CARRP

US Citizenship and Immigration Services policy

This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (January 2021)

|

The Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (CARRP) is a policy within United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that aims to prevent selected individuals from obtaining citizenship or immigration benefits. The policy was created in 2008 and mainly targets immigrants from Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian communities,[1] with the top 5 countries being Pakistan, Iraq, India, Iran and Yemen.[2] By law, immigration applications must be adjudicated within 180 days, but the program introduces a loop of indefinite delays by citing national security or public safety concerns.[3][4] Applications for naturalization, lawful permanent residency, and asylum are the most common selections for CARRP processing.[5]

Placement of applications into the program depends on a number of subjective factors and associations such as monetary remittances into middle-eastern countries, loose associations through social media or contact with individuals suspected of being involved in terroristic activities, or unsubstantiated allegations sent to immigration authorities by people opposed to the individuals' immigration efforts.[6]

As of 2019, close to 42,000 people have had their US immigration applications blacklisted through the CARRP program.[7] While the program has operated largely covertly, the ACLU has compiled a library of documents on the policy obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.[8]

Currently, the only known remedy is for individuals to sue the involved agencies in federal court. CARRP has been undergoing litigation since 2017. As of 2022, USCIS put a moratorium on denials of green card and naturalization applications while the program works its way through the courts.[9] In January 2025, a federal court found that the program was "arbitrary and capricious" and that USCIS had failed to justify the policy's creation, but that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the policy violated the 14th Amendment.[10]

## CARRP Processing

[edit]

### Identifying "national security concerns"

[edit]

CARRP divides concerns into "Known or Suspected Terrorists" (KSTs) and "not-Known or Suspected Terrorists" (non-KSTs).

To be considered a KST, a person must have been previously identified as the federal government as a security threat and put on the Terrorist Screening Database.

USCIS relies on three categories of indicators to determine if an applicant is a non-KST.

1. Statutory indicators: The applicant is suspected to have ties to a Tier I, II, or III terrorist organization or an organization "likely to meet" the definition of a Tier III organization, despite not being formally recognized. To be subject to CARRP, the evidence does not need to meet the standard of inadmissibility or removability.
2. Non-statutory indicators: Officers must examine an applicant's professional and educational affiliations, suspicious activities, and personal relationships. Indicators may include military service, education in nuclear physics, unusual travel patterns, or "close associat[ion] with a person who is considered a national security concern.
3. Indicators Contained in Security Check Results: Results found in background checks, including financial transactions with individuals that the U.S. detained in Afghanistan or Pakistan, or individuals whose names appear in an FBI file.

### Deconfliction

[edit]

This process may take place at any point during the adjudication process. USCIS collaborates with the law enforcement agency possesses the information that identified the applicant as a security risk. USCIS must ensure that their processing of the application will not interfere with an ongoing investigation. During this stage, an applicant may receive a Request for Evidence or be approached by law enforcement for questioning.

### Re-examination of application

[edit]

Once a potential threat has been identified, USCIS will review their application again with stricter scrutiny than usual. They will particularly look for any potential inconsistencies that could be indicative of fraud or false testimony.

If no indications of fraud or ineligibility are found, the officer's attention will turn to the evidence that flagged the applicant as a security risk. They will look through the Department of Homeland Security's records as well as anything in the applicant's Alien File.

### Secondary collaboration with law enforcement

[edit]

If still no flags are raised, USCIS will return to the law enforcement agency in possession of the evidence. Any additional information that the agency has on the applicant will be requested.

### Adjudication

[edit]

A KST's application cannot be approved. A Non-KST's application may be approved, but supervising and senior officials must agree with the adjudicating officer's findings. If USCIS determines that an applicant is a KST or non-KST but cannot find a reason to deny the application, the application may be forwarded to USCIS headquarters for final review and issue of denial. An applicant may be denied without ever being told that they are under CARRP review.[11]

## Legal Challenges

[edit]

A number of lawsuits have been filed on behalf of individuals affected by this program, although most have been dismissed after USCIS then approved the complainants applications.[12][3] The ACLU filed a lawsuit in 2017 (Wagafe et al. vs Trump et al.), which has been certified as a class-action lawsuit for all individuals whose application has been unduly delayed. The suit alleges that the program is both illegal under immigration law and unconstitutional on due process violation grounds. The due process claim stems from the fact that applicants are not told that they are being subjected to CARRP, and may not be told the true reason for their case's denial, giving them no opportunity to defend themselves.[13][14] It also argues that the guidelines for being placed on the watchlist are unconstitutionally broad.[15] On April 5, 2021, litigation continued with Joe Biden as defendant.[16]

As of 2022, USCIS put a moratorium on denials of green card and naturalization applications while litigation pends.

A January 2025 judgment found that USCIS had not adequately justified the program's necessity and failed to ensure that naturalization applications were adjudicated in a timely manner. The court ruled that CARRP violated plaintiffs' due process rights by failing to notify them that they were subject to the policy, but that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that applicants were being targeted based on their religion or country of origin. All involved parties were ordered to meet within 30 days of the judgment to attempt to resolve the outstanding issues.[10]

## References

[edit]

1. ^ "Muslims Need Not Apply: CARRP". ACLU of Southern California. January 10, 2013.
2. ^ Burke, Daniel (3 October 2019). "A shadowy federal program is ensnaring thousands of Muslim immigrants". CNN. Video by Lauren Cook and Jeremy Moorhead.
3. ^ a b Rathod, Sara. "A new lawsuit claims a secretive, Bush-era program is delaying Muslims' citizenship cases". Archived from the original on 2019-12-30. Retrieved 2019-12-30.
4. ^ R. Scharfen, Jonathan. "Policy for Vetting and Adjudicating Cases with National Security Concerns" (PDF). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
5. ^ "CARRP Program Creates Long Delays for Muslim-Americans Applying for Immigration Benefits". www.nolo.com. Archived from the original on 2024-04-24. Retrieved 2024-04-24.
6. ^ "Social Media Monitoring". Brennan Center for Justice.
7. ^ Burke, Daniel (3 October 2019). "A shadowy federal program is ensnaring thousands of Muslim immigrants". CNN. Video by Lauren Cook and Jeremy Moorhead.
8. ^ "USCIS CARRP Program | ACLU of Southern California". www.aclusocal.org. 2013-01-10. Retrieved 2024-04-24.
9. ^ "Notice re USCIS Moratorium on Denials of CARRP Naturalization and Adjustment Applications (Wagafe v. Biden)". www.lexisnexis.com. Retrieved 2024-04-24.[permanent dead link]
10. ^ a b Lyskawa, Madeline (January 21, 2025). "US Told to Justify Citizenship Screening Program and Delays". Law360.
11. ^ Traverso, Katie; Pasquarella, Jennie (2016). "Practice Advisory: USCIS's Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program" (PDF). ACLU of Southern California. Retrieved 24 April 2024.
12. ^ "U.S. Immigration Department Sued Over "Unlawful Delay" Of Citizenship Applications Of Muslims". BuzzFeed News. 19 May 2016.
13. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-07-26. Retrieved 2019-12-30.`{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
14. ^ "Wagafe v. USCIS - Lawsuit Challenging Secret Program Blocking Immigrant Applications". American Civil Liberties Union.
15. ^ "Wagafe v. USCIS - Lawsuit Challenging Secret Program Blocking Immigrant Applications". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 2024-04-24.
16. ^ "Wagafe v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 2:17-cv-00094 (W.D. Wash.) | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse". clearinghouse.net. Retrieved 2024-04-24.

* v
* t
* e

Immigration to the United States and related topics

Relevant colonial era,
United States and
international laws

| 18th century|

* Nationality law in the American Colonies
* Plantation Act of 1740
* Naturalization Act of 1790 / 1795 / 1798

|

19th century|

* Naturalization Act of 1802
* Act to Encourage Immigration (1864)
* Civil Rights Act of 1866
* 14th Amendment (1868)
* Naturalization Act of 1870
* Page Act of 1875
* Immigration Act of 1882
* Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
* Scott Act of 1888
* Immigration Act of 1891
* Geary Act of 1892

20th century|

* Immigration Act of 1903
* Naturalization Act of 1906
* Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907
* Immigration Act of 1907
* Immigration Act of 1917
* Immigration Act of 1918
* Emergency Quota Act of 1921
* Cable Act of 1922
* Immigration Act of 1924
* Indian Citizenship Act of 1924
* Philippine Independence Act of 1934
* Filipino Repatriation Act of 1935
* Nationality Act of 1940
* Bracero Program (1942–1964)
* Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943
* War Brides Act of 1945
* Alien Fiancées and Fiancés Act of 1946
* Luce–Celler Act of 1946
* UN Refugee Convention (1951)
* Immigration and Nationality Act 1952 / 1965
* Refugee Act of 1980
* Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
* Family Fairness (1987)
* Amerasian Homecoming Act of 1987
* Immigration Act of 1990
* Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994
* Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
* Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
* Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997
* American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998

21st century|

* American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000
* Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000
* Child Citizenship Act of 2000
* Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000
* Homeland Security Act of 2002
* H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004
* Real ID Act of 2005
* International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005
* Secure Fence Act of 2006
* Emergency Afghan Allies Extension Act of 2014
* Laken Riley Act of 2025

Visas and policies|

* Visa policy
* Permanent residence (Green card)
* Visa Waiver Program
* Temporary protected status (TPS)
* Asylum
* Green Card Lottery
* Central American Minors
* Employment authorization document (EAD card)
* Deferred action
* Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
* Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA)
* Parole
* Keeping Families Together (KFT)
* Adjustment of status
* US-VISIT
* Security Advisory Opinion
* E-Verify
* National Origins Formula
* Expedited removal
* Detention
* Family
* Unaccompanied children
* Trump administration family separation policy
* Trump travel ban

Government
organizations

* Department of Homeland Security
* Immigration and Customs Enforcement
* U.S. Border Patrol (BORTAC)
* U.S. Customs and Border Protection
* U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
* Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
* Executive Office for Immigration Review
* Board of Immigration Appeals
* Office of Refugee Resettlement

Supreme Court cases|

* Chae Chan Ping v. U.S. (1889)
* Nishimura Ekiu v. U.S. (1892)
* Fong Yue Ting v. U.S. (1893)
* U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
* Ozawa v. U.S. (1922)
* U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923)
* Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950)
* Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952)
* Shaughnessy v. Mezei (1953)
* Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972)
* U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975)
* I.N.S. v. St. Cyr (2001)
* Zadvydas v. Davis (2001)
* Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (2011)
* Trump v. Hawaii (2018)
* D.H.S. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (2020)
* D.H.S. v. Thuraissigiam (2020)
* Department of State v. Muñoz (2024)

Related issues
and events

* 2006 protests
* Brooks County, Texas
* Central American migrant caravans
* Economic impact
* Effects
* Eugenics in the United States
* Guest worker program
* Human trafficking
* Human smuggling
* Coyotaje
* Immigration reduction
* Immigration reform
* List of people deported from the United States
* Mexico–United States border crisis
* Mexico–United States border wall
* Labor shortage
* March for America
* Undocumented immigrant population
* Reverse immigration
* Unaccompanied minors from Central America
* Illegal immigration to the United States
* Detention and deportation of American citizens in the second Trump administration

Geography|

* Mexico–United States border
* Canada–United States border
* United States Border Patrol interior checkpoints

Proposed legislation|

* DREAM Act (2001–2010)
* H.R. 4437 (2005)
* McCain–Kennedy (2005)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act 2006
* STRIVE Act (2007)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act 2007
* Uniting American Families Act (2000–2013)
* Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013
* SAFE Act (2015)
* RAISE Act (2017)
* U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021

Immigration stations
and points of entry|

* Angel Island
* Castle Garden
* East Boston
* Ellis Island
* Otay Mesa
* San Ysidro
* Sullivan's Island
* Washington Avenue

Operations|

* "Wetback" (1954)
* "Peter Pan" (1960–1962)
* "Babylift" (1975)
* "Gatekeeper" (1994)
* "Endgame" (2003–2012)
* "Front Line" (2004–2005)
* "Streamline" (2005–present)
* "Return to Sender" (2006–2007)
* "Jump Start" (2006–2008)
* "Phalanx" (2010–2016)
* "Faithful Patriot" (2018–present)

State legislation|

* California DREAM Act (2006–2010)
* Arizona SB 1070 (2010)
* Alabama HB 56 (2011)

Non-governmental
organizations

* Arizona Border Recon
* California Coalition for Immigration Reform
* CASA of Maryland
* Center for Immigration Studies
* Center for Migration Studies of New York
* Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
* Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
* Community Change
* Federation for American Immigration Reform
* Improve The Dream
* Mexica Movement
* Mexicans Without Borders
* Migration Policy Institute
* Minuteman Civil Defense Corps
* Minuteman Project
* National Immigration Forum
* National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC)
* Negative Population Growth
* No More Deaths
* NumbersUSA
* Save Our State
* Utah Compact

Documentaries|

* Borderland (TV series)
* Missing in Brooks County

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template