Visa Waiver Program
Limitations with Department of Homeland Security's Plan to Verify Departure of Foreign Nationals
Gao ID: GAO-08-458T February 28, 2008
The Visa Waiver Program, which enables citizens of participating countries to travel to the United States without first obtaining a visa, has many benefits, yet also presents security, law enforcement, and illegal immigration risks. In August 2007, Congress passed legislation that provides the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the authority to expand the program to additional countries whose nationals' applications for short-term business and tourism visas were refused between 3 and 10 percent of the time in the prior fiscal year. Countries must also meet certain conditions, and DHS must first complete and certify a number of required actions aimed at enhancing the security of the program. This testimony will focus on one of these required actions--namely, that a system be in place that can verify the departure of 97 percent of foreign nationals who depart through U.S. airports (referred to as an air exit system). Our observations are based on our review of relevant legislation, regulations and agency operating procedures, and prior GAO reports on the Visa Waiver Program and immigrant and visitor entry and exit tracking systems, as well as on discussions with federal agency officials. In commenting on a draft of this statement, DHS emphasized that it had not finalized its plan for certifying the "97 percent" requirement, but that the department believes the current plan would meet the legislative requirement. The Department of State also provided technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate.
On December 12, 2007, DHS reported to us that it will match records of foreign nationals departing the country, as reported by airlines, to the department's existing records of any prior arrivals, immigration status changes, or prior departures from the United States. Using this formula, DHS stated that it can attain a match rate above 97 percent, based on August 2007 data, to certify compliance with the legislative air exit system requirement. DHS told us that it believes this methodology would meet the statutory requirement. On February 21, 2008, DHS indicated that it had not finalized its decision on the methodology the department would use to certify compliance. Nevertheless, the department confirmed that the basic structure of its methodology would not change, and that it would use departure records as the starting point. There are several limitations with this methodology. For example, DHS's methodology does not begin with arrival records and determine if these foreign nationals stayed in the United States beyond their authorized periods of admission (referred to as overstays). Therefore, this methodology will not inform overall and country-specific overstay rates--key factors in determining illegal immigration risks of the Visa Waiver Program. Although most long-term overstays are likely motivated by economic opportunities, a few overstays have been identified as terrorists or involved in terrorist-related activity, including some of the September 11, 2001, hijackers. In addition, DHS's current methodology does not address the accuracy of airlines' transmissions of departure records, and DHS acknowledges that there are weaknesses in the departure data. For example, there may be some visitors who did not leave the country by air even though they were recorded on airlines' manifest data as having departed. The inability of the U.S. government to track the status of visitors in the country, to identify those who overstay their authorized period of visit, and to use this data to compute overstay rates have been longstanding weaknesses in the oversight of the Visa Waiver Program. DHS's plan to meet the "97 percent" requirement in the visa waiver expansion legislation will not address these weaknesses.
GAO-08-458T, Visa Waiver Program: Limitations with Department of Homeland Security's Plan to Verify Departure of Foreign Nationals
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-458T
entitled 'Visa Waiver Program: Limitations with Department of Homeland
Security's Plan to Verify Departure of Foreign Nationals' which was
released on February 29, 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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland
Security, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:30p.m.EST Thursday, February 28, 2008:
Visa waiver program:
Limitations with Department of Homeland Security's Plan to Verify
Departure of Foreign Nationals:
Statement of Jess T. Ford, Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
GAO-08-458T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-458T, a testimony before the Chairman,
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security, Committee
on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Visa Waiver Program, which enables citizens of participating
countries to travel to the United States without first obtaining a
visa, has many benefits, yet also presents security, law enforcement,
and illegal immigration risks. In August 2007, Congress passed
legislation that provides the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
with the authority to expand the program to additional countries whose
nationals‘ applications for short-term business and tourism visas were
refused between 3 and 10 percent of the time in the prior fiscal year.
Countries must also meet certain conditions, and DHS must first
complete and certify a number of required actions aimed at enhancing
the security of the program. This testimony will focus on one of these
required actions”namely, that a system be in place that can verify the
departure of 97 percent of foreign nationals who depart through U.S.
airports (referred to as an air exit system). Our observations are
based on our review of relevant legislation, regulations and agency
operating procedures, and prior GAO reports on the Visa Waiver Program
and immigrant and visitor entry and exit tracking systems, as well as
on discussions with federal agency officials. In commenting on a draft
of this statement, DHS emphasized that it had not finalized its plan
for certifying the ’97 percent“ requirement, but that the department
believes the current plan would meet the legislative requirement. The
Department of State also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated, as appropriate.
What GAO Found:
On December 12, 2007, DHS reported to us that it will match records of
foreign nationals departing the country, as reported by airlines, to
the department‘s existing records of any prior arrivals, immigration
status changes, or prior departures from the United States. Using this
formula, DHS stated that it can attain a match rate above 97 percent,
based on August 2007 data, to certify compliance with the legislative
air exit system requirement. DHS told us that it believes this
methodology would meet the statutory requirement. On February 21, 2008,
DHS indicated that it had not finalized its decision on the methodology
the department would use to certify compliance. Nevertheless, the
department confirmed that the basic structure of its methodology would
not change, and that it would use departure records as the starting
point. There are several limitations with this methodology. For
example, DHS‘s methodology does not begin with arrival records and
determine if these foreign nationals stayed in the United States beyond
their authorized periods of admission (referred to as overstays).
Therefore, this methodology will not inform overall and country-
specific overstay rates”key factors in determining illegal immigration
risks of the Visa Waiver Program. Although most long-term overstays are
likely motivated by economic opportunities, a few overstays have been
identified as terrorists or involved in terrorist-related activity,
including some of the September 11, 2001, hijackers. In addition, DHS‘s
current methodology does not address the accuracy of airlines‘
transmissions of departure records, and DHS acknowledges that there are
weaknesses in the departure data. For example, there may be some
visitors who did not leave the country by air even though they were
recorded on airlines‘ manifest data as having departed. The inability
of the U.S. government to track the status of visitors in the country,
to identify those who overstay their authorized period of visit, and to
use this data to compute overstay rates have been longstanding
weaknesses in the oversight of the Visa Waiver Program. DHS‘s plan to
meet the ’97 percent“ requirement in the visa waiver expansion
legislation will not address these weaknesses.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-458T]. For more information, contact Jess
Ford at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
February 28, 2008:
Chairman Feinstein and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here to discuss an important aspect of our ongoing
work on the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) oversight of the
Visa Waiver Program[Footnote 1] and executive branch plans to expand
the program--namely, a newly enacted legislative requirement that a
system be in place that can verify the departure of 97 percent of
foreign nationals who depart the United States through airports
(referred to as an air exit system). The Visa Waiver Program enables
citizens of 27 participating countries to travel to the United States
for tourism or business for 90 days or less without first obtaining a
visa from U.S. embassies and consulates.[Footnote 2] The program has
many benefits, including facilitating international travel for millions
of foreign nationals seeking to visit the United States each year,
creating substantial economic benefits to the United States, and
allowing the Department of State (State) to allocate resources to visa-
issuing posts in countries with higher-risk applicant pools.
However, as we have reported,[Footnote 3] the program also poses
inherent security, law enforcement, and illegal immigration risks to
the United States. In particular, visa waiver travelers are not subject
to the same degree of screening as those with visas because they are
not interviewed by a consular officer before arriving at a U.S. port of
entry. Therefore, the program could be exploited to gain illegal entry
into the United States. In addition to these concerns, weaknesses in
the U.S. government's system to track foreign visitors may hamper
efforts to track foreign nationals who enter the country illegally, as
well as those who enter legally yet overstay their authorized period of
admission (referred to as overstays). Although most long-term overstays
are likely motivated by economic opportunities, a few overstays have
been identified as terrorists or involved in terrorist-related
activity, including some of the September 11, 2001, hijackers.
Until recently, U.S. law required that a country may be considered for
admission into the Visa Waiver Program if the refusal rate for its
nationals' business and tourism visas was less than 3 percent in the
prior fiscal year. The executive branch has supported more flexible
criteria for admission, and, in August 2007, Congress passed
legislation that provides DHS with the authority to admit countries
with refusal rates between 3 percent and 10 percent, if the countries
meet certain conditions.[Footnote 4] For example, countries must meet
all mandated Visa Waiver Program security requirements and cooperate
with the United States on counterterrorism initiatives. Before DHS can
exercise this new authority, the legislation requires that the
department complete certain actions aimed at enhancing security of the
Visa Waiver Program.
As requested, my testimony today will focus on one of these
requirements placed on DHS--namely that an air exit system is in place
that can verify the departure of not less than 97 percent of foreign
nationals who depart through U.S. airports.[Footnote 5] Our
observations are derived from our ongoing review of the Visa Waiver
Program based on a request from this subcommittee.
In the course of this work, we reviewed documentation, including the
laws governing the Visa Waiver Program and its expansion, relevant
regulations and agency operating procedures, and prior GAO reports on
immigrant and visitor entry and exit tracking systems. (A list of
related GAO products appears at the end of this testimony.)
Specifically, we collected and analyzed documentation and interviewed
officials from several DHS components--including Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status and
Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program Office[Footnote 6]--on the
department's plans for the air exit system. We conducted this
performance audit from September 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. We will be reporting later
this year on other aspects of the Visa Waiver Program, including the
actions that DHS has taken to implement recommendations from our 2006
report.[Footnote 7]
Summary:
On December 12, 2007, DHS reported to us that it will match records,
reported by airlines,[Footnote 8] of visitors departing the country to
the department's existing records of any prior arrivals, immigration
status changes,[Footnote 9] or prior departures from the United States.
Using this methodology, DHS stated that it can attain a match rate
above 97 percent, based on August 2007 data, to certify compliance with
the air exit system requirement in the legislation.[Footnote 10] On
February 21, 2008, in commenting on a draft of this statement, DHS
indicated that it had not finalized its decision on the methodology the
department would use to certify compliance. Nevertheless, the
department confirmed that it planned to use departure records as the
starting point. There are several limitations with this approach.
First, DHS's approach does not begin with arrival records to determine
if those foreign nationals stayed in the United States beyond their
authorized periods of admission. Therefore, DHS's plan will not inform
overall and country-specific overstay rates--key factors in determining
illegal immigration risks in the Visa Waiver Program.[Footnote 11] In
addition, the methodology does not address weaknesses in data the
airlines report on people who are departing the United States by air,
and DHS acknowledges there are weaknesses in the departure data. For
example, there may be some visitors who did not leave the country by
air even though they were recorded on airlines' manifest data as having
departed. The inability of the U.S. government to track the status of
visitors in the country, to identify those who overstay their
authorized period of visit, and to use these data to compute overstay
rates have been longstanding weaknesses in the oversight of the Visa
Waiver Program.[Footnote 12] DHS's plan to meet the "97 percent"
requirement in the visa waiver expansion legislation will not address
these weaknesses.
Background:
In 2007, almost 13 million citizens from 27 countries entered the
United States under the Visa Waiver Program. The program was created to
promote the effective use of government resources and to facilitate
international travel without jeopardizing U.S. national security. The
United States last expanded the Visa Waiver Program's membership in
1999 with the addition of Portugal, Singapore, and Uruguay;[Footnote
13] since then, other countries have expressed a desire to become
members. In recent years, Members of Congress have introduced bills
calling for the expansion of the program. In February 2005, President
Bush announced that DHS and State would develop a strategy, or "Road
Map Initiative," to clarify the statutory requirements for designation
as a participating country. According to DHS, some of the countries
seeking admission to the program are U.S. partners in the war in Iraq
and have high expectations that they will join the program due to their
close economic, political, and military ties to the United States.
In July 2006, we reported that DHS and State were consulting with 13
"Road Map" countries seeking admission into the Visa Waiver Program--
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and South Korea.[Footnote
14] In September 2007, State nominated Greece for admission into the
program, and DHS is currently reviewing this nomination to assess the
impact of Greece's participation on U.S. security, law enforcement, and
illegal immigration interests. In fiscal year 2006, Greece was one of
three countries (along with Cyprus and Malta) with a refusal rate below
3 percent. Three other "Road Map" countries have refusal rates between
3 and 10 percent, while seven others have rates above 10 percent:
(see table 1)[Footnote 15].:
Table 1: Visa Refusal Rates for Short-Term Tourist and Business
Visitors of Countries Seeking to Join the Visa Waiver Program, Fiscal
Year 2007:
"Road Map" country: Greece;
Refusal rate (%): 1.6.
"Road Map" country: Cyprus;
Refusal rate (%): 1.8.
"Road Map" country: Malta;
Refusal rate (%): 2.7.
"Road Map" country: Estonia;
Refusal rate (%): 4.0.
"Road Map" country: South Korea;
Refusal rate (%): 4.4.
"Road Map" country: Czech Republic;
Refusal rate (%): 6.7.
"Road Map" country: Hungary;
Refusal rate (%): 10.3.
"Road Map" country: Latvia;
Refusal rate (%): 11.8.
"Road Map" country: Slovakia;
Refusal rate (%): 12.0.
"Road Map" country: Lithuania;
Refusal rate (%): 12.9.
"Road Map" country: Bulgaria;
Refusal rate (%): 14.3.
"Road Map" country: Poland;
Refusal rate (%): 25.2.
"Road Map" country: Romania;
Refusal rate (%): 37.7.
Source: Department of State.
[End of table]
We plan to report later this year on the other aspects of our ongoing
work for the subcommittee, including the status of DHS's plans to
expand the Visa Waiver Program to other "Road Map" countries and the
extent to which DHS has implemented other provisions in the August 2007
legislation, including an electronic travel authorization system. In
addition, we plan to report this year on the cost and resource
implications for State's consular operations of changes in the
countries that participate in the Visa Waiver Program.
DHS's Current Plan to Certify Air Exit System Requirement Will Not
Address All Potential Risks of An Expanded Visa Waiver Program:
In response to our inquiries, on December 12, 2007, DHS reported to us
that it will match records of foreign nationals' departures that
airlines reported to the department to records of any prior arrival,
change of status action, or prior departure from the United States to
certify the air exit system requirement (see fig. 1). Using this
methodology, DHS stated that it can achieve a 97.10 percent match rate,
based on data from August 2007. Although DHS acknowledged there are
weaknesses with this methodology, the department told us that it had no
intention of altering its plans for certifying the air exit system
requirement. On January 23, 2008, the assistant secretary for policy
development noted that DHS may use more current departure manifest data
prior to certification. On February 21, 2008, in commenting on a draft
of this testimony, DHS indicated that it had not finalized its decision
on which methodology the department would use to certify compliance;
however, the department confirmed that all methodologies under
consideration would match foreign nationals' departure records against
prior records "to determine that the person is a foreign national, and
that the person did depart the country through a U.S. airport."
Figure 1: DHS's Current Plan for Certifying "97 Percent" Requirement:
This figure is a visual depiction of DHS's current plan for certifying
"97 Percent" Requirement.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Department of Homeland Security data; Map
Resources (maps); Nova Development (clip art).
[End of figure]
There are several weaknesses with this approach. First, DHS's
methodology does not begin with arrival records to determine if those
foreign nationals departed or remained in the United States beyond
their authorized periods of admission--more useful data for oversight
of the Visa Waiver Program and consideration of its expansion.
Furthermore, DHS's methodology will not inform overall or country-
specific overstay rates, which are key factors in determining illegal
immigration risks in the Visa Waiver Program. An alternate approach
would be to track air arrivals from a given point in time and determine
whether those foreign nationals have potentially overstayed.[Footnote
16] Figure 2 compares DHS's plan to match visitor records using
departure data as a starting point to a methodology that would track
foreign nationals using arrival data as a starting point.
Figure 2: DHS's Current Plan Omits Those Who Remain in the United
States:
This figure is a visual depiction of DHS's current plan which omits
those who remain in the United States.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Department of Homeland Security data; Map
Resources (maps); Nova Development and Ingram Publishing (clip art).
[End of figure]
Second, for the purposes of this provision, we do not see the value in
verifying that a foreign national leaving the United States had also
departed at a prior point in time--in other words, matching a new
departure record back to a previous departure record from the
country.[Footnote 17] If, however, DHS attempted to match records of
air departures in August 2007 back to records of prior entries alone,
US-VISIT data for that month show that DHS would only achieve a 92.8
percent match rate. DHS's assistant secretary for policy development
told us in January 2008 that the department chose to include previous
departure and change of immigration status records in its methodology
because this method allowed the department to achieve a match rate of
97 percent or greater.
Third, DHS's methodology does not address the accuracy of airlines'
transmissions of departure records, and DHS acknowledges that there are
weaknesses in the departure data. Foreign nationals who enter the
United States by air are inspected by DHS officers--a process that
provides information that can be used to verify arrival manifest data-
-and, since 2004, DHS has implemented the US-VISIT program to collect
biometric information on foreign nationals arriving in the United
States.[Footnote 18] However, the department has not completed the exit
portion of this tracking system; thus, there is no corresponding check
on the accuracy and completeness of the departure manifest information
supplied by the airlines. As a result, according to DHS, it cannot be
certain that visitors listed on airlines' manifest data as departing
the country did in fact physically depart. Furthermore, there may be
some visitors who did leave the country by air, but were not recorded
on airlines' manifest data as having departed. According to DHS, the
department works with air carriers to try to improve both the
timeliness and comprehensiveness of manifest records, and fines
carriers that provide incomplete or inaccurate information. If DHS
could evaluate these data, and validate the extent to which they are
accurate and complete, the department would be able to identify
problems and work with the airlines to further improve the data.
DHS reported to us that it had used its methodology for meeting the "97
percent" requirement to match records in the past; however, we were
unable to identify an instance when DHS had used this particular
methodology. We noted that DHS has used a similar methodology since
2004 in its annual report to the Committees on the Judiciary in the
U.S. Senate and House of Representatives on the matching of visitor
arrival and departure records using biographic and biometric data
gathered through US-VISIT.[Footnote 19] However, the methodology used
in these annual reports is different from what DHS told us it intends
to use to certify the "97 percent" provision. In these prior annual
reports, DHS matched departure records to records of prior arrivals
into the United States. For example, for the period of January 5, 2004,
through September 30, 2004, DHS was able to match 71 percent of
recorded departures from air and sea ports of entry to records of prior
arrivals. In its May 2007 report on its integrated entry and exit data
system, DHS was able to match 88.1 percent of recorded departures from
air and sea ports of entry to records of prior arrivals. While these
reports have shown that DHS's ability to match departure records has
improved since US-VISIT was established in 2004, this methodology does
not account for foreign nationals who have not left the United States.
Moreover, DHS's plans to certify the "97 percent" requirement will not
further its efforts in responding to Congress's longstanding calls for
the development of an automated entry and exit control system to track
visitors to the United States and identify those visitors who have
remained in the country illegally.[Footnote 20] We testified in June
2007 that the prospects for successfully delivering a biometric exit
system were as uncertain then as they were when US-VISIT was first
implemented in 2004.[Footnote 21] Without the capability to verify
departures, DHS cannot ensure the integrity of the immigration system
by identifying visitors who have overstayed their original period of
admission.
In October 2007, DHS officials told us that data on overstay rates
would be very useful for oversight of the Visa Waiver Program. As we
have reported, overstays are a significant part of the larger problem
of illegal immigration.[Footnote 22] For example, overstay rates would
inform decision makers of illegal immigration risks associated with
adding new countries to the program.[Footnote 23] However, according to
the department, it cannot generate accurate overstay rates for visitors
from visa waiver countries due to weaknesses in the data that indicate
who has departed the United States, as previously mentioned. Moreover,
the department has not designated an office with the responsibility of
developing such data for the purposes of this program. Nevertheless, we
identified an office within US-VISIT, the Data Integrity Group, which
develops limited data on overstay rates that may be useful information
for oversight of the Visa Waiver Program. This office provides
information to DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement on visitors
who have potentially overstayed the terms of their admission into the
country. Immigration enforcement officials told us they use these data
regularly during investigations of potential illegal immigrants. The
Data Integrity Group also provides similar information to the
department's Office of Immigration Statistics, as well as the Visa
Waiver Program Office. While these are positive actions, DHS
acknowledges that there are significant limitations in these data
because of weaknesses in the multiple systems that the Data Integrity
Group uses. For example, an unknown portion of reported overstays may
be false because DHS could not match an arrival record to a departure
or change of status record (for example, a visitor may have departed
via a land border and not generated a departure record).
Conclusion:
An air exit system that facilitates the development of overstay rate
data is important to managing potential risks in expanding the Visa
Waiver Program. DHS's planned methodology for meeting the "97 percent
provision" so it can move forward with program expansion will not
demonstrate improvements in the air exit system or help the department
identify overstays or develop overstay rates.
Chairman Feinstein, this completes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have at this time.
Contact and Acknowledgments:
For further information about this statement, please contact Jess Ford
at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this statement. In addition, John Brummet, Assistant Director;
Teresa Abruzzo; Kathryn Bernet; Joseph Carney; Etana Finkler; and Eric
Larson made key contributions to this statement.
[End of section]
Related GAO Reports:
Homeland Security: U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Program's Long-
standing Lack of Strategic Direction and Management Controls Needs to
Be Addressed. GAO-07-1065. August 31, 2007.
Homeland Security: Prospects For Biometric US-VISIT Exit Capability
Remain Unclear. GAO-07-1044T. June 28, 2007.
Homeland Security: US-VISIT Program Faces Operational, Technological,
and Management Challenges. GAO-07-632T. March 20, 2007.
Homeland Security: US-VISIT Has Not Fully Met Expectations and
Longstanding Program Management Challenges Need to Be Addressed. GAO-
07-499T. February 16, 2007.
Homeland Security: Planned Expenditures for U.S. Visitor and Immigrant
Status Program Need to Be Adequately Defined and Justified. GAO-07-278.
February 14, 2007.
Border Security: US-VISIT Program Faces Strategic, Operational, and
Technological Challenges at Land Ports of Entry. GAO-07-248.
December 6, 2006.
Border Security: Continued Weaknesses in Screening Entrants into the
United States. GAO-06-976T. August 2, 2006.
Border Security: Stronger Actions Needed to Assess and Mitigate Risks
of the Visa Waiver Program. GAO-06-854. July 28, 2006.
Process for Admitting Additional Countries into the Visa Waiver
Program. GAO-06-835R. July 28, 2006.
Homeland Security: Recommendations to Improve Management of Key Border
Security Program Need to Be Implemented. GAO-06-296.
February 14, 2006.
Homeland Security: Some Progress Made, but Many Challenges Remain on
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program. GAO-05-
202. February 23, 2005.
Overstay Tracking: A Key Component of Homeland Security and a Layered
Defense. GAO-04-82. May 21, 2004.
Homeland Security: Overstay Tracking Is a Key Component of a Layered
Defense. GAO-04-170T. October 16, 2003.
Homeland Security: Risks Facing Key Border and Transportation Security
Program Need to Be Addressed. GAO-03-1083. September 19, 2003.
Information Technology: Homeland Security Needs to Improve Entry Exit
System Expenditure Planning. GAO-03-563. June 9, 2003.
Illegal Immigration: INS Overstay Estimation Methods Need Improvement.
PEMD-95-20. September 26, 1995.
Illegal Aliens: Despite Data Limitations, Current Methods Provide
Better Population Estimates. PEMD-93-25. August 5, 1993.
Border Security: Challenges in Implementing Border Technology. GAO 03-
546T. March 12, 2003.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, P.L. 99-603,
created the Visa Waiver Program as a pilot program. In 2000, the
program became permanent under the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act,
P.L. 106-396.
[2] The participating countries are Andorra, Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
[3] See GAO, Border Security: Stronger Actions Needed to Assess and
Mitigate Risks of the Visa Waiver Program, GAO-06-854 (Washington,
D.C.: July 28, 2006).
[4] Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007,
P.L. 110-53.
[5] Before DHS can expand the program to countries with refusal rates
between 3 percent and 10 percent, it must also certify that an
electronic travel authorization system is fully operational. This
system would require nationals from visa waiver countries to provide
the United States with biographical information before boarding a U.S.-
bound flight to determine the eligibility of, and whether there exists
a law enforcement or security risk in permitting, the foreign national
to travel to the United States under the program. As of Feb. 21, 2008,
DHS had not announced its plans for this authorization system. In
addition, Congress also required the implementation of a biometric exit
system at U.S. airports. If this is not in place by mid-2009, the
flexibility DHS could have obtained to admit countries with refusal
rates between 3 percent and 10 percent will be suspended until it is in
place. A biometric air exit system utilizes biometric identifiers such
as digital fingerprint scans rather than paper documents and biographic
information to verify the departure of foreign nationals from the
United States. As of Feb. 21, 2008, DHS had not announced plans for a
biometric exit system.
[6] The US-VISIT program is governmentwide program designed to
integrate information on certain foreign nationals' arrival and
departure from the United States. US-VISIT aims to enhance the security
of U.S. citizens and visitors, facilitate legitimate travel and trade,
ensure the integrity of the U.S. immigration system, and protect
visitors' privacy. In 2004, DHS's US-VISIT program began collecting
information on foreign nationals arriving in the United States. The
program is managed by the US-VISIT Program Office, which is headed by
the US-VISIT Director, who reports to the DHS Undersecretary for
National Protection and Programs. GAO has issued a series of reports on
the US-VISIT program.
[7] GAO-06-854.
[8] Air carriers transmit visitor manifest information, which is
obtained directly from government-issued passports, to CBP through the
Advanced Passenger Information System (APIS). APIS includes arrival and
departure manifest information such as name, date of birth, travel
document issuing country, gender, U.S. destination address, entry date,
and departure date. As of Feb. 19, 2008, commercial carriers are
required to transmit manifest information to be vetted by DHS prior to
departure of the aircraft.
[9] This includes changes and extensions of the visits of lawfully
admitted, nonimmigrant foreign nationals.
[10] DHS officials indicated that they may update the air departure
data prior to certification.
[11] The overstay rate is the ratio of the total number of nationals of
a country who were admitted to the United States as nonimmigrant
visitors during the previous fiscal year and who violated the terms of
such admission by remaining in the country beyond the authorized time
period to the total number of nationals of that country who arrived at
a U.S. port of entry and applied for admission into the United States
as nonimmigrant visitors during the same period.
[12] For more than 10 years, GAO has recommended the collection of
departure information and the development of estimates of overstays by
air. See GAO, Illegal Aliens: Despite Data Limitations, Current Methods
Provide Better Population Estimates, PEMD-93-25 (Washington, D.C.: Aug.
5, 1993) and GAO, Illegal Immigration: INS Overstay Estimation Methods
Need Improvement, PEMD-95-20 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 1995). In
November 2007, DHS told us that the department could not yet respond to
open recommendations from these reports, in part because DHS has not
identified which office will have responsibility for calculating
overstay rate estimates.
[13] In 2003, the Attorney General removed Uruguay from the Visa Waiver
Program, stating that Uruguay's participation in the program was
inconsistent with U.S. interests. According to a 2002 Federal Register
notice on the subject, Uruguayan nationals were, on average, two to
three times more likely than all nonimmigrants to have been denied
admission at the border. Uruguayan air entries had an apparent overstay
rate more than twice that of the average apparent overstay rate for all
nonimmigrant air entries. In addition, Argentina was removed from the
program in 2002, following an economic crisis in that country and an
increase in the number of Argentinean nationals attempting to use the
Visa Waiver Program to live and work illegally in the United States.
[14] See GAO, Process for Admitting Additional Countries into the Visa
Waiver Program, GAO-06-835R (Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2006).
[15] Under the August 2007 visa waiver legislation, a country whose
refusal rate is above 10 percent could also be considered for admission
into the program if its overstay rate does not exceed a maximum
overstay rate. According to the legislation, DHS and State must
establish the maximum overstay rate, using information from the air
exit system to do so. DHS has not indicated if or when it plans to
establish this rate.
[16] This could include foreign nationals who departed after their
authorized period of admission expired, as well as those foreign
nationals who may have remained in the country as overstays.
[17] A DHS official told us that the system functions by matching the
departure record to an alien's "account," which may contain numerous
prior arrivals, departures, and immigration benefit transaction
records. The official also stated that a specific departure record
match may not fall chronologically in the alien's "account" after an
arrival; it may fall, for example, after a record that an immigrant
benefit was granted to extend the alien's stay for 6 additional months.
[18] DHS's US-VISIT program collects, maintains, and shares data,
including biometric identifiers like digital fingerprints, on selected
foreign nationals entering the United States to verify their identities
as they arrive at air, sea, and land ports of entry. DHS currently
operates the entry portion of the US-VISIT program at more than 300
air, sea, and land U.S. ports of entry. When fully implemented, US-
VISIT is also intended to capture the same information from foreign
nationals as they depart the country. The program aims to, among other
things, identify foreign nationals who have overstayed or violated the
terms of their visit.
[19] See "United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology (US-VISIT) Annual Report on the Integrated Entry and Exit
Data System" as required by the Data Management Improvement Act of
2000, P.L. 106-215, and the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act, P.L. 106-
396.
[20] In 1996, Congress called for such a system. See Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, P.L. 104-
208. In 2000, Congress passed legislation requiring the establishment
of an electronic system that would provide access to and integrate
visitor arrival and departure data for all ports of entry by December
31, 2005. See The Immigration and Naturalization Service Data
Management Improvement Act of 2000, P.L. 106-215.
[21] We have reported on how DHS has managed US-VISIT's exit
capability. In particular, we reported that, beyond a high-level
schedule, no other exit program plans are available that define what
will be done by what entities and at what cost. See GAO, Homeland
Security: Prospects for US-VISIT Biometric Exit Capability Remain
Unclear, GAO-07-1044T (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007).
[22] In 2000, the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated
that about one-third of illegal aliens in the United States were
overstays. In 2004, we reported that three alternative estimates of
overstays that we analyzed did not represent the illegal population,
but did provide some evidence that a substantial proportion of illegal
immigrants are likely overstays. These data demonstrated that
preventing additional visitors from becoming overstays is in the
national interest. See GAO, Overstay Tracking: A Key Component of
Homeland Security and a Layered Defense, GAO-04-82 (Washington, D.C.:
May, 21, 2004).
[23] In addition, a country must be terminated from the Visa Waiver
Program if that county's disqualification rate for the most recent
fiscal year for which data are available was more than 3.5 percent. The
disqualification rate is the total for a given fiscal year, of (1)
those nationals of the country who were admitted as nonimmigrants and
violated the terms of their admission--this would include overstays--
and (2) the number of foreign nationals who were denied admission upon
arrival in the United States, as it compares to the total number of
nationals of that country who applied for admission as nonimmigrant
visitors during the same time period. According to the legislation, the
country must be terminated at the beginning of the second fiscal year
following the fiscal year in which the determination of the
disqualification rate was made. See 8 USC § 1187 (f). We will be
reporting on this issue later in the year as part of our overall work
on the Visa Waiver Program for this subcommittee.
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:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@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: