DHS OIG, OIG-08-79, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program (2008)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Office of Inspector General U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program OIG-08-79 July 2008 Office of Inspector General U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528 July 24, 2008 Preface The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. This report addresses the management, value added, and expansion of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program. It is based on interviews with employees and officials of relevant agencies, direct observations, and a review of applicable documents.

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. It is our hope that this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We express our appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. Richard L. Skinner Inspector General Table of Contents/Abbreviations Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................1 Background ................................................................................................................................2 Results of Review ......................................................................................................................9 Law Enforcement Expertise and Resources Add Layer of Security to Visa Process..........9 Risk-based Framework Prioritizes Visa Security Program Expansion Efforts .................14 Visa Security Program Management Should Enhance Performance Measurement .........21 Visa Security Officer Training Prepares Agents for Deployment .....................................26 Management Comments and OIG Analysis ............................................................................28 Appendices Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.............................................................36 Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report .............................................37 Appendix C: Department of State Comments to the Draft Report..................................42 Appendix D: Major Contributors to this Report..............................................................52 Appendix E: Report Distribution ....................................................................................53 Abbreviations ARSO–I DHS DOS FLETC FY ICE NSDD–38 OIA OIG SAO TECS VSP VSU Assistant Regional Security Officer–Investigations Department of Homeland Security Department of State Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Fiscal Year U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement National Security Decision Directive–38 Office of International Affairs Office of Inspector General Security Advisory Opinion Treasury Enforcement Communications System Visa Security Program Visa Security Unit OIG Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General Executive Summary The Visa Security Program was established in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to increase the security of the visa process at U.S. embassies and consulates.

The program enhances national security by preventing terrorists, criminals, and other ineligible applicants from receiving visas, and maximizing the visa process as a counterterrorism tool. We reviewed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) management of the program, the coordination between ICE special agents and Department of State officers overseas, and how the addition of ICE special agents has affected visa security. We also reviewed expansion plans and predeployment training. The program assigns experienced special agents to Visa Security Units overseas to review visa applications, initiate investigations, and provide advice and training to consular officers.

Agents bring valuable resources to posts and add a layer of security to the visa process. ICE is improving its management of the program continually. For example, officials developed a risk-based framework to prioritize program expansion and site selection. In addition, they developed automated tools to facilitate some program activities and limit the amount of manual data entry performed by agents.

Program managers also constantly update the program’s training course to keep up with changing trends and address participant suggestions. However, some program areas could be improved. We are recommending that program managers enhance recording, tracking, monitoring, verification, analysis, and reporting of visa security activities in the current tracking system while developing a new tracking system. In addition, program managers must provide training and guidance to field personnel on new procedures and document the program’s training course curriculum.

ICE agreed with our findings and concurred with our recommendations. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Background Foundation for the Visa Security Program Nineteen terrorists applied for and obtained legitimate U.S. visas in the months prior to September 11, 2001, facilitating their entry into the United States. The resulting events of 9/11 illustrate the importance of a secure visa process to our national security. The Visa Security Program (VSP) was established to increase the security of the visa process.

Section 428 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue regulations, administer, and enforce immigration and nationality laws relating to visas, and to refuse individual visas according to law.1 In addition, Section 428 authorizes the Secretary to assign Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel to visa issuing diplomatic posts to review individual visa applications, initiate investigations of visa security-related matters, and provide advice and training to consular officers.2 Section 428 specifically requires that DHS personnel be assigned to Saudi Arabia to review all visa applications submitted in Saudi Arabia prior to adjudication.3 VSP began operations in Saudi Arabia in October 2003. Pursuant to Section 428, DHS and Department of State (DOS) developed a memorandum of understanding concerning Section 428 implementation. The September 2003 memorandum delineates the roles and responsibilities of the departments regarding the visa issuance process and visa security activities, as well as the coordination between the two at overseas posts. History of the Visa Security Program DHS created a Visa Security Unit (VSU) within its Border and Transportation Security Directorate to implement and manage Section 428 requirements.

On October 31, 2003, DHS announced the reorganization of its international activities, including the establishment of an Office of International Affairs (OIA) within ICE. In January 2004, as part of the reorganization, the VSU transferred to ICE OIA and assumed responsibility for the operational requirements of Section 428, including visa security operations both overseas and in the United States. Responsibility for visa policy initially remained with the Border and 1 P.L. 107-296, Section 428(b)(1) 2 Section 428 (e)(1) and (e)(2) 3 Section 428 (i) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Transportation Security Directorate, but the DHS Directorate of Policy assumed this responsibility in 2005 when the DHS Secretary eliminated the Border and Transportation Security Directorate. ICE OIA initially was established within the ICE Office of Investigations.

Following an internal ICE reorganization in February 2007, ICE OIA moved out of the Office of Investigations and now reports directly to the Office of the Assistant Secretary. Once the mandated VSU offices in Saudi Arabia were open, managers assessed other potential overseas locations for program expansion. Senior DOS officials at some posts approved establishing a VSU at their post; others resisted. Program expansion in 2004 also was retarded by insufficient appropriated funds.

In October 2005, VSUs were established in Manila, Philippines; Abu Dhabi and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates; and Islamabad, Pakistan. VSU Cairo began operations in Egypt in January 2007. VSU operations began in Caracas, Venezuela, and Montreal, Canada, in March and May 2007, respectively. VSU Hong Kong was established in China in September 2007.

In November 2007, VSU operations began in Casablanca, Morocco. Visa Security Program Operations The VSP mission is to enhance national security and public safety by preventing terrorists, criminals, and other ineligible applicants from receiving U.S. visas, and maximizing the visa process as a counterterrorism tool. The program’s goals include: 1) Preventing known threats to national security from exploiting the visa process; 2) Identifying “not yet known” threats to national security—threats that do not appear in any government databases or watchlists; 3) Applying law enforcement expertise and capabilities to the visa process; 4) Identifying and addressing systemic threats and vulnerabilities in the visa process; and, 5) Supporting the timely processing of visas for legitimate applicants. VSP accomplishes these goals by assigning ICE special agents with expertise in immigration law and counterterrorism to visa issuing U.S. diplomatic posts overseas to perform visa security activities.

While DOS consular officers continue to adjudicate all visa applications, the VSP complements the DOS visa screening process with law enforcement resources not available to consular officers to ensure ineligible applicants do not receive U.S. visas. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program The primary visa security activity conducted by ICE special agents assigned to VSUs is the screening and vetting of visa applicants to determine the applicant’s risk profile and visa eligibility. Screening is a largely automated process of checking applicant biographic information against the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). TECS is an automated enforcement and inspections system that provides a large database of information for law enforcement and border inspection purposes, and serves a case management function for ICE.

TECS supports DHS and other federal users, and can exchange information automatically with several U.S. government systems, including the DOS Consular Lookout and Support System. Screening identifies those applicants whose name or date of birth matches a record in a government database or watchlist. According to VSP performance data, VSUs screened more than 502,250 visa applicants in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007. Screened applicants with exact or possible matches are then vetted prior to determining eligibility for a visa.

Vetting involves additional research and investigation of the visa applicant by an ICE special agent. Vetting could include conducting more in-depth searches in law enforcement databases and other information systems, examining documents, interviewing the applicant, and consulting with consular, law enforcement, or other officials as needed. Agents assigned to VSUs also might perform in-depth analysis of the visa applicant and the applicant’s sponsors, associates, family members, and business. This analysis might involve using a variety of information systems, investigative tools and techniques, and collateral requests to domestic ICE offices.

In addition to visa applicants with potential matches, agents also vet some applicants whose names did not match watchlists; these additional vettings are based on post-specific case selection guidelines. According to VSP performance data, VSUs vetted more than 135,500 visa applicants in FY 2007. In addition to screening and vetting visa applicants, ICE special agents assigned to VSUs initiate investigations of activity involving threats to national security and immigration fraud, generate leads, and provide support for domestic ICE investigations. Participation in law enforcement and other working groups at post provides a forum for ICE special agents to disseminate information on threats, trends, and intelligence to other law enforcement and intelligence agencies at post.

ICE special agents also conduct liaison with host country law enforcement officials to share and receive information. As required by Section 428, ICE special agents assigned to VSUs provide advice and training to consular officers about security threats relating to the adjudication of visa applications. Several VSU officials said that most U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 4 of this advice and training occurs informally as consular officers consult with ICE special agents on individual visa applications. ICE special agents assigned to VSUs provide interpretation and expertise in responding to questions regarding an applicant’s eligibility for a visa, which enhances the consular officer’s ability to identify threats when adjudicating visas.

In addition to informal discussions with consular officers, ICE special agents assigned to VSUs identify and monitor the threat environment and trends in the visa applicant pool specific to their post and host country. They then develop formal, targeted training and briefings to inform consular officers and others about threats to the visa process. Examples of topics covered in these briefings include fraud trends in specific visa categories and how to identify fraudulent documents and imposters. Non- consular embassy personnel, host country airport officials, and others also benefit from this advice and training.

According to VSP performance data, VSUs conducted 83 formal training sessions for consular officers, non-consular embassy personnel, and others in FY 2007. Coordination with the Department of State VSP officials regularly interact and coordinate with DOS officials at headquarters and overseas posts during the program expansion and site selection process and when establishing new VSUs. Interaction also occurs in the course of conducting day-to-day visa security operations. Bureaus of Consular Affairs and Diplomatic Security The Bureau of Consular Affairs is responsible for visa operations, the welfare and protection of U.S. citizens abroad, issuing passports to citizens, protecting U.S. border security, and facilitating legitimate travel to the United States.

Consular officers overseas are responsible for issuing nonimmigrant and immigrant visas. More than 6.4 million nonimmigrant visas and approximately 431,000 immigrant visas were issued in FY 2007. The Office of Consular Fraud Prevention Programs formulates, coordinates, and promulgates policies and practices related to passport and visa anti-fraud programs. The Consular Fraud Prevention Program directs the consular anti-fraud program and develops and provides anti-fraud training for passport agents, consular officers, DHS, and representatives of other federal agencies.

The program also provides instruction for consular officers in visa sections abroad on the operational aspects of the fraud function. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is the security and law enforcement arm of DOS. The Diplomatic Security Criminal Investigative Division conducts criminal investigations of visa and passport fraud, both domestically and abroad. These federal felonies are often committed in connection with more serious crimes, such as international terrorism, narcotics trafficking, organized crime, alien smuggling, money laundering, pedophilia, and murder.

Countless people attempt to obtain U.S. visas illegally each year. Diplomatic security investigates and coordinates international visa fraud cases including fraudulent issuance, procurement, counterfeiting, and forgery of U.S. visas. Diplomatic security works closely with consular affairs on visa fraud cases. The Diplomatic Security Overseas Criminal Investigator Program has placed 33 special agents at embassies abroad specifically to conduct passport and visa fraud investigations.

A 2004 memorandum of understanding between consular affairs and diplomatic security covers their work. Agents, known as Assistant Regional Security Officers–Investigations, or ARSO–Is, are assigned to those embassies where high volumes of fraudulent documents have been detected. Their mission includes investigating visa and passport fraud in order to protect the visa adjudication process by disrupting criminal and terrorist mobility. Working with Consular Officers at Overseas Posts The consular section of U.S. embassies and consulates is responsible for adjudicating visa applications and issuing visas to non-U.S. citizens who need a visa to travel to the United States.

In processing a visa application, consular officers review the application, conduct automated name checks against watchlists of known terrorist or criminal suspects, obtain fingerprints, and interview the visa applicant. The consular officer then decides to approve or deny the application, or to request additional security checks or information before adjudicating the application. ICE special agents assigned to VSUs conduct visa security activities in addition to the consular process. When establishing a VSU at an overseas post, VSP officials work closely with consular officials to determine how best to incorporate VSU activities into the visa process while minimizing their effect on the flow of the issuance process.

The logistics of the consular visa process can vary slightly by post depending on several factors, including the volume or type of visa applications or the number of available U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 6 consular officers. Therefore, VSUs remain flexible and work with each individual post to coordinate the optimal procedures and timing for performing visa security activities as well as receiving referrals regarding individual visa applicants from consular officers. ICE special agents assigned to VSUs also coordinate with the consular section’s designated fraud prevention manager. At many posts, fraud prevention responsibilities are a collateral duty assigned to a consular officer at post; other posts have full-time fraud prevention managers, or fraud prevention units, who concentrate on detecting fraud in visa applications.

If a consular officer or fraud prevention manager suspects a fraud case could have links to terrorism, the case is referred to the VSU. In addition, if the VSU investigates such a case and determines it involves fraud but no links to terrorism, the VSU returns the case to the consular section for further fraud investigation by the fraud prevention manager. The Security Advisory Opinion Process Consular officers perform additional security checks—called Security Advisory Opinions (SAO)—prior to adjudicating applications that meet specific criteria for extra scrutiny. The SAO process is a multi agency review process managed by DOS.

Consular officers electronically submit requests to DOS for a specific type of SAO. Depending on the type of SAO requested, the request is forwarded to other government agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation or Central Intelligence Agency. After running name checks on the applicant, the respective agencies provide the resulting information to DOS for a determination on whether the applicant should be granted a visa. Currently, VSP headquarters is involved in the SAO process when DOS disagrees with another agency’s determination regarding the applicant.

In these cases, VSP headquarters reviews the information and acts as a mediator to reach a resolution on the applicant’s eligibility for a visa. In May 2007, Congress appropriated funds to the VSP to establish an SAO review unit within VSP headquarters. VSP management officials currently are assessing how best to incorporate VSP more fully into the SAO process. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Working with Diplomatic Security at Overseas Posts The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is the security and law enforcement arm of DOS.

Diplomatic security protects people, facilities, and information at U.S. diplomatic posts around the world and at domestic DOS locations. Regional security officers coordinate each post’s Law Enforcement Working Group. Diplomatic security agents conduct a variety of investigations including investigations of passport and visa fraud. Under the ARSO-I program, diplomatic security assigns ARSO–Is to conduct passport and visa fraud investigations in consular sections at posts with high occurrences of fraudulent travel documents.

DOS officials said that ARSO–Is usually investigate suspected fraud rings or criminal enterprises. If an ARSO–I suspects a link to terrorism and there is a VSU at post, the ARSO–I coordinates with the VSU for further investigation of the potential terrorism aspects of the case. In these types of cases, the VSU and ARSO–I might conduct a joint investigation under their respective authorities in a task force-like effort. Approval of Permanent Positions at Overseas Posts Through the National Security Decision Directive–38 (NSDD–38) process, DOS chiefs of mission consider VSP requests to establish permanent positions at overseas posts.

The NSDD-38 process is an important tool DOS uses to regulate the size of the staffs at embassies. It requires agencies proposing changes in the size, composition, or mandate of their staffs to take a “lean approach” that aligns with the embassy’s performance plan goals, security situation, attendant costs, and administrative support implications. DOS evaluates several factors, including whether adding DHS personnel at post is necessary to perform the job, the availability of both classified and unclassified office space, and personnel security. VSP officials receive an indication of the likelihood of the chief of mission approving an NSDD–38 request during consultations with DOS officials during the VSP site selection process.

If approval of a new VSU at a post is deemed to be likely, DHS approves the proposed VSP positions and submits a formal NSDD–38 application to the DOS Office of Management and Rightsizing. The chief of mission then has 21 days to consider and respond to the NSDD–38 request. We were told DOS responds to approximately 25% of ICE NSDD–38 requests within 21 days. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program ICE interacts with DOS during the NSDD–38 process to respond to questions or provide additional information.

Results of Review Law Enforcement Expertise and Resources Add Layer of Security to Visa Process Incorporating regular law enforcement screening and vetting of visa applicants into the visa process adds an additional layer of security to the DOS consular visa adjudication process. Consular officers interview visa applicants to verify and complete information on applications, conduct automated name checks against watchlists of known terrorists and criminals, and obtain fingerprints and a digital photograph of the applicant. The VSP complements these efforts by assigning ICE special agents to posts to screen visa applicants and further vet selected applicants to identify terrorist or criminal suspects who are “not yet known” or identified as such and stop them from reaching the United States. Visa Security Activities Require Agents to Be Present at Post Some DOS headquarters officials have said that ICE special agents do not need to be posted overseas to conduct their visa security activities.

The DOS officials said ICE special agents are able to access the law enforcement databases and information systems used in the screening and vetting process remotely. VSP managers said that experienced law enforcement agents assigned overseas provide unique added value at overseas posts. ICE special agents assigned to VSUs use their expertise in immigration and nationality law, investigations, document examination, intelligence research, and counterterrorism to complement the consular visa adjudication process with law enforcement vetting and investigation. In addition, ICE special agents assigned to VSUs at post focus on identifying “not yet known” terrorists and criminal suspects and preventing them from reaching the United States.

To perform visa security activities effectively requires ICE special agents to be assigned to overseas posts. While the initial VSU screening process is automated, the vetting process requires a hands-on presence at post. During the vetting process, ICE special agents need access to relevant documents, such as the visa application and passport, as well as financial, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 9 employment, or other supporting documents. For example, three long-term residents of a country with a VSU applied for visas to visit the United States.

Consular and VSU system checks resulted in no alerts on the applicants. An ICE special agent assigned to a VSU reviewed the visa application packages, including employment records, and determined that the applicants had merged their personal bank accounts with their employer’s bank account. Through further investigation, the agent identified a link from the employer to a company identified by the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist and Foreign Terrorist Organization. Because an agent was assigned to the VSU at post, a potential terrorism link was identified, the applicants’ visas were denied, and further investigation could be performed to identify other related companies.

In addition to the visa application package, ICE special agents assigned to VSUs at overseas posts have access to the visa applicant in order to conduct a law enforcement interview. An agent might decide to interview a visa applicant to verify or expand on specific details of the application, or because the applicant might be able to provide additional information for an ongoing investigation. For example, an applicant applied for a student visa at a VSU post, and based on available information, the consular officer initially approved the application. Because the applicant fit VSU post-specific case selection criteria, the agent thoroughly vetted and interviewed the applicant.

The interview of the applicant provided information on the applicant’s uncle, who was a subject of a Joint Terrorism Task Force investigation. On the pretense of establishing the applicant’s eligibility for a student visa, the ICE special agent interviewed the uncle. Because the VSU was at post, new information was provided for the Joint Terrorism Task Force investigation, and as a result of the agent’s recommendation, the applicant’s student visa application was denied by the consular officer. Other VSU activities also require that ICE special agents be assigned to VSUs at overseas posts.

Agents must be in the host country to appreciate fully the local threat conditions. Agents use their experience, as well as consultations with consular officers, other law enforcement or intelligence officials at post, and host country officials to identify and monitor threats, trends, and tactics. In addition, ICE special agents assigned to VSUs receive non-visa special requests to perform basic screening and vetting of individuals who are not visa applicants. These special requests could come from other DHS components, the DOS Regional U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Security Officer, or other officials at post.

ICE special agents at posts also have cleared derogatory information on some visa applicants, allowing their visas to be approved. ICE special agents assigned to VSUs at overseas posts have produced a variety of visa security results. As a result of screening and vetting activities, agents recommended denial of 750 visa applications in FY 2007. Agents also identified 49 “not yet known” terrorists and created 68 watchlist nominations, 933 lookouts, and 557 subject records in FY 2007.

The following table provides a breakdown of selected VSU results for each post for FY 2007. Selected FY 2007 Post-by-Post VSU Results Recommended Denials2 “Not Yet Knowns” Identified 0 0 0 0 3 37 1 8 49 Post Abu Dhabi Cairo1 Caracas1 Dubai Islamabad Manila Montreal1 Riyadh Totals 1 Totals for these posts do not include all of FY 2007. VSU operations began in Cairo, Caracas, and Montreal in January, March, and May 2007, respectively. 2 Includes Prescreen, SAO, and Post-Adjudication VSU Recommended Denials.

Watchlist Nominations 1 0 0 0 18 41 0 8 68 Lookouts Created 101 20 18 41 235 395 6 117 933 95 263 16 35 5 283 14 39 750 Subject Records Created 59 31 31 16 133 96 29 162 557 Visa Security Units Bring Valuable Resources to Consular Officers Consular officers have access to two key DOS information systems, the Consular Consolidated Database and the Consular Lookout and Support System, which they use during the visa adjudication process. However, they do not have access to the principal DHS law enforcement information system, TECS. ICE special agents assigned to VSUs bring access to DHS and other law enforcement systems—which often contain sensitive law enforcement information, including information related to ongoing investigations—to post. Agents provide information, as well as interpretation of the information, from these systems to assist consular officers in making an adjudication decision.

Some of the potentially derogatory information in TECS automatically replicates into the DOS Consular Lookout and Support System. Consular officers receive alerts when an U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 11 applicant’s name, date, and place of birth or passport number, date, and place of issue appear to be sufficiently similar to data in their lookout system. These applications then receive additional scrutiny to resolve the eligibility issues that pertain to the information. Both ICE and DOS officials said that consular officers regularly consult with agents regarding information they find on individual applicants.

ICE special agents assigned to VSUs interpret and explain for consular officers the law enforcement-related alerts that occur, and can often further investigate a specific visa applicant at the request of a consular officer. Consular and other DOS officials at posts we visited said they were glad to have ICE special agents assigned to VSUs at their posts. Many said they were initially concerned that agents would be looking over the shoulders of consular officers and checking their work. However, they said they were pleasantly surprised to discover that this was not the case and that agents bring additional resources to post to support existing consular operations.

Several consular officials said that ICE special agents assigned to VSUs add a second line of defense to ensure that terrorists, criminals, and other ineligible applicants do not receive U.S. visas. DOS officials also said that if consular officers had access to TECS and other DHS systems, they would be able to obtain the information they need to adjudicate visa applications on their own. ICE officials agree that DOS personnel should have access to some DHS systems, but said that agents would still be necessary to interpret most search results. ICE officials also said that there would be sensitivity and disclosure issues involved with giving consular officers unrestricted access to DHS systems that include information relating to ongoing criminal investigations, and information entered by other federal law enforcement agencies.

With regard to TECS access, a VSP official said that U.S. Customs and Border Protection controls access, not ICE, and therefore, DOS would need to work with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to gain TECS access for consular officers. Visa Security Program Is Not Negated by Presence of ARSO–I at Post A VSU and an ARSO–I can be present at the same post without overlapping duties because each has a different mission. VSUs focus primarily on counterterrorism; ARSO-Is focus primarily on passport and visa fraud. Because terrorists use fraudulent means to obtain legitimate travel documents to enter the United States, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program VSUs review suspected fraudulent visa applications to determine whether there is a terrorism link, seemingly giving the appearance of overlapping responsibilities with the ARSO–I. However, if no link to terrorism is identified, VSU and DOS officials said the VSU coordinates with the ARSO–I for further fraud investigation.

Likewise, if an ARSO–I reviewing a suspected fraudulent visa application detects a possible terrorism link, the ARSO-I coordinates with the VSU for further investigation of the terrorism aspect of the case. Both bring their respective expertise and resources and, as appropriate, conduct joint investigations. At the two VSU posts we visited that also had an ARSO–I, both VSU and DOS officials said that there is room for both programs and more than enough work for each. VSU and DOS officials at one post said that everyone at post “knows their own lane and stays in it,” referring cases or conducting joint investigations as appropriate.

VSP and ARSO–I headquarters management officials said they regularly consult regarding overseas operations and coordination, and that they support a task force mentality between the programs at posts where both are present. Another VSU post we visited was expecting the addition of an ARSO–I shortly after our visit. Consular officials at that post said they were looking forward to having an ARSO–I at post and hoped it would reduce some of the basic fraud referrals to the VSU, freeing the VSU to focus on counterterrorism efforts. Both VSU and DOS officials at the post said they did not expect any problems with the VSU and ARSO–I working together.

Visa Security Program Management Should Analyze Performance Measures that Support Need to Assign Agents to Overseas Posts While ICE special agents need to be present at post to perform visa security activities, the connection between the activities they perform at post and the results of those activities has not been analyzed or demonstrated fully. VSP management should monitor and analyze additional performance measures to demonstrate better the need to assign agents to overseas posts. Technologically, the automated initial screening could be conducted remotely; however, ICE special agents would still be necessary at posts as described above. The initial visa applicant screening begins with importing visa applicant data from the DOS Consular Consolidated Database into the VSP Tracking System.

The VSP Tracking System electronically converts and groups the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 13 applicant data, which is exported in the new format from the VSP Tracking System to TECS for automated screening. ICE special agents assigned to the VSU at post then vet the screening results, including reviewing the visa application documents or interviewing the visa applicant. Agents record their activities in the VSP Tracking System, including whether they reviewed visa application documents or interviewed the visa applicant. Each VSU creates a monthly statistical report of its screening and vetting activities from the VSP Tracking System and sends it to headquarters for review.

However, while agents record whether they review visa application documents or interview applicants on a worksheet within the VSP Tracking System, these statistics are not included in the data sent monthly to VSP headquarters. Also, because only aggregate monthly data is sent, VSP headquarters does not monitor or analyze the effect of document reviews or interviews conducted at post on agent decisions and outcomes, such as recommended denials, watchlist nominations, subject records, or lookouts. Such analysis could provide both a quantitative and qualitative justification for the need to assign ICE special agents to VSUs at overseas posts. VSP headquarters could then use the results of the analysis during the site selection and expansion process with DOS and to support requests for additional funding from Congress.

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Recommendation #1: Develop and implement a plan to monitor and analyze case-specific visa security activities conducted at post and their effect on Visa Security Program results. Risk-based Framework Prioritizes Visa Security Program Expansion Efforts Expanding VSP to new locations is a priority for VSP management. With visas issued at more than 200 U.S. diplomatic posts around the world and limited funding and personnel, VSP officials developed a risk-based framework to identify the highest risk locations and prioritize deployment of VSP resources to new locations. VSP management also focuses on selecting the best candidates for overseas assignments.

According to the VSP Five-Year Expansion Plan, by initially concentrating expansion to the highest risk posts, VSP will cover 75% of the highest risk visa activity by 2013. However, VSP expansion depends on DOS chief of mission U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 14 approval, and chiefs of mission at some posts have resisted the addition of a VSU. Visa Security Program Follows Risk-based Framework to Prioritize and Select Expansion Locations The VSP site evaluation process prioritizes program expansion based on risk to concentrate expansion to the highest threat locations first. The framework for selecting new VSU site locations involves four steps: 1) Performing an initial quantitative risk analysis of all visa- issuing posts; 2) Consulting regularly with DOS, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies; 3) Conducting site assessments of potential sites; and, 4) Completing a final evaluation of potential sites and site selection.

Initial Risk Analysis VSP officials first perform an initial quantitative risk analysis to assess the level of risk at each visa issuing post by examining several threat and vulnerability factors relevant to the visa security mission. These factors include visa activity, corruption, arrests and criminal removals by nationality, special interest aliens applying for visas, and DOS threat assessments for each post. VSP program officials obtain relevant data for each threat and vulnerability factor from well-established information sources, such as TECS, the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, or the DOS Consular Consolidated Database. Because different information sources use different scoring systems, ICE adjusts them as appropriate so that a high level of threat or vulnerability always receives a high score in the analysis.

For example, a higher number of arrests for a nationality corresponds to a higher threat level for that country, so no adjustment is necessary; however, for corruption, a lower score corresponds to higher vulnerability, so VSP officials adjust the scoring to show high levels of corruption with a high vulnerability score. ICE uses the numeric value from the source data or converts the source information into numeric values to facilitate quantitative analysis. For each threat and vulnerability factor, ICE organizes the posts into four groups based on the numeric values, with approximately U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 15 25% of posts being placed in each group. The first group represents the highest threat or vulnerability, the second group the second highest threat or vulnerability, and so on.

ICE then assigns each group a numeric value. For example, VSP officials analyze the number of arrests for nationals of countries with visa issuing posts as one threat factor in the initial risk analysis. VSP officials rank the countries by number of arrests from highest to lowest, divide them into four groups, and assign each group a numeric value. This process is repeated for each threat and vulnerability factor in the initial risk analysis.

After each threat and vulnerability factor is quantitatively analyzed, VSP officials aggregate each post’s scores for all factors to determine the overall quantitative risk score for each post. Using the overall quantitative scores, each post is assigned an overall risk rating in one of four groups—critical, high, medium, or low. The initial risk analysis provides a basis for VSP management to focus in greater detail on posts in the highest risk group during the next steps in the site selection process. Consultations Throughout the site selection process, VSP coordinates with DOS officials in consular affairs and diplomatic security, and with other law enforcement and intelligence agencies at both headquarters and potential VSU posts.

These consultations further refine and reorder the list of potential sites. Site Assessments VSP then performs site visits, which provide an opportunity for VSP officials to meet with DOS, law enforcement, and other members of the embassy community to familiarize them with the VSP. VSP officials assess a number of qualitative factors, such as whether current conditions at the post support the critical- or high- threat level indicated by the initial risk analysis for the post and the opportunity to partner with other law enforcement agencies at post. In addition, VSP evaluates the logistics of establishing a VSU, such as whether the visa security mission can be accomplished with limited personnel, consistent with the ICE staffing model and DOS staffing concerns, and whether appropriate space is available at post.

Using professional judgment based on interdepartmental consultations and site assessments, VSP officials assign a high, medium, or low score to each qualitative factor for the posts receiving further consideration. VSP then translates the scores to numeric values. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Final Evaluation and Site Selection Finally, VSP evaluates the risk factors and the information obtained through consultations and site assessments, both individually and as they relate to each other, to determine which of the posts under consideration will be proposed for deployment. During this final evaluation, VSP also considers the regional need for a VSU given the presence of other VSUs in the area and the level of interest in a VSU expressed by key DOS officials at each post.

VSP officials assign these factors a high, medium, or low qualitative score, which translate to numeric values for each post. VSP officials then sum the overall initial quantitative risk analysis score and the numeric values for the qualitative site assessment and final evaluation factors to reach a ranking of the narrower list of posts under consideration. VSP officials use the final ranking to determine which sites will be proposed to the ICE Assistant Secretary for possible expansion. After the ICE Assistant Secretary approves the proposed sites, ICE begins the DHS nomination process, which involves obtaining approval from the DHS Chief Financial Office, Office of Policy, General Counsel, and Deputy Secretary.

ICE then formally requests DOS approval of permanent personnel positions at the proposed posts using the NSDD–38 process. VSP explains the basic site selection process in a number of documents, including the Five-Year Expansion Plan. Some descriptions are more detailed than others. However, the program does not have a detailed, factor-by-factor explanation for the initial quantitative risk analysis or qualitative site assessment and final evaluation processes.

Such an explanation would include the source for each factor, how the score for each factor is calculated, and, as appropriate, how or why a score is weighted. VSP officials document their initial risk analysis, including the source data and any calculations or weighting performed to reach the individual factor score as well as the overall quantitative risk score for each post. In addition, VSP officials document their judgment regarding the qualitative site assessment and final factors. However, the quantitative analysis, in particular, is complex and the documentation can be difficult to follow.

In addition, agents and other staff rotate in and out of VSP headquarters, and responsibility for updating and maintaining the initial risk analysis and site selection matrix changes. We believe a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 17 detailed, factor-by-factor explanation for the quantitative and qualitative factors analyzed during the site selection process would facilitate information updates to the analysis as well as help incoming staff understand the risk assessment and site selection process. We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Recommendation #2: Develop a detailed, factor-by-factor explanation of the process for analyzing the quantitative and qualitative factors in the site selection process from the initial risk analysis through site selection, including source(s) for each factor and how the score for each factor is calculated. VSP officials developed the VSP Five-Year Expansion Plan, which explains expected expansion plans for the next 5 years, including preliminary budget projections.

The ICE Assistant Secretary, DHS headquarters, the Homeland Security Council, and the Office of Management and Budget have approved the plan. In addition, the National Strategy for Homeland Security, issued in October 2007, includes expanding law enforcement personnel overseas who focus on assessing national security threats and fraudulent documents used in the visa application process. VSP expansion also is supported in the National Implementation Plan for Counterterrorism. VSP officials stressed that the VSP Five-Year Expansion Plan is dynamic, and that locations identified for expansion in the plan could change because the risk environment is constantly changing.

Several factors will affect program expansion, including the site assessment process, DHS nomination of locations to DOS, the DOS NSDD–38 process, and the process for deploying officers to DOS approved posts. The expansion plan also depends on receiving necessary funding. Because of the time and interdepartmental coordination involved in VSP expansion, fiscal year funds could lapse when deployments are delayed and funds are not spent. Therefore, ICE proposed that VSP funding for FY 2009 and beyond be designated as “no year funds.” Such funding would provide VSP with the flexibility to adjust to changing risks or opportunities at potential sites and to continue planned deployments after surmounting extended delays.

We support this proposal. The deployment process for establishing a new VSU varies depending on whether ICE Operations has an established presence U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 18 at post. If ICE is not currently present at a post, the process requires more effort from ICE OIA headquarters. In the past, ICE OIA arranged for office furniture, computers, and system access at a new VSU post, but occasionally deployed VSU personnel prior to the arrival of the office equipment.

Now, ICE OIA ensures office equipment has arrived prior to deploying VSU personnel. VSP sends a forward team of VSP headquarters or experienced VSU personnel from existing VSUs to establish the new VSU. The team sets up the VSU office space and works with DOS consular officers to define how visa security activities will be incorporated into the existing consular adjudication process at the post. Selecting and Deploying the Right Agents ICE OIA selects experienced agents with expertise in immigration and nationality law, investigations, document examination, counterterrorism, and intelligence research to serve in VSUs abroad.

On average, agents have 10 years of law enforcement experience. VSP uses a competitive recruiting process to select the best-qualified candidates for VSU positions. The ICE OIA shift out of the ICE Office of Investigations removed an approval layer for selecting personnel, which has made the selection process faster for permanent positions. Once selected, the agent must complete DOS predeployment requirements and ICE VSU training, and be released by his or her current Special Agent in Charge before deploying to the assigned overseas post.

VSP management expects many future VSU deployments will include locations in high security risk areas with difficult living conditions. These types of positions could be difficult to fill. A senior VSP official said the ICE Assistant Secretary recently approved an incentive package to help future recruiting efforts and ensure positions continue to be filled with the best qualified officers. ICE OIA is developing rules for the use of the incentives and, once approved, VSP will use incentives to recruit for hard-to- fill positions as necessary.

In addition to filling permanent VSU positions, VSP is building a pool of trained agents to be available for temporary duty assignments to cover leave, training, and gaps between permanent agents at any VSU. When VSP program managers identify a temporary duty assignment need, they query the pool of trained agents for interest and expected availability for the assignment. A VSP program manager then requests that the Special Agent in Charge of the selected agent’s permanent office release the agent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 19 for temporary duty. To encourage Special Agents in Charge to release a VSU-trained agent for a temporary duty assignment, VSP requests that Special Agents in Charge agree to release an agent for a future VSU temporary duty assignment at the time the agent’s request to attend the ICE VSU training course is approved.

Occasionally, due to domestic mission requirements, Special Agents in Charge of some offices have been unable to release VSU-trained agents for temporary assignments. VSP management said that so far, this has not been an issue and that program managers have been able to find other agents to fill the assignments. Visa Security Program Expansion Depends on Chief of Mission Approval VSP expansion is dependent on a post’s ambassador approving the addition of permanent employees to the post to perform visa security activities. During site assessment trips and the NSDD–38 process, VSP officials interact with DOS officials to promote the program and respond to concerns about how the program will fit into the post’s mission.

NSDD–38 requires that agencies seeking new positions at a post request approval for each new position from the post’s chief of mission. In making a decision, the ambassador considers DOS rightsizing efforts and security issues. He or she also weighs the post’s limited ability to host a larger workforce given space constraints—severe at many embassies—and competing requests from other agencies. Several DOS officials at VSU posts we visited said they have responded positively to questions from counterparts at other posts at which opening a new VSU was being considered.

However, if an ambassador decides not approve a VSU at his or her post, the NSDD–38 could be denied at that post, even though Section 428 authorizes the program at each visa-issuing diplomatic or consular post unless the DHS Secretary determines that assigning personnel to a specific post would not promote homeland security. Four chiefs of mission have denied VSP expansion to their respective posts. An agency can formally appeal an ambassador’s denial of an NSDD–38 request to the Secretary of State. ICE initiated formal NSDD–38 resolution procedures with the DOS Under Secretary for Management for one post in November 2005; the NSDD–38 request for that post was denied.

Based on information received during this process, DHS did not formally appeal the NSDD–38 denial to the Secretary of State. We were told that ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 20 has informally appealed other NSDD–38 denials as well. Regardless, both ICE and DOS headquarters officials said that in reality, the ambassador makes the final decision on expanding positions at post. Although word of mouth about VSP reportedly is becoming more positive by DOS overseas, DOS occasionally sets conditions on the VSU that fall outside of the parameters of the DHS-DOS memorandum of understanding.

VSP officials said they continue to coordinate with DOS at these posts to address concerns and try to move forward with VSP expansion. Visa Security Program Should Enhance Performance Measurement Visa security activities performed by the VSUs produce a number of law enforcement and counterterrorism results, which are tracked and reported by VSP headquarters. VSP uses three methods to track and report program activities and performance, including the VSP Tracking System. While the VSP Tracking System facilitates VSU activities and tracks performance, the tracking system has limitations that keep VSP management from fully analyzing VSU activities.

In addition, VSP management does not verify that agents’ entries are standardized and accurate. Visa Security Program Tracks and Reports Activities and Results VSU activities produce several law enforcement and counterterrorism results. For example, agents recommend refusal of visas, create lookouts and subject records in law enforcement and other government databases, and nominate individuals as appropriate for entry onto watchlists. In addition, ICE special agents assigned to VSUs identify trends and tactics used by potential terrorists or criminals, create intelligence reports, initiate investigations, support domestic ICE investigations, and remove inaccurate derogatory information from law enforcement systems.

The VSP uses three primary methods to track and report VSU activities and performance. First, overseas VSU posts report significant cases and activities in weekly operational reports using the existing ICE operational reporting structure. As appropriate, significant VSU activities are included in reports to the Assistant Secretary. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Second, agents assigned to VSUs use TECS to record enforcement-related activities, including cases opened and closed, lookouts and subject records, reports of investigations, leads generated, and hours spent working on a variety of activities such as supporting existing investigations.

Agents use VSU-specific codes to identify their activities in TECS as VSU activities. We were told that management officials are able to review VSU activities in TECS by individual VSU or by VSP as a whole, but that these reports are reviewed infrequently. Finally, because existing systems, such as TECS, could not support some of the operational requirements of VSP activities, VSP developed the VSP Tracking System. The VSP Tracking System facilitates routine automated screening functions related to visa applicants, allows agents to record their activities, and captures VSP performance data for analysis and reporting.

VSP Tracking System Facilitates Activities; Records Performance ICE special agents use the VSP Tracking System to keep track of their activities; record comments, concerns, and the results of their screening and vetting activities; and report accomplishments. In addition, the VSP Tracking System includes tools that minimize manual work and data entry by agents. For example, using an automated tool in the DOS Consular Consolidated Database, ICE special agents at VSUs receive visa applicant data from the Consular Consolidated Database in the VSP Tracking System to begin the screening process. The VSP Tracking System then automatically converts the data into a new format allowing agents to export applicant data to TECS for screening.

The applicant summary area of the VSP Tracking System automatically records the imported visa applicant data and the results of the DOS visa adjudication, including the consular officer’s interview comments and decision to approve or deny the visa. Agents record their screening and vetting activities and decision for each applicant in the vetting worksheet portion of the tracking system. The vetting worksheet provides sections for agents to record their activities, such as document review, system checks, or interviews, as well as a section for recording comments about their findings and resolution of alerts or derogatory information on an applicant. Finally, agents record their decision to recommend that a visa be approved or denied, and when denied, the reason for denial on the vetting worksheet within the VSP Tracking System.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program In addition, each VSU uses the VSP Tracking System to aggregate and create a monthly statistical report of its activities and performance metrics, which is sent to VSP headquarters. VSP headquarters officials said they review the monthly reports to assess and manage workload and staffing levels, track progress, and report performance to senior ICE officials and oversight entities. VSP Tracking System Limits Analysis of Visa Security Unit Activities Limitations of the VSP Tracking System keep VSP management and agents in the field from fully analyzing VSU activities. The VSP Tracking System is a stand-alone database at each VSU.

ICE special agents at VSUs said that being able to view activities of other VSUs in the VSP Tracking System would better inform their own activities and make it possible to analyze trends and patterns across posts at the field level. Also, as stated earlier, it is difficult for VSP management to monitor or analyze the full range of VSU performance because VSP headquarters cannot access post data through the VSP Tracking System, and VSU monthly reports contain only aggregate data on selected performance measures. In addition, it is a significant impediment that the data file used by the VSP Tracking System at each post can hold only a finite number of records. Once the capacity of the data file is reached, the VSU creates another copy of the database.

Depending on the volume of applicants at a given VSU—2,000 per day at one VSU; 100 per day at another—VSUs reach the maximum number of records over different periods of time. Each VSU ultimately must maintain multiple versions of the database. VSU officials said they have identified trends and patterns at their posts, but that it was difficult to use the VSP Tracking System to conduct the analysis due to the fragmentation of their data among multiple copies of the database. Several VSP officials said they would like to see a tracking system that would allow both VSP headquarters and field personnel to access VSU data from all posts.

A senior VSP official said that senior ICE officials should also be able to access the system. VSP headquarters officials said they are in the early stages of developing requirements for a new system; however, most VSU officials in the field said they did not know that a new system is planned. We agree that a new tracking system would benefit the operations and performance measurement of visa security U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 23 activities. Including the system’s end users in determining system requirements would help ensure the system will fulfill the needs of both headquarters and field personnel.

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Recommendation #3: Develop and implement a global data system to allow recording, search, analysis, and storage of visa security activities from all Visa Security Units. The system should be accessible by headquarters and field personnel and should generate the reports that managers require to manage and improve the Visa Security Program. Visa Security Program Management Should Verify Standard and Accurate Recording of Visa Security Activities When VSP headquarters receives the monthly performance reports from each VSU, headquarters officials review the data for completeness. VSP officials said they ensure that all required fields are filled and that the statistics reported by each post do not appear to be significantly or unexpectedly different from that post’s reports for previous months.

However, headquarters officials cannot be assured that posts are recording their activities accurately or in a standard manner ICE special agents receive training on the VSP Tracking System during the VSU training course. Included in the training is a discussion on recording screening and vetting activities and findings on the vetting worksheet. The August 2007 course, which we observed, briefly covered the fields on the vetting worksheet but did not explain specifically which fields should be checked for specific activities or how specific activities should be recorded. Rather, course participants were told they could use the “Help” button next to each field to see an explanation of when that field should be used.

When we reviewed the help buttons on the vetting worksheet in the VSP Tracking System, several buttons did provide more detailed information on when to use the field, such as “In-Depth System Check.” Other buttons, such as “Cleared Applicant,” were not set up or were open to interpretation regarding when to use the field. At the VSUs we visited, agents provided slightly different explanations of where screening ends and vetting begins at each post. Some explanations differed from the explanation given at the VSU training course. According to the VSU training instructors, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 24 screening ends after the initial TECS screening of visa applicants, and vetting begins when agents examine the applicant’s information or resolve concerns about the applicant.

In addition, VSU field personnel said that different VSUs complete some fields in the vetting worksheet differently. For example, one VSU official said that three VSUs held a conference call and discovered that each had been completing the “Cleared Applicant” field differently. Their discussion clarified the purpose of the field. Different interpretations of vetting worksheet fields could lead to differences in how visa security activities are recorded, thus undermining the accuracy or reliability of the information.

We also observed visa security activities being recorded differently at the VSUs we visited. For example, at one post, agents decided to record in the tracking system information only on recommended denials rather than all applicants who were vetted. At another post, several fields were set as defaults so they would always be checked on the vetting worksheet, such as “In-Depth System Check.” However, a VSU official at one post said that in-depth checks involved more extensive checks at one post and less extensive checks at another post. In addition, some posts added brief notes to explain findings and resolutions while others added notes much more sparingly.

Neither method is incorrect; however, a more completely documented entry is generally more valuable. Detailed guidance for recording screening and vetting activities would set clear expectations of the information that should be entered in each field on the vetting worksheet. Such procedures also would decrease instances of individual posts determining how to record their activities and which activities to record. By establishing a process to verify that posts are following the guidance, VSP management would reduce any questions regarding the validity or reliability of VSP performance data.

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Recommendation #4: Develop detailed guidance to clarify expectations for recording Visa Security Unit activities in the VSP Tracking System and to ensure all Visa Security Units record the same activity the same way. Recommendation #5: Disseminate and provide training on the guidance to Visa Security Unit personnel to implement and reinforce expectations for recording Visa Security Unit activities in the VSP Tracking System. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Recommendation #6: Develop and implement a plan to verify that ICE personnel are complying with expectations for and are accurately recording Visa Security Unit activities. Visa Security Officer Training Prepares Agents for Deployment Prior to deployment, ICE special agents attend the Visa Security Officer Training Program at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).

The course, which lasts 3 to 4 weeks, covers topics that prepare experienced special agents to deploy to VSUs at overseas posts. Topics include the visa process, counterterrorism, terrorist trends and tactics, fraudulent documents, national security law, interviewing techniques, and presentation skills. Students also receive hands-on instruction and practice on a variety of law enforcement information systems and the VSP Tracking System, including visa applicant screening and vetting procedures. The course concludes with a typical day scenario, which provides students the opportunity to practice visa security functions.

Agents complete their training on the job after they arrive at their individual posts. VSP headquarters officials instruct course participants on visa applicant screening and vetting procedures and the VSP Tracking System. During the August 2007 course session, we observed in-depth coverage of visa applicant screening procedures from retrieving applicant information from the Consular Consolidated Database to screening applicants through TECS and receiving potential matches. However, instruction on vetting an applicant and accurately recording vetting results in the VSP Tracking System was covered in less depth.

For example, multiple step-by-step examples of downloading applicant information from DOS and running the information through TECS were demonstrated, but instructors did not follow these examples through the vetting process or recording of results in the VSP Tracking System. Several course participants said that seeing course instructors complete the entire screening and vetting process for a few visa applicants before they began the typical day scenario would have been helpful. Both recent and past participants in the Visa Security Officer Training Program said the course is good preparation for performing VSP functions, and that VSP management has been responsive to suggestions for changes to future sessions of the course. For example, the August 2007 session added training on interview techniques following suggestions from several past participants of the course.

Several August 2007 trainees offered their suggestions for improving the course to VSP headquarters U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 26 officials both during a class session and in written evaluations at the end of the course. VSP headquarters officials were receptive to in-course suggestions provided by August 2007 participants. The officials said that several suggestions, such as increasing the time spent on the VSP Tracking System or spreading instruction on screening and vetting procedures more evenly throughout the course, were under consideration for future sessions. Based on suggestions of trainees and to address program changes and changing terrorist tactics, VSP management regularly adjusts the content of the course by adding or removing course sections.

We were able to review binders containing the course curriculum for past sessions, but the course curriculum for the most recent session was undocumented. A VSP headquarters official said that personnel rotations resulted in the loss of electronic versions of past course curricula, and that VSP headquarters is in the process of updating and documenting the current course curriculum. A documented course curriculum, which includes the goals and objectives of each course section, would facilitate instructor and class speaker preparation. VSP should complete the documentation of the course curriculum and continue to update the curriculum as changes are made to future sessions.

ICE special agents do not usually receive language training prior to deploying to an overseas post, as supported by Section 428. However, at the five VSU posts we visited, we observed that not having foreign language skills did not appear to hinder agent performance of visa security activities. At some posts, most interviews were conducted in English, or ICE had selected an agent with existing language skills for that country. At other posts, a consular officer or locally engaged staff member attended the interview and translated as necessary.

In addition, senior VSP officials said that for posts requiring language skills, they either select an agent with existing skills or provide language training prior to deployment. In addition to the Visa Security Officer Training Program at FLETC, ICE special agents assigned to permanent positions at overseas posts attend ICE OIA Outbound Orientation prior to deployment. This 3-day session provides deploying ICE personnel with a series of briefings on ICE operations overseas, reporting requirements, what to expect when living overseas, and the administrative support they will receive from ICE OIA headquarters. The session also gives participants an opportunity to meet their individual country desk officers and ICE OIA mission support personnel.

As required by DOS, permanently deploying ICE personnel also attend the DOS Safety Overseas Seminar, which addresses issues faced by U.S. officials living overseas. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Recommendation #7: Document the current course curriculum for the Visa Security Officer Training Course and update it as changes are made. Management Comments and OIG Analysis ICE responded to each of the recommendations in our draft report. See Appendix B for ICE’s response.

Of the seven recommendations in our report, one recommendation is resolved and open; the remaining six recommendations are resolved and closed. In addition, we received two responses from DOS. The responses from the DOS Office of Policy, Rightsizing, and Innovation and the Bureau of Consular Affairs appear in full in Appendix C. We also received technical comments from the DOS Bureau of Diplomatic Security and have made changes to the report as appropriate. Our analysis of the DOS responses follows our analysis of ICE’s response to the report recommendations.

Recommendation #1: Develop and implement a plan to monitor and analyze case-specific visa security activities conducted at post and their effect on Visa Security Program results. Summary of ICE Response: ICE concurred with this recommendation and discussed the development of a new, centralized, and globally accessible tracking system, which will allow for case-specific analysis at posts. The current tracking system will be maintained and updated until the new tracking system is developed. OIG Evaluation: We concur with ICE’s plan to include the ability to conduct case-specific analysis in the new tracking system under development, as well as ICE’s interim plan to monitor and analyze case- specific activities using the current tracking system.

This recommendation is resolved and closed. No further reporting is necessary. Recommendation #2: Develop a detailed, factor-by-factor explanation of the process for analyzing the quantitative and qualitative factors in the site selection process from the initial risk analysis through site selection, including source(s) for each factor and how the score for each factor is calculated. Summary of ICE Response: ICE concurred with this recommendation.

ICE VSP has reviewed the site selection process, making changes to the categories and criteria included and refreshing data. This process will U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 28 occur at the end of each fiscal year. ICE will continue to use well- established information sources, and will incorporate classified information into the selection process as appropriate. In addition, VSP is coordinating with the DOS Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism to further refine the site selection process.

OIG Evaluation: We concur with the actions taken by ICE. This recommendation is resolved and closed. No further reporting is necessary. Recommendation #3: Develop and implement a global data system to allow recording, search, analysis, and storage of visa security activities from all Visa Security Units.

The system should be accessible by headquarters and field personnel and should generate the reports that managers require to manage and improve the Visa Security Program. Summary of ICE Response: ICE concurred with the recommendation. ICE has allocated funding to develop a centralized and globally accessible tracking system. ICE VSP is working with the ICE Office of the Chief Information Officer to develop the new tracking system.

OIG Evaluation: We concur with ICE’s actions to begin development of a centralized and globally accessible tracking system. This recommendation is resolved, but will remain open pending the completion of the new tracking system. Recommendation #4: Develop detailed guidance to clarify expectations for recording Visa Security Unit activities in the VSP Tracking System and to ensure all Visa Security Units record the same activity the same way. Summary of ICE Response: ICE concurred with the recommendation.

In September 2007, ICE VSP sent guidance clarifying visa security activity recording procedures and expectations to all VSU posts. OIG Evaluation: We have reviewed the September 2007 guidance, and concur that it clarifies recording procedures and VSP headquarters expectations. This recommendation is resolved and closed. No further reporting is necessary.

Recommendation #5: Disseminate and provide training on the guidance to Visa Security Unit personnel to implement and reinforce expectations for recording Visa Security Unit activities in the VSP Tracking System. Summary of ICE Response: ICE concurred with the recommendation. In addition to the guidance sent to posts in September 2007, ICE VSP distributed detailed screen shots from the VSP Tracking System that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 29 instruct VSU personnel on how to accurately record VSU activities. In addition, ICE VSP is incorporating a step-by-step training module into the VSO Training Program at FLETC.

OIG Evaluation: We concur with the actions taken by ICE. This recommendation is resolved and closed. No further reporting is necessary. Recommendation #6: Develop and implement a plan to verify that ICE personnel are complying with expectations for and are accurately recording Visa Security Unit activities.

Summary of ICE Response: ICE concurred with this recommendation. As part of its Site Inspections Program, ICE OIA will conduct regular checks to identify tracking inconsistencies and provide necessary guidance. OIG Evaluation: We concur with ICE’s action plan. This recommendation is resolved and closed.

No further reporting is necessary. Recommendation #7: Document the current course curriculum for the Visa Security Officer Training Course and update it as changes are made. Summary of ICE Response: ICE concurred with the recommendation and described steps taken to update the course curriculum and to ensure that future curriculum changes are made as necessary. OIG Evaluation: We concur with the actions taken by ICE.

This recommendation is resolved and closed. No further reporting is necessary. Analysis of the Department of State Responses We appreciate receiving responses to our report from DOS. We note that we invited DOS OIG to participate in this review; however, after participating in our interviews during our first VSU site visit, DOS OIG decided not to participate further in the review.

Therefore, we limited the scope of our review to ICE activities with regard to the VSP. Because ICE special agents interact regularly with DOS personnel and processes when performing VSP activities, we attempted to provide basic descriptions of the various programs and DOS personnel with which ICE special agents interact. We acknowledge that many of the DOS programs and personnel have responsibilities beyond what we describe; however, we chose to discuss activities relevant to interactions between ICE and DOS with regard to the VSP. To review DOS programs or personnel would be outside of our authority.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Office of Policy, Rightsizing, and Innovation The DOS Office of Policy, Rightsizing, and Innovation expressed concern with the VSP Five-Year Expansion Plan and that DOS had not had the opportunity to review the plan. Much of the plan is summarized in pages 15-18 of our report. The ICE Assistant Secretary, DHS headquarters, the White House Homeland Security Council, and the Office of Management and Budget have reviewed and approved the plan. In March 2007, the plan was delivered to DOS Consular Affairs, and in July 2007, it was delivered to the DOS Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism for review.

The office also indicated that it believed our report should have provided specifics about the posts at which DHS wished to open visa security units but where DOS disagreed. While we believe our report describes the issue, we do not want to insert ourselves into the specifics of debates which occurred in the past. Neither do we agree with the proposition expressed in their response that a visa waiver country is necessarily outside the scope of the visa security program. Many visas are processed in visa waiver countries, including to third-country nationals from countries of concern.

Policy, Rightsizing, and Innovation also expressed concern with involving DOS employees in the interview process “who are not allowed access to the information contained in the database that precipitated and supports the interview requirement.” First, ICE special agents may decide to interview a visa applicant based on information from sources other than TECS. Second, at most VSUs, ICE special agents must explain to the consular officer or section chief why they want to bring the visa applicant in for an interview. ICE special agents assigned to one VSU were not allowed to conduct their interview with the visa applicant; rather, the adjudicating consular officer was required to conduct the interview while the ICE special agent observed. At most other VSUs we visited, if language translation was necessary, the ICE foreign service national investigator assisted, not DOS locally engaged staff.

Finally, the Office of Policy, Rightsizing, and Innovation wrote that DHS assigns “personnel who are not authorized to perform the depth and variety of responsibilities that would facilitate immigration and refugee decisions….” This complaint, which we have also heard in the field, suggests a misunderstanding of the structure of DHS. The work that was formerly performed by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service is now performed by three organizations: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, ICE, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Employees of any one component are neither authorized nor properly trained to perform functions that fall within the purview of the other two. DHS employees U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 31 who can perform only a limited variety of immigration responsibilities are a result of the legislation that created the department.

Alternatively, Consular Affairs believes ICE VSP has inappropriately expanded the roles and authorities of agents assigned to VSUs. All ICE special agents are authorized to enforce specific areas of law and maintain these responsibilities when posted overseas. Agents assigned to VSUs also maintain these authorities, but are required to spend at least 80% of their time on visa security activities. Bureau of Consular Affairs Consular Affairs provided comments on several areas of our report.

Where appropriate, we have made changes to the language of our report. Our analysis of their comments follows. Consular Affairs suggests that we make a recommendation that DHS prioritize the NSDD–38 requests of its various components, including ICE. This has been occurring since 2004.

DHS Management Directive 3400 requires that all DHS component requests for new positions abroad be approved by the DHS Deputy Secretary before they are submitted to the Department of State. Consular Affairs’ belief that we imply the chief of mission decides whether to approve a VSU at post based on personal preferences indicates a misreading of our report. Pages 8 and 20-21 of our report shows that we indicate agencies seeking new positions at post must request approval from the post’s chief of mission using the NSDD–38 process. We also note a number of criteria the chief of mission considers in determining whether to approve the request, including space, costs, and security issues.

However, as DOS headquarters and post personnel, ICE OIA personnel, and even the Consular Affairs response indicate, VSP expansion does, in fact, depend on chief of mission approval. VSP management continues to collaborate with DOS in gaining the chief of mission’s approval as it expands the program to additional locations. Consular Affairs also questions our statement that “DOS occasionally sets conditions on the VSU that fall outside of the parameters of the DHS-DOS memorandum of understanding.” The DHS-DOS memorandum of understanding delineates the roles and responsibilities of both departments regarding the visa issuance process and visa security activities, as well as their coordination at overseas posts. However, at least two posts attempted to establish separate agreements outlining how the process would work and how the two departments would coordinate at those posts.

VSP officials worked with DOS officials at each post to resolve the issues and successfully opened VSUs at both posts. As we note on page 27, ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 32 provides language training or selects an agent with pre-existing language skills for those posts with specific language requirements. Consular Affairs interpreted our original draft language relating to start-up difficulties to imply that DOS had not provided necessary office equipment to new VSUs. We have reworded the discussion of ICE OIA’s deployment process on page 19 of our report to avoid confusion.

Consular Affairs also expressed concern with the VSP mission and goals and with the program’s explanation of how law enforcement expertise is applied to the visa process. Consular Affairs states that the VSP mission and goals expand its authority beyond Section 428. We disagree with this assertion. A program’s mission statement typically goes beyond quoting the specific language of the law authorizing the program.

VSP’s mission and strategic goals can be tied to the language of Section 428. We did not observe ICE special agents assigned to VSUs or VSP headquarters expanding the scope of their authorities during our fieldwork. As noted earlier, ICE special agents are authorized to enforce several U.S. statutes, and they draw on these and their law enforcement experience in screening and vetting visa applicants, creating lookouts, and initiating investigations in the performance of their visa security responsibilities. ICE special agents assigned to VSUs do not adjudicate visa applications.

They screen and vet visa applicants and evaluate eligibility from the DHS perspective, and then recommend approval or denial to the adjudicating consular officer. In addition, VSP management approves each post’s case selection guidelines. At VSUs we visited, several consular officers indicated a general understanding of the types of applicants the VSU would be interested in vetting. Consular Affairs indicated that a major impediment to program expansion is “a lack of persuasive evidence of the value of the program.” While VSP management has tracked a variety of performance measures, reports have not been produced to show how specific activities performed by agents at post have resulted in specific outcomes.

We recommend that VSP develop and implement a plan to conduct such analysis in Recommendation 1 of our report. Consular Affairs implies that consular officers conduct the same type of screening and vetting that ICE special agents assigned to VSU perform. This is not the case. ICE agents conduct much more in-depth checks on visa applicants than do consular officers.

For example, consular officers run system checks on the visa applicant’s name only; ICE agents would also run system checks on additional information provided on the visa application itself, such as associates or addresses. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Consular Affairs also suggests that VSP should conduct the automated screening activities domestically and incorporate the screening into the SAO process. As noted in our report, we disagree. The initial screening could technically be done from anywhere—as could the name-checking performed by consular officers—but the vetting process requires that agents be assigned to post in order to have access to the applicant and the application documents.

In addition, VSUs screen 100% of nonimmigrant visa applicants and many also screen at least a portion of immigrant visa applicants. To incorporate this into the SAO process would essentially require an SAO for every visa applicant, which would create significant delays to the consular visa adjudication process. Consular Affairs indicated a desire to receive reports on VSU activities and access to the new tracking system being developed by the VSP and we fully support that request. VSP management said they plan to provide access to additional parties, including relevant DOS personnel.

We expect VSP management will continue to collaborate with DOS in this area. We do not believe the recommendation needs to be reworded. Consular Affairs also indicated concern that some information on terrorists or criminals is not automatically transferring from TECS into the Consular Lookout and Support System. TECS is not simply a database of law enforcement information on terrorists and criminals.

It also serves as a case management system for ICE and, therefore, contains information on sensitive active investigations and ongoing cases. Information on open investigations would not be routinely released to outside systems. Consular Affairs said there is a “common understanding” that a significant portion of VSU denial recommendations are not terrorism related. VSP management recently required VSU personnel to begin recording the reason for denial recommendations in the VSP Tracking System when they recommend that a specific visa application be denied.

As Consular Affairs noted earlier in its comments, the process of adjudicating visa applications is “firmly grounded in law” and is the responsibility of consular officers. However, it could be useful if the immigration professionals in a Visa Security Unit sometimes convey non-terrorist information they develop to consular officers, who then properly deny an application they might otherwise have approved. Consular Affairs indicated they had seen few examples of VSU personnel providing expert advice and training on specific security threats. Section 428(e)(2)(A) refers to security threats “relating to the adjudication of individual visa applications or classes of applications.” As we discuss in our report, terrorists use fraudulent means to attempt to gain entry into the United States.

VSU personnel have provided training to consular officers to improve their ability to detect instances of such fraud, including how to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Page 34 identify imposters and fraudulent documents. They have also provided advice, as appropriate, to consular officers at specific posts where fraud trends in specific visa categories have been identified. VSU personnel report the number and topics of training provided as well as the number of attendees in their monthly reports to VSP headquarters. Consular Affairs also questioned the extent to which ICE special agents assigned to VSUs have expertise or training in counterterrorism.

In selecting agents for assignment to VSUs, ICE OIA selects agents with experience in counterterrorism as well as immigration and other areas. On average, agents assigned to VSUs have 10 years of law enforcement experience. In addition, agents receive counterterrorism briefings as part of the Visa Security Officer Training Program they attend at FLETC prior to deploying to a VSU. Consular Affairs suggested adding terrorist threat indicators to the initial risk assessment for site selection.

As noted above, VSP program managers regularly review and update the initial risk assessment, adding and removing fields as appropriate. We do not believe an additional recommendation is necessary. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix A Purpose, Scope, and Methodology We reviewed the ICE Visa Security Program in response to DOS OIG concerns of possible overlaps of responsibility between DHS and DOS personnel at embassies where both are present. Specifically, the objectives of our review were to determine whether: (1) ICE’s management of VSP policies, procedures, and existing operations is effective and efficient; (2) the interaction and coordination at U.S. embassies among ICE special agents, DOS regional security officers, and DOS consular officers is effective and without overlaps in responsibilities; (3) the presence of ICE special agents has affected visa security; (4) ICE special agents need to be assigned overseas to perform VSP activities; and (5) VSP training adequately prepares ICE special agents to perform VSP duties.

Finally, we examined VSP expansion plans to determine whether the process for selecting new sites is prioritized appropriately given the limited resources available for expansion. We reviewed statutes, regulations, and memoranda of understanding related to the VSP. We also reviewed strategic plans, expansion plans, weekly reports, monthly reports and performance data, budget records, and training materials. We examined VSP procedures, guidance, and case files.

We conducted more than 85 interviews of more than 95 officials within DHS OIA, ICE OIA, and DOS at headquarters and overseas posts. We conducted overseas site visits to VSU posts in Manila, Philippines; Islamabad, Pakistan; Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and Cairo, Egypt. In addition to interviews at posts, we observed the consular visa process and VSU visa security activities. DOS OIG personnel participated in our interviews during our first VSU site visit.

We audited the Visa Security Office Training Program at FLETC in Glynco, Georgia during August 2007. We observed a VSP briefing to a DOS consular class at the DOS Foreign Service Institute. Finally, we observed an ICE OIA Outbound Orientation session for ICE agents deploying to overseas posts. Fieldwork began in March 2007 and ended in November 2007.

This review was conducted under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix B Management Comments to the Draft Report U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix B Management Comments to the Draft Report U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix B Management Comments to the Draft Report U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix B Management Comments to the Draft Report U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix B Management Comments to the Draft Report U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix C Department of State Comments to the Draft Report U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix C Department of State Comments to the Draft Report U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix C Department of State Comments to the Draft Report U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix C Department of State Comments to the Draft Report U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix C Department of State Comments to the Draft Report U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix C Department of State Comments to the Draft Report U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix C Department of State Comments to the Draft Report U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix C Department of State Comments to the Draft Report U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix C Department of State Comments to the Draft Report U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix C Department of State Comments to the Draft Report U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix D Major Contributors to this Report Douglas Ellice, Chief Inspector Jennifer A. Lindsey, Inspector (Team Leader) Susan Fischer, Inspector Razili Datta, Inspector U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix E Report Distribution Department of Homeland Security Secretary Deputy Secretary Chief of Staff Deputy Chief of Staff General Counsel Executive Secretary Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE OIG Liaison Office of Management and Budget Chief, Homeland Security Branch DHS OIG Budget Examiner Congress Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program Appendix E Report Distribution Additional Information and Copies To obtain additional copies of this report, call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4199, fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. OIG Hotline To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal misconduct relative to department programs or operations: • Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; • Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; • Email us at [email protected]; or • Write to us at: DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, Washington, DC 20528, The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.