- ICE received 3,145,375 possible overstay leads from fiscal years twenty twenty-one through twenty twenty-four.
- The agency opened 496 investigations from viable threat-related leads and made eight arrests.
- The watchdog recommended a plan to increase Priority One investigations; DHS agreed with the recommendation.
A report issued September 29, 2026, by the DHS Office of Inspector General found that ICE received 3,145,375 possible overstay leads during fiscal years 2021–2024. It opened 496 investigations from viable threat-related leads and made eight arrests.
The figures cover possible visa overstays and other nonimmigrant visa violations. They count referrals, not people confirmed to have broken immigration rules. A lead can require more checking before investigators know whether someone stayed beyond an authorized period or violated admission terms.
The agency sorted leads by potential risk. A September 2021 DHS policy issued under then-Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas directed limited enforcement resources toward threats to national security, public safety or border security. Most leads fell outside those priority categories.
The watchdog pointed to practical barriers as well as the policy. Investigators struggled to verify addresses and locate people in the United States, while the agency lacked resources to pursue every lead. Those obstacles shaped which referrals moved forward.
The report recommended a plan to increase investigations and enforcement actions involving Priority 1 overstay leads. The agency concurred with the recommendation. The figures below distinguish the broader lead pool from the subset considered viable for investigation.
The report counted leads, investigations and arrests separately
| Measure | Reported figure |
|---|---|
| Possible overstay or nonimmigrant-visa-violation leads received | 3,145,375 |
| Leads flagged for potential national-security or public-safety concerns | 104,049, about 3.3% |
| Threat-related leads considered viable for further investigation | 21,885 |
| Investigations opened from that viable group | 496 |
| Arrests resulting from those investigations | 8 |
| Leads classified as “Non-Priority” | 3,041,326, approximately 96.7% |
| Viable Priority 1 leads | 1,769 |
| Priority 1 investigations opened by Homeland Security Investigations | 84, approximately 5% |
| Arrests from those investigations | 2 |
| Non-priority leads referred to Enforcement and Removal Operations | Approximately 2,837,188 |
| Referrals that unit investigated as possible public-safety threats | 5 |
| Arrests from those investigations | 2 |
Priority labels set the path for referrals
The breakdown separates two enforcement tracks. Homeland Security Investigations handled investigations stemming from viable Priority 1 leads. Enforcement and Removal Operations received a much larger pool of non-priority referrals, with a small number examined as possible public-safety threats.
The classifications describe how the department handled information, not a final determination about each person. The report said the leads might require additional verification. It did not treat every referral as a confirmed violation or a security threat.
The policy focused resources on the highest-priority cases. Address problems and difficulty finding people added another hurdle, and limited staffing made it impossible to pursue every lead, according to the watchdog’s findings. The recommended plan would target increased investigations and enforcement actions specifically for Priority 1 referrals.
Immigration consequences depend on an individual’s record
An overstay generally means remaining in the United States beyond the period DHS authorized, often shown on a person’s Form I-94. Staying past that period may violate the terms of admission, but a referral alone does not settle whether an overstay occurred or what consequences apply.
Possible consequences can include removal proceedings, visa cancellation and unlawful-presence issues. In some circumstances, unlawful presence followed by departure can trigger three- or ten-year inadmissibility bars under INA § 212(a)(9)(B).
The outcome depends on details such as how long the person accrued unlawful presence, whether the person left the United States, their immigration status and whether an exception or waiver applies. The report’s lead totals do not establish that every person in the pool was removable, unlawfully present, a security threat or eligible for arrest.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
