Immigration Benefits
Internal Controls for Adjudicating Humanitarian Parole Cases Are Generally Effective, but Some Can Be Strengthened Gao ID: GAO-08-282 February 6, 2008The Immigration and Nationality Act requires that most visitors and immigrants to the United States obtain a visa. Aliens unable to obtain a visa, and with a compelling humanitarian need, may apply to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be granted humanitarian parole. This permits an alien to enter the United States on a temporary basis. Parole responsibility rests with DHS's Humanitarian Assistance Branch (HAB), which was transferred to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in August 2007. In response to congressional requesters, GAO examined (1) the characteristics of those who applied for humanitarian parole since October 1, 2001, and (2) internal controls HAB designed to adjudicate applications along with the extent to which HAB adhered to them. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed HAB documents and data, such as its protocols and database of all parole applications since October 1, 2001; interviewed HAB officials about adjudication processes; and interviewed attorneys who had helped individuals file for parole.
The 8,748 humanitarian parole applications that HAB adjudicated from October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, displayed various characteristics--54 percent of the applicants were female and 46 percent, male; 45 percent of the applicants came from 11 countries, with the largest number from Mexico. Sixty-four percent of the requests for humanitarian parole were for family reunification or medical emergency. Persons under age 18 had a 35 percent grant rate--higher than the rate for applicants over 18 and consistent with the stated purposes of humanitarian parole. Seventy-six percent of applications were denied; 24 percent were granted. Among multiple reasons cited for denial by adjudicators in a projectible sample of cases we analyzed, an estimated 57 percent of applicants had not exhausted other avenues of immigration available to them before applying for humanitarian parole, as generally is required. Data analysis revealed few differences in parole denial rates with regard to gender or, with two exceptions, country of residence. While denial recommendation rates for individual adjudicators varied, HAB officials stated that this is expected because the facts and circumstances of cases vary and adjudicators have different backgrounds and experiences that might affect their reviews of an application. HAB has designed internal controls to help ensure that requests for humanitarian parole are decided in accordance with applicable guidelines; these controls have been functioning as intended. Specifically, HAB has, among other controls, clear and detailed written policies and procedures, including a requirement that every application be reviewed by two adjudicators and that if they disagree, a third is to make a "tie-breaking" recommendation. A final decision is then made by the HAB Branch Chief or a designee, but if the Branch Chief decides to override the adjudicators' recommendations, the case is first discussed with higher-level officials. A computerized data system also records key information in every case. While HAB's controls are generally effective, three areas can be strengthened. First, following a transfer of HAB to USCIS, HAB may no longer have a sufficient number of permanent staff to ensure it continues to follow policies and procedures, since two adjudicators are insufficient to provide independent reviews of requests for reconsideration--HAB guidance recommends that such requests be reviewed by two additional adjudicators not previously involved. Second, HAB does not have a formal training program for new staff who may be detailed to help process applications. Such training is essential to ensure that criteria for granting and denying parole are applied consistently and fairly by the adjudicators. Third, USCIS's Web site has limited information about the circumstances under which a person may apply for humanitarian parole. More information and clearer instructions could reduce the number of applications from those who had not taken the steps generally required before applying for humanitarian parole, such as exhausting other available avenues for entry into the United States.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-282, Immigration Benefits: Internal Controls for Adjudicating Humanitarian Parole Cases Are Generally Effective, but Some Can Be Strengthened
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-282
entitled 'Immigration Benefits: Internal Controls for Adjudicating
Humanitarian Parole Cases Are Generally Effective, but Some Can Be
Strengthened' which was released on February 6, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
February 2008:
Immigration Benefits:
Internal Controls for Adjudicating Humanitarian Parole Cases Are
Generally Effective, but Some Can Be Strengthened:
GAO-08-282:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-282, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Immigration and Nationality Act requires that most visitors and
immigrants to the United States obtain a visa. Aliens unable to obtain
a visa, and with a compelling humanitarian need, may apply to the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be granted humanitarian
parole. This permits an alien to enter the United States on a temporary
basis. Parole responsibility rests with DHS‘s Humanitarian Assistance
Branch (HAB), which was transferred to the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) in August 2007. In response to
congressional requesters, GAO examined (1) the characteristics of those
who applied for humanitarian parole since October 1, 2001, and (2)
internal controls HAB designed to adjudicate applications along with
the extent to which HAB adhered to them. To conduct this work, GAO
analyzed HAB documents and data, such as its protocols and database of
all parole applications since October 1, 2001; interviewed HAB
officials about adjudication processes; and interviewed attorneys who
had helped individuals file for parole.
What GAO Found:
The 8,748 humanitarian parole applications that HAB adjudicated from
October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, displayed various
characteristics”54 percent of the applicants were female and 46
percent, male; 45 percent of the applicants came from 11 countries,
with the largest number from Mexico. Sixty-four percent of the requests
for humanitarian parole were for family reunification or medical
emergency. Persons under age 18 had a 35 percent grant rate”higher than
the rate for applicants over 18 and consistent with the stated purposes
of humanitarian parole. Seventy-six percent of applications were
denied; 24 percent were granted. Among multiple reasons cited for
denial by adjudicators in a projectible sample of cases we analyzed, an
estimated 57 percent of applicants had not exhausted other avenues of
immigration available to them before applying for humanitarian parole,
as generally is required. Data analysis revealed few differences in
parole denial rates with regard to gender or, with two exceptions,
country of residence. While denial recommendation rates for individual
adjudicators varied, HAB officials stated that this is expected because
the facts and circumstances of cases vary and adjudicators have
different backgrounds and experiences that might affect their reviews
of an application.
HAB has designed internal controls to help ensure that requests for
humanitarian parole are decided in accordance with applicable
guidelines; these controls have been functioning as intended.
Specifically, HAB has, among other controls, clear and detailed written
policies and procedures, including a requirement that every application
be reviewed by two adjudicators and that if they disagree, a third is
to make a ’tie-breaking“ recommendation. A final decision is then made
by the HAB Branch Chief or a designee, but if the Branch Chief decides
to override the adjudicators‘ recommendations, the case is first
discussed with higher-level officials. A computerized data system also
records key information in every case. While HAB‘s controls are
generally effective, three areas can be strengthened. First, following
a transfer of HAB to USCIS, HAB may no longer have a sufficient number
of permanent staff to ensure it continues to follow policies and
procedures, since two adjudicators are insufficient to provide
independent reviews of requests for reconsideration”HAB guidance
recommends that such requests be reviewed by two additional
adjudicators not previously involved. Second, HAB does not have a
formal training program for new staff who may be detailed to help
process applications. Such training is essential to ensure that
criteria for granting and denying parole are applied consistently and
fairly by the adjudicators. Third, USCIS‘s Web site has limited
information about the circumstances under which a person may apply for
humanitarian parole. More information and clearer instructions could
reduce the number of applications from those who had not taken the
steps generally required before applying for humanitarian parole, such
as exhausting other available avenues for entry into the United States.
What GAO Recommends:
To ensure that HAB processes applications consistent with its
protocols, GAO recommends that DHS review HAB staffing levels; create a
formal training program for adjudicating parole cases; and revise Web
site instructions for parole applicants. DHS concurred with the
recommendations and stated that it had begun taking actions to
implement them.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-282]. For more information, contact
Richard Stana at (202) 512-8777 or StanaR@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
About Three-Fourths of Humanitarian Parole Applications Were Denied
with Few Differences in Denial Rates by Demographic Characteristic and
Some Differences in Adjudicator Recommendations:
HAB Generally Had Effective Internal Controls, but Those Related to
Staffing, Training, and Communication with Stakeholders Could Be
Strengthened:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Major Reasons for Humanitarian Parole Requests and Factors
HAB Considers when Adjudicating Applications:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Humanitarian Parole Adjudication Decision Outcomes, Fiscal
Years 2002 to 2007:
Table 2: Gender of Humanitarian Parole Applicants, Fiscal Years 2002 to
2007:
Table 3: Countries of Residence of Humanitarian Parole Applicants,
Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007:
Table 4: Humanitarian Parole Applicants by Age Group, Fiscal Years 2002
to 2007:
Table 5: Estimated Percentage of Applications Where Reason for Denial
Was Cited, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007:
Table 6: Approval and Denial Rates by Gender, Fiscal Years 2002 to
2007:
Table 7: Humanitarian Parole Adjudications by Applicants‘ Country of
Residence, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007:
Table 8: Percentage of Applications Granted and Denied by Age Group,
Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007:
Table 9: Number and Percentage of Adjudication Recommendations for
Granting and Denying Humanitarian Parole by Adjudicator, Fiscal Years
2002 to 2007:
Table 10: Sample Population Used for Content Analyses:
Figures:
Figure 1: The Humanitarian Parole Application and Adjudication Process:
Figure 2: Estimated Frequency of Reasons for Humanitarian Parole
Requests, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007:
Figure 3: Median Number of Calendar Days to Process Humanitarian Parole
Applications, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007:
Abbreviations:
AILA: American Immigration Lawyers Association:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
FMFIA: Federal Management Financial Integrity Act of 1982:
HAB: Humanitarian Assistance Branch:
HRIFA: Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998:
HIAS: Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society:
ICE: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
INA: Immigration and Nationality Act:
INS: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service:
PCTS: Parole Case Tracking System:
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 6, 2008:
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren:
Chairwoman:
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and
International Law: Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee:
House of Representatives:
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) generally requires that most
aliens wishing to visit or immigrate to the United States obtain a
Department of State-issued visa.1 As a method of last resort, foreign
nationals normally required to have a visa may be allowed to enter the
United States without one”with the approval of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS)”on a temporary, case-by-case basis for urgent
humanitarian reasons. This process is called humanitarian parole and
may be used for such reasons as to allow aliens to obtain urgent
medical treatment in the United States or to reunify young children
with relatives. Humanitarian parole does not constitute permanent
admission of the alien into the country; once the purpose of the parole
is fulfilled, the alien is to leave the United States.
Prior to the creation of DHS in March 2003, the authority to parole
individuals into the United States rested within the Department of
Justice‘s U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Parole
authority was transferred to DHS upon the agency‘s creation and
administered by the Humanitarian Assistance Branch (HAB) [Footnote 2]
within U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In August 2007,
DHS transferred HAB from ICE to its U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS).
In response to several news articles citing delays and denials of
humanitarian parole to young children, you asked us to review DHS‘s
policies and procedures for adjudicating humanitarian parole
applications. This report addresses the following questions: (1) What
are the characteristics of those who applied for and were either
granted or denied humanitarian parole since fiscal year 2002 and did
approval and denial rates differ according to these characteristics or
the adjudicator assigned? (2) What internal controls has HAB designed
to adjudicate humanitarian parole applications and to what extent did
HAB adhere to these internal controls when processing humanitarian
parole applications?
To determine the characteristics of those who applied for and were
either granted or denied humanitarian parole, we analyzed data on 8,748
humanitarian parole applications adjudicated from October 1, 2001,
through June 30, 2007, contained in DHS‘s automated Parole Case
Tracking System (PCTS). The system contains various applicant
demographic characteristics such as age; gender; and country of
residence; the reason why the applicant requested humanitarian parole
(e.g., medical emergency or family reunification); the recommendations
by individual adjudicators involved in adjudicating the application;
and the adjudication decision. To determine whether approval and denial
rates differed according to applicants‘ demographic characteristics
(e.g., gender, country of residence, age) and whether these rates
differed by adjudicator, we analyzed PCTS data on the outcomes of
adjudication decisions by these characteristics and by the
recommendations made by adjudicators. We did not review the underlying
merits of these decisions to identify possible reasons for any
similarities or differences.
Hard copy application files (for both granted and denied cases) were
only available for the March 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007, time
period. To determine the reliability of the PCTS data, we compared
selected data from a stratified probability sample of 145 hard-copy
application case files from this time period with the PCTS data for
those cases, reviewed relevant documentation such as HAB protocols for
adjudicating humanitarian parole applications, and met with
knowledgeable officials. We determined that the PCTS data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review.
Each adjudication case in PCTS has two text boxes into which two
different adjudicators each enter information about the reason for the
request, and their explanation for their recommendation for or against
granting humanitarian parole. To examine the reasons for requests for
humanitarian parole, we selected a stratified probability sample of 462
cases from fiscal year 2002 through June 30, 2007, and performed a
content analysis of the reasons for the requests contained in the text
boxes. [Footnote 3] We categorized the explanations in the text boxes
for requesting humanitarian parole into the four major categories
defined by HAB: (1) life-threatening medical emergencies; (2) family
reunification for compelling humanitarian reasons; (3) emergent,
defined by the HAB as including the need to visit an ill family member
or to resolve matters associated with the death of a relative or to
attend a funeral; and (4) ’other,“ such as a caregiver needed to care
for someone in the United States. To determine the reasons for which
applicants were denied humanitarian parole, we reviewed the cases in
our sample in which the applicant was denied humanitarian parole and
performed a content analysis of the reasons for the denials of parole
contained in the text boxes. We then categorized the explanations for
denials into 10 categories; HAB officials confirmed these categories.
These included, for example, that the applicant had not first exhausted
alternative immigration processes that might have been available, such
as obtaining a visa, absent urgent circumstances that made it
impractical to do so, or had not provided sufficient evidence of a
claimed medical emergency, or that the applicant had committed a prior
immigration violation or crime.
To determine what internal controls HAB designed to adjudicate
humanitarian parole applications and the extent to which HAB adhered to
these internal controls, we obtained HAB policies and procedures and
compared them with standards for internal control in the federal
government [Footnote 4] and other internal control guidance related to
control activities, staffing levels, training, and communication with
external clients. [Footnote 5] We also interviewed HAB officials
regarding how HAB internal controls are interpreted and followed. To
determine the extent to which internal controls were adhered to, we
reviewed our sample of cases selected to assess the reliability of the
PCTS data to determine whether the case files contained documentation
that a required control, (e.g., supervisory review), had been followed.
Our probability sample allowed us to conclude that this control was
effective for PCTS applications in the March 1, 2007, to June 30, 2007,
time period.
We also interviewed attorneys and accredited representatives who had
helped individuals file humanitarian parole applications to obtain
their views on the humanitarian parole process. We interviewed 10
immigration attorneys who belonged to the American Immigration Lawyers
Association (AILA) as well as 2 accredited representatives from 2 non-
profit organizations that offer legal assistance to immigrants. The
attorneys whom we interviewed responded to a request from the
organization that invited its members to contact us regarding their
experiences with humanitarian parole issues. Because we selected the
attorneys and accredited representatives using nonprobabilistic
methods, their views cannot be generalized to the immigration law
community. Additional details on our scope and methodology can be found
in appendix I. We conducted this performance audit from May 2007
through January 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
The 8,748 humanitarian parole applications that HAB adjudicated from
October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, displayed various
characteristics. Specifically, 54 percent of the applicants were
female; 46 percent, male. Forty-five percent of the applicants were
residents of 11 foreign countries, with Mexico having the greatest
number of applicants. Based on our content analysis sample, an
estimated 64 percent [Footnote 6] of the requests for humanitarian
parole were for two reasons”family reunification (49 percent) and
medical emergency (15 percent). Of the 8,748 adjudicated applications,
24 percent were granted and 76 percent were denied. Based on our review
of a probability sample from the PCTS database for applications that
were denied, we estimate that the adjudicators noted that 57 percent of
all applicants had not first exhausted other avenues of immigration
available to them”such as applying for a visa, absent urgent
circumstances that made it impractical to do so”before applying for
humanitarian parole. Under HAB protocols, application for a visa
generally should have been made and rejected, prior to applying for
humanitarian parole. Our analysis of data in PCTS found few differences
in the granting or denial of humanitarian parole related to gender and,
with two exceptions, related to country of residence. Men and women
were granted parole in almost identical percentages every year since
fiscal year 2002. With regard to country of residence, of the 11
foreign nations in which most applicants were residing, applicants from
Haiti had the lowest rate of approval (8 percent) while those from
Cuba, El Salvador, India, Iran, Iraq, and Mexico had almost identical
approval rates (between 18 and 22 percent), and applicants from Lebanon
had the highest approval rate (55 percent). HAB officials attributed
the Haitians‘ low rate to special immigration eligibility rules for
Haitians that were not well understood by applicants, and the high rate
for Lebanese residents to special circumstances resulting from
evacuations associated with the July 2006 conflict between Israel and
Hezbollah, in southern Lebanon. Applicants under age 18 were more
likely to have been granted humanitarian parole than were adult
applicants. This is consistent with the stated purposes of humanitarian
parole and the HAB protocols that facilitate family reunification of
minors in circumstances of compelling humanitarian need. While 35
percent of the applicants under age 18 were granted humanitarian
parole, no other age group had a grant rate over 25 percent. While the
27 adjudicators who have made recommendations since fiscal year 2002
collectively recommended that 75 percent of the humanitarian parole
applications be denied, the denial recommendation rates for individual
adjudicators varied. HAB officials stated that they expected variation
among individual adjudicators because the facts and circumstances of
each application varied and adjudicators do not all review the same
applications. Officials noted that no single adjudicator‘s
recommendation can serve as the basis for a final decision; every case
requires at least two adjudicators‘ recommendations, followed by review
and a final decision by the HAB Branch Chief or a designee. The six
adjudicators who had the highest workload from fiscal year 2002 through
June 30, 2007”accounting for about 84 percent of all adjudication
recommendations”had denial recommendation rates that ranged from 66
percent to 84 percent.
HAB has designed internal controls to help ensure that requests for
humanitarian parole are decided in a fair, equitable, and objective
manner. Our review of case files and the PCTS database found that these
controls were generally effective, that is, functioning as intended. To
help ensure objectivity and fairness in a decision-making process that
is discretionary under the law, HAB has written policies and
procedures, including a requirement that every application be reviewed
by two adjudicators who make a recommendation on whether to approve or
deny the application. If the first two disagree, a third makes a ’tie-
breaking“ recommendation. Further, each application is then reviewed by
the HAB Branch Chief or a designee, who then makes the final decision.
However, according to the HAB Branch Chief, if he or the designee
decides to override the adjudicators‘ recommendations, he or the
designee would discuss this with one of his two supervisors before a
final decision is made. HAB staff also used informal roundtable
discussions to help decide especially difficult or complex cases.
Another internal control requires a data system to track, process, and
record the key information in every single case. Our review found that
PCTS is used and does serve to reliably track application information
and record the adjudication results. Another HAB internal control
intended to ensure that applicants‘ requests are processed reasonably
quickly”an important factor in humanitarian cases that involve
emergency medical or family issues”is a stated goal to adjudicate cases
within 60 to 90 days. PCTS data show that cases were adjudicated within
this time frame, with the median time for grants being 8 to 18 days and
the median time for denials ranging from 10 to 22 days in fiscal years
2002 through 2006. Through June 30 of fiscal year 2007, the median time
increased to 53 days for grants and 36 days for denials, which the HAB
Branch Chief attributed to the additional security checks now required
before final approval. While HAB generally has effective controls,
three areas can be strengthened to more fully comport with internal
control standards. First, although internal controls standards state
that an agency must have sufficient staff to carry out its duties, HAB
may no longer have a sufficient number of staff to ensure it continues
to follow its policies and procedures. As of December 2007, the program
had two permanent adjudicators”significantly fewer than the number
available before the August 2007 movement of HAB from ICE to USCIS”-and
less than the number needed to ensure that at least two adjudicators
and a third, if needed, are available to process applications. HAB
officials told us that the prospects for getting additional staff were
uncertain and that until permanent staff were assigned, HAB planned to
use adjudicators detailed from other USCIS units to help adjudicate
humanitarian parole applications. Second, internal control standards
state that providing formal training is a method by which an agency can
address expertise and experience issues. HAB does not have a formal
training program for new staff who may be detailed to its office from
elsewhere in USCIS to help process humanitarian parole applications,
thereby increasing the risk that adjudicators may not have the
expertise to adjudicate applications in accordance with applicable
guidelines. Third, internal control standards state that agencies
should establish open and effective communications channels with
customers. USCIS‘s Web site”the primary means of communicating program
criteria to potential applicants”does not have all needed information
about the circumstances under which a person may apply for humanitarian
parole, including the need to first exhaust other immigration
alternatives (e.g., obtaining a visa), except in circumstances of
compelling emergency. Nor does it state that those convicted of an
immigration infraction, or other crime, are generally ineligible for
humanitarian parole. This lack of information about the need for
applicants to generally first exhaust other immigration alternatives,
absent a compelling emergency, leaves open the possibility that some
applicants might not realize that they generally have to have been
denied a visa, or be unable to obtain one in time to cope with an
emergency, such as attending a funeral, to request humanitarian parole.
As a result, applicants may be losing time, as well as the $305
application fee required to apply for humanitarian parole. In addition,
HAB‘s workload could be increased unnecessarily, putting additional
strains on its limited staff.
To help ensure that HAB continues to adhere to its existing policies
and procedures and to strengthen its internal controls, we are
recommending that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the
Director of USCIS to ensure that the appropriate number of permanent
staff is available to process humanitarian parole applications, develop
a formal training program for new and detailed staff, and revise
USCIS‘s Web site information and instructions for humanitarian parole.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS said it agreed with our
recommendations and discussed actions it has underway to address them.
Written comments from DHS are in appendix III.
Background:
Humanitarian parole”in the context of immigration”refers to official
permission for an otherwise inadmissible alien to legally enter the
United States temporarily. This includes aliens required to have a visa
to visit or immigrate to the United States who are unable to obtain
one, either due to ineligibility or urgent circumstances that make it
impractical to apply for one. Specifically, the Immigration and
Nationality Act grants the Secretary of Homeland Security discretionary
authority to parole an alien into the United States temporarily on a
case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons, such as to obtain
medical treatment not available in his or her home country, visit a
dying relative, or reunify young children with relatives. [Footnote 7]
Granted for a maximum of 1 year, humanitarian parole does not
constitute permanent admission of the alien into the country. Once the
purpose of the parole is fulfilled, the alien is to leave the United
States. [Footnote 8] According to the associated HAB protocols for
adjudicating humanitarian parole applications, humanitarian parole is
an extraordinary measure, to be used sparingly and not to circumvent
normal visa-issuing procedures.
The humanitarian parole application process begins when HAB receives an
application and supporting evidence (e.g., a doctor‘s statement
regarding a physical ailment or a death certificate for a family
member) from the requester, who may be the applicant, the applicant‘s
attorney, or someone applying on the applicant‘s behalf. [Footnote 9]
Upon receiving an application, a HAB staff member checks to ensure that
the applicant is seeking humanitarian parole, the required information
is entered on the application form (Form I-131), and the package
includes the $305 application processing fee. If the application is
complete, the HAB staff member enters the information from the Form I-
131 into the PCTS database. In turn, the PCTS generates a letter to
confirm receipt of the application and assigns a case number. The
adjudicator [Footnote 10] then runs a security check on both the
applicant (called the beneficiary) and the person requesting
humanitarian parole, if different from the applicant, against two
federally operated security databases.
If there is no match with immigration or national security databases
indicating a security issue with the person(s) applying for
humanitarian parole, the HAB Chief (or designee) signs the confirmation-
of-receipt letter, which is sent to the applicant or the person
applying on his or her behalf. The HAB staff then create a working case
file. Urgent cases, such as those related to medical treatment, are
placed in red folders and given higher priority over less urgent cases,
which are placed in green folders. HAB officials told us that urgent
cases are processed immediately. Figure 1 illustrates the process for
adjudicating applications for humanitarian parole.
Figure 1: The Humanitarian Parole Application and Adjudication Process:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of the Humanitarian Parole Application
and Adjudication Process, depicting the following data:
Process:
Applicant: mails application to:
Humanitarian Assistance Branch (HAB) (Washington D.C.); HAB employee
checks package:
* Applicant for humanitarian parole?
* Required information filled in?
* Check for processing fee included? HAB staff member prioritizes
applications:
* Emergency or juvenile (urgent) – red folder;
* All others (less urgent) – green folder; I-131 info entered into
PCTS;
Preliminary background check against immigration and national security
data bases; Print confirmation of receipt letter and assign case
number; HAB Branch Chief or designee signs letter; First adjudication
drawer;
Case file sent to First adjudicator; Recommendation entered in PCTS;
Second adjudication drawer;
Case file sent to Second adjudicator; Recommendation entered in PCTS;
First and second adjudicators concur:
* If yes, sent to HAB Branch Chief or designee;
* If no, Third adjudicator reviews and breaks tie, then sent to HAB
Branch Chief or designee; Additional security check against national
security data bases of applicants recommended for approval; HAB Branch
Chief or designee reviews decision; signs if she/he concurs; Letter is
sent to applicant and attorney (if any); If parole is granted, HAB
electronically notifies consulate or embassy; Parolee obtains official
travel document at embassy or consulate.
Source: GAO analysis of HAB information.
[End of figure]
About Three-Fourths of Humanitarian Parole Applications Were Denied
with Few Differences in Denial Rates by Demographic Characteristic and
Some Differences in Adjudicator Recommendations:
The 8,748 humanitarian parole applications that HAB adjudicated from
October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, displayed various
characteristics, and grant and denial rates did not differ for most of
them, although there were some differences in adjudicator
recommendations. Specifically, 54 percent were female; 46 percent,
male. Forty-five percent of the applicants came from 11 countries, with
Mexico having the greatest number of applicants. Most, 68 percent, were
under the age of 40. Sixty-four percent of the requests for
humanitarian parole were for two reasons”family reunification (49
percent) and medical emergency (15 percent). Of the 8,748 adjudicated
applications, 6,615, or about 76 percent, were denied.
We estimate that 57 percent of the denials specified as a reason that
the applicant had not first exhausted all other avenues of immigration,
such as applying for a visa, and that in 13 percent of the denials,
applicants had committed an infraction of immigration law or other
crime”both of which are generally disqualifying factors, absent what
the USCIS Web site on humanitarian parole describes as ’a very
compelling emergency.“ We found few differences in the granting or
denial rates with regard to the demographic characteristic of gender
and, with two exceptions, with regard to country of residence. However,
we did find a difference in adjudication decisions for applicants under
age 18, who had a higher grant rate than other age groups. This is
consistent with the stated purposes of humanitarian parole and the HAB
protocols that facilitate family reunification of minors in
circumstances of compelling humanitarian need. There were some
differences in grant/denial recommendation rates among adjudicators,
with a denial recommendation rate of 66 to 84 percent for the 6
adjudicators with the greatest workload who made 15,000 adjudication
recommendations from fiscal year 2002 through June 30, 2007, or 84
percent of all adjudicator recommendations. However, there was
considerably greater variation among those who adjudicated fewer cases,
with denial rates ranging from 43 percent to 93 percent of total
recommendations among 18 other adjudicators who made 2,957
recommendations, or 16 percent of the total. [Footnote 11]
HAB Approved Humanitarian Parole for 24 Percent of Applicants:
From October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, HAB adjudicated 8,748
applications for humanitarian parole; of these, 24 percent were granted
humanitarian parole, while 76 percent were denied parole. Table 1
displays data on humanitarian parole adjudication decision outcomes
from fiscal years 2002 through 2007.
Table 1: Humanitarian Parole Adjudication Decision Outcomes, Fiscal
Years 2002 to 2007:
Fiscal year: 2002;
Grants: Numbers: 365;
Grants: Percent of total decisions: 29;
Denials: Numbers: 898;
Denials: Percent of total decisions: 71;
Total Decisions: 1,263.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Grants: Numbers: 364;
Grants: Percent of total decisions: 25;
Denials: Numbers: 1,092;
Denials: Percent of total decisions: 75;
Total Decisions: 1,456.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Grants: Numbers: 348;
Grants: Percent of total decisions: 19;
Denials: Numbers: 1,519;
Denials: Percent of total decisions: 81;
Total Decisions: 1,867.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Grants: Numbers: 367;
Grants: Percent of total decisions: 23;
Denials: Numbers: 1,263;
Denials: Percent of total decisions: 77;
Total Decisions: 1,630.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Grants: Numbers: 407;
Grants: Percent of total decisions: 28;
Denials: Numbers: 1,043;
Denials: Percent of total decisions: 72;
Total Decisions: 1,450.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Grants: Numbers: 282;
Grants: Percent of total decisions: 26;
Denials: Numbers: 800;
Denials: Percent of total decisions: 74;
Total Decisions: 1,082.
Fiscal year: Total;
Grants: Numbers: 2,133;
Grants: Percent of total decisions: 24;
Denials: Numbers: 6,615;
Denials: Percent of total decisions: 76;
Total Decisions: 8,748.
Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data.
Note: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007.
[End of table]
Applicants by Gender:
Fifty-four percent of the humanitarian parole applicants were female
and 46 percent were male. The gender ratios were generally consistent
year to year, with the exception of fiscal year 2005 when 51 percent of
applicants were male and 49 percent were female. Table 2 shows the
number of humanitarian applicants by gender for fiscal years 2002
through 2007.
Table 2: Gender of Humanitarian Parole Applicants, Fiscal Years 2002 to
2007:
Fiscal Year: 2002;
Total: 1,183;
Male: 532;
Percent: 45%;
Female: 651;
Percent: 55%.
Fiscal Year: 2003;
Total: 1,422;
Male: 628;
Percent: 44%;
Female: 794;
Percent: 56%.
Fiscal Year: 2004;
Total: 1,833;
Male: 840;
Percent: 46%;
Female: 993;
Percent: 54%.
Fiscal Year: 2005;
Total: 1,622;
Male: 828;
Percent: 51%;
Female: 794;
Percent: 49%.
Fiscal Year: 2006;
Total: 1,366;
Male: 594;
Percent: 43%;
Female: 772;
Percent: 57%.
Fiscal Year: 2007;
Total: 1,064;
Male: 494;
Percent: 46%;
Female: 570;
Percent: 54%.
Fiscal Year: Total;
Total: 8,490;
Male: 3,916;
Percent: 46%;
Female: 4,574;
Percent: 54.
Gender not listed in PCTS: 258;
Total number of decisions: 8,748.
Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data.
Note: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007.
[End of table]
Applicants by Country of Residence:
Individuals from 167 different countries applied for humanitarian
parole. Of the 8,748 applicants, 3,933 or 45 percent, were from 11
countries; 4,632 applicants or 53 percent, were residents of 156 other
countries, and no country of residence was listed in PCTS for 183
applicants (2 percent). Residents of Mexico constituted the largest
number of humanitarian parole applicants, about 9 percent. Table 3
provides data on the number of final adjudications by country of
residence for the top eleven countries.
Table 3: Countries of Residence of Humanitarian Parole Applicants,
Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007:
Country of Residence: Mexico;
Number of total final adjudications: 788;
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 9%.
Country of Residence: Philippines;
Number of total final adjudications: 577;
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 7%.
Country of Residence: Cuba;
Number of total final adjudications: 552;
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 6%.
Country of Residence: Lebanon;
Number of total final adjudications: 307;
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 4%.
Country of Residence: India;
Number of total final adjudications: 302;
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 3%.
Country of Residence: Colombia;
Number of total final adjudications: 279;
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 3%.
Country of Residence: China, Peoples Republic of;
Number of total final adjudications: 238;
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 3%.
Country of Residence: El Salvador;
Number of total final adjudications: 235;
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 3%.
Country of Residence: Iraq;
Number of total final adjudications: 231;
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 3%.
Country of Residence: Haiti;
Number of total final adjudications: 212;
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 2%.
Country of Residence: Iran;
Number of total final adjudications: 212;
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 2%.
Adjudication decisions total for top 11 countries:
Number of total final adjudications: 3,933;
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 45%.
Rest of world total:
Number of total final adjudications: 4,632;
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 53%.
Country of Residence unknown:
Number of total final adjudications: 183;
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 2%.
Total:
Number of total final adjudications: 8,748;
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data.
Notes: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007.
The category ’Rest of world total“ includes 316 applications for
potential beneficiaries of humanitarian parole whom the PCTS database
categorized as residing in the United States.
[End of table]
Applicants by Age Group:
Most of the applicants for humanitarian parole were under age 40. Of
the 8,692 applicants for whom the application contained data on their
age in PCTS, 5,966, or 68 percent, were under age 40. Twenty-seven
percent of all applicants were under the age of 18. Table 4 shows the
number of humanitarian parole applicants by age group.
Table 4: Humanitarian Parole Applicants by Age Group, Fiscal Years 2002
to 2007:
Age group of adjudicated applicants: Under 18;
Number: 2,369;
Percent of Total: 27.
Age group of adjudicated applicants: 18-29;
Number: 2,096;
Percent of Total: 24.
Age group of adjudicated applicants: 30-39;
Number: 1,501;
Percent of Total: 17.
Age group of adjudicated applicants: 40-49;
Number: 1,130;
Percent of Total: 13.
Age group of adjudicated applicants: 50-59;
Number: 798;
Percent of Total: 9.
Age group of adjudicated applicants: 60-99;
Number: 798;
Percent of Total: 9.
Age group of adjudicated applicants: No birth date in PCTS;
Number: 56;
Percent of Total: 1.
Age group of adjudicated applicants: Total;
Number: 8,748;
Percent of Total: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data.
Note: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007.
[End of table]
HAB officials identified four broad reasons for humanitarian parole
applications: (1) life-threatening medical emergencies; (2) family
reunification for compelling humanitarian reasons; (3) emergent, such
as to visit an ill family member, or to resolve matters associated with
the death of a relative; and (4) "other," such as a caregiver needed to
care for someone in the United States. We estimated that 64 percent of
the requests for humanitarian parole were for two reasons--family
reunification for compelling humanitarian reasons (49 percent) and
medical emergency (15 percent). Figure 2 shows the percentage of
applications adjudicated by reason for the request for fiscal years
2002 through 2007, based on a probability sample of 462 cases that we
reviewed.
Figure 2: Estimated Frequency of Reasons for Humanitarian Parole
Requests, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a pie-chart, depicting the following data:
Family reunification for compelling humanitarian reasons: 49%;
Life-threatening medical emergency: 15%;
Emergent requests: 13%;
Other compelling humanitarian requests: 23%.
Source: GAO content analysis of sampled PCTS data.
Note: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007.
[End of figure]
Several Reasons Were Cited for HAB's Denying Humanitarian Parole
Applications:
The PCTS database shows that since fiscal year 2002, 76 percent of all
applicants were denied humanitarian parole. Based upon our review of
the narrative summaries in our sample of denied applications, we
identified 10 reasons adjudicators cited when recommending a
humanitarian parole application be denied. HAB officials agreed that
these categories represented the reasons for denial; they noted that
because their decisions are discretionary, none of these reasons are in
and of themselves automatically disqualifying. Rather, these are the
reasons cited in the probability sample as the basis of the reasoning
by the HAB adjudicators as leading to their denial recommendation. The
10 categories were:
* The applicant had not exhausted alternative immigration processes
available to them for which they might have been eligible, such as
obtaining a visa, absent urgent circumstances that made it impractical
to do so.
* The applicant provided no evidence supporting an emergent condition,
such as a death certificate in the case where the request was to attend
a funeral.
* The applicant provided no or inadequate evidence to support the
reason for the request for humanitarian parole, such as a claimed
medical emergency.
* The applicant had committed a prior immigration violation or other
criminal violation.
* The purpose of the parole was not temporary in nature. That is, HAB
believed that the applicant intended to stay in the United States
beyond the duration of a parole period.
* Other family members already in the United States could provide care
to the person intended to benefit from the presence of the applicant.
* The needed medical treatment was available outside the United States.
* There was insufficient evidence of adequate financial support to
prevent the applicant from becoming a public charge while in the United
States.
* The applicant provided no proof of familial relationship in cases
where a family relationship was claimed as the basis of the
application.
* Other: This was for applications that did not fall into the other
categories. For example, other cases included when persons already
approved for humanitarian parole mistakenly applied to HAB for an
extension of their parole period rather than apply with a local USCIS
district office. Another example was when an applicant for lawful
permanent residency departed the United States without first obtaining
the needed permission from USCIS and then applied for humanitarian
parole to re-enter the United States, a situation that is not valid
grounds for humanitarian parole.
In recommending that an application be denied, adjudicators sometimes
cited more than one reason in explaining their recommendation. For
example, an adjudicator may have cited both that the applicant had not
exhausted alternative immigration processes available and that the
applicant provided no evidence supporting an emergent condition. Table
5 below shows the estimated percentage of applications where a
particular reason for denial was cited.
Table 5: Estimated Percentage of Applications Where Reason for Denial
Was Cited, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007:
Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: Requester has not
exhausted alternative immigration processes;
Estimated percent: 57.
Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: No evidence of an
emergent condition;
Estimated percent: 46.
Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: No evidence or
inadequate evidence provided to support the reason for application for
humanitarian parole;
Estimated percent: 36.
Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: Prior immigration
violation or crime;
Estimated percent: 13.
Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: Purpose of
obtaining humanitarian parole is not temporary in nature (i.e., it was
believed that the applicant intended to stay in the United States
beyond the duration of a parole period);
Estimated percent: 12.
Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: Other family
members in the US can provide care;
Estimated percent: 4.
Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: Needed medical
treatment was available outside the U.S.;
Estimated percent: 3.
Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: Inadequate
financial support to keep applicant from becoming a public charge while
in the US;
Estimated percent: 3.
Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: Other;
Estimated percent: 3.
Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: No proof of
familial relationship as claimed by applicant;
Estimated percent: 2.
Source: GAO content analysis of sampled PCTS data.
Note: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007.
[End of table]
Table 5 shows that an estimated 57 percent of the denials had as a
reason that the applicant had not first exhausted other avenues of
immigration, such as applying for a visa, absent urgent circumstances
that made it impractical to do so. Table 5 also shows that an estimated
46 percent of all the denied applicants had not provided evidence of an
emergent condition and that an estimated 13 percent of denied
applicants had committed an infraction of immigration law or other
crime. These and the other reasons cited are generally disqualifying
factors in applications for humanitarian parole.
Humanitarian Parole Decision Outcomes Show Few Differences by Gender
and Country of Residence, but Grant Rates Were Higher for Applicants
under Age 18:
HAB has considerable discretion in adjudicating humanitarian parole
applications. According to HAB's guidance on adjudicating humanitarian
parole applications, exercising discretion involves the ability to
consider all factors in making a decision on whether a parole request
rises to the level of an urgent humanitarian reason. The exercise of
discretion requires that an adjudicator take into account applicable
immigration law, regulations, policy and a consideration of the
totality of the circumstances of the case including any significant
mitigating factors. Most importantly, according to the guidance,
discretionary decisions on humanitarian parole applications should be
reached in a fair, equitable, and objective manner.
We analyzed the PCTS data to determine whether there were differences
in grant and denial rates according to applicants' gender, country of
residence, age, and by adjudicators. The latter factor--the adjudicator
involved--must be considered in the context of the adjudication
process, which requires that each application be reviewed by two
different adjudicators and that if the first two adjudicators disagree
in their recommendation, a third adjudicator then reviews the
application and makes a recommendation. Then, the HAB Branch Chief or a
designee is required to provide supervisory review and make the final
decision. Therefore, while individual adjudicators could vary in their
recommendations, the internal control system is set up to ensure that
no single adjudicator has a decisive role in the outcome decision. (We
discuss these internal controls later in this report.)
Our analysis showed virtually no difference in the grant and denial
rates according to applicants' gender. With regard to country of
residence, of the 11 foreign nations from which most applicants
applied, applicants from Haiti had a lower rate of approval than the
others while those from Cuba, El Salvador, India, Iran, Iraq, and
Mexico had almost identical rates, and applicants from Lebanon had the
highest grant rate. HAB officials attributed the lower rate for
Haitians to special immigration eligibility rules for Haitians that
were not well understood by applicants and the higher rate for Lebanese
residents to special humanitarian circumstances resulting from
evacuations associated with the July 2006 conflict in southern Lebanon
between Israel and Hezbollah.
Humanitarian parole-granting rates were higher for applicants under age
18 than they were for adults, consistent with HAB protocols and
practices that favor reunification of children under age 18 with
parents or close relatives. Grant and denial recommendation rates by
individual adjudicators varied, with greater variation among those who
adjudicated fewer cases. According to HAB officials, variations were
expected in the grant/denial recommendation rates among adjudicators,
since the facts and circumstances of each application varied and
adjudicators do not all review the same applications. However, these
officials stated that the application process had been designed with
multiple checks to ensure that no single person would be able to
unfairly influence the decision outcome, and that informal roundtable
discussions among many staff were also used to deal with particularly
difficult cases. As a result, they said, while grant/denial
recommendation rates could vary by adjudicator, the process had been
set up to achieve outcomes based on what amounts to a consensus, rather
than being the product of a single adjudicator's recommendation.
Decision Outcomes Were Similar for Male and Female Applicants:
For fiscal years 2002 to 2007, there were few differences in the annual
grant/denial rates for male and female applicants, in adjudicated
humanitarian parole decisions, with the exception of fiscal year 2005,
when the grant rate for females was 21 percent and the grant rate for
males was 24 percent. Table 6 shows the yearly approval and denial
rates by gender.
Table 6: Approval and Denial Rates by Gender, Fiscal Years 2002 to
2007:
Fiscal Year: 2002;
Female: Grant: Number: 192;
Female: Grant: Percent: 29%;
Female: Deny: Number: 459;
Female: Deny: Percent: 71%;
Male: Grant: Number: 153;
Male: Grant: Percent: 29%;
Male: Deny: Number: 379;
Male: Deny: Percent: 71%.
Fiscal Year: 2003;
Female: Grant: Number: 198;
Female: Grant: Percent: 25%;
Female: Deny: Number: 596;
Female: Deny: Percent: 75%;
Male: Grant: Number: 159;
Male: Grant: Percent: 25%;
Male: Deny: Number: 469;
Male: Deny: Percent: 75%.
Fiscal Year: 2004;
Female: Grant: Number: 185;
Female: Grant: Percent: 19%;
Female: Deny: Number: 808;
Female: Deny: Percent: 81%;
Male: Grant: Number: 159;
Male: Grant: Percent: 19%;
Male: Deny: Number: 681;
Male: Deny: Percent: 81%.
Fiscal Year: 2005;
Female: Grant: Number: 164;
Female: Grant: Percent: 21%;
Female: Deny: Number: 630;
Female: Deny: Percent: 79%;
Male: Grant: Number: 198;
Male: Grant: Percent: 24%;
Male: Deny: Number: 630;
Male: Deny: Percent: 76%.
Fiscal Year: 2006;
Female: Grant: Number: 219;
Female: Grant: Percent: 28%;
Female: Deny: Number: 553;
Female: Deny: Percent: 72%;
Male: Grant: Number: 169;
Male: Grant: Percent: 28%;
Male: Deny: Number: 425;
Male: Deny: Percent: 72%.
Fiscal Year: 2007;
Female: Grant: Number: 147;
Female: Grant: Percent: 26%;
Female: Deny: Number: 423;
Female: Deny: Percent: 74%;
Male: Grant: Number: 129;
Male: Grant: Percent: 26%;
Male: Deny: Number: 365;
Male: Deny: Percent: 74%.
Fiscal Year: Total[A];
Female: Grant: Number: 1105;
Female: Grant: Percent: 24%;
Female: Deny: Number: 3469;
Female: Deny: Percent: 76%;
Male: Grant: Number: 967;
Male: Grant: Percent: 25%;
Male: Deny: Number: 2949;
Male: Deny: Percent: 75%.
Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data.
Notes: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007.
The analysis did not include 258 applications for which PCTS did not
contain the applicants' gender.
[End of table]
With Two Exceptions, There Were Few Differences in Decision Outcomes by
Country of Residence:
With two exceptions, there were few differences in the adjudication
outcomes for grant or denial of humanitarian parole applications by
country of residence. With the exception of applicants from Haiti and
Lebanon, denial rates for the 11 countries that had the most applicants
ranged from 68 percent to 82 percent, compared to the overall denial
rate of 76 percent. The denial rate for Haitian applicants was 92
percent; in contrast, applicants from Lebanon had the lowest denial
rate--45 percent. According to HAB officials, the higher denial rate
for Haitians may be in part a result of a high number of applications
made by Haitians applying for humanitarian parole on behalf of
relatives who did not qualify as derivative beneficiaries (spouses and
dependent children) under the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act
(HRIFA) of 1998.[Footnote 12] For example, an applicant might have
applied on behalf of a sibling or extended relative who did not meet
the requirements of the Act or those of the humanitarian parole
program. With respect to applicants from Lebanon, HAB officials told us
that the July 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah had generated
applications for humanitarian parole under special urgent circumstances
that probably produced a high grant rate. Table 7 shows the percentage
of humanitarian parole applications granted and denied by the 11
countries from which the most applicants originated as well as for the
total program for fiscal years 2002 through 2007.
Table 7: Humanitarian Parole Adjudications by Applicants' Country of
Residence, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007:
Country of Residence: Mexico;
Number of final adjudications: 788;
Number of grants: 139;
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 18%;
Number of denials: 649;
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 82%.
Country of Residence: Philippines;
Number of final adjudications: 577;
Number of grants: 137;
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 24%;
Number of denials: 440;
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 76%.
Country of Residence: Cuba;
Number of final adjudications: 552;
Number of grants: 103;
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 19%;
Number of denials: 449;
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 81%.
Country of Residence: Lebanon;
Number of final adjudications: 307;
Number of grants: 170;
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 55%;
Number of denials: 137;
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 45%.
Country of Residence: India;
Number of final adjudications: 302;
Number of grants: 57;
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 19%;
Number of denials: 245;
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 81%.
Country of Residence: Colombia;
Number of final adjudications: 279;
Number of grants: 88;
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 32%;
Number of denials: 191;
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 68%.
Country of Residence: China, People's Republic of;
Number of final adjudications: 238;
Number of grants: 63;
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 26%;
Number of denials: 175;
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 74%.
Country of Residence: El Salvador;
Number of final adjudications: 235;
Number of grants: 43;
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 18%;
Number of denials: 192;
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 82%.
Country of Residence: Iraq;
Number of final adjudications: 231;
Number of grants: 50;
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 22%;
Number of denials: 181;
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 78%.
Country of Residence: Haiti;
Number of final adjudications: 212;
Number of grants: 16;
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 8%;
Number of denials: 196;
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 92%.
Country of Residence: Iran;
Number of final adjudications: 212;
Number of grants: 42;
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 20%;
Number of denials: 170;
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 80%.
Country of Residence: Total Adjudication Decisions top 11 countries;
Number of final adjudications: 3,933;
Number of grants: 908;
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 23%;
Number of denials: 3,025;
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 77%.
Country of Residence: Rest of World;
Number of final adjudications: 4,815;
Number of grants: 1,225;
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 25%;
Number of denials: 3,590;
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 75%.
Country of Residence: Total Adjudication Decisions;
Number of final adjudications: 8,748;
Number of grants: 2,133;
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 24%;
Number of denials: 6,615;
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 76%.
Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data.
Notes: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007.
The category "Rest of World" includes 316 applications for potential
beneficiaries of humanitarian parole that the PCTS database categorized
as residing in the United States. This category also includes 183
persons whose country of residence was not entered into the PCTS
database.
[End of table]
Applicants under Age 18 Had Higher Rates of Being Granted Humanitarian
Parole, Consistent with HAB Guidance:
One of the reasons individuals can request humanitarian parole is to
reunite young children with family members. HAB officials told us that
they have followed a practice of applying this policy to those who are
under age 18, since 18 is the age of majority in many countries.
Consistent with this program goal, HAB granted humanitarian parole to
35 percent of the applicants under 18, a higher rate than those for
other age groups and 11 percentage points higher than the overall grant
rate of 24 percent. Table 8 shows the grant and denial rates by age
distribution.
Table 8: Percentage of Applications Granted and Denied by Age Group,
Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007:
Age Group: Under 18;
Percent Granted: 35%;
Percent Denied: 65%.
Age Group: 18-29;
Percent Granted: 19%;
Percent Denied: 81%.
Age Group: 30-39;
Percent Granted: 25%;
Percent Denied: 75%.
Age Group: 40-49;
Percent Granted: 24%;
Percent Denied: 76%.
Age Group: 50-59;
Percent Granted: 17%;
Percent Denied: 83%.
Age Group: 60-99;
Percent Granted: 17%;
Percent Denied: 83%.
Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data.
Note: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007.
[End of table]
Although Grant/Denial Recommendation Rates Varied among Adjudicators,
Those Responsible for Most of the Cases Had Similar Rates:
HAB's process for adjudicating humanitarian parole requests requires
that at least two adjudicators review the application and make a
recommendation to grant or deny the request. For the 8,748 applications
adjudicated from October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, 27
adjudicators made a total of 17,963 recommendations. Our analysis of
PCTS data showed that of the 17,963 recommendations, 13,480 (75
percent) were to deny the application. The grant/denial recommendation
rates by adjudicators varied to some extent among adjudicators, with a
denial rate of 66 to 84 percent for the 6 adjudicators with the
greatest workloads, who made 15,000, or 84 percent, of all adjudicator
recommendations from fiscal year 2002 through June 30, 2007.
Collectively, these six adjudicators had a recommendation denial rate
of 77 percent, slightly higher than the overall 75 percent
recommendation denial rate for the period. Of these six adjudicators,
the four who had the highest number of humanitarian parole cases--
accounting for just over 69 percent of all adjudicator recommendations-
-had recommendation denial rates that ranged from just over 76 percent
to just under 84 percent. However, there was considerably greater
variation among those who adjudicated fewer cases, with denial
recommendation rates ranging from 43 percent to 93 percent of total
recommendations among 18 other adjudicators who each made 15 or more
recommendations, and a total of 2,957 recommendations, or 16 percent of
the total, from fiscal year 2002 through June 30, 2007.[Footnote 13]
Table 9 shows the approval and denial rates for all 27 adjudicators.
Table 9: Number and Percentage of Adjudication Recommendations for
Granting and Denying Humanitarian Parole by Adjudicator, Fiscal Years
2002 to 2007:
Adjudicator: 1;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 5,074;
Percent of all recommendations: 28%;
Number of denial recommendations: 3,863;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 76%;
Number of grant recommendations: 1,211;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 24%.
Adjudicator: 2;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 3,536;
Percent of all recommendations: 20%;
Number of denial recommendations: 2,957;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 84%;
Number of grant recommendations: 579;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 16%.
Adjudicator: 3;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 2,297;
Percent of all recommendations: 13%;
Number of denial recommendations: 1,754;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 76%;
Number of grant recommendations: 543;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 24%.
Adjudicator: 4;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 1,523;
Percent of all recommendations: 8%;
Number of denial recommendations: 1,185;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 78%;
Number of grant recommendations: 338;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 22%.
Adjudicator: 5;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 1,484;
Percent of all recommendations: 8%;
Number of denial recommendations: 973;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 66%;
Number of grant recommendations: 511;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 34%.
Adjudicator: 6;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 1,086;
Percent of all recommendations: 6%;
Number of denial recommendations: 819;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 75%;
Number of grant recommendations: 267;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 25%.
Adjudicator: 7;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 492;
Percent of all recommendations: 3%;
Number of denial recommendations: 337;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 69%;
Number of grant recommendations: 155;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 32%.
Adjudicator: 8;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 462;
Percent of all recommendations: 3%;
Number of denial recommendations: 314;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 68%;
Number of grant recommendations: 148;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 32%.
Adjudicator: 9;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 446;
Percent of all recommendations: 2%;
Number of denial recommendations: 191;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 43%;
Number of grant recommendations: 255;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 57%.
Adjudicator: 10;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 364;
Percent of all recommendations: 2%;
Number of denial recommendations: 218;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 60%;
Number of grant recommendations: 146;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 40%.
Adjudicator: 11;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 221;
Percent of all recommendations: 1%;
Number of denial recommendations: 155;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 70%;
Number of grant recommendations: 66;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 30%.
Adjudicator: 12;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 215;
Percent of all recommendations: 1%;
Number of denial recommendations: 169;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 79%;
Number of grant recommendations: 46;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 21%.
Adjudicator: 13;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 195;
Percent of all recommendations: 1%;
Number of denial recommendations: 108;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 55%;
Number of grant recommendations: 87;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 45%.
Adjudicator: 14;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 150;
Percent of all recommendations: 1%;
Number of denial recommendations: 112;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 75%;
Number of grant recommendations: 38;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 25%.
Adjudicator: 15;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 104;
Percent of all recommendations: 1%;
Number of denial recommendations: 77;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 74%;
Number of grant recommendations: 27;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 26%.
Adjudicator: 16;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 74;
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty];
Number of denial recommendations: 65;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 88%;
Number of grant recommendations: 9;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 12%.
Adjudicator: 17;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 61;
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty];
Number of denial recommendations: 57;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 93%;
Number of grant recommendations: 4;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 7%.
Adjudicator: 18;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 37;
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty];
Number of denial recommendations: 31;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 84%;
Number of grant recommendations: 6;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 16%.
Adjudicator: 19;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 36;
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty];
Number of denial recommendations: 19;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 53%;
Number of grant recommendations: 17;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 47%.
Adjudicator: 20;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 28;
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty];
Number of denial recommendations: 23;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 82%;
Number of grant recommendations: 5;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 18%.
Adjudicator: 21;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 22;
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty];
Number of denial recommendations: 12;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 55%;
Number of grant recommendations: 10;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 45%.
Adjudicator: 22;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 20;
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty];
Number of denial recommendations: 18;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 90%;
Number of grant recommendations: 2;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 10%.
Adjudicator: 23;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 15;
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty];
Number of denial recommendations: 8;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 53%;
Number of grant recommendations: 7;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 47%.
Adjudicator: 24;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 15;
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty];
Number of denial recommendations: 13;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 87%;
Number of grant recommendations: 2;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 13%.
Adjudicator: 25;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 4;
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty];
Number of denial recommendations: 0;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: [Empty];
Number of grant recommendations: 4;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 100%.
Adjudicator: 26;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 1;
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty];
Number of denial recommendations: 1;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 100%;
Number of grant recommendations: 0;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: [Empty].
Adjudicator: 27;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 1;
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty];
Number of denial recommendations: 1;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 100%;
Number of grant recommendations: 0;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: [Empty].
Adjudicator: Total;
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 17,963;
Percent of all recommendations: 100%;
Number of denial recommendations: 13,480;
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 75%;
Number of grant recommendations: 4,483;
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 25%.
Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data.
Notes: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007.
In the "percent of all recommendations" columns, if the percentage was
less than 0.5 percent of the total, no percentage is shown.
The total number of adjudication recommendations exceeds the number of
applications adjudicated because two adjudicators are to make a
recommendation on each case and, at times, a third adjudicator is asked
to make a tie-breaking recommendation when the first two do not agree.
[End of table]
In discussing these data with HAB officials, they noted that three
factors should be taken into consideration. First, the facts and
circumstances of each application varied, and it is not expected that
the grant/denial recommendation rate would be the same for all
adjudicators because they do not all review the same applications.
Second, each adjudicator brings a different background and work
experience to the position. Thus, the adjudicators might judge the
facts and circumstances of the same application somewhat differently.
Third, no individual adjudicator has sole authority to make the final
adjudication decision. Each adjudication outcome requires at least two
adjudicators' recommendations and sometimes a "tie breaker"
recommendation by a third adjudicator before a final decision is made
by the HAB Branch Chief or a designee.
HAB Generally Had Effective Internal Controls, but Those Related to
Staffing, Training, and Communication with Stakeholders Could Be
Strengthened:
HAB has designed internal controls to help ensure that requests for
humanitarian parole are decided in a fair, equitable, and objective
manner, and our review of case files and the PCTS database found that
these controls have been generally effective, that is, functioning as
intended. However, three areas could be strengthened to improve HAB's
ability to adhere to internal control standards. First, following HAB's
transfer from ICE to USCIS, HAB may no longer have a sufficient number
of permanent staff to ensure continued compliance with its policies and
procedures. Second, HAB does not have a formal training program for
staff unfamiliar with humanitarian parole who may be detailed to its
office to help process applications thereby increasing the risk that
these adjudicators may not have the expertise to make decisions in
accordance with applicable guidelines. Third, USCIS's Web site--the
primary means of communicating program criteria to potential
applicants--has limited information about the circumstances under which
a person may apply for humanitarian parole and therefore may be of
limited use to those who seek information about the program.
HAB's Internal Controls Were Generally Effective:
HAB designed internal controls to help ensure requests for humanitarian
parole were decided in a fair, equitable, and objective manner and our
review of case files and PCTS data found these controls were generally
effective, that is, functioning as intended. For example, our standards
for internal control in the federal government require that programs
have policies and procedures to help ensure management's directives are
carried out.[Footnote 14] HAB has two documents--the Protocol for
Humanitarian Parole Requests and the Standard Operating Procedures for
Humanitarian Paroles--that provide detailed instructions on how to
adjudicate and process humanitarian parole applications. The protocols
list the major reasons for humanitarian parole and the factors
adjudicators are to consider given the type of humanitarian parole
request. For example, in considering medical requests, HAB adjudicators
are to consider, among other things, the nature and severity of the
medical condition for which treatment is sought and whether or not the
requested treatment is available in the applicant's home or neighboring
country. Regarding family reunification, HAB adjudicators are to
consider, among other things, whether the request is designed to
circumvent the normal visa issuance procedures. Appendix II contains
more information on factors HAB adjudicators are to consider when
adjudicating humanitarian parole applications. The procedures call for
two adjudicators to review each application and make a recommendation
regarding whether the application should be approved or denied.
Adjudicators are to provide a short summary explaining their reasoning
behind their recommendation in a text box in PCTS. Should the two
adjudicators disagree, a third adjudicator, or "tie-breaker," is asked
to review the application and make a recommendation. The protocols also
require the HAB Branch Chief or a designee to review the application
and make a final decision. According to the HAB Branch Chief, the
process of having two adjudicators review each case, including a third
adjudicator if needed, as well as the Branch Chief's review and final
decision on approval or disapproval, is intended to provide consistency
in applying the decision criteria. The Branch Chief also told us that
in difficult cases it was not uncommon for all the professional staff
in the office to have an informal roundtable discussion to ensure that
all the factors and complexities of the application were adequately and
fairly considered. He also told us that if he decides to override
adjudicators' recommendations in a case, he does not finalize such a
decision until he has first discussed the case with at least one of his
two supervisors.
HAB also maintains information in PCTS that is contained in the
application as well as data such as the HAB adjudicator summary
explanation of the case, the adjudication recommendations made by the
various adjudicators, and the decision reached. The system also
contains built-in checks to help ensure internal controls are followed.
For example, the PCTS database will not allow a grant or denial letter
to be printed unless the system contains information that two
adjudicators reviewed the application, as evidenced by their having
filled in the appropriate text boxes.
Our review of a sample of humanitarian parole application case files
and associated data in PCTS showed that HAB staff followed established
policies and procedures. For example, in all cases the PCTS database
showed that at least two adjudicators reviewed each application and had
written an explanation in the designated text box explaining the
reasoning behind their adjudication recommendation. Our direct
observation of PCTS in use confirmed that the edit checks built into
PCTS to ensure that all required steps are taken before an applicant
grant or denial letter could be printed were working. In addition, all
hard copy files we reviewed contained a letter notifying the applicants
or their representative of HAB's decision and signed by a HAB official.
The letters in the files were signed by the HAB Branch Chief or a
designee, indicating that supervisory review was performed. Our
probability sample allowed us to conclude that this control was
effective for PCTS applications in the March 1, 2007, to June 30, 2007,
time period.
HAB has a goal of adjudicating humanitarian parole applications within
60 to 90 calendar days, although HAB officials told us that decisions
in the most urgent cases are sometimes made almost immediately. As
shown in figure 3, from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2006, HAB
achieved this goal, with the median processing time for grants ranging
from 8 to 18 days and the median time for denials ranging from 10 to 22
days in this period. Processing some applications took longer than
these times, for various reasons. For example, HAB officials cited
delays in obtaining the results of DNA testing to confirm a family
relationship. For fiscal year 2007 through June 30, 2007, the median
time to adjudicate cases increased to 53 days for grants and 36 days
for denials. HAB officials told us that they had increased the number
of security databases against which applicants provisionally approved
for humanitarian parole are checked, prior to granting final approval.
As a result, the median number of days to process applications
increased in fiscal year 2007 compared to previous years.
Figure 3: Median Number of Calendar Days to Process Humanitarian Parole
Applications, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Fiscal year: 2002;
Grants: 14 median calendar days;
Denials: 11 median calendar days.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Grants: 18 median calendar days;
Denials: 20 median calendar days.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Grants: 16 median calendar days;
Denials: 16 median calendar days.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Grants: 11 median calendar days;
Denials: 10 median calendar days.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Grants: 8 median calendar days;
Denials: 22 median calendar days.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Grants: 53 median calendar days;
Denials: 36 median calendar days.
Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data.
Note: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007.
[End of figure]
All 10 immigration attorneys we interviewed, as well as both accredited
representatives of two non-profit organizations that offer legal
assistance to immigrants, including sometimes helping humanitarian
parole applicants, told us that they were generally satisfied with the
speed of the adjudication of applications and had no complaints about
the time HAB took to adjudicate their client applications. Five of the
12 attorneys and accredited representatives also told us that HAB
decided their cases within 30 to 45 calendar days of the submission of
the application. Ten of the 12 attorneys and accredited representatives
with whom we spoke were generally satisfied with the responsiveness of
the HAB staff, including their willingness to grant applicants more
time to provide additional evidence to support applications for
humanitarian parole.
Controls Related to Staffing, Training, and Communication with
Stakeholders Could be Strengthened:
Our work showed that controls related to staffing, training, and
communication with stakeholders could be strengthened to enable HAB to
carry out its mission and to more fully comport with internal control
standards. These areas relate to the number of HAB staff needed to
ensure it continues to follow its policies and procedures, a training
program for new staff not familiar with humanitarian parole and/or
staff who may be detailed to the HAB to help process applications, and
whether USCIS's Web site--the primary means of communicating program
criteria to potential applicants--has sufficient information about the
circumstances under which a person may apply for humanitarian parole.
Staffing:
Prior to the transfer of HAB from ICE to USCIS, HAB had 11 permanent
staff, including the Branch Chief, for processing requests for both
humanitarian and other types of parole. According to the HAB Branch
Chief, this staffing level helped ensure that HAB (1) adhered to its
policies and procedures of having two adjudicators, a third adjudicator
when necessary to break ties, different adjudicators to review
applications submitted for reconsideration, and supervisory review of
each application; (2) performed data entry requirements; and, (3) could
meet its goal of adjudicating applications within 60 to 90 calendar
days. However, the memorandum of agreement that transferred the
humanitarian parole program from ICE to USCIS in August 2007 provided
for the reassignment of only the Branch Chief and two adjudicators to
administer the humanitarian parole program.
Standards for internal controls in the federal government state that an
agency must have sufficient staff, including supervisors, to
effectively carry out its assigned duties. Having only a Chief and two
adjudicators to administer the humanitarian parole program may not be a
sufficient number of staff to ensure HAB can continue to comply with
its policies and procedures. For example, as noted above and according
to HAB policies and procedures, two adjudicators are to review each
application. Should the two adjudicators disagree, a third adjudicator,
a tie-breaker, is needed to review the application and make a
recommendation. The HAB Branch Chief or a designee is to review each
application and make a final decision. With only two adjudicators,
there is no one to act as a "tie-breaker" because the Branch Chief
normally does not assume this role. In addition, if an applicant's
request for humanitarian parole is denied, he or she has the
opportunity to provide additional information and have HAB reconsider
the application. HAB protocols recommend that in these situations, two
different adjudicators--and a third adjudicator when necessary to break
a tie--review the reconsidered application. However, having only two
adjudicators could put a strain on the program's ability to continue to
meets its goal of processing applications within 60 to 90 days.
According to the HAB Branch Chief, based on HAB's current workload, at
least nine staff members are needed to administer the humanitarian
parole program--a branch chief, a senior adjudications officer, four
adjudications officers, two data entry and case management clerks to
enter application information into PCTS and to create and maintain the
hardcopy folders of the cases, and one case manager to respond to the
400 to 500 associated inquiries that the branch receives each year.
Until permanent staff are requested, approved, and assigned, HAB plans
to use adjudications officers detailed from other parts of USCIS to
help adjudicate humanitarian parole applications.
In addition to having a limited number of staff transferred with the
humanitarian parole program, staff members who transferred were those
who had relatively less experience processing humanitarian parole
applications. The two permanent adjudicators now at HAB accounted for
11 percent of the cases adjudicated between October 1, 2001, and June
30, 2007. None of the top three adjudicators who decided a total of 61
percent of the cases during that period transferred to USCIS. HAB
officials also told us that when the program had 11 staff (including
the Branch Chief), if a backlog of cases began to develop, they could
have everyone work to reduce it. With only two permanent adjudicators
and the Branch Chief, HAB does not have the staff needed to address
backlogs that might develop or to provide backup in the event of staff
require leave for illness, training, or vacations.
Training:
Although HAB plans to use detailed adjudicators as necessary, HAB
officials told us that they have no formal training curriculum on how
to adjudicate humanitarian parole applications. Officials told us that
to date, adjudicators have come from the ranks of those who have
considerable experience in immigration-related issues and that this
enabled adjudicators to know how to adjudicate humanitarian parole
applications after brief on-the-job instruction. Officials also told us
that they intend to develop training curriculum on adjudication of
humanitarian parole cases. Internal control standards in the federal
government state that providing formal training is a method by which an
agency can address expertise and experience issues. Until a training
program is in place, staff detailed to HAB and new permanent staff not
familiar with adjudicating humanitarian parole applications may not get
the training they need. Having untrained staff increases the risk that
they may not have the expertise to make humanitarian parole decisions
in accordance with applicable guidelines.
Communication with Stakeholders:
Internal control standards in the federal government state that
agencies should establish open and effective communications channels
with customers and other groups that can provide significant input on
agency products and services. This is particularly important with
respect to humanitarian parole applications where the applicant pays a
$305 fee for a government service. Our standards for internal controls
offer guidelines for communication between an agency and both its
internal and external customers. These guidelines state that an agency
should provide sufficient information so that clients can understand
the rules and processes and can make effective use of the services the
agency is supposed to offer.
However, those seeking humanitarian parole may not fully understand the
rules for applying. As noted earlier in this report, an estimated 57
percent of those denied humanitarian parole were denied, in whole or in
part, because the requester had not exhausted alternative immigration
processes, such as requesting a visa, a process that generally must be
used prior to requesting a humanitarian parole visa absent urgent
circumstances that made it impractical to do so. We also found that an
estimated 13 percent of those denied humanitarian parole had committed
an infraction of immigration law or other crime, which is also
generally a disqualifying factor.
USCIS uses its Web site as the primary tool to communicate information
about the humanitarian parole process to the public. The U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services has developed Research Based
Web Design and Usability Guidelines. The 2006 guidelines state that Web
sites should be designed to facilitate effective human-computer
interaction and that if the content of the Web site does not provide
the information needed by users, it will provide little value no matter
how easy it is to use. The instructions included on the USCIS Web site
for how and under what circumstances to apply for humanitarian parole
were limited. For example, the Web site does not state that to be
eligible for humanitarian parole, applicants must generally have first
exhausted other available avenues of relief, other than in
circumstances of compelling humanitarian emergency or when urgency
makes it impractical to do so. The instructions state that the
applicant is to submit a statement on "why a U.S. visa cannot be
obtained instead of having to apply for humanitarian parole" but does
not state that an application for a visa generally should have been
made and rejected, again absent urgent circumstances that make it
impractical to do so.[Footnote 15]
Further, the written instructions may be confusing to some applicants.
For example, the instructions state that "anyone can file an
application for humanitarian parole," including "the prospective
parolee, a sponsoring relative, an attorney, or any other interested
individual or organization." While technically true, the language could
lead persons to file and pay the $305 application fee when they first
should have exhausted other immigration alternatives (such as filing
for a visa), except when there are circumstances that constitute an
emergency. This potential lack of information about the need for most
applicants to first exhaust other immigration alternatives, absent an
emergency, leaves open the possibility that some applicants might not
realize that they generally have to have been denied a visa to request
humanitarian parole. As a result, applicants may be losing time, as
well as the $305 application fee required to apply for humanitarian
parole. In addition, HAB's workload could be increased unnecessarily,
therefore putting additional strains on its limited staff.
Although HAB has extensive protocols on what to consider when
adjudicating humanitarian parole applications, there is little
information on USCIS's Web site regarding what HAB considers when
adjudicating these applications and finding such information can be
difficult. Six of the 12 attorneys and accredited representatives we
interviewed said that they and their clients would have benefited from
more guidance on the application process, including an explanation of
what supporting documentation and evidence to include in the
application, adjudication criteria, and examples of circumstances
warranting humanitarian parole. Clearer and more explicit information
about the humanitarian parole process could better inform potential
applicants and their attorneys and representatives. Six of 12 attorneys
and accredited representatives stated that having either a phone number
or an e-mail address on the Web site to contact HAB would help
facilitate communication. Two attorneys suggested that using e-mail
could speed correspondence with HAB as well as the submission of
application materials.
Four attorneys who had represented clients who were denied parole told
us that HAB should include more information on the grounds for denial
in the decision letter. Specifically, four of the seven attorneys who
had at least one client denied parole were dissatisfied with the brief
form language included with the notification letter. Two attorneys
stated that the brief letters gave them the impression that the
applications had not received sufficient or serious consideration. HAB
officials, however, expressed concern that providing detailed
explanations of denials would lead to reapplications of denials
tailored to overcome the original grounds for the denial, even when the
underlying facts of the case had not changed. This, in their view,
would increase the number of potentially frivolous applications and add
to the agency's overall workload from persons who were ineligible for
humanitarian parole--and slow down the processing times for genuinely
urgent cases. Finally, two attorneys who received approvals for their
clients stated they would have appreciated clearer instructions about
how to obtain the necessary travel documents from an embassy or
consulate. HAB officials told us that the letters they provide to
applicants or to their representatives can at most tell them whether
they have been granted or denied parole and, if granted, which embassy
or consulate they need to contact to obtain the travel documents. The
officials stated that information regarding embassy and consulate
locations and hours of operations is available on the Department of
State Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.travel.state.gov].
Conclusions:
HAB has instituted internal controls that are designed to help ensure
that humanitarian parole applications are decided in a fair, equitable,
and objective manner, and these controls were generally effective, that
is, functioning as intended. With the move to USCIS resulting in the
transfer of only the HAB Branch Chief and two permanent adjudicators,
HAB does not have sufficient staff for two independent reviews of an
application and a possible tie breaker--a key internal control
mechanism. Until an adequate staffing level is decided and implemented,
HAB may face challenges in adhering to its policies and procedures on
adjudication. Without a formal training program for potential new staff
and those who might be detailed to HAB, the agency cannot ensure that
these staff will be properly trained to make recommendations in
accordance with applicable guidelines. Lastly, additional information
on USCIS's Web site about the need for applicants to first exhaust
other immigration avenues before applying for humanitarian parole and
more information about the criteria HAB uses to adjudicate humanitarian
parole applications could help applicants decide whether the
expenditure of time and the $305 application fee would be appropriate
and what types of evidence are needed to help ensure HAB makes an
informed decision. Without this additional information, applicants may
lose time and money applying for humanitarian parole and HAB's workload
may be increased unnecessarily, straining its already limited staff.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help ensure that HAB is able to process applications for
humanitarian parole consistent with its own policies and procedures and
to help ensure applicants understand the humanitarian parole rules and
processes, we recommend that the Secretary of DHS direct the Director
of USCIS to take the following three actions:
* coordinate with the HAB Branch Chief to determine the number of staff
HAB needs to process humanitarian parole applications in accordance
with its policies and procedures and assign them to HAB;
* develop a formal training program curriculum on adjudication of
humanitarian parole cases for new and detailed staff; and:
* revise USCIS's Web site instructions for humanitarian parole to help
ensure that applicants understand the need to first exhaust all other
immigration avenues and the criteria HAB uses to adjudicate
humanitarian parole applications.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a copy of a draft of this report to DHS for comment. In
commenting on our draft report, DHS stated that it concurred with our
recommendations and that it has begun taking actions to implement each
of them. DHS stated that the HAB is finalizing a comprehensive staffing
assessment for review by USCIS and that, in the short-term, HAB has
made interim arrangements to have experienced USCIS staff assist its
staff. DHS stated that USCIS intends to implement a formal humanitarian
parole training program during fiscal year 2008 and that the program
would offer an orientation process for all staff members responsible
for processing humanitarian parole applications. Last, DHS stated that
USCIS will undertake a thorough review of the Web site and make
appropriate modifications, including but not limited to the development
of a frequently-asked-questions section, and that these modifications
would be implemented during fiscal year 2008.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Secretary of State, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, and interested congressional committees. We will
also make copies available to others on request. In addition, this
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-8777 or by e-mail at stanar@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this
report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Richard M. Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This report addresses U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service's
(USCIS) Humanitarian Assistance Branch's (HAB) policies and procedures
for adjudicating applications for humanitarian parole. Specifically, we
answered the following questions: (1) What are the characteristics of
those who applied for and were either granted or denied humanitarian
parole since fiscal year 2002 and did approval and denial rates differ
according to these characteristics or the adjudicator assigned? (2)
What internal controls has HAB designed to adjudicate humanitarian
parole applications and to what extent did HAB adhere to these internal
controls when processing humanitarian parole applications? We performed
our work at HAB's office in Washington, D.C.
To determine the characteristics of those who applied for and were
either granted or denied humanitarian parole since fiscal year 2002 and
what differences, if any, there were in grant or denial rates according
to these characteristics or the adjudicator assigned, we obtained and
analyzed data from DHS's Parole Case Tracking System (PCTS), a database
that contains computerized records of all individuals whose
applications for humanitarian parole have been approved, denied,
suspended, terminated, or are pending. We analyzed the data on the
8,748 cases that were either approved or denied from October 1, 2001,
through June 30, 2007, the cutoff date necessary to ensure that the
cases under review had been fully adjudicated and closed. PCTS is a
database that was carried over from the (former) Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) to DHS, when the latter was formed and
absorbed the INS. The PCTS is now maintained by HAB. PCTS contains no
interfaces to any external computer or communication systems.
To determine the reliability of PCTS data, we compared the data in PCTS
with the information contained in a sample of hard-copy humanitarian
parole applications. While the HAB keeps indefinitely humanitarian
parole applications that were approved, the HAB only keeps for 6 months
those that were denied. Therefore, to include both approvals and
denials in our sample, we selected a stratified probability sample of
145 cases from the 544 cases that were either approved or denied from
March 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007, to evaluate data reliability for
this period.
The results of our data verification were as follows:
* We sampled 74 denied cases from the population of 378 denied cases
and found no errors.
* We sampled 71 granted cases from the population of 166 granted cases
during this period and found no errors.
Because we found no instances of error between the data in PCTS and the
underlying hard-copy applications, we are 95 percent confident that the
frequency of these errors would be less than 4 percent for both the
granted and the denied cases for the time period we reviewed.
Therefore, we consider the results of our analyses using data from
DHS's PCTS to yield accurate representations of the distribution of
humanitarian parole grant and denial decisions by applicant
characteristics and by adjudicator. We also consider the results of our
analyses using PCTS data to yield accurate representations of time
frames for adjudicating humanitarian parole applications and of reasons
for denial of humanitarian parole applications.
Data Analysis:
We performed comprehensive analyses on PCTS data covering the period
from October 1, 2001 through June 30, 2007. Our analyses included:
* the distribution of humanitarian parole grant and denial decisions by
applicant age, gender, and country of residence;
* distribution of grant and denial decisions by reason for request and
reason for denial;
* distribution of grant and denial recommendations by adjudicator; and:
* time frames required for adjudication (calendar days).
Specifically, we summarized data on the number of applications approved
or denied humanitarian parole from October 1, 2001, through June 30,
2007. To determine whether there were any differences in the
demographic characteristics among those granted or denied humanitarian
parole, we analyzed key demographic characteristics of the applicants
(i.e., age, gender, and country of origin). We also examined whether
there were any differences in the approval and denial rates between
specific adjudicators:
To examine the reasons for requesting humanitarian parole and the
reasons for which applicants were denied, we selected a stratified
probability sample of 462 cases from fiscal year 2002 through June 30,
2007, and performed content analyses on these cases. The sample strata
were defined in terms of time period and whether the request was denied
or granted. Table 10 summarizes the population of humanitarian parole
cases and our sample selected for the content analyses.
Table 10: Sample Population Used for Content Analyses:
Type of Humanitarian Parole Case: Denied;
Time Period: 10/01/01 to 2/28/07;
Population: 6,238;
Sample Size: 131.
Type of Humanitarian Parole Case: Denied;
Time Period: 3/1/07 to 6/30/07;
Population: 377;
Sample Size: 149.
Total Denied:
Population: 6,615;
Sample Size: 280.
Type of Humanitarian Parole Case: Granted;
Time Period: 10/01/01 to 2/28/07;
Population: 1,972;
Sample Size: 122.
Type of Humanitarian Parole Case: Granted;
Time Period: 3/1/07 to 6/30/07;
Population: 161;
Sample Size: 60.
Grand Total:
Population: 8,748;
Sample Size: 462.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
We performed a content analysis of the reasons for the requests
contained in the text boxes on all 462 applications. We then
categorized the explanations in the text boxes for requesting
humanitarian parole into four major categories: (1) life-threatening
medical emergencies; (2) family reunification for compelling
humanitarian reasons; (3) emergent, defined by the HAB guidelines as
including the need to visit an ill family member, or to resolve matters
associated with the death of a relative, or to attend a funeral; and
(4) "other," such as a caregiver needed to care for someone in the
United States. These categories are in the protocols that HAB
adjudicators use in making their recommendations. We confirmed these
categories with HAB.
To determine the reasons for which applicants were denied humanitarian
parole, we reviewed the 280 cases in our sample in which the applicant
was denied humanitarian parole and performed a content analysis of the
explanations for denial of parole contained in the text boxes. We then
categorized the explanations for denials contained in these text boxes
into 10 categories. HAB officials agreed that these 10 categories
represented the reasons for denial. They noted that because their
decisions are discretionary, none of these reasons are in and of
themselves automatically disqualifying. Rather, these are the reasons
cited in the text boxes found in the probability sample as the basis of
the reasoning by the HAB adjudicators as leading to their denial
recommendation. The 10 categories were:
* The applicant had not exhausted alternative immigration processes
available to them and for which they might have been eligible, such as
obtaining a visa, absent urgent circumstances that made it impractical
to do so.
* The applicant provided no evidence supporting an emergent condition,
such as a death certificate in the case where the request was to attend
a funeral.
* The applicant provided no or inadequate evidence to support the
reason for the request for humanitarian parole, such as a claimed
medical emergency.
* The applicant had committed a prior immigration violation or other
criminal violation.
* The purpose of the parole was not temporary in nature. That is, HAB
believed that the applicant intended to stay in the United States
beyond the duration of a parole period.
* Other family members already in the United States could provide care
to the person intended to benefit from the presence of the applicant.
* The needed medical treatment was available outside the United States.
* There was insufficient evidence of adequate financial support to
prevent the applicant from becoming a public charge while in the United
States.
* The applicant provided no proof of familial relationship in cases
where a family relationship was claimed as the basis of the
application.
* Other: This was for applications that did not fall into the other
categories. For example, other cases included when a person already
approved for humanitarian parole mistakenly applied to HAB for an
extension of the parole period rather than apply with a local USCIS
district office. Another example was when an applicant for lawful
permanent residency left the United States without first obtaining the
needed permission from USCIS and then applied for humanitarian parole
to re-enter the United States, a situation that is not valid grounds
for humanitarian parole.
In recommending that an application be denied, adjudicators sometimes
cited more than one reason in explaining their recommendation.
Therefore, we counted all reasons cited by the adjudicators in the PCTS
text boxes.
Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections,
our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have
drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we
express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample's
results as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 8
percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the actual
population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As
a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence
intervals in this report will include the true values in the study
population. For example, we estimate that 49 percent of requests were
for family reunification for compelling humanitarian reasons, so we are
95 percent that for the entire population of requests, between 41 and
57 percent of the time family reunification for compelling humanitarian
reasons was the reason for requesting humanitarian parole.
Estimates from this sample are to the population of humanitarian parole
cases processed by DHS (or its precursor, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service) from October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007.
The 8,748 applications contained in the PCTS data through June 30,
2007, provided by DHS represent 100 percent of the application cases
either granted or denied within the Humanitarian Parole program at the
time of our analysis.
To determine what internal controls HAB designed to adjudicate
humanitarian parole applications and to what extent HAB adhered to
these internal controls when processing humanitarian parole
applications, we obtained HAB policies and procedures and compared them
with standards for internal control in the federal government and other
internal control guidance related to control activities, staffing
levels, training, and communication with external clients. In assessing
the adequacy of internal controls, we used the criteria in GAO's
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD 00-
21.3.1, dated November 1999. These standards, issued pursuant to the
requirements of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982
(FMFIA), provide the overall framework for establishing and maintaining
internal control in the federal government. Also pursuant to FMFIA, the
Office of Management and Budget issued Circular A-123, revised December
21, 2004, to provide the specific requirements for assessing the
reporting on internal controls. Internal control standards and the
definition of internal control in Circular A-123 are based on GAO's
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We also used
the guidance contained in Internal Control Management and Evaluation
Tool, GAO-01-1008G, dated August 2001. In addition, we tested
compliance with two internal controls--that at least two adjudicators
reviewed each case, and that a signature of the HAB Branch Chief or a
designee existed--for each of the 145 cases selected for our validation
sample. From this review, we found no instances of noncompliance with
the internal controls. This means that we are 95 percent confident the
frequency of this type of noncompliance would be less than 4 percent
for the both the granted and the denied cases for the time period we
reviewed. Based on this review, we concluded that these internal
controls are effective.
Structured interviews with Attorneys and Representatives:
To obtain a more complete understanding of the humanitarian parole
process, we interviewed accredited representatives (non-attorneys
accredited to represent aliens before immigration courts) of 2 non-
profit groups that have handled humanitarian parole cases--Catholic
Charities USA and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)--as well as
10 private attorneys who are members of the American Immigration
Lawyers Association (AILA). The 12 individuals we interviewed
collectively had assisted with 20 humanitarian parole applications
since 2000. We asked each of these individuals a similar set of
questions about their experiences with the application process.
Additionally, we asked them to describe aspects of that process that
worked well and to identify areas where they felt it could be improved.
Because these individuals and groups were selected using
nonprobabilistic methods, conclusions drawn from these interviews
cannot be generalized to the immigration law community.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Major Reasons for Humanitarian Parole Requests and Factors
HAB Considers when Adjudicating Applications:
The HAB has a protocol document that states in general, that HAB looks
at the totality of the circumstances when reviewing requests for
humanitarian parole. The protocol also describes broad reasons for
humanitarian parole applications and lists factors within these that
HAB may consider in determining parole eligibility. According to its
protocols, HAB determines whether the reasons given in the requests are
urgent or an emergency compared to other seemingly similar requests.
The following information does not constitute a comprehensive list of
factors included in the protocol, but rather provides examples of the
types of factors HAB considers.
* Medical Requests: In considering medical requests, HAB adjudicators
are to carefully review the application, supporting documentation, and
other resources to determine among other factors:
* the nature and severity of the medical condition for which treatment
is sought;
* whether or not the requested treatment is available in the home or
neighboring country; and:
* the medical verification of the need of the prospective parolee.
* Family Reunification: Regarding family reunification, HAB will
consider many elements, such as:
* whether the request is designed to circumvent the normal visa
issuance process;
* evidence of a bona fide relationship between the applicant and
claimed relatives in the United States; and:
* the age and mental and/or physical limitations of the family member
who is seeking to be paroled into the United States.
"Emergent" requests: Emergent conditions that the HAB considers
include: humanitarian situations, such as visiting dying family member;
the need to attend a funeral; or resolution of matters associated with
the death of a family member. In addition, according to PHAB protocols,
the agency considers:
* evidence of a bona fide relationship;
* Medical documentation supporting the prognosis of the family member,
or death certificate (when a relative has died); and:
* whether there are no other next of kin residing in the United States
who can provide emotional support or settle an estate.
Other Humanitarian Requests: Humanitarian parole is a discretionary
decision that inherently permits the HAB to consider any circumstances
brought to its attention by the applicant. HAB protocols note that
while every situation is "emergent" to the applicant and/or sponsor,
many requests for humanitarian parole are for the convenience of the
applicant and/or sponsor.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
[hyperlink, http://www.dhs.gov]:
January 28, 2008:
Mr. Richard M. Stana:
Director:
Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stana:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report GAO-08-282 entitled
Immigration Benefits: Internal Controls for Adjudicating Humanitarian
Parole Cases are Generally Effective but Some Can Be Strengthened.
The Department of Homeland Security would like to thank GAO for its due
diligence and thoroughness in the preparation of this report. Overall,
this report provides an accurate description of the process, internal
controls and the challenging responsibilities of U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services' (USCIS') Humanitarian Assistance Branch (HAB).
To enhance the humanitarian parole process, the GAO issued the
following three recommendations addressed to the Director of USCIS.
USCIS agrees with these three recommendations and has begun to take
action to implement the recommended actions, as detailed below.
Recommendation 1: Coordinate with the HAB Branch Chief to determine the
number of staff HAB needs to process humanitarian parole applications
in accordance with its policies and procedures and assign them to HAB.
The Humanitarian Assistance Branch is finalizing a comprehensive
staffing assessment for review by USCIS leadership. As a short-term
strategy, HAB has made interim arrangements to have experienced USCIS
staff assist in processing this time-sensitive and critical workload.
GAO Recommendation 2: Develop a formal training program curriculum on
adjudication of humanitarian parole cases for new and detailed staff.
USCIS intends to implement a formal Humanitarian Parole (HP) training
program during Fiscal Year 2008. Such a program would offer a
streamlined, consistent, orientation process for all staff members,
permanent or detailed, who will be responsible for processing HP
requests.
Recommendation 3: Revise USCIS' website instructions for humanitarian
parole to help ensure that applicants understand the need to first
exhaust all other immigration avenues and the criteria HAB uses to
adjudicate humanitarian parole applications.
While USCIS agrees that various modifications can be made to the USCIS
website to provide additional clarity and further guidance to the
public, USCIS is also mindful that HP, as defined by statute, involves
the application of discretion and a careful assessment of unique case
circumstances. In light of this adjudicatory foundation, the criterion
typically applied in HP adjudications is not static in nature, and the
case-by-case review process challenges the development of any bright-
line adjudicative criteria. Nonetheless, to ensure that the public has
sufficient information on the HP Program, USCIS will undertake a
thorough review of its website and make the appropriate modifications,
including but not limited to the development of a Frequently Asked
Questions section (complete with corresponding answers). USCIS intends
to implement these modifications during Fiscal Year 2008.
Thanks you again for the opportunity to comment on this draft report
and we look forward to working with you on future homeland security
issues.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Steven J. Pecinovsky:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Richard M. Stana (202) 512-8777 or StanaR@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact listed above, Michael P. Dino, Assistant
Director; David P. Alexander; Richard J. Ascarate; Frances Cook;
Michelle Cooper; Shawn Mongin; Mark Ramage; Jerome T. Sandau; John G.
Smale, Jr.; Jonathan R. Tumin; and Derek Updegraff made key
contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7). Under the Visa Waiver Program, foreign
nationals from 27 countries may visit the United States for tourism or
business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. In
addition, citizens of Canada and Bermuda visiting temporarily are not
required to have a visa.
[2] In December 2007, we were told by HAB officials that the name of
what had been the Parole and Humanitarian Assistance Branch had been
shortened to HAB.
[3] See appendix I for additional information on this sample and for a
more detailed description of the content analysis methodology.
[4] GAO: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/
AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). These standards,
issued pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), provide the overall framework for
establishing and maintaining internal control in the federal
government.
[5] GAO: Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G
(Washington, D.C.: August 2001).
[6] All percentage estimates based on the content analysis sample have
95 percent confidence intervals of within plus or minus 8 percentage
points of the estimate itself. See appendix I for additional
information on the content analysis sample.
[7] 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). In addition to foreign nationals applying to
HAB for parole, other individuals can be granted parole. For example,
the Secretary of DHS can parole those arriving at a U.S. port of entry
(a government-designated location where goods and persons are inspected
to determine whether they can be lawfully admitted into the country).
The Report to Congress: Use of the Attorney General's Parole Authority
under the Immigration and Naturalization Act Fiscal Years 1998-1999
specifies several categories of parole: advance parole, port of entry
parole, deferred inspection parole, overseas parole, public interest
parole, and--the subject of this report--humanitarian parole.
[8] However, in certain cases, humanitarian parole may be used to allow
juveniles to live with family members in the United States beyond the 1-
year limitation until their applications for immigrant visas are
processed.
[9] Anyone may file on behalf of another person, provided the potential
beneficiary is outside the United States. Application forms and
instructions can be found on the USCIS Web site.
[10] According to HAB officials, an adjudicator is an HAB staff member
trained in immigration law who reviews the application and recommends
whether to grant or deny the humanitarian parole request.
[11] This figure does not include three adjudicators who made a total
of six recommendations from fiscal year 2002 through June 30, 2007. Two
of the three adjudicators made a single recommendation each and one
adjudicator made four recommendations.
[12] Pub. L. No. 105-277, tit. IX, 112 Stat. 2681-538. HRIFA permits
certain Haitians living in the United States and their dependents to
apply for lawful permanent resident status without having to apply for
an immigrant visa at a United States consulate abroad. Eligibility is
generally limited to Haitians who were present in the United States by
December 31, 1995.
[13] The 2,957 figure does not include six additional recommendations
by three adjudicators made since fiscal year 2002. Two of the three
adjudicators made a single recommendation each, and one adjudicator
made four recommendations.
[14] See GAO: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[15] According to HAB officials, demonstrating exhaustion of other
available avenues of relief generally requires applying for and being
denied a visa, but a denied visa application is not always necessary,
especially in time-sensitive cases where visa issuance is not a
practical option, such as to attend a funeral.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
