washington Post both ran stories about systemic
problems with health care in immigration detention facilities. See Nina Bernstein, Few Details on Immigrants
Who Died in Custody, NEW YORK TIMES (May 5, 2008) (reporting that over 66 detainees have died while in
immigration custody from January 2004 to November 2007); Dana Priest and Amy Goldstein, Careless
Detention: Medical Care in Immigrant Prisons, WASHINGTON POST (May 11-14, 2008), (four part series detailing
egregious mistreatment of detainees around the country, including in Arizona), available at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/immigration/index.html.
232
In response to public outcry over the detention of nursing mothers during worksite raids in Fall 2007, ICE
released an internal memo emphasizing that ICE agents should exercise discretion in determining whether to
detain nursing mothers. This memo came out after the mother interviewed in this report was detained while
nursing her two month old baby. However, isolated reports suggest that the memo has not put an end to the
practice of detaining nursing mothers. See, e.g., Julia Preston, Immigrant, Pregnant is Jailed Under Pact, NEW
230

ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Respond to medical requests in a timely
fashion. 233

ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Provide onsite or telephonic translation
assistance for appointments with medical staff. 234

Mental health care

Congress: Pass legislation to require DHS to establish procedures for the
timely and effective delivery of mental health care to immigration
detainees. 235

DHS: Require ICE officers and detention facility personnel to receive
training in recognizing and responding to survivors of domestic and sexual
violence and gender-based persecution. 236

ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Facilitate detainees’ access to on-site
psychiatrists and psychologists and increase the availability of counseling
services to be used in conjunction with, or instead of, medication.

Security

ICE: Increase the use of community-based alternatives to the detention of
nonviolent detainees who pose minimal security or flight risk.

ICE: Limit the use of shackles and eliminate it altogether for pregnant
detainees. 237

ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Train facility personnel to be familiar with the
circumstances of ICE detainees and understand the differences between
immigration detainees and people awaiting or serving criminal
sentences. 238

YORK TIMES (July 20, 2008) (reporting that a nine month pregnant immigrant stopped for a routine traffic
violation gave birth while detained and was separated from her nursing infant for two days and barred from
taking a breast pump into the jail where she was detained). A more formal mechanism, such as judicial review
of parole decisions, is warranted to ensure that mothers and infants are not subjected to needless and
potentially damaging separation.
233
This will be required under the new PBNDS on Medical Care, which lists as one expected outcome “timely
follow-up” to health care requests.
234
This will be required under the new PBDNS, which lists as one expected outcome that non-English speaking
detainees “will be provided interpretation/translation services” for medical appointments.
235
The Detainee Basic Medical Care Act, supra note 231, covers mental health care as well as medical care.
236
This training should be incorporated into the required training in cultural diversity and social and cultural
lifestyles referenced in the new PBNDS on Staff Training.
237
There is increasing recognition by state and federal corrections facilities that the routine shackling of
pregnant women is inappropriate. Three states have legislation regulating the use of restraints on pregnant
women: Illinois, California and Vermont. For further analysis of the concerns raised by shackling pregnant
women, see the website of the Rebecca Project, www.rebeccaproject.org and Amnesty International
http://www.amnestyusa.org/violence-against-women/abuse-of-women-in-custody/letter-use-of-restraints-onpregnant-women-in-the-us/page.do?id=1108304.
238
This should be incorporated into the training required in all facilities by 2010 under the new PBNDS on Staff
Training. See discussion of the new standard, supra note 222.

ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Encourage bilingual guards to communicate in
detainees’ native language or use translation or interpretation services.

ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Facilitate onsite or telephonic translation
assistance for non-English speaking detainees, particularly during private
meetings with case managers.

ICE, CADC: Refrain from mixing ICE detainees and people awaiting or
serving criminal sentences.

ICE, CADC: Halt routine strip searches and, if necessary because of
specific security concerns, conduct strip searches individually rather than
in groups. 239

Telephones

ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Ensure that all detainees can place at least
one free domestic telephone call upon arrival at the detention facility.

ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Ensure that detainees can make free calls to
free legal service providers and consulates.

ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Ensure that indigent detainees can make free
calls to courts and for personal and family emergencies.

ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Protect detainees from phone card systems
with exorbitant rates. 240

ICE, Arizona Child Protective Services: Establish protocol to facilitate
communication between detained parents and their children.

Access to legal counsel/assistance:

ICE: Require Deportation Officers and/or case managers to provide
detainees with regular individual information about the status of their
case. 241

ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Provide detainees with access to writing
supplies, photocopies, and public notaries without charge.

ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Provide detainees with legal materials in
languages other than English.

239

This would comply with the new PBNDS on Searches, which requires that strip searches shall not be routine
and must be made “in a manner designed to assure as much privacy to the detainee as practicable.”
240
This would comply with the new PBNDS on telephone access, which requires that detainees have access to
“reasonably priced telephone services.”
241
The new PBNDS on Staff-Detainees Communication requires ICE staff to provide detainees with “general
information” about the immigration court process. In light of the complicated nature of immigration
proceedings and the isolation of detainees, this report recommends that ICE provide individualized information
about case status. This does not encompass the provision of legal advice, but rather, specific information
about hearing dates and court procedures relevant to the individual’s case.

Visitation

ICE, CADC: Provide privacy for attorney visits.

ICE, PCJ: Provide dedicated space for regular contact visits for attorneys
and families.

Food and Provisions

ICE, CADC, Eloy and PCJ: Provide indigent detainees a means of
obtaining food after the final meal of the day at 4 p.m.

ICE, CADC and PCJ: Improve the quality of the food.

ICE, PCJ: Ensure that women detainees receive provisions, including
hygienic and sanitary supplies, on a regular basis and in sufficient quantity

Activities

ICE, CADC, Eloy and PCJ: Allow women to spend a minimum of one full
hour of each at recreation time.

ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Provide job opportunities, activities, and nonEnglish language reading materials to ICE detainees.

ICE, Eloy, and PCJ: Provide women with increased opportunities for
movement outside their pod.

ICE, Eloy, and PCJ: Provide women with equal access to the dining hall,
library, recreation facilities, and medical clinic.

ICE, PCJ: Provide an outdoor recreation area.

Transfer

DHS/ICE: Develop a centralized system for family members to locate
detainees.

ICE: Ensure that attorneys and family members are notified in advance of
detainee transfers.

ICE: Improve the conditions of transport, and in particular, increase
sensitivity to women’s mental and physical health concerns during transit.

ICE: Ensure that at least one officer of the same gender as the detainee
is present at all times during transfer.

ICE, CADC, Eloy, and PCJ: Ensure that transferred detainees can place a
call to their family and attorney within 24 hours of arrival at the detention
facility.

Addendum
SIROW circulated a pre-publication draft of this report to the Field Office
Director of ICE (who is responsible for all facilities in Arizona) with an invitation to
participate in a roundtable discussion of the report’s findings and
recommendations. The proposed roundtable would have included ICE regional and
facility level representatives as well as CCA and county personnel working in each
of the three facilities. The roundtable was proposed in order to initiate dialogue
about potential steps ICE and the facilities could take to address the concerns
identified in the report and explore possibilities for collaboration with SIROW. In
particular, SIROW identified the recommendations regarding programming for
detainees, trainings for ICE and facility personnel, and coordination with Child
Protective Services as areas that could benefit from the University of Arizona’s
resources.
ICE declined to participate in the roundtable. However, the Field Office
Director did agree to meet with SIROW and the Executive Director of FIRRP on
December 9, 2008. Eleven ICE representatives attended the meeting, including the
Field Office Director, officers in charge of each facility, and U.S. Public Health
Service officers who work in the three facilities. In the meeting, ICE denied that
most of the problems identified in the report are genuine concerns and emphasized
its commitment to providing high quality treatment of immigration detainees. The
meeting participants did not believe that the report’s findings indicated a need for
further trainings, procedures, or policy changes. At the time of publication, the
extent to which ICE will take any responsive measures remains unclear.

Acknowledgements
First and foremost, this report would not have been possible without the
participation of the brave women detainees and former detainees who agree to
participate in this research. The author is also grateful to the many attorneys and
social service providers who generously shared their time and expertise.
This report was made possible by the generous support of the Vital Projects Fund
and the institutional support of the Southwest Institute for Research on Women and
the James E. Rogers College of Law. Particular thanks are due to Toni Massaro,
David Menschel, and Sally Stevens for believing in this project from its inception.
The Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, and in particular Lindsay
Marshall, provided crucial support and guidance throughout the research process.
Special thanks to the law students who conducted interviews and background
research for the report: Victoria Diaz, Ashley Kaper, Rigel Massaro, and Maria
Mendoza.
The report also benefitted from the careful review and thoughtful feedback
provided by Barbara Atwood, Andrea Black, Michelle Brane, Emily Butera, Gloria
Goldman, Tom Jawetz, Raha Jorjani, Meghan Mack, Meghan Rhoad, Kerri Sherlock
Talbot, and Lee Tucker.
Many thanks to Amy Robinson, who designed the cover and assisted with the
graphic design of the report.
Finally, the author wishes to thank her family, Dave and Leo Marcus and Bob and
Yemima Rabin, for their love and support.

The lead author and contact for questions about this report is Nina Rabin, (520)
621-9206, rabin@email.arizona.edu.

Appendix A: Summary of ICE Detention Standards
The following table is provided as an Appendix to the Semi-Annual Report on
Compliance with ICE National Detention Standards, ICE Office of Detention and
Removal Operations 5 (January-June 2007), available at
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/semi_annual_dmd.pdf

Depanmerll
Departmezll of Ilomeland
HomclaDll Security
U.S. Immigratioo
Immif!T!tiou and
aod Customs
CusIoID$ EnfOloc..,cnl
EnfOllxIlKnl

APPENDIX Ai ICIi
ICt; NATIONAL
NATIOj"M,L DEIErrnON
DEIEI'!IJON STANDARDS
~ANDARPS

The: c;urrepI
N.tiooaJ lXIa:nion
Detention S!aDdards
as lbo:
tt.: t..s:is
buQ: rw
for !be:
Ihc 60cility
reviews conducted
11le
~ 38 National
StaDdardJ serve
~ "'"
facility .-eviews
coDducled
for !his
repon. lbe
scaDdard __ the COIlIeXt
CODtelIt b
for UDdastaDd.in&
UDdcrstaDdiDg the
this report.
The following
followiDg synopsis of each SWldard
nsuJlS
resuJts of the facility compuaocc
compliaoc:e C'YlIluaIiow..
C'YllluatioDs.

,
,
2

Facililieo
Facilities boldillglCE
boldinalCE decai_
uwl pennit
deW....... shall
pamil detai.dctAi_
Acetal 10 Lqall'tbttriall

.....

CrollP
oa Lee'"
Ler:1lI
C ....p Prue.l.do..
Prut.tadoD ...

ac=ss
accc:u 10 a law
Ia... libftry,
Iibrvy, and. provide 1epl'lUucriab,
Itg.al makriala,
faciliti..... c:quipmClll
facilities,
<:qui"",,,,,t .nd
and documcn.
documenl copying
c:opying privileael.
privilc:ges.
tht oppom..mity
opportunity 10 prepare
pn:pare lc:gal
Itgal doc:umclltl.
documenll.
and !he:

dc:Iainoes shall
shaJ.1 pcmlilaulborizcd
penn;' lutboriud
I'aciliti<s holdina
f'acilitic:s
holdin& ICE detainca
pcnons 10 ....k
praeIIIatioas 10 i«"'PI
groups of <kuinoI::I
pcnoDlIlO
make prac!1IlStioaa
dclairtot:I for
informiDa lbcm
immigration .....
law
the purpo5C
P"'J'O'IC of inl'onniDa
lhcm of U.S. immiprion
and. proeodurc::a,
prooodures, ~I
NWlI....QI willi
with d>£
tbe ..,.,urity
oc:curity and.
..... onb'ly
orderly
operation of each
facility. ICE cu:ounogel-=:h
eac:b facilil)'.
~'" suc:h
IIMiooI:s, which
iDltrucl dc:IaiDca
deIaiDces IIbouIIbe
abouI tbt:
...
....ms,
whic:b iDlUuc:l
imatiantion
~ SyMeDla
syaIc:IIl-.d Ibcir
their riahts
riaJ:lIs and ~ within it.
if.
AU I"ac:ilitita
l"acilitic:s IbaII
IbaIl fullyCOCipc>_
fully coopa:We wiIb..noriZlOd
.w-izod pco-.
~
aodcirc II,> make ado

FKiliIics
bc>Iodia& ICE ......
n-. IhaII
Facilitita boIdia&
dc:c.u-.
dWI pennilaulboriacd
pcmlilautborizal
visit
risiJ: dctai-.
dcramee.., within
wUhiJo -=ity
-=>1)' .....
and opcntioftal
optI'UiorW
00IlIUaiDD.
C>OIISUainb. To maUltain
m·ira;" """'iMe
~....:uk
oncnIc: ud
and falUly
Wrtily
rrl.lionahipa,
CftOIIUra&'" visill
visi'" from
fi1XII family and
IDd
n:1.lionshipa, ICE CftClClOlraplI
f'rieack.
rriaJda.. FacilitiQ
Facilitic:s dial!
sbaII allow cktainccs
d<:taina:s 10"'10 mtet priYlldy
privatdy
with tMir
tbcir c:unmt
c:urrml or pi<:cp«:tive
prtep«live lepllCp..'....l\.Mivel
legal lepoekUll1ives .....
IDd
IcpJ
lepl_istsnts,1Dd
auiJUnll, and ll1ao
aUo wilb
with thc:it
their ..........
consu1ar
,I·roffic:iall.
offieiab. To
belle<
btJl.... inform
iDform the public:
public .bo,,'ICE
sbouilCE dckntioo
dc:u:Ilrion opcntiona,
optratiOOl.
facilities sIuIll
shall permil
pcmlit ICprcacoI&livcs
n:preaa>t.alives of the "'''''1
newt medii
mtdia
faciliti....
and lIOO-goVCttltl>Ci1111
IIOn-goV(:rIllllftltll Ol'llani:c:lltion.t
olJ~i,..ti(mS 10
to have a<:ceRIlO
ac:ccsa 10
oou..,.....ifled
informatioa aboul
illcd and non-eonfidelllial
non-eonfideDlial information
their opontion;
opcn.lion; aiVtll
givCllllpploprialC
lIppOopl",te ootic:e,
ootice, 10 IQUr
tour facilitic:s:
facilitic:s;
and,
mel, with
wi1l:l pcsmiIaion
pctmiA:ion frorDlCE
from ICE and
and. tbe
the dc:clIineeI,
dcIaiIIees. 10
to
iDlCJVicw
intervic:w individual "....i".....
~.

.
..........
. . . . - 10

VlJIllalioll
VIllI.Uon

abo".

non..,.....

•

TdtplloM Aecas

Faciliti<:l
facilities boldifta
boldiq ICE ...........
cJer.i....... $baIl
sbaII pcrmiIlhcm
pcnnit them 10 ha""
bave
.........bloe
~blc and
and.cquiIabIc
cquitabIc ae:ccaa
acoc:u 10..,10
10 Ie. \.
"'. iDc:1udUJa
includiJla
II,> kpI • •...........,nws
lei \.
_
10
...rivea aIlId
IDd _ " .
....
I· - .. IICOeII
officiah:
cbarp.
officials wilhoul
wiIhDuI charF-

Icpl..

_>1_

Department
Department of
of Homeland
Homeland Socurity
Socurity

U
I"
an
ustoms Enti
USS
IIDImgrallon
mml!g8hOn
ande
dCu
En£<orcement
orcement

The
facility follows
follows in
in admitting
admiIting and
and
l1le proceduru
procedures aa facility
~1(:A$ing
delainee8 proIecI
proIed the
the bcalth,
he.alth, ""fely,
safety, and
and welfan:
....e!fan:
rde.uing <kuinee>l
of
per.ron. During
During the
the admissiOJl$
admissions pmce$$,
process, dcta~
detainees
of each
each pcr.!Oll.
unde'110
se«:ening for medicaJ.
medical purposes;
pUIpOSes; have
have !heir
their files
til""
undergo sc.-eening
reviewed for classification purposes;
J'1fJPOSCS; submil
,ubmilto
SbUlda....
.-eviewcd
In aa Starldard
body sean:h
seuch';
aIld personally
personally obs«vc
observe and
and CC!1ify
certify tbe
the
'; ,."d
CXamin:atiOll,
im=,Of)'ios, and
and
e"amin:ation, categorization, invenlOfyiog,
lafcguardin.g of all pcrso".1
persollal bclonginp.
be.loogin8l_ During
During the
the
safeguarding
relcuc
process, detainees
detainees return
return clotlllng,
cloUring, bedding,
b<ldding, and
and
rclcuc proce"',
other
facility-issued iterns;
items; participatc
participale in
in ide:ntity_
identity_
o!her facility_issuc:d
verificalioll
procedurelI; and complcle
complete docum<:nts
documcnla in
in
verification procedures;
acconlanee
prncodures, including
including certifying
certifying
acconlance with facility procedures,
>=eipf
inVCJltoried pcr!Ional
persolllli property,
property, including
including
r=eipf of all inve'lloricd
fim<h and valuables.
val ....bles.
funds
•'

AdJllbsionl
alld
Admission ••
nd Release
Rei••""

delo:ntion faciliticl
facilities will
will implemcntlhi5
implementllti5 Detainee
Dclainec
All ICE detention
Classification
System (DCS).
(DCS)_ CDFs
CDFs and
and IGSA
IGSA facilities
facilities
CIa..ification Systcrn
may continue using !he
the systems
I)'lIIemI established
esublished locally,
locally, if
ifthe
!he
clallsification
ent""a ""'
are objective
objective and
and all
&II procedure!I
proccdurc!I
classific.ation cnt"";a
mceliCE
requiremento. The classification
classification system
system
mceilCE requirements.
CJeated through
CTCated
Ihtough Ibese
d>csc slandards
IWK!ardlI will
will ensure
ensure that
chat each
each
detained alien is placed
plaoed in the
the appropriote
appropriate cate&OlY
allegory and
and
physically sqwated trom
from detainees
detainees in
in o1bcr
other categories.
categories.

ClauUlratlon S)"lICm
Sy",rm
66 CIa..lflcation

CorrclpondMre and
and Other Mall
Carre.ponden.e

All facilities will ens"",
cnIUI'l' that
lhal dc1ainecs
detainees st:nd
send and
and receive
recei""
~ n o e in a timely manner, SubjectlO
correspondenoe
subject to limitations
limitalions
rcqui~ for
requiRrl
f<>r the
lhe Sal"e1y,IOCUI'ity,
lafety, socurity, and
....d orderly
orderly operation
operation of
of
fa<:i1ity. Other
the facility.
Olhcr mail will be
be pcnnitted,
pennincd. subjeetlO
subjc:<:t 10 the
the
same limitations. Each facility
facility will
will widely
widely distribute
distribute its
ito
guidelines concerning
cooccr-"ing oo=spondcnce
co=spoll(\cncc, and
sn<! other
other mail.
"",il.

....""""""_...__

'ThoS-- 2O.2000OMCPr-;"" _
.. ., .I .I- .
.... __
......
...."""...,._ ... ...,., _
'noo_:lO.2000DMCPr-..._
..
I . ....
...... _0(0.;_
_or~
_ ....
.... wiIlbo-'!'_clK<l.io
"'" ....
too ~ io ....
_ s_n..
.. td1"doo"r-iooo
_
-O
Sl-.L0a~
I).
NT?
...
""0
o--.....,.t.
_.--.
I.... _
'"~_
·_
"
~
I
)
.
1
l
N
7
...
__
"allfo<tliliao-...,..'
, _~oa...-.....,.l.
_ e-Cab
(ICE)

_...,poio<l_.. . _....

-..-RjI_"'".__
boiaI...-JIlI_"'".__,__•

.... .......- .... _ _ n..
' _"allfO<ilit_1l<-.,1
.... _ioon_
__

_........"",I.'.<
_..
_
. ."."
."
._
..

. _ .... e - ~ ( J C E )
> __•
.... _ i o " . ; . . - _ _
.. ., _ _ k i _ . . _ _ . . _
..r i I y _ .

~ ~

_ ~

..--.b_"" .. _ ...

_""J'i<... _
--..
Ilo:l_. . _ _ . . _ . , . . ; , , - - .
~ri..
0(<I0Il>'"
"""'"""'" -.rn.... i;a-""
io<1loo.....-0(-'" b.....-:
ol
__
""""""'"
rot..I ".. _
01 J -, _
J, _ ,, - .....
_
_
Faeib...
.. .-"..__.iaIake'l'=_
p O,
t<balca
_rio
tdo>IlI
Foa
.. _ _.. - - . _
_
......
.... ol

~...-al>aoad.h_

...-or..-..

1 . . ...-.... _ ,
1 ....

x...,.._
""""'"'"

~""Y'

Depanmeul
Deparunml of
of Homeland
Homeland Security
Security
U
.
S
lmmi
lion
and
fi
U S· lmmi
aDd Custo
Custo~
~ E .~,

'""'~

EvCf)'
Ole ...
..ilI ~
dcveklp a••
..... Nnce ba""'oak
haDdboot
Evcty OIC
..illl>-tpClci&:
~r", .............
10
_ an
UI ........
"",......on,.
of: and
and &vide
pidc Ul.
10. lbc
the drinMi<->
...........
'" ~
___
ic:. of,
~
rules, and procaIurcs
proooo;IurQ in
in cffi:IeI
dra:llll.
tbe fxiIiIy.
fxiliIy.
poI>cic:s. ruIcs,
... tbe
110c ba...--.
will abo
. . . docIcribc!he
docIcribc tbescnica..
~
harvb>ok wiD
scnica.. prugnona,

•

•,

Deia-..
Deea-e Uudbook
Uaadbook

.'ood
}'0<><1 ~n"ku
~n'k~1

...... --

-.1 opporwnitia
~ t i Q avai1ab4e
__
aad
• ....u.bIe llIroIaP...nous
lllrouab '"'""'-_
includiq!be
facility. ICE, pri....
pri_
prins. etc:.
includin&!be facilily.lCE,
1e ....
.£
upon
E~""'.i_
wil1....,e:;ve:.
copy oflhit ""........
.... •• 00' "P""
E~~ will
reeeive. copyofdus
admia.....
10
tbe
fXillty.
~...,
ctpcclCd
to
adPrissicm "'!he facility. DetaiDoa arc ctpcacd '"
beha....
in ~
~ with
trilb Ibe
dle ........
rulo:s ad
..,. down
............
lbc
bd>ave '"
ill doc
hardww>k. aDd
and will
wil1 be
be bdd
bdd ............ablc
..........M!lc !"or
b v>olatioDL
vioIttiDoL
""""'oak.
lll....:f""c.lbe
&cilily -..If
tWfwill..m...
<:¥uy ddau~ 10
ID
~on;, tbe facilily
will adviao< t::¥UY
Wniliar with Ibe
dx aweriaI
aweria.I ill
in !be
!be bardvL
barwb>oL
become Wnila.

....

II
policy 10
ID provide decailleel
deulitleel with
wilb Ilutriti<:-as.
.. ~,
It it
ia ICE policy
annctively
pracalCd meals.
mealJ. prepared
prq>U"Ild in.
iIl ...
1lituy
annaively pRRllled
sanitary
~
....hiIe
idenl:ifyifl&, cIcv~lopil\l
develop.... and
UId m'llaging
""'""'IiIlg
llI&nJltt ....
hiIe idenljfYin&,
reaoun:eolO
I'CSOUlCeS
to meet
"""" the
tbe operational
opmItionaJ Deeds
lIftods oflhe
of \he food
food

...............

Fundi
FUlldl and
a.lld I'enoll.al
l'erlOual Proputy
Properly

All fl""lilies
for the
the eonuolllld
cOfluol and safeguarding
safeguarding
facilities will provide for
oflk:uint:es'
property. Thia
TIlit ....
....ill
include: the
tbe
ofdeuinees' penonal propeny.
ill include:
te<:Un'
ItorajJC of funds.
fundi. v.l.....ble.,
valuablea, bagpge
haW'" and
and OCher
0IheT
se<:UJe Itorage
penonnel
propcny; a procedure
procedure for
for documentation
documcouti<m and
and
personnel propeny,
RoCeiplillg
of....-rcndned
p ~ aDd
and the
the inili.ll
initial and
and
~ipting of
~ property;
regularly scheduled
~ularly
ocMdukd inventories
inventooies of
ofall
all fundi,
funds, valuables
vtluables
OCher property.
and otber
pt~.

Detalaee Grin'aaeo
Grievaaet P..-ucI
P.......II!"e1
Detalaee
...eo

Bvay facility will
Every
wil1 <kvelop
<kvdop and
and illlplcmuillWldard
implc""all aI&Ddard
l'f'O""CIurI!
• "i,. ,
.............
~ Amoac
eotaNiah
~
Amonc ochaodoa- thinp,
dUap. ~
~ SOP
SOP _mucteslabliah
...........Ne time limit
• .....--abk
limiI far:
fOl"': (i)
(i) Pf""C"'M.....
pITC"'"..... iDvnriPrin&.
invaIipliD&.
and 1"'Ip<Wwfm,;
..o.
Ip -lin,; 10
til ~
~ (ii)
(II) -waUDa: • pic:varoce
~
~ '"
10 review
~ formal
for-' oompIaiDts;
oompIaiD.ts; aDd
and (<ill
(lill
II J ._10
prvridiag
'IO'rilIa> IrapcIaH'f
10 ......;
.......·1.. II wbo
pnnidiDa *"who lik
file fonnal
for-'
pic:vanca,
..
~ iDcludiD&!be
iDl:1ucIi!la dle buU for
lor Ibc:
lbc dcx.......
dcx...... The
110c SOP
SOP
also
_
abo preac:ribe
pn:::scrihe procedweo
~ "'flPIicabk
applicabk 10
10 aIlttt"""Y
~a><:y
p~aces.. All
~ wiD
supa ....,
...............
AIl~
will ra>eive
rccave~
~......
~.
and incllOCk
"",hade e--- apinst
apinsl rq:>ris.aIs..
rqoriaaIs.

op<nlina
(SOP)
dial addt-c:sI
~proc:aIura
{SOP)d\.U
a6dra.1

-YaliDc.

cu-n-

Departrnenl
Homeland Security
Department of
ofHome1lmd
So:c:urity
U
.
S
I
.
Ii
U S JmmtpDOD and
llIld Customs
Customs EnrOrccmenl
Enfo

. -"" ""

,-=

lss.
. ....,
.d R:.~
...tt of
Isn.
...., ..ad
£o:~.uee

CIot.hi.ac,
CIot.b.l.ac. ~<lliIIl
BHIdiaoc aad
ud T o""l'b
_~b

~larrlage
1\1....iaJ:e JUqIlUU
fhqaau

NOli
NOD Medical
Medical Emerc~or)'
EmuC""''' V..scon
I'....,on
Trip
Trip

Recnation
Recreation

Rdip..
JlditIo1l' I'ratllcel
Pnctkft

V....
tary ,",,'ork
Work Precnm
f"n.cnm
Vol.
.l....,.

Basic
hygieDe is
iI esKntiallO
lI¥ wdl-beia&
wril-beiaa ofdcWDee.s
of deWnces
8MX hnia>e
.aeri o' co thee
in
Iho:
Cl-.dyofll¥
u.s. ~ .....
.... e
Cl.os!lIIDI
in "'" co-.dyofthe U.S.lftuni&ratiorI
EaJiw ........w (ICE). Thcrcf_lCEpoIicy~
Thcref.-. ICE poIic:y RlqUirClIIw
EmOrumom{)CE).
dw
.011
.......... lCEdet·i.......
ICEde«·;- ill
in ~
~ with
wid>
aU ~
6oc:iIi~ ...........
tbiI &DDdard
pvvick deaa
deuI clochin&.
~Iod>in&. .........
baIcIin&,
Iiaals and
and
!his
&W>dard JIfV"1dc
lac. Ii:acns
-as
Iu o:vory
eY'C¥Y ICE
ICE cldaiJIee
do-qi...... -.oa
1lpOD Irriva1.
arriYU. Further,
FUJtiIa",
-.dIco
faciliIics
.dWJ. pnnri<k
pmvide ICE
ICE det·........
d·. . i...... with
wiIh regular
rquIar
facilities.s.baIJ.
..........,p of dulhin&.1incaI. _ _ r... _ Jooc _
e«:baIIaes of clochin&. 1ineas. and tawds for _ ..... as
!bey
ranain in
in dclcDrioII..
dclc:ntioDIbcy n::mam

All
rcqucsa &om
&om ICE
ICE det·jc
..... i,
All marriqe
marriqc rcquatI
by-se
...,.view.
bY-eaK~.

cas0receive aa e;uo.
I• receive

lbe
lmmipa,* and
Ihld CusIO<m
CIlsIOml Enfvo
EarOlcclIKUI
(ICE)
The U,S.
U,S.lmmipatioD
........ DI (ICE)
pnMdcs
detainees with approved
apJlf"<IVed 1tI./T-esconcd
_ff-escomd trips
trips into
inlO
provides deu.ineeII
lI¥
ror the
lI¥ purpoee
P"f'POI'l of
of vilitill&
viliting critically
critically ill
ill
the CQnUtlunily
communily for
mnnben
of!he
<leUoinee', immediate
imJnIediate family.
fam;ly, or
... for
fOl"
mcml><:n of
the detainee',
a1U:Dding
lbeir funeral,. Thil
ThiI Standard
SIandvd applies
applies to
10 ICE
ICE
.1Ie:nding their
only (SPC&ICDFs). All floCililies
f.eml;'" thaI.I
ahall ""fer
~fa ,U
aU such
such
I rtO~lIlO
lbe Pi.ld
Field Office
Di"",lor.
""Sit to th"
Offioc DircoclOr.
All facilities shall provide
prov;de ICE
ICB detalne<:t
detainoel with
with acceu
a~u (0
10
recratiorl.a.l
prvanunI and ac1iviti....
actiYitiel, undO!"
under condi!ion.'I
eooditions of
of
recreational pr<>&l'1lmlI
aeeurily
wpervWon that
Wt prot..,!
plQlClCl their
lbeir safety
..rety and
and
.recurily and suporvUio<l
w.lfan:..
..elf......
DeIaiJ:>oeI
differ<:Dl. ""Iigiooat
~Iip- belief'
beliefi WIll
..ill be
be provided
provided
Detainoct of diff.......
reuonabJe
cquiQbJe ~;..
~;.,.to
10 puticipale
puticipate in
in
reuonabk and equitable
the practic:c:s
practices of
dtelr ....pectiw:
lI¥
ofthcir
IQPElUi-e faitht.
faitt.. Thoc:Ie
1'b<:3e
opportunitiet
<JWOI
umitiel will ""itl
aill «rtWly
cqu.IIl'l for aJl,
all, reprdlca
reprdlea of
ofthe
the
oumba" of
oumbcr
or prxtitiofta't
luctitioow:>.. of,
of a pvat
&ivai rdipo...,
rdig:ioD, wbo:dto:r
..bdberthe
Ibc:
rdip:.. is
"maintfrc:am'. wbetbef
lhere/iPla
rdip..
iI"n:oaioot>c:am',
wbelb«1he
rd;px. itit
'"WO!IlCnIe or
'"WCSICnI·
... "Eatau".
""Eulcm", or
... Olber sudt
Aocb rac-s..
fx&on.
Oppomanilir:s will be ~
US. abouI
Oppoottaniriel;
00Piln.itled only
mIy by
by...........
......,.,..
abouI
tafecy,......my.
the &t:iliIy,
Rfccy,
1ICICUiry, the
!be ordatyopaacioa
onlatyopa..... of
or!be
&ciliIy, or
or
",,~ODAII
~
CIIAS ,qoci"""d
. - o j• • wid:l.lI)Ccifie
wicb • Rl<lC=ific ",.one
"'......
Evay t.:ility
&cility with,...::d:
wiIh a W'Ol'k pRoSi_
prop_ will
wi pnnri<k
pn>Yide deWnocII
detainccI
~ co...::d:
the appommiIy
10 wwlt rod
aDd .....
...... DloIlOq'.
money. WhiIc
Whik DOl
.....
IepDy
IcpDy noquired
~ to
10 do .a.
..,. ICE affordt
alTordi .....n.,; ckWnoa
dcWnea
baric Oocup.(irclal
M$io:
()=n>p"DrcaI Sakcy
Sake)' atld
aIld Heald!
He.allh Admirtittratioot
~
(OSHA) prococtioas.
(OSHA)
pn>lClCfioas.

.....ma.

Depanmenl
Department ofHomelmd
or HomelaDd Security
U
• and
u.s.
lmmigration
aDd a.stoms
CIstoms Enf<
Enl"on:elll1Col
.S. lmmi
gratKlO

-,
IWllIards of
of.".,.,
il:l the
All
will. IOlIow
care iIllho:
....u &ciliIios
&ri1iries will
rooo.. ecrcp«td
.. ,.. ~ IW>CIardI
IDCIdX:aI.
amia! aDd
aad admiailtmive
admi"ittmive ~ of
ofh.....,...
1Jucl&er.
scrilciutl; dtui
dr. . i
fFaeilitiel
..ilities will do ew:t)'\hio&
Slrikio&
eYCf)'IhiIJ& within
widtin
lbeir
!heir means
meaDS 10
... ........... aDd
aad pI'OlCCI!he
pRIlCCI!he balm
bo:aIdi aDd
and ..ct&re
wdfift
of. hunga-~
hunp-Slrikinj ddaiMc,
da'i_, oonsistmt
conIislalII with
widllqal
ofa
Ic:pl
authority
aUlbority UId
aad sWKlanl
aIaDdanI mcdicaI and
aad psydlWric
psyclUalric po
P ICtice.

......u-

.."
,.
20

'""

H.
.gu Strike
H.nCt~
Slrtb

F..ililia will
o>al<e every effort
to olQin
Facilities
willlNkc
cfforlto
obIUl the
die huntFr
bun&er
striker's
striker', informed consent
"""",",I for tneatme:nl,
tR:almClll, especially
Cllpccially wiled
wilen
the hunger
lona-term
h\lllg« ,trike
strike if;
is llvealOm;1li
1luu1cnilJll hi.slho:r
bi.slhcr life or
o.-lonS·lmD
health.

lUelIkai
Mcdl~" C
CII..,
...,

....u
dcuinec:l,hall
accas
to medical
mcdicalllCf'Yiceo
thai
All deuineea
.hall have ..
ceu 10
o.erviceo Iiw.
promote dclainoe
dc:tainec health
hc.!Ilth lind
andScoenJ
aeoenJ well-bciIla.
""'U-bod!!8- MelIi""l
Mcdic:aJ
facilities
r.cilillcs ;,.
;" ICn'ioe
ocr;ice prooeosiDa
proccoaina centeI'I
ClCIItCn and OODtnel
OODlIXI
~ facililiel
facilit>.,. will maintain
maintaift eurn:ol
currc:z>l IoCCI'flditItio
accrcditaIioot by
!he National
Nalioaal CommisAon
Commission 011 Corn>ctional
Corn>ctioaal Health
Heallb Care.
Care..

AJI.taff
.......... witll
AIl_ff -.1cina
wilb ICE ~ ..
ill ,,",enr~
"'"ftllion
Sllioekle
d
Sllldde ",,",eootloa
",,"u.tioa ...
a.d
l.tt.",t..Iio.
r.ltf'\li'ntlo.

"r,.r'u!llal
UIn,.", AdYaneed
Advanced
"ennillal run.....
DirKlIn,
DirutlvIt,alld
alld Death
Outh

C_lnbaad
C..u"ab••d

facilities
faciIita will.
will be tniDcd
IniDcd III
..................
ra:ogaizle siam:
..... and linwioM
~
potentioDy
p+W'1ly iIodicatmc
io t- 'i,.. a so.>icide
AIIici6c risk.
risk.. StafJwill..,.
Staffwillaet 10
to
~
~ ...icid...
..oicicIcI willi
wilb sppopoia...
Ippopoiallc oeositivity.
acasitivity, ~ioD,
~
and ....
rcfcnah.
Any dinial1ly
diaic:ally .1Iicidal
,1IicidaI dcaioce
dcQince will receive
aDd
fenals. AJJy
pn>'eIIlive
~
v e supc:rviIioII
supc:rvioiool aDd
and t1Ub!wnt.
_tJroc:1l.

All
....11 facilities
facilities; shall have pol~
policies and J"O"edures
procedures
-.ddressing
addraIiIIg the ill.....
illl..... oftenninal
of tenniDol illness.
illJ>eas. falal inj"'Y•
injury,
.,{yat><:e
adv&ne<: dire<:tiYal,
diJectiVaI, and detainee dellb..
death. Each will sddreIs
addrcIII
ootification
notification of all concemed,
CO<l«'mCd, from family 10
to ICE. In \he
lhe
cuea ofTaminalllJneu,
ofTam.inalII1nltu, AdvaDce
.... dvaDce Dira:ti""
Directiylt rcq.....
rcqucsto
cues
11 and
dctau- dUlh.IGSAIi
dco.tlr.IGSAJ and CDF.1hal1
CDF.....ll coau.ct
coatael ICB
ICE
detainoe
imrncodjMdy. ICE sba.ll
Ib.IU llllplemem!be
implltmO:l11w DC:
IIItCeU&I)'
imo>ediaIdy.
"ry
proce<lI>JQ
pt"CJOI!dIttcs ....,.:i6ed
"""';6rld in
ill thiJ
tbiI otandani
~
0eIe0Iiu0
Do:IICIIIU. staff
alaff will baadIe
bandIo: aod property diIJdiIpoIe of
of
aIDlnband
c:onJBband io
ill aoooodaoce
~ with
willi !be
the IW>lIard
-..dard openQna
opItfKiaa
pnl<>Odula
pn:rc:cdoau ofm..
of!hlt faci1il)'.
faeility. ~..-ill
CoarnbIIJId will bedatJO)ed
be ~ ItO)'Cd
ill the
the preaencc
p""""" of uIII kill:
katI_
official. oMa
oI&t:t fa, aod
and IboM:
tbooac:
'"'
..... official
illoaMd will docunlmI
~ evay
nay imcmIce
jneqDCP of conlJabaod..
CIOIIlJabmd.
iIlYOMd

-68

.a".

Department
Ilq)artment ofHomc."1and
"fHomeland S-.rity
SClCUrity
U
S
I
.
Enfi
mm,p!
U S I mmlgJ!.rio
rion and
and Customs
Cusl
En"

"
"

Del~."",",
Delnu"",,,

fKili6cs will
wil.I creole
ernie •• deICnlion
deICnUon l11e
file £or
fOr eadllCE
each ICE
All Cacililiocs
~ booked
boobd irJIo
iolIo me
die r.cilily
tIciIity for
for ......
IDOrC IbluI
daa 24
2-4 boun.
hour1
ddainee
The. .........
de&c:miDD.
wi.II COIIllIia
.-tala copiQ llDd. ill
ill somt
M:>II'" cues,
cues,
The
ioo. file will
die
CJrisinab ofdoc>_
of clocuIDenu ineludiD&.
iI1lc:Ndiq, -...
....... ocher
odoer lbiap.
Ihinp.
me or;p.dI
!he
c'·nj6carion sbee:t,
m-,1PCldi<:aI
~ piOfiUty
poputy
the cbssi6carioll
.-dicaI cr'mIY-uWn;
iaYCOlory dIeet, .mdpIinaIy
dddptu-y J'DCOIdI"
ftIDlIfdI., eIC..
ec..
iIlYCDIOIy

""""llDII,

J1ln
F1I<:'I

Dbdplio.n'
.1
Ob<:lpli.llary "
,..)'

To pnMde
provide.
oak aDd
aod orderly
onIerty liviQa
liviIta ...
....vitor>o>ft>I.
vimomenI., facilily
facility
a sak
~ will
wil.I ;",po.e
;,.,po.c diIciplilwy
diaetplUwy...
...",Dtwu
...0.- 011
011 aD)'
:my
authoritiea
"",.m.". wb<Me
wboK behavior
behavior •ia .IlOl
001 in
in <>llOIlptiaoI:e
...-npa........ wilh
will:>
deIainoe
faeility ruks
rules a>d
-.l procedurea.
~.
fa<:ilily

EtDergellC)'
ElDerge.lley M.n
Pl.n

E""')' facilily
foo:ility will
wil.I devl:kIp
~Iop plana
p ..... and
aDd ~
proceduJa for
for
Every
handling
unc:'&COC) oinwiona
1;_1;"" ~Iy
~ I ylikely
likely'"
to o<:eUll".
oc:cur.
bandling ~
"The II"""
coal of these
thae 'eao>tinaaoc:Y
-COOMaenc:Y plana'
pi.....• ia
ia to
to conn-ollhe
<:QnIJ'011he
The
linaarion without
withoul endangerinc
~ livell
liyCII or
or property.
property.
aituatWn

.:oylroom~ol.1
E.... lronment.1

f.cility will elIlablish.1Iaurdous
eauoblisll. IwlurdouI materi.15
m.teri.l& program
prognun
Each facility
coolrol, handlinllo
handling, .tOnlse.
.tonllC. and
and uoe
...., of
offlan>lrulble,
flammable,
for the control,
loxie. and caU5tic
caustic m.terials.
m.terials. ThiI
ThiI will
will prott>et
pro"""l detainc:c&,
detainees.
toxic.
5taff,
fely and
Iliff, and
""'" visiton.
visit.,... preventing
preventing breaches
bn:IchcI in
in ..
safcty
and
ICCUrity. AmOllg
other thill&',
lhinp, the
the faeility
facility will
will include
include the
!be
ICCUrity.
Among other
idl::lltification
idtlltifiealiOll and labeling
labeling oflluardous
ofhuatdoul materialt
!lJI~aIJin
in
a<:a>rt1aDce
witb '1'I'liClblc
.pplicable regulations,.taDdards
replaoo..., IWIdardo aDd
and
ac:<:ordmee with
codes
codcs (Oa:upationaI
(Oc:cupational s.rCfy
s.r~y and
IIId Health
HeahIt Administration
Adminiltralion
(OSHA). N.tional
N.t>onal Fire
Fire P1o(eo;tioo
f'ro(ection Auoeiatitxl,
AuociatiDD.. et);
ec..); win
will
provide -.niIIp
waminp of incompatible
incompatible materiala,
materiab., eIe.
eIt.

Huhb
d S.fel1
Hulth ...
.nd
Safely

Hold Ronau
Rooms ill De_doa
Dete"doa
Hold
F-.cllidH
Fodll....

Hold
llnid n>oIDa
I1IOIDS will be lOlled
IlIIed fill"
for the
!be IU1lpOtwy"etenritYI
b1ljXWwydcfcnrian of
of
iDdividuais
iIldivi&IaIJ awaiq
awaitin& raDIn'&1,
lUIIQY&i., 1I'aftSfa".
tlalUfcr, EOIR
EOIIt hearioga.
beariftp.
.....tical
.....tieaI ~ u.er.f.acility
~f.It::iIUyIIIII.-._ocher
Il1O""'-' or oCbo:I..
ina in'"
imD _ow
or"" oflbc
of the: faeilit)r.
&c:iIJI]'.
p ~ing

Key ....
.... LKk
Lod' C.IlI"'"
C_lrol
Key

Every facilily
facility will m·W·in
maintain aa
aD eff"oc:ieDI.yatem
etrlcieot.ayacm for
for the
die
uae,
Iocb.
. .....,..,tabilily.
_
....bility. aad
aDd --...u.ce
~ ofkeya
ofkeya aad
aDlIloeb.

Popu.la~
"opulati_

""
"

C_II
C_.u

"_iil.

AU Cacililiocs
S)'5tem for
fiteilitios ahaIl
Wll imp~
implezllcm WI
lUI efloetivc
dJecti_.)'Stem
for
ecamrirtg
ODd infonnal_wilI
_'1IIing; deWDcca.
dMame... F.......
FIII1IIlIlIDd
infonnal.-mra will be
be
<:OII<b:tc>d
~ ..
as '"'US.")'
I"'VM.'Y to
to ~
eaIURc UOUDd-tbc>-e1oc:t
.rouDo-lb.,-doc:k
KCOUII.ubility
.......m1abilily r....
fnr all
all dctaincQI.
...... me...

Oepanrncnt
Department of Homeland Sc:curiry
Security
US
htuni)Uation and Cus
Customs
U .S. lmmi
W~ Enforcement
En r.orcement

"""""

poll ordcQ
thai speci6ca1ty
Eadl officer will have "";tlCD
written P<*
onSets !hal
-wtY to bi!t.'her
bisIber currmt
curraU duties. The JIOSI
poll ordcQ
onSets will

'"
30

P_Onkn
PoROnkn

If"<'clfy
!:be duties
the poll
__, .1.
. . ....;th
..,.ecify !he
duIics of !he
~l off
off-.-.
-loot:
.,...;th
imtnotUom ...
.........
pen...... I'-c
IlCp-byiaaInoctiom
bow 10
to pc:dllllll
It- duticL
ducica. The IICp-byII-=P ~
proced_ will iIlclllde
ddaiI In pidc
SIq>
~ -ab
-aJl Odaillo
pide._
assi&f'Od 10 1be
OIC will ..... dcveklp
DOYicc assipcd
the 1M*IX*- The ole
dcveIop
p<»tordcQ
b __ ~ aa.i&DmmlS(.r..tai1s,
poll
onSets b_~U'ipnmts(delails,
1<:.........)
lailpOi.y ........1
"'-iDa ......
uails. _1U'Cl'
_&CD")' dwl&Q.
~ eII:..).
"""-). [f
If
..-.mtt
~ pa>bod<:
"",,,bod<: adftDec
adYaDo:e pi_ina. the ole
OlC will .......
issue •
pose
poll onb
onIer ...............iblc
&5 ...... &5 P'*iblc after 1be
the .....,.j
-.d arises.
&ri&cs.

pi_me.

S«arlty
S«llrity

l~lio.t
I~t>olli

Sped
•• ""....
M ....ltmtclll
UI1UI
S~I.I
ttmut U"UI
(ADM)

Leo lUI ua ....;th
""';Ih hriprrrwoI
~ occurity
IICCUrity rcquiremcnIs,
rcquiremeDD. 1be
posl
1.0
the posc
offie:aofficer ""_
"'IISI Iho<oagh!y
thoroughly UIlda'srlUIcl
\IIldenIlUId all
&II &IflO"*
aspo><:lS of f:ocility
Iiocility
openlions.
Spec:ialIy trained
officen only will be
opcntioGs. Specially
nina! offieen
assil"Od lD
the:oc KCariay.itosprtioo.
potU.
Ufip:d
lO me.:
MCUril)'-~ poIlU.
Ad.ninju'au""
Admjoittrt.tivc "'"1lt'"Ption
IC&"Cplion it
is.I noo-punitive
_punitive fonn
form of
separation
oeparation &om
from the
\he a..,.,..l
~ population
populaticm .-d
oX<! ...
",hen
ha1 !be
the
continued presence
praence of
of!be
the detainee in the
tbc ~
gcnen.I
population
I lhraIIIO ..,If,
aclf, mfr,
poptll.atioll would pose .1hrea11Q
lta.ff, O!htt
oIha
detainees, property or lhc
the lleCunty
_uriI)' or
0.. orderly
onSerly opention
operaU<NI of
dclaioccl,
Ihc facility. ~plCl include.
include I dctlioec
IWlitinliln
!he
detainee .w.iting
an
invcttig;otion or hearin& for aI viol.tio1l
yiolltiotl of facility
flcility rules, •a
inv«tig:ation
detainee
dclailllCe rtqUin=I
rcquirea prot«ri<m
proltclKm or • detainee
dcU.inee iJ
illd>eduled
lChcdulcd fo..
for
rcleaoc, removal, or trlUIIfc.willt 24 bows.
boIni.
rtltue,
~fcr wilb

hcarin,

Eadl facility wiU
ellllablidli
MIDI~ Unil
Eacll
will ..
tablilb • Special M"'&=>eOt
thai. will iao/ate
iaoIale c:crtaiII.
dctaitIoCI 110m
p:nt:nl
!hal
certain dt1.j_
l"i'om !be
the a-aI
population. The Special Managcmeut
Management Unit will have
popu1atioD.
bn-e lWO
two
IfICtiorls.
ODe for den·
Adminian.1ivc SqrqaIi<lG;
SqrcpcioD;
IOl:tioaDI. """'
M'"-'t• in AdmjniaBtiw
!be
0lbC0" for~
del.i...... beina ~ furdilcipWwy
too- dDcip\inuy
tbe otbc:r
reaJQDI (~
~
~
<~
~ M-.cemall.
MaDa&ClDClII UDii
Unit [DixipIiftary
[DixipIiftacy
.

ro.-

m;,

Each
fac:ilily will -.bI.isb
aabI.iab •_ SprciaI
SpoeiaI M-aemUnil
... Unit
Eod:o fxiliIy
Joh- :
that will itolaJIO
cxnaio> .....
ir II frun
tIw
itotaJ., e<>Uia.
dec.i......
ftomthe~
tbo< ~

P"P"lalPOPIWioo The SpDciaI
Special Manqancac
~ UIlit
UBiI will ....
have
w .....
two

"
JJ

Spa::iaI robaacaaall
M .....CCmctu U"'I:I
Ualli (DSC)
SpedaJ

_0.:-. """'
ODe ro.for ......
+eli...,...
for
tcdit-s,
oj....... bml&
brina: KJrCpled
~ fur

disciplinary rcuam;
~ 1be
tbe 0lbC0"
other for
fOr d,'O;""'"
bciDz
diIcipliDuy
del........ bcin&
.....jnjwaQve
'"SpcciaJ
~ for .....
iniJIr'fQYl' _
(Me "'SpeeiIJ
~
M~ Unit IAdminjo!lUivc
[Admj"jaruivc

SqrcpJioclr
Sqro:pJiaQr

'""""'"
S""""",

.....

Department
Department of
of Homeland
Homeland Security
Sec:urity
U.S.
Immigration
CU$IOmS Enforcement
US ImIlUgral1(m and
andCu!
Enr.~~,

'""

TT.....
..... Coalro.l
C_1mol

E~
win etllbliJ.b
~t.bliJb.
"""-'roI pobcy
poIM:y with
with
E>ay £XiIiI)'
bc:ility will
a I0OI__0"01
whidI. all cmplDyus
cmpk>yus dLaII
WlI comply.
comply. The
Tbc Mainlcull:><;e
MainleDal:><x
....t.ic:h
s ~ shall
sbalI mlil'lliD
m.iN.i_.
"""'4"'''a'"~'''
SupeI'YiIa
I DOIIlpUICr_&o:ocnIaI
or
I}p'..
,itlal. invtnIoryoClOOb
iDw:Dlory oftoob aad
aad eqo,ipment,
-quipnent. aad
and ston&e
SlOn£e
1>'J>c"nttm.
Iocaria:IL
iaYalIOric:l.abal1
be.,......",..
fikd, IIQd
and
Iocalioas.. 1lIac ionUl.
. . . lball be
ewn:I'I. fikd,
radiJy .....
Iabk duriac
oIuriac _ audiI.
audit.
IadiJy
l"';lable

T
..... _rt:aticNo
Tnlll5pOl1atioa

Tbc
u.s Immipatioa
lmmip;Itioa aad
and
Enf............... (ICE)
(ICE)
The U.S
EnfOlcemc::nl
willlal<e
poecautioIu kl
~ prote<:I!he
prutea!be 1m...,
\;,......
will
taU all .-oble
~ pteeaUtioBS
safety,
and ~
~ ofofficcn.
ofofficcn, odIa"
od>a"pa--=l,!be
pcnoaoel.!he
safely, aad
&-.1
!be detameelthemadva
~ tbcmalva invoMd
invvh'al in
in
&c:n<:ral public.
pubtie. ..... !he
o....fnces
in
!he
....fnccs in
the &round
&f1l'UIId lnIIISpOrlarioo
~ of dctaineca. D
~t
the facility
facility kllQOlher
10 &<lOlh£r inltitutioll
ialtiwtioa or
or one
.,...,
Inmil from !he
'" aDCIlher
aDOIhco" will be
be lIatdpOl
u.ruponod
in I, saC..
safe and
aod
jurUdictioo
juri5dietioa 10
ted in
bumane
under !he
!be IIII"""'Won
~ ofttainc:d
ofltlinDd and
and
humane 1DIDna'",
marmer, under
""'~
penonnel.
""~ penom>el.

Use
Force
UI.. of
ofFol"«

The use of fora: is
.. authorized
,utborized only
only after
.fter all
all reasonabl..
~e
efTOIU
to resolve
raolve,a lituaUon
.ilUllion havo:
have railcd.
f.iled. Offieen
Off1c:en shall
shall
..ffOlU '"
USCl
little fon:e
furee as necuu.ry
neeasal)' 10
to pin
ll"in 00IlO"01
00ll1t01 oflbe
of the
use as lilll..
detainee; to protect and
.nd !'I>Sure
ensure !he
the ..
alfet)'
of detainl'e5,
detainees,
fet)' of
starr; and <>then.;
.WI;
ocben.; to
'" prevent lCriouo
oen<M.lll property
property damage;
damage; and
and
to ensure
U1SW"e !be teeuri!)'
on;krly opertotion
operation of
of the
the
10
oecuril)' and ord<:rly
facilil)'. PhyaicaJ
facility.
Ph)'5ica1 ralIaintI
rauainaI ahaIl
ahall be
be llICId
used to
to gain
pin conuoJ.
0DnU'0J. of
of
an :apparently
appacently cfan&crouo
lit
daqeroua deuoinoo
detaiace only
only tmderunder specified
specified
C<:K>ClitioN.
conditions.

StafJ-Detaiaec C
C_
__......
_.-k.do.
St:aff-Detaialee
tk.

Pmor:durea muse
Procalurea
mUll: be in place
pI:aoo to
10 alloOw
.. \.ow for
for b'mal
lOnnal and
and
informal eoDIact
iIlfarmaI
CODl:aCt bdaceu
belWDeII key
key faeilily
l'aciIily Raft',
J&aft; ICE
ICE sraff
staffand
:and
ICE "• Iii....
i _ 10
- ••I mod
aad to peomit
pc::amit de..
<1M,;""'"
10 malt..
make ...,.;tleI:I
writtt:a
""IU"I'b
to ICE.wI
- . . iD
~ 10
ICE..wr .....
and ~
receive ...
an UIPo'a"
in lUI
an
If'U'P'abk
frame.
-v«"""" time hme..

eire··......

.......

Departmenl
Departmenl or
or Homeland
Homeland Security
U
.. and
En1i
U SS lmmi
bm:ni
and ens
Cus
Enfi~.

ODIOlalo"
..laln" Tun.rH
Trausfu-

Immignl>on and CwIOmS
Customs Enforcemenl
EnfOiccaw:nl (ICE)
(ICE) often
often
lmmigntion
tnnsfas
<leWnea from ODe
O<le &.::i1il)'
l2<:ility 10
10 anotnc:r
Mod.... for
for aa
transfers delainea
variety of
reasonlI. lbia
Thi. standard
IWldard puscribes
preo.cribee the
the
of~.
vroced.....es
and
nocirlcalion requin:m<:nts
requin:menta 10
10 be
be: followed
fOUowed
(>T'X<'d~ ..
nd notifi<:alion
when transferring
detainee_ ICE
ICE will
will m.ke
male.. all
all De<:CS&ary
De<:essary
trllnSferring.a dela.i~_
oolificaliona
detalnee(.) is
is uaWlfem:d.lftlle
lrallllfem:d. Iftl,e
noti!i<:aliona when ..a delllinee(s)
de:ta.inoe(.)
iI being
~ng lra.nsporte<!
l~<:dby
by Juslke
Jualic.. Prisoner
Priaoner Alien
Alien
det.ino<:(s) is
Tnmsportalion
Sy.tem (WA TS),
TS). ICE
ICE will
will adhere
adhere to
10
T""",portation Syslem
1PA
protocol•. In dcc::iding
doeimng wbelber
wbr:th<:r 10
In uansf...tnnafer ..a
JPA TS pmlO<:Ols.
dcuinee,
inl<l COJDllKlenliOll
<:omlKlenIiOll wbed>er
wbetbr:r !be
tbc
deIlIioee, ICE will take iDIa
drtainee
reprelC!nled bef~
bef<n: Ibc:
tbc immig:ntiOll
immigration <:ourt.
court.. In
In
dtf.i........ ia
is represented
auch
Offi~ Directors
0ireeI0n ....
will
ennaider !be
the
such c:aaes.
cases, Field Office
11 consider
d....
inee·. _ge
within the.-..n><>Val pro<:QI.,
ptl)CQI. whelber!be
whetbc::r the
den;""""s
alllge within!he.-cmoval
atton>ey
of.-...coni
Io<:atcd within
within reaMln-ble
oPW_able drivin&
driviaa
al1On>eY of
roconi ia Ioc:ated
distant:e
t:bc: decention
detention &.::iliry
(adliry """
anti ....
where
immi,vation
disW>ec of the
hen! immigration
_
~
~;np a.re
an: Iakma:
~ pI-.
p~
eoun
..
~;

Appendix B: Informed Consent Forms
Informed consent forms were provided to participating current detainees,
previously detained women, detainees’ family members, attorneys, and social
service providers, respectively. Forms were available in English and Spanish. The
English version of the forms for current detainees and attorneys are provided here.
All forms were approved by the University of Arizona Human Subjects Protection
Program.

Informed Consent Form for Detainees
Research on Women in Immigration Detention Facilities
Introduction
You are being invited to participate in a research study. The information in this form is
provided to help you decide whether or not to take part. The researchers are available
to answer your questions and provide additional information. If you decide to
participate, you will be asked to sign one of the copies of this consent form. You may
keep the other copy for your own records.
What is the purpose of this research study?
The purpose of this study is to learn about women in immigration detention facilities. The
information gathered will allow the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project (“the
Florence Project”) to better tailor its services to meet the needs of women who are detained.
It will also allow for researchers, detention facility officers, and the other interested parties to
better understand the characteristics and needs of women in immigration detention facilities.
This is a general research study about women detainees. The researcher will not be able to
address any individual problems you may be having.
Why are you being asked to participate?
You are being invited to participate because you are an adult woman in an immigration
detention facility in Arizona.
What will happen if you participate?
If you participate, a researcher will come to meet with you during visitation hours at the
detention facility. The researcher will ask you questions about the following topics:
• Your background (where you are from, your age, marital status, etc.)
• Your family (whether you have children/siblings, where they live, etc.)
• Why you are in detention and how long you have been detained,
• Any specific legal, medical, mental health, or social services needs you may have.
The researcher will talk to you for 30 to 60 minutes. You will not have to answer any
questions that you do not want to answer.
Are there any risks to me?
There are no risks involved with participation in this study. If you find the interview stressful
or upsetting, you can ask for a break or stop participating immediately.
Your participation in this study will have no impact, positive or negative, on your individual
legal case. It will also have no impact on your treatment in the facility. Your lawyer (if you
74

have one), the Florence Project, the facility, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) have nothing to do with this research and will NOT be notified of your decision
whether or not to participate.
Are there any benefits to me?
There are no direct benefits to you from participation in this study.
Will there be any costs to me?
There are no costs to you other than your time.
Will I be paid to participate in the study?
You will not be paid to participate in this study.
Will the information that is obtained from me be kept confidential?
Yes. During the interview, the researcher will take handwritten notes of your responses. Your
name will not be recorded on the notes. The notes will be kept in a locked cabinet offsite of the
detention facility that no one other than the researcher can access. No one else – not detention
facility officers, your lawyers, nor anyone else – will have access to the information you tell the
researcher.
You will not be identified by name in any reports or publications resulting from the study.
Instead, the researchers will use pseudonyms (made-up names) in place of your actual name.
May I change my mind about participating?
Yes. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may decide not to participate at
all, or discontinue your participation at any time.
Whom can I contact for additional information?
You can obtain further information about this study or voice concerns or complaints by
calling the researcher, Nina Rabin, (520) 621-7331, rabin@email.arizona.edu. If you have
questions concerning your rights as a research participant, have general questions, concerns or
complaints, cannot reach the researcher, or want to talk to someone else, you may call the
University of Arizona Human Subjects Protection Program office at (520) 626-6721. (If out
of state use the toll-free number 1-866-278-1455).

Your Signature
By signing this form, I affirm that I have read the information contained in the form, that the
study has been explained to me, that my questions have been answered and that I agree to take
part in this study.
I do not give up any of my legal rights by signing this form.
__________________________________
Name (Printed)
__________________________________
Participant’s Signature

______________
Date signed

Statement by person obtaining consent
I certify that I have explained the research study to the person who has agreed to participate, and
that she has been informed of the purpose, the procedures, the possible risks and potential benefits
associated with participation in this study. Any questions raised have been answered to the
participant’s satisfaction.
__________________________________
Name of study personnel
__________________________________
Signature

_______________
Date signed

Informed Consent Form for Attorneys
Research on Women in Immigration Detention Facilities
Introduction
You are being invited to participate in a research study. The information in this form is
provided to help you decide whether or not to take part. The researchers are available
to answer your questions and provide additional information. If you decide to
participate, you will be asked to sign one of the copies of this consent form. You may
keep the other copy for your own records.
What is the purpose of this research study?
The purpose of this study is to learn about women in immigration detention facilities. The
information gathered will allow the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project (“the
Florence Project”) to better tailor its services to meet the needs of women who are detained.
It will also allow for researchers, detention facility officers, and the other interested parties to
better understand the characteristics and needs of women in immigration detention facilities.
Why are you being asked to participate?
You are being invited to participate because you have provided legal representation or social
services to a woman in an immigration detention facility in Arizona.
How many people will be asked to participate in this study?
Approximately 25 attorneys will be asked to participate in this study.
What will happen if you participate?
If you participate, a researcher will come to meet with you in a time and place of your
convenience. The researcher will ask you questions about the following topics:
• Your client’s background (national origin, age, marital status, etc.)
• Your ability to access/communicate with your client in detention
• Your client’s experience in detention
• Any legal, medical, mental health, or social services needs of your client.
The researcher will talk to you for 30 to 60 minutes. You will not have to answer any
questions that you do not want to answer. You will not be asked to provide the name or any
specific identifying information about your client. You will also not be asked to provide any
information that would violate the attorney client privilege.
Are there any risks to me?
There are no risks involved with participation in this study.
77

Are there any benefits to me?
There are no direct benefits to you from participation in this study.
Will there be any costs to me?
There are no costs to you other than your time.
Will I be paid to participate in the study?
You will not be paid to participate in this study.
Will video or audio recordings be made of me during the study?
The researcher would like to make an audio recording of the interview with you to be certain that
your responses are recorded accurately. The researcher will only do so if you check the box
below:
I give my permission for audio recordings to be made of me
during my participation in this research study.
If you prefer not to give permission, we will not audio record your responses.
Will the information that is obtained from me be kept confidential?
Yes. During the interview, the researcher will take handwritten notes of your responses. If you
give permission, your interview may also be audio recorded. Your name will not appear on the
handwritten notes or audio records. Both the notes and audio records will be transferred to
electronic files, which will be stored on a secure server that no one other than the researcher can
access. The notes will be kept in a locked cabinet that no one other than the researcher can access.
No one other than the researcher will be informed of your participation in this study. You will not
be identified by name in any reports or publications resulting from the study. Instead, the
researcher will use pseudonyms in place of your actual name.
In addition, representatives of regulatory agencies (including the University of Arizona Human
Subjects Protection Program) may access your records to ensure quality of data and study conduct.
They will not review the records for any other purpose and will not make publicly available any
information contained in the study records.
May I change my mind about participating?
Yes. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may decide not to participate at
all, or discontinue your participation at any time.

Whom can I contact for additional information?
You can obtain further information about this study or voice concerns or complaints by
calling the researcher, Nina Rabin, (520) 621-7331, rabin@email.arizona.edu. If you have
questions concerning your rights as a research participant, have general questions, concerns or
complaints, cannot reach the researcher, or want to talk to someone else, you may call the
University of Arizona Human Subjects Protection Program office at (520) 626-6721. (If out
of state use the toll-free number 1-866-278-1455). If you would like to contact the Human
Subjects Protection Program via the web, please visit the following website:
http://www.irb.arizona.edu/contact/.
Your Signature
By signing this form, I affirm that I have read the information contained in the form, that the
study has been explained to me, that my questions have been answered and that I agree to take
part in this study.
I do not give up any of my legal rights by signing this form.
__________________________________
Name (Printed)
__________________________________
Participant’s Signature

______________
Date signed

Statement by person obtaining consent
I certify that I have explained the research study to the person who has agreed to participate, and
that he or she has been informed of the purpose, the procedures, the possible risks and potential
benefits associated with participation in this study. Any questions raised have been answered to
the participant’s satisfaction.
__________________________________
Name of study personnel
__________________________________
Signature

_______________
Date signed