T5 B64 GAO Visa Docs 1 of 6 Fdr- 5-2-03 GAO Interview Re INS Lookout Unit- Final Policy and Info on Visa Revocations 521

8/14/2019 T5 B64 GAO Visa Docs 1 of 6 Fdr- 5-2-03 GAO Interview Re INS Lookout Unit- Final Policy and Info on Visa Revocat

1/6

9/11 Law Enforcement Privacy

Prepared by: Kate BrentzelDate Prepared: May 2, 2003Reviewed by:

a .Index: Type bundle Index here

DOC Number: Type document number hereDOC Library: Type library name hereJob Code:320172

Record of Interview1C ]INSLookout Unititle Interview wiPurpose To review final policy and data information on visa revocations

Contact Method Inperson interviewContact Place IN S Lookout Unit; 1525 Wilson Blvd., Ste.425Contact Date May 2, 2003

INJg farticipants GAP: Kate Brentzel, Judy McCloskey1Cathy MuhletalerComments/Remarks:W e met with an d Cathy Muhletalerto ask them the following questions:1. What is the mission of the LookoutUnit? What else do they do in addition to revocations?L Jsaid that the main mission of the Lookout Unit is to prevent inadmissible aliens from enteringthe United States, whether they are criminals, terrorists, or some other type of inadmissible person. Thereare several specialized units within the Lookout Unit; for example, there is one unit that coordinates withState's TIPOFF program.2. Does she have written policies/procedures on what to do when she receives notice of a

revocation?Jsaid that she does not have anywritten policies/procedures for handling revocations, although\esaid

revocations should be put into NAILS the day they are received.3. Does she have suggestions for improvingthe notification system between State and INS?(INS

only received 152 out of 240 certificates). Does she think that sending the cables is reliable?(State included INS as addressees on 231 of the cables but only 116 reached the Lookout

I Unit).Jsaid that she receives cables from both posts overseas and from State Department inWashington. Some of the posts from overseas are very ambiguous. For example, she has received cablesfrom Bogota which say that the post "intends to revoke" a visa. This does not indicate to her whether or notthe visa was eventually revoked. It is also confusing when she receives cables from posts in which the postis requesting that State Department in Washington revoke a visa. In that situation, she does not know if the

i revocation ha s happened yet and does no t know if she should post the lookout.Jsaid that she receives from State either (1) the revocation certificate (which is faxed) or (2) therevocation cable (which are sometimes faxed, sometimes mailed directly to her, and sometimes mailed tomain INS and then sent to her via intra-agency mail) or (3) both the faxed revocation certificate and a copyof the cable (through one of aforementioned means). Shesaid that she would prefer to receive just therevocation certificate by fax;she is not as keen on the cables. She said that it would be best if State wouldhave only one, uniform way of notifying her of revocations - she suggested either by fax or by email, andthat perhaps State should keep a log of all notificationssent at their end.

Page 1 Record of Interview


2/6

Law Enforcement Privacy

Prepared by: Kate BrentzelDate Prepared: May 2, 2003Reviewed by:Index: Type bundle index hereDO C Number: Type document number hereDOC Library: Type library name hereJob Code:320172

L jsaid that sh e would also like State to clarify information on the revocation certificate and to I inchide more information on the revocation certificates. For example, she requested of Jim Pritchitt at Statethat he put the last names on the revocation certificates in all capital lettersbecause when an alien had fouror five"names, she did not know which names were to be considered the first names andwhich considered tthe last. Shewould also like State to add the passport number, the country of citizenship as well as the Hcountry of birth, and the visa foil number and possibly information from the alien's visa application, so thattlIN S would have information on his intended itinerary and address in the UnitedStates. VW e mentioned Jthat in several of the 240caseswe reviewed, the individuals' country of \pwasplace of birth, buf| Jwas taking the place of birth andputting it into the country of citizenship fieon the IBIS lookout. We asked her if this error would make it difficult for an inspector at the port of entryto identify the person with the revoked visa. Shesaid that, yes, the inspector could get it wrong. If theperson's citizenship is listed as Mexico when his passport says Argentina, then the inspector might notassume that it's the same person. Shesaid that if State included more data on its revocation certificates,then she could enter more information into the NAILS/IBIS lookout and this would not be a problem.4. Does she think it would be a good idea to look up revocation cases in NIIS to determine if th

\ n was already in the United States and that she would have to notify investigators inBICE or State orFBI of this information? Would she have the resources to do this? Should

\ r unit be responsible for doing this?\\

\ f / \ d her supervisor has just decided that a procedure like this will be put into place. Whenshe; \yill be required to query her systems to determine if the individual alreadyentered the United Stated. Shesaid that she wouldnot query NIIS to do this since data in NIIS is a fewweeks old. She said that the best way to tell ifsomeone had recently entered the UnitedStates is to look at"lane; checks" in IBIS (every time an alien is processed at a seaor air port of entry, the inspector's actions

are recorded in IBIS. She said that while "lane checks" are good fo r information about an alien's most {> / recent entry into the UnitedStates, that they rarely contain information about someone's departure. She said thince I\94s are not collected there.)

Jwonderedwhat the point of this new policy was since she does not think the INS can do," ? anything with the individualswho have already entered the country since the revocation does not takeeffect until the person leaves the United States.We askedj_ jwhat she issupposed to do with the information once she determines that the personis in the country. She said that she would giveit to BICE investigators but that she didn't see the pointofgiving it to them since she didn't think they cbuld doanything with the information. Shesaid that often sheand the BICE investigators do not even know wJjySiate revoked the visa at all; she did hot think it madesense to investigate the individualsonly to find out that State revoked the visa on slim infbrmationAtA5. Which bureau is the Lookout Unit located in?^ ~^ H WxA'v.1A/~y v-*^~N| |said that the Lookout Unit, since it ispart ofinspections, is in the Bureau of Customsano Border,,Protection. \Jfv6. State sent a cable to all its posts stating that on Aug 15, 2002 the VEVK revocation code for

CLASS was created. When did IBIS start to accept VRVK?C i i-v^b* L

r, .Record of Interview


3/6

9/11 Law Enforcement Privacy

Prepared by: Kate Brentzel Index: Type bundle index hereDate Prepared: May 2, 2003 DOC Number: Type document number hereReviewed by: DOC Library: Type library name hereJob Code: 320172

I \dthat the V R V K code came "on-line"for IBIS ineither late September orearly October 2002(that wasxthe earliest date that IBIS would pickup CLASS lookouts with the V R V K code in them).I Isaid that she plans to audit the V R V K soon because she thinks it is only since January orFebruary of 2003 that she has seen State using the code. Shesaid that in a recent meeting with officials fromthe Visa Office, State officials.suggested that they stop faxing certificates of revocation over because theV R V K code would mean that an y revocation they entered into CLASS would automaticallybe uploaded intoIBIS. She^aid that she tojd them that this was a bad idea since CLASS and NAILS only interface weekly andtherefore ft might be possible for an alien with a revoked visa to enter the United States in the time periodbetween when, the CLASS lookout was madeand when it got uploaded into NAILS. (Auditor's note: inaddition to tliie time lag; it would be problematic to rely only on CLASS lookouts for notification purposesbecause State" is hot consistently entering CLASS lookouts on revocation cases anyway. Our data shows thatState neglected to make CLASS lookoutson the revocations in at least 64 of 240cases).I Isaid that prior to the creation of the V R V K code, sh e would enter revocation lookouts as D01 (arefusal code that had been in use for the last 10years). Now she enters all revocation lookouts inNAILS/IBIS as7. Previous to the creation of theVVRVK code, who was responsible at INS for deciding that IBISwould not accept P3Bs and 00 lookouts from State? Whywas it decided that IBIS wouldn'taccept P3B and 00?

I tsaid that we w6vild have to direct this question to IBIS program manager Valerie Isbell. She saidthat CLASS and IBIS codes havehot been changed for the past ten years. She said that it is not always J \l for IN

^to whytheperson is apossible terrorist. The lookout might say"call overseas for more information".1 |I Isaid that this is not information that the inspector at the port of entry can do much with. If it is 3pmEastern Standard Time, the inspector cannot necessarily find anyone to answer the phone at the overseaspost that put the lookout into CLASS.) [said that during his work at ports of entry as an inspector,he hated to see a CLASS lookout for that reason. As an inspector, he needed more information than just"possible terrorist. Call overseas" to deny someone entry. Bothj |and| ~|said that theythought State quasi-refusal lookouts were notactionable - that they frequently did not have enoughderogatory information to back them up.] . [said that he thought State consular officers might put inquasi-refusal lookouts if they read that a certain individual in the newspaper, but that there mightnot be anymore substantial information than that. M s. Muhletaler commented that that is why the V R V K is such animportant code. Shesaid a revocation lookout is "golden" because it is very easy for the inspector todenyentry to someone who does not havea valid travel document; it is much harder to deny someone entry\ e of a possible terrorism link if the lookout does not includeany substantiating evidence.

i She commented that IN S inspectors ar e under a time-pressure to decide whether th e alien should bei admitted or denied entry. However, if need be , sh e said thalt IN S inspectors could hold aliens in the federali inspection area at the port of entry for up to 72 hours. She said that until they ar e admitted, the burdenof

i proof is on the alien to prove he is not a terrorist, bu t once th e alien ha s been admitted, th e burden of proof\ s o n t h e U.S. governmentto prove he is a terrorist.I Igave us an exampleof a time when an INS inspector wanted to deny entry to what he thoughtwas a suspected terrorist at a port of entry at lam Sunday morningf Jcalled Jim Pritchitt (fromState) at lam in the morningto get a verbal revocation. Mr.Pritchitt verbally agreed to the revocation and

Page 3 Record ofInterview


4/6

9 / 1 1 Law Enforcement Privacy

Prepared by: Kate Brentzel Index: Type bundle Index hereDate Prepared; May 2, 2003 DOC Number: Type document number hereReviewed by: ' .. .. DOC Library: Type library name here' " - . . . . _ " " - - . . . . _ Job Code: 320172said tha t he would have thfr actual revocation certificate signed on Monday morning but that he wouldbackdate it for Sunday morningj |then .told the inspector at the P OE to consider the visa revokedand that he could tur n the alien aro und at the border j >vas upset that, when the paper revocationfinally arrived f rom State, Mr. Pritchitt had not backdated it to Sunday morning; thus the alien's visa was notactually revoked wh en he was turned aroun d at the border and what INS had done with not legal.| \paid that it could beconfusing for inspectors at theports ofentry ifState issues a new visa to anindividual after a revocation.8. We asked) |a range of questions about the data that she had provided us with a fewweeks prior.

I paid that although her unit makes the entry into NAILS, that NAILS interfaces with IBIS atmidnight every night, so therefore the IBIS printouts that she gave us are synonymous with the NAILS entryShe could not pull up the IBIS entry with the NAILS entry.W e asked] labout several codes that w e saw in the NIIS printouts. She said thatDT = detained at inspectionDE = deferred inspection; the alien was sent to secondary or told to wait in the inspection area because theinspector wanted to getmore information before making a decision to admit him or not - court records, forexample.WD = the alien withd re w his application to en try the United States. T his r eflects situations in which theinspector sees that the visa has been cancelled and tells the alien tha t he can withdraw his application toenter.W e had seen the codes DX and UU but she did not know what these codes were.W e noted that in several of the 240 cases, the CLASS records that we received f rom State showed thatvarious individuals had been intercepted or that there w ere ordered r emovals f or people. W e asked her whythe IBIS and NIIS pr intouts she gave us did not contain this inform ation. She said that this was because wehad only asked her for the revocation lookouts; theref or e some of these other actions w ere no t reflected inthose printouts. She said that if we saw an INS record in CLASS that showed an ordered removal, forexample, that we should assume that that is what occurred.W e asked her why in case #164 the alien was admitted into the country on December 28,2001 even thou ghthere was a 3B terr orism lookout on him dated D ecember 20, 2001. She said that even though there was alookout on him, the lookout is not always enough info rm ation for the inspector to deny entry. Sh e also saidthat he arrived in the United States on D ecember 27 but was not admitted until Decem ber 28, indicating thatsome deliberation did take place. Sh e noted that a visa revocation on the individual did not occur untilFebruary 2002.

Page 4 . Record of Interview


5/6

9/11 Personal Privacy'RaThenn^Breritzel - V R V K Code andProcess LAX Pa9e1,'|

From: I | \: "[email protected]" Date: 5/21/03 8:37AM |Subject: VRVK Code and Process iCC: "/vmol-fiathorinoMlhlptalpr atHQ-IRM-001%nS" '


6/6

Katherine Brentzel - 01text-plain.txt PageT]

Kate;As discussed yesterday, you had mentioned in earlier meetings that thecurrent DO S procedure an d process for the visa revocations should be workingbetter an d that most of our research wa s highlightingpast problems. Th eexample of the process still not being improved is being faxed to youroffice, as requested, and is detailed below:On May 6, 2003, INS intercepted the subject alien at a port of entry. Hewas the subject of a TIPOFF lookout, which you are familiar with. INR/TIPOFFhad a hard copy of the s ubject's visa revocation which wa s signed on March21, 2003. When I queried the TECS/IBIS system the revocation was not in thedatabase, no r does the Lookout Unit have an y record of receiving a hard copy.

INR faxed the revocation to the Lookout Unit and we refused the alien'sentry into the United States.In summary, nothing has changed despite the GAO Audit and the same threeissues are still problematic:1) the format of the "Letter of Revocation"has not changed, so it isdifficult to tell the last name and the person's citizenship, nor is otheridentifying information being provided such as passport number and visainformation;2) the overall procedure of getting the revocations to the Lookout Unit hasno t changed; we still receive various cables, faxes, etc..3) CLASS does not seem to by uploading the VRVK code to the TECS/IBISreal-time interface and the weekly NAILS interface, which means that DOScould still be using an incorrect visa revocation code.Lisa Custer

Documents

T5 B64 GAO Visa Docs 1 of 6 Fdr- 5-2-03 GAO Interview Re INS Lookout Unit- Final Policy and Info on Visa Revocations 521