T5 B64 GAO Visa Docs 1 of 6 Fdr- 5-22-03 GAO Exit Conference w INS to Obtain Views on Findings 523

8/14/2019 T5 B64 GAO Visa Docs 1 of 6 Fdr- 5-22-03 GAO Exit Conference w INS to Obtain Views on Findings 523

1/5

9/11 Law Enforcement Privacy

Prepared by: J McCloskeyDate Prepared: 5/23/03,w index: INS 2.15DOC Number: 888595Job Code: 320172

Record of InterviewTitle Exit Conference w ith Immigration and N aturalization Service(INS)Purpose To obtain INSofficials views on our findings regarding the INSrole in the visa revocation process.Contact M ethod In personContact Place INS Building, Room 3241Contact Date 5/22/03Participants Dept. of Homeland SecurityCathy Muhletaler, ICE/BCIS legal (formerly IN S legal)Tim Goyer, CBP/Lookout Unit (formerly INS Inspections)I 1CBP/Lookout UnitJames Hayes ICE/INV (formerly IN S National Security Unit)nlOIAJCBP/Audit LiaisonGAOJohn Brummet, Assistant DirectorJudy McC loskey, Senior A nalystNancy Finley, O GCMary Moutsos, O GC

Comments/Remarks:W e provided the INS officials with ou r preliminary findings in written form (DM#887190) andasked for their response. The officials made co mm ents on the following findings (finding areitalicized, INS responses are in regular font).

The IN S and the FBI did not routinely attempt to locate or investigate any of the individualswho entered the United States either before or after their visa were revoked and who may stillremain in the country; thus, they did not attempt to clear, remove, or prosecute any of them.Due to congressional interest in specific cases, IN S investigators located fo ur of these peoplein the United States but did not attempt to locate other revoked visa holders who may haveentered the country. IN S officials told us that they generally did not investigate these casesbecause it would be challenging to remove these individuals unless they were in violation oftheir immigration status even if the agency could locate them. A visa revocation b y itself is nota basis for removal.

Page 1 Record of Interview


2/5


\\dby: J McCloskey Index: INS 2.15Date Prepared: 5/23/03 DOC Number: 888595i \b Code: 320172

i Mr. Hayes said that the last sentence of this paragraph is the key reason why INSdoes not: routinely follow up on revocation cases. He said that we "bu ried it here" at the end of the

i paragraph and should move it up in the paragraph.Jsaid that INSpriority for following up on individuals is when the intelligence

community comes to them and asks for assistance. In those cases, the revocation is irrelevant. INS Lookout Unit Did Not Consistently Receive Notifications

Table 1: INS Lookout Unit Receipt of Revocation Notification for 240 Cases

Cases in which the Lookout Unit received notificationvia faxed revocation certificatevia revocation cable onlyCases in which the Lookout Unit did not receive notification1971504743

Source: GAO analysis o f INS Lookout Unit documents.Lookout Unit officials had documentation to show that 150 faxed revocation certificates werereceived in the unit. These faxed certificates reached the unit, on average, within one to twodays of State enacting th e revocation. For 90 cases, however, th e documentation provided to usdid not indicate that th e Lookout Unit ha d received a fax. This was mitigated in 47 o f these casesby the receipt of a revocation cable, although this backup method of notification was less timelythan the fax. In cases where the cable was the only notification received at the Lookout Unit, ittook, o n average, 12 days for the Lookout Unit to receive the cable, although in one case it took29 days. According to an official from the INS communication center, because th e cables weremarked "information only," they were routed through the Inspections division first, which thenwas supposed to forward them to the Lookout Unit. He told us that if th e cables had beenmarked as "action " or "urgent," they would have been sent immediately to the Lookout Unit.

I jsaid that nothing has changed recently regarding State's inconsistency in notifying IN Sof visa revocations on terrorism grounds, either by fax for by cable. She also told us that State stillis not putting the VRVK code into IBIS.

In some cases, Lookout Unit officials misinterpreted information on State's revocationcertificate and, as a result, entered incorrect information on an individual in IBIS that couldhave prevented an IN S inspector from stopping the individual at the border. This was becausethe revocation certificates listed th e individual's date and place of birth but did not list hi snationality, even though State had this information. For 21 of the 240 cases, Lookout Unitofficials assumed that an individual's place of birth and nationality were th e same and thusentered th e individual's place of birth as his country of citizenship in the IBIS lookout, eventhough this was incorrect.

Page 2 Record of Interview


3/5


Prepared by: J McCloskey Index: INS2.15Date Prepared: 5/23/03 OOCNumber: 888595Job Code:320172I Isaid that the lookout unit did not misinterpret information the revocation certificates.She said that the certificates did not clearly identify the individuals' place of birth. (Note: After themeeting, I reviewed all 21cases andchanged the wording of the draft report text to reflect thatsome, but not all, were misinterpreted by INS.)

'Data in the Nonimmigrant Information System (MIS) do not have complete arrival anddeparture records for all non-U.S. citizens. It records legal arrivals and departures of foreigncitizens through th e collection of 1-94 forms, which aliens are required to fill out and turn in toinspectors at air and sea ports of entries but not a t landports (Canadiansan d U.S. permanentresidents are not required to fill out 1-94 forms when they enter th e United States). NIIS m aynot have departure data, fo r aliens if they fail to turn in the top portion of their 1-94 when theydepart."Top" should read "bottom." Aliens turn in the bottom portion of their 1-94.

IN S data show that IN S inspectors admitted a t least four people after their visas were revokedeven though they had received notification from State and had posted lookouts in the INSwatch list. Three of them have since departed but one may still remain. IN S officials said thatinspectors did not detect these people at the border because (Need IN S info).I |said she would need to know the specifics of each case before she could comment onhow or why these individuals were admitted to the United States. She and Mr.Goyer said that theydid not know how an INSinspector could let someone in the country if the appropriate lookoutswere lookouts posted in IBIS. (Note: I reviewed each of the four cases after the meeting, andfound that only one had appropriate lookouts posted. The other three lookouts had not beenposted properly for various reasons, as explained in the new report draft.)

State would also have to provide notice of the revocation, along with supporting evidence, to theIN S so that the appropriate agencies can deal with it. The information sharing would allow INS tonotify its inspectors at ports of entry so that they could prevent the individuals from entering theUnited States. It would also allow INS to determine whether the person had already entered thecountry, and, if so, to locate, investigate, and, if warranted, remove them from the country. Insome of the revocation cases, the U.S. government would be better off just monitoring theindividuals and ensuring that they leave the country. At that point, they would not hold a valid visaan d could no t enter the country again. I f INS were to try to remove the person, the removalproceedings could extend their stay in the country for a long time.Page 3 Record of Interview


4/5

Prepared by: J McCloskey Index: INS2.15Date Prepared: 5/23/03 DOC Number: 888595Job Code: 320172

The IN S could, however, begin removal proceedings against an alien based on the evidencerelating to the reason for the revocation. Officials in the National Security Division oflNS'sO f f i c e of General Counsel told us that the INS did not typically begin such proceedings againstaliens who entered th e United States before their visas were revoked because, practicallyspeaking, there was little the INS could do if the aliens were in compliance with the terms oftheir admission. They said that removing aliens on terrorist-related grounds could bechallenging since aliens involved in removal proceedings are afforded a level of due process,including proceedings before an immigration judge that aliens applying for visas overseas donot receive. According to INS officials, during such proceedings th e United States may have todivulge th e classified or law-enforcement sensitive information on which th e initial visarevocation was based and that may jeopardize ongoing investigations or reveal la wenforcement or intelligence agencies' sources and methods.

The officials said that this paragraph misrepresents their position on removal proceedings. They /said that attempting to remove these aliens on the underlying reason for the revocationthat is, jthe terrorism chargemay not be possible for various reasons. First, the State Departmentprovides very little information or evidence relating to the terrorist activities when it sends the

Arevocation notice to INS. Withoutsufficient evidence linking th e alien to any terrorist related j f \ ' ,/ Y //activities the INS cannot institute removal proceedings based on that charge. They reiterated that y IState needs to share information with INS so that it could determine whether it can or shouldinitiate a removal proceeding on terrorism grounds.

Second, the officials told us that even if there is evidence, sometimes the agency that is the sourceof the informationwill not authorize the information's release because it could jeopardize ongoinginvestigations or reveal sources and methods. Third, sometimes the evidence that is used tosupport a discretionary revocation from the Secretary of State is not sufficient to support a chargeof removing an alien in immigration proceedings before an immigrat ion judge. As the officialsexplained, w h e n the person is applying for a visa, the burden is on the alien to prove that he or sheis eligible for a visa. Once that person has entered the UnitedStates, the burden of proof shifts sothat the government must go throughdue process and have sufficient evidence to remove him or jher.

Documents

T5 B64 GAO Visa Docs 1 of 6 Fdr- 5-22-03 GAO Exit Conference w INS to Obtain Views on Findings 523