THE SWORN STATEMENT USED IN EXPEDITED REMOVAL
The I-867A/B record can contain the questions and answers CBP relies on during expedited removal. Because later visa and waiver decisions may depend heavily on this interview, the exact wording and context can be critical.
8 C.F.R. §235.3 requires a record of facts and statements in covered expedited-removal proceedings using Form I-867A and Form I-867B.
The regulation states that the examining immigration officer records the alien’s identity, alienage and inadmissibility and obtains a signed statement concerning the correctness of the information recorded.
The I-867 record is more than routine airport questioning. In an expedited-removal case, it can become part of the formal evidentiary basis for the removal order.
Form I-860 states the expedited-removal charges and order. The I-867 record can contain the factual interview underlying those charges.
For that reason, the two records should ordinarily be reviewed together rather than treating the I-860 as a complete description of what happened.
A later dispute can turn on whether the traveler actually made the statement CBP attributes to the person, what question prompted the answer and whether the traveler understood the question.
When CBP finds inadmissibility under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i), the sworn statement may be cited as evidence that the traveler knowingly gave false information about work, relationships, travel purpose or another material fact.
A later challenge should therefore analyze the actual recorded representation rather than merely asserting that the traveler never intended to deceive.
An inaccurate record does not automatically establish that the removal order or inadmissibility finding can be vacated. But significant problems can justify closer legal analysis.
A CBP FOIA request can seek records relating to the port-of-entry encounter, including responsive expedited-removal and inspection documents maintained by CBP.
Disclosure can vary based on the records and applicable FOIA exemptions, but requesting the record is often an important first step when the traveler did not keep the paperwork.
No. Secondary inspection is broader than expedited removal. I-867A/B is specifically associated with the expedited-removal procedure described in 8 C.F.R. §235.3.
A signature is important evidence, but a later legal analysis can still examine the accuracy, context, interpretation and legal significance of the statement.
The form itself does not create the statutory ground, but statements recorded there can be evidence used to support a finding under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i).
Usually that is prudent when the prior border refusal involved expedited removal or a serious inadmissibility allegation, because later answers should be accurate and consistent with the government record.
These government materials provide the principal statutory, regulatory or agency framework discussed on this page.
Reviewing the I-867 alongside the I-860, prior visa applications and supporting documents can reveal what CBP actually relied on.