Homeland Security
Justice Department's Project to Interview Aliens after September 11, 2001
Gao ID: GAO-03-459 April 11, 2003
As one response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated a project to interview aliens whose characteristics were similar to those responsible for the attacks. The purpose was to determine what knowledge the aliens might have of terrorists and terrorist activities. GAO was asked to (1) determine the criteria DOJ used in compiling the list of aliens to be questioned, (2) whether law enforcement complied with DOJ guidance for the project, (3) the interview project's status, and (4) what information resulted from it.
Between September 11 and November 9, 2001, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) compiled a list of aliens whose characteristics were similar to those of the hijackers. DOJ searched its databases for aliens that fit certain characteristics relating to type of visa, gender, age, date of entry into the United States, and country that issued the passport, and identified 7,602 names for interview. According to law enforcement officials, attorneys for interviewees, and immigration advocates in six U.S. Attorney districts, law enforcement officers who conducted the interviews adhered to DOJ guidelines for the project. The guidelines stressed that the project's objective was information gathering, not criminal investigation, and that participation was to be voluntary. Attorneys for interviewees and immigration advocates agreed that the law enforcement officers adhered to project guidelines, but expressed the view that interviewed aliens did not perceive the interviews to be truly voluntary. They noted that although aliens were not coerced to participate in the interviews, they worried about repercussions, such as future INS denials for visa extensions or permanent residency, if they refused to be interviewed. Firm and complete information on the project's status is unavailable. As of March 2003, law enforcement officers had interviewed 3,216 aliens--about 42 percent of the names on the list. However, the list contained problems such as duplicate names and data entry errors, making it difficult to determine how many interviews remained to be completed. DOJ asserted that the project netted intelligence information and had a disruptive effect on terrorists. But the results are difficult to measure, and DOJ has not fully analyzed all the data obtained from the interviews or how effectively the project was implemented.
Recommendations
Our 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-03-459, Homeland Security: Justice Department's Project to Interview Aliens after September 11, 2001
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-459
entitled 'Homeland Security: Justice Department's Project to Interview
Aliens after September 11, 2001' which was released on May 09, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
April 2003:
Homeland Security:
Justice Department's Project to Interview Aliens after September 11,
2001:
GAO-03-459:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-459, a report to Congressional Requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
As one response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Department
of Justice (DOJ) initiated a project to interview aliens whose
characteristics were similar to those responsible for the attacks. The
purpose was to determine what knowledge the aliens might have of
terrorists and terrorist activities. GAO was asked to determine
* the criteria DOJ used in compiling the list of aliens to be
questioned,
* whether law enforcement complied with DOJ guidance for the project,
* the interview project‘s status, and what information resulted from
it.
What GAO Found:
Between September 11 and November 9, 2001, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) compiled a list of aliens whose
characteristics were similar to those of the hijackers. DOJ searched
its databases for aliens that fit certain characteristics relating to
type of visa, gender, age, date of entry into the United States, and
country that issued the passport, and identified 7,602 names for
interview.
According to law enforcement officials, attorneys for interviewees,
and immigration advocates in six U.S. Attorney districts, law
enforcement officers who conducted the interviews adhered to DOJ
guidelines for the project. The guidelines stressed that the project‘s
objective was information gathering, not criminal investigation, and
that participation was to be voluntary. Attorneys for interviewees
and immigration advocates agreed that the law enforcement officers
adhered to project guidelines, but expressed the view that interviewed
aliens did not perceive the interviews to be truly voluntary. They
noted that although aliens were not coerced to participate in the
interviews, they worried about repercussions, such as future INS
denials for visa extensions or permanent residency, if they refused to
be interviewed.
Firm and complete information on the project‘s status is unavailable.
As of March 2003, law enforcement officers had interviewed 3,216
aliens”about 42 percent of the names on the list (see figure).
However, the list contained problems such as duplicate names and data
entry errors, making it difficult to determine how many interviews
remained to be completed.
DOJ asserted that the project netted intelligence information and had
a disruptive effect on terrorists. But the results are difficult to
measure, and DOJ has not fully analyzed all the data obtained from the
interviews or how effectively the project was implemented.
What GAO Recommends:
Because there are indications that the government‘s antiterrorism
efforts will continue to rely, in part, on conducting interview
projects with aliens who reside in this country, GAO recommends that
the Attorney General initiate a formal review of the project and
report on lessons learned. In commenting on a draft of this report,
DOJ was silent on GAO‘s findings, conclusions, and recommendation. DOJ
provided technical comments, which GAO evaluated and incorporated, as
appropriate. DOJ also expressed two specific concerns about the
presentation of information that GAO responded to in the report.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-459.
To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Richard M. Stana at (202) 512-8777 or
stanar@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Scope and Methodology:
Background:
Results in Brief:
Demographic and Visa Information Used in Compiling the List of
Nonimmigrant Aliens to Be Questioned:
Interviewers Complied with DOJ Guidance; Project Implemented
Differently by Districts:
Complete Information Lacking on Status:
Project Results Not Analyzed and Hard to Measure:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: List of Questions Used in Interviews:
Appendix II: Notification Letter Sent in the Eastern District of
Michigan:
Appendix III: March 2003 Data on the Interview Project, by District,
First and Second Phases of Interviews Combined:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Branches of Law Enforcement Participating in Project, by
District:
Abbreviations:
ATTF: Anti-Terrorism Task Force:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
EOUSA: Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigations:
FTTTF: Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force:
INS: Immigration and Naturalization Service:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 11, 2003:
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
The Honorable Russell D. Feingold
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on the Constitution
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate:
In response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, the U.S. government moved on several fronts in
an effort to thwart future terrorist attacks. For example, Congress
passed the USA PATRIOT Act,[Footnote 1] which, among other things,
expanded the government's authority to conduct surveillance on
suspected terrorists and increased the ability of law enforcement and
intelligence agencies to share information. Congress also enacted
legislation to form a new executive department, the Department of
Homeland Security,[Footnote 2] to enable the government to address the
terrorist threat in a more coordinated manner. The Department of
Defense imprisoned enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to
interrogate them for information that might help prevent future attacks
and catch other suspects. The Department of Justice (DOJ) detained
aliens in this country whom they suspected of having knowledge of or
involvement in terrorist activities. DOJ also initiated a project to
interview about 7,600 nonimmigrant aliens[Footnote 3]--about 4,800 in
the first phase of interviews and about 2,800 in the second phase--
whose characteristics were similar to those of the
September 11 hijackers to try to determine, among other things, what
knowledge they had of terrorists and planned terrorist activities.
Scope and Methodology:
In response to your request for information on the interview
project,[Footnote 4] this report addresses the following objectives:
* the specific criteria DOJ used in compiling the list of nonimmigrant
aliens to be questioned;
* whether law enforcement officers who conducted interviews complied
with DOJ guidance on procedures for questioning aliens, including
instructions, if any, on ensuring that the questioning was voluntary;
* the status of the interview project; and:
* what information resulted from the interview project.
To determine the specific criteria DOJ used in compiling the list of
nonimmigrant aliens to be questioned, we reviewed available
documentation and interviewed officials from DOJ, including the
Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), and the
Director of the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF).
To determine whether law enforcement complied with the guidance, we
reviewed the guidance that DOJ provided to the interviewing agencies on
procedures for conducting the questioning. Specifically, we reviewed
the Attorney General's directive on the project and the Deputy Attorney
General's November 9, 2001, memorandum providing guidance, and the list
of interview questions that EOUSA provided to the U.S. Attorney
district offices. In addition, we interviewed officials from EOUSA,
including the Director of EOUSA, as well as law enforcement officials,
immigration rights advocates, and attorneys for interviewed aliens.
Specifically, we interviewed 10 U.S. Attorneys and/or Assistant U.S.
Attorneys; 47 federal, state, and local law enforcement officials who
conducted the interviews; 8 attorneys who represented aliens that had
been interviewed; and 22 immigration rights advocates. We conducted
these interviews during visits to the following six U.S. Attorney
districts:[Footnote 5]
* Eastern Michigan (Detroit, Michigan);
* Northern Texas (Dallas, Texas);
* Central California (Los Angeles, California);
* Southern New York (New York City, New York);
* Eastern New York (Long Island, New York); and:
* New Jersey (Newark, New Jersey).
To determine the status of the interview project and what information
resulted from it, we interviewed DOJ officials, including the Director
of EOUSA and the General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), reviewed a February 2002 status report on the project's results,
and reviewed statistics on project status that DOJ had compiled as of
March 14, 2003. We also interviewed federal law enforcement officials
from the FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS),
Internal Revenue Service, and U.S. Postal Service. In addition, we met
with state and local law enforcement officials from the Michigan State
Police; West Bloomfield Township, Michigan Police; Farmington Hills,
Michigan Police; and the Suffolk County, New York Police. We did not
interview state and local law enforcement officials in the other four
U.S. Attorney districts because they did not have an active involvement
in the project. In addition, we interviewed attorneys for interviewed
aliens, and immigration rights advocates in the six U.S. Attorney
districts we visited.
We visited the Eastern Michigan and Northern Texas districts because
over 20 percent of the interviews in the first phase of the project
were conducted in these two districts. We visited the Central
California and the New York area districts for geographic dispersion.
In total, the six U.S. Attorney district offices we visited accounted
for slightly over 27 percent of the interviews during the project's
first phase. The information that we collected from the six districts
pertains only to those districts and cannot be generalized to all of
the districts involved in the interview project. We did not attend any
interviews or talk with any alien who was questioned as part of the
interview project. According to the attorneys and immigration rights
advocates with whom we spoke, these individuals did not feel
comfortable meeting with us because we are government officials. We
obtained data on the status of the interview project from EOUSA,
although limitations in EOUSA's data, which we note in the report,
precluded us from providing a firm and complete accounting of the
project's status.
We conducted our review from April 2002 to March 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Background:
Pursuant to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Attorney
General directed EOUSA to oversee an interview project that was
intended to gather information on potential terrorism and help prevent
any future terrorist attacks. In a November 9, 2001, memorandum to U.S.
Attorneys, the Attorney General provided the directive for the project
and the Deputy Attorney General provided guidelines for the project.
EOUSA later distributed the list of questions to be asked, which were
based on the Deputy Attorney General's guidelines. The subjects of the
interviews were certain nonimmigrant aliens, who were to be considered
potential sources of information about terrorists or terrorist
activities, rather than suspects, and their participation in the
interview project was to be voluntary.
Several federal law enforcement entities contributed to the development
and implementation of the interview project. These included FTTTF, INS,
EOUSA, U.S. Attorney offices, Anti-Terrorism Task Force (ATTF)[Footnote
6] members, the FBI, and the Justice Management Division. The FTTTF
developed the criteria for determining which nonimmigrant aliens should
be interviewed. INS generated a list of prospective interview subjects
and their addresses, and the address information was refined through a
search of public databases. EOUSA implemented the project through its
94 U.S. Attorney district offices, which were to coordinate the
interviews with ATTF members in each U.S. Attorney district. The
Attorney General's memorandum on the project stated that ATTFs would be
used for this project because "federal resources have their limits...
and...there are many more people to be interviewed than there are
federal agents to conduct the interviews.":
The U.S. Attorneys were responsible for assigning the interviews to the
various participating ATTF members, providing the written guidance
issued by the Attorney General, collecting the reports of the
interviews, and coordinating any follow-up investigations with FBI
Special Agents-in-Charge. ATTF members were responsible for conducting
the interviews in accordance with the guidance, drafting and submitting
a written report of each interview, and participating in follow-up
investigations, as they deemed appropriate.
Results in Brief:
Demographic and visa information on the perpetrators of the September
11 attacks formed the criteria for compiling the list of nonimmigrant
aliens to be questioned. To identify individuals whose characteristics
were similar to those of the perpetrators, FTTTF sought to identify
from INS records the names and current addresses of aliens that (1) had
certain types of visas and (2) fit certain characteristics relating to
gender, age, date of entry into the United States, and country that
issued passport. Due to concerns about the reliability of INS's address
information,[Footnote 7] FTTTF supplemented INS's address information
with public source data. The FTTTF used similar criteria in the two
phases of interviews except that the aliens' age range, the range of
their dates of entry into the country, and the number of countries
covered were expanded for the second phase.
The law enforcement officers who conducted the interviews adhered to
DOJ's guidance, according to the law enforcement officials, attorneys
for interviewees, and immigration advocates with whom we spoke. The
attorneys and advocates told us that interviews were conducted in a
respectful and professional manner, and interviewees were not coerced
to participate. They noted, however, that the interviewed aliens did
not perceive the interviews to be truly voluntary because they worried
about repercussions, such as future INS denials for visa extensions or
permanent residency, if they refused. Further, although there was
consensus on the voluntary nature of the interviews, more than half of
the law enforcement officers we spoke with expressed concerns about the
quality of the questions asked and the value of the responses obtained
in the interview project.
Because of data limitations, EOUSA cannot provide firm and complete
information on the current status of the interview project. EOUSA's
data indicated that, as of March 2003, 3,216 nonimmigrant aliens had
been interviewed during the two phases of the interview project. This
is about 42 percent of 7,602 names sent to U.S. Attorney offices for
interviewing. However, the list contained such problems as duplicate
names and data entry errors, which limited EOUSA's ability to determine
exactly how many unique individuals (1) the list represented, (2) had
left the country, (3) could not be located, and (4) had moved to
another district. Because of these problems, it is not possible to
determine how many interviews remain to be completed. Although the
interview project was to end in May 2002, it was still ongoing in
January 2003 and DOJ expected that it will be completed by March 1,
2003.
Information resulting from the interview project had not been analyzed
as of March 2003; and the extent to which the interview project may
have helped the government combat terrorism is hard to measure.
According to DOJ officials, there are no specific plans to analyze the
project data. DOJ has asserted that the project netted intelligence
information and had a disruptive effect on terrorists. EOUSA's February
2002 status report to the Attorney General stated that the interview
project resulted in useful leads, but it did not provide specific
examples, citing the sensitivity of the leads. The report also stated
that "fewer than" 20 interviewees were arrested, mostly due to
immigration violations. The second phase of interviews, which was to
have been completed in May 2002, was still ongoing in January 2003. Law
enforcement representatives with whom we spoke expressed differing
views on how the interview project affected community relations. Some
said that the interview project was helpful in building ties to the
community while others stated that it had a negative effect on
relations between the Arab community and law enforcement personnel.
DOJ has not conducted an assessment of the interview project and as of
January 2003, had no specific plans to do so, although EOUSA officials
told us they thought such an assessment would be valuable. We recognize
that DOJ acted quickly after the September 11 attacks to try to develop
leads that could help deter another attack. National security, as
opposed to interview project methodology and oversight, was rightfully
paramount in importance. Because there are indications that the
government's antiterrorism efforts will continue to rely, in part, on
conducting interview projects with aliens who reside in this country,
this report contains a recommendation to the Attorney General to
initiate a review of the interview project that would address lessons
learned. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOJ was silent on our
findings, conclusions, and recommendation. DOJ provided technical
comments, which we evaluated and incorporated, as appropriate. DOJ also
expressed two concerns--one relating to the objective of the interview
project and the other relating to our presentation of data--which we
respond to in the Agency Comments and Evaluation section of the report.
Demographic and Visa Information Used in Compiling the List of
Nonimmigrant Aliens to Be Questioned:
Selected characteristics of the perpetrators of the September 11
attacks formed the criteria for compiling the list of nonimmigrant
aliens to be questioned. To identify individuals whose characteristics
were similar to those of the perpetrators, FTTTF obtained a dataset of
336,330 records on nonimmigrant aliens who had entered the United
States or were issued a visa between January 1, 1999, and September 5,
2001. Because travelers could have entered, departed, and reentered the
country several times, the dataset could have contained multiple
records for a single alien. Of the 336,300 names that FTTTF received
for the first phase of the interview project, it selected 5,146 names
with public source addresses who:
* entered the United States after January 1, 2000;
* claimed citizenship from any of 15 countries in which intelligence
indicated that there was an al Qaeda terrorist presence or activity;
and:
* were males born between January 1968 and December 1983;
According to DOJ's February 2002 status report, FTTTF's rationale in
selecting these characteristics was that their demographic similarity
to the terrorists would make them more likely to reside in the same
communities or be members of the same social groups and, therefore,
more likely to be aware of suspicious activity.
INS obtained the name and address information from its Nonimmigrant
Information System, an automated database that contains address and
identity information on nonimmigrant aliens who were inspected upon
their entry into the United States. Because FTTTF considered INS's
address information to be of questionable reliability, it consulted
public source databases and supplemented INS's information to attempt
to provide the most current address information for these aliens to the
U.S. Attorneys.[Footnote 8] The individuals selected for interview were
identified as having a U.S. street address listed in commercially
available public source records.
In March 2002, the Attorney General stated that the interview project
produced valuable sources of information and started a second phase of
interviews. Using criteria similar to those in the first phase of the
project, FTTTF compiled a list of 3,189 names of nonimmigrant aliens
for the second phase. The change in criteria included broadening the
age range, date of entry, and number of countries of citizenship of the
nonimmigrant aliens to those who:
* were males born between January 1955 and December 1984;
* entered the United States between January 1 and February 27, 2002;
and:
* claimed citizenship from any of 26 countries in which intelligence
indicated that there was an al Qaeda terrorist presence or activity.
FTTTF sent 8,335 nonimmigrant alien names to districts for interviewing
during the two phases of the interview project. After eliminating some,
but not all of the duplicate names, the districts had 7,602 names on
their interview lists as of March 14, 2003.
Interviewers Complied with DOJ Guidance; Project Implemented
Differently by Districts:
The interview guidelines, including the questions that law enforcement
officers were to ask the nonimmigrant aliens, were distributed to 94
U.S. Attorney districts.[Footnote 9] The guidelines stated the
interviews were to be voluntary, and both law enforcement officers and
nonimmigrant aliens' representatives with whom we spoke confirmed that
the interviewers followed the guidelines for obtaining voluntary
participation. There was some variation among districts about how the
interview project was implemented.
Interviewers Complied with DOJ's Guidelines for Obtaining Voluntary
Participation:
In all the districts we visited, officials from the U.S. Attorney
offices told us they stressed that the questioning would be voluntary,
and they distributed the guidance to the federal, state, and local law
enforcement officials who would be conducting the interviews. The law
enforcement officials we met with also stated that they followed the
guidelines for obtaining voluntary participation.
In the three districts we visited where we were told that immigration
rights advocates and attorneys sat in on interviews, we were told that
interviews were conducted in a respectful and professional manner, and
that the interviewees were not coerced to participate. However, they
also reported that aliens told them that they did not feel the
interviews were truly voluntary. This was because the aliens feared
there could be repercussions to them for declining to participate. For
example, interviewees were reportedly afraid that future requests for
visa extensions or permanent residency would be denied if they did not
agree to be interviewed. Some aliens also reported to their attorneys
and advocates that they felt they were being singled out because of
their ethnicity or religious beliefs.
DOJ Provided Guidance Package and Questionnaire to Interviewing
Agencies:
The Deputy Attorney General provided EOUSA with guidance that consisted
of a two-page Attorney General's directive on the interview project and
an eight-page memorandum describing the topics that the interview was
to cover and interviewing tips. EOUSA distributed these guidelines, as
well as a list of interview questions based on the topics listed in the
guidance, to its 94 district offices. EOUSA held a telephone conference
with all U.S. Attorney district offices on November 9, 2001, to review
the guidelines and reinforce the fact that the interviews were to be
voluntary. The guidelines stated the following:
* The objective of the project was information gathering.
* The persons to be interviewed were not suspected of involvement in
criminal activity; therefore, the interviews would be consensual, and
every interview subject was free to decline answering questions.
* While the primary purpose of the interviews was not to ascertain the
legality of the individuals' immigration status, the federal
responsibility to enforce the immigration laws was an important one.
* The persons to be interviewed would not be asked about their
religious beliefs or practices.
* Investigators should feel free to ask about any topic that would
elicit information that could reasonably assist in the effort to learn
about those who support, commit, or associate with persons who commit
terrorism.
The interview topics included personal information about the alien,
such as birthplace and country of citizenship; address and phone
numbers, including those of family members and close associates;
employment and sources of income; and education, including professional
licenses or scientific expertise. Other topics covered the alien's
foreign travel, involvement in armed conflicts, reaction to terrorism,
knowledge of terrorism or the financing of terrorism, and knowledge of
any criminal activity. (See app. I for the complete list of interview
questions.) Of the
33 questions on the interview form, 21 were in a "yes/no" format. The
following are examples of questions asked:
* "Has the person ever visited Afghanistan? Yes or no. If yes, when and
for what reason?":
* "Does the person know anyone capable [of] or willing to carry out
acts of terrorism? Yes or No. If yes, please explain.":
* "Does the person have any knowledge of involvement in advocating,
planning, supporting, or committing terrorist activities? Yes or No. If
yes, please explain." and:
* "Is the person aware of any persons or groups in his homeland who
might be planning or advocating terrorist acts against the U.S.? Yes or
No. If yes, please explain.":
More than half of the law enforcement officers we interviewed raised
concerns about the quality of the questions or the value of the
responses. For example, they noted that the questions were redundant,
did not produce complete answers, had limited value, and elicited
responses that aliens thought would help them avoid attracting further
attention from law enforcement.
Project Implementation Varied by District:
During our visits to U.S. Attorney districts, we learned of several
differences in how the districts implemented the interview project. For
example, there were differences among districts in training for the
interviews, procedures for contacting interviewees, and agencies
involved in conducting the interviews. In all of the districts we
visited, law enforcement officials told us they received no formal
complaints regarding the project.
Some Districts Held Mandatory Training Sessions, While Others Did Not:
In all six districts we visited, we were told that the interview
guidelines were provided to the interviewers and that the voluntary
nature of the interviews was stressed. Three districts (Eastern
District of Michigan, Northern District of Texas, and New Jersey) held
mandatory training sessions on how law enforcement officers were to
conduct the interviews, and three districts did not. Each district that
offered mandatory training required attendance by all personnel who
were to conduct the interviews. These districts also offered additional
training. For example, one of these districts conducted a session on
how to identify fraudulent immigration documents, and the other two
districts conducted sessions on Middle Eastern cultural awareness. At
one district where mandatory training was held, law enforcement
officials told us that the U.S. Attorney in that district instructed
them not to deviate from the questions on the interview instrument. In
this district, the interview data may be more limited because from a
methodological standpoint, open-ended questions in which respondents
are asked to express and explain their perceptions and experiences are
more likely to elicit information of a substantive nature. The three
districts that did not have mandatory training sessions still provided
training to some, but not all, interviewers. For example, officials
from the U.S. Attorneys office in the Central District of California
stated that supervisors received training.
Different Methods Were Used to Contact Interviewees:
The districts we visited used different methods for notifying aliens
about the interview project. In five of the districts we visited, the
district let the law enforcement agent conducting the interview decide
whether to contact the person by phone or by visiting their residence
without prior notification. In general, agents told us that they used
the contact method they thought would have the most success in
producing an interview.
Two of the 94 districts--the Northern District of Illinois and the
Eastern District of Michigan--sent letters to aliens notifying them of
the interview project. Officials in the U.S. Attorneys office in the
Eastern District of Michigan told us they sent a letter that described
the project and provided time for the aliens to find counsel, if
desired, and prepare for the interview. The letter explained the
purpose of the project and stated that participation in the project was
voluntary. After receiving the letter, aliens could either call to
schedule the interview time and place or decline to be interviewed. We
were told that agents would only conduct unannounced visits to aliens'
residences if they did not respond to the letter. Almost all of the
attorneys and immigration rights advocates we interviewed in the
Eastern District of Michigan thought this approach was optimal for the
project. The main criticism expressed about the Eastern District of
Michigan's letter was that there was no mention in the letter that a
person could bring an attorney to the interview. (See app. II for a
copy of the letter.):
Federal and Local Law Enforcement Involvement Varied in the Project:
The involvement of INS, FBI, and local law enforcement agencies in the
interview project varied across districts. Table 1 shows which agencies
were and were not involved in conducting interviews in the six
districts we visited.
Table 1: Branches of Law Enforcement Participating in Project, by
District:
District: Eastern Michigan; Agencies involved: * FBI; * Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; * Drug Enforcement
Administration; * Internal Revenue Service; * U.S. Postal Service; *
U.S. Secret Service; * State and local law enforcement; Agencies
generally not involved: * INS; Reason cited for generally not involving
agency: Afraid INS would intimidate people who agreed to be
interviewed..
District: Northern Texas; Agencies involved: * FBI[A]; * INS; Agencies
generally not involved: * Local law enforcement; Reason cited for
generally not involving agency: Notified when in its jurisdiction, but
it did not participate often..
District: Central California; Agencies involved: * FBI[A]; Agencies
generally not involved: * INS; * Local law enforcement; Reason cited
for generally not involving agency: Afraid INS would intimidate people
who agreed to be interviewed.; Notified when in its jurisdiction, but
it did not participate often..
District: Southern New York; Agencies involved: * INS; * Local law
enforcement; Agencies generally not involved: * FBI; Reason cited for
generally not involving agency: FBI's local resources stretched too
thin due to the September 11 investigation..
District: Eastern New York; Agencies involved: * Local law enforcement;
* U.S. Attorney Criminal Investigators; Agencies generally not
involved: * INS; * FBI[B]; Reason cited for generally not involving
agency: INS was understaffed.; FBI's local resources stretched too thin
due to the September 11 investigation..
District: New Jersey; Agencies involved: * FBI[A]; * Local law
enforcement; Agencies generally not involved: * INS; Reason cited for
generally not involving agency: Afraid INS would intimidate people who
agreed to be interviewed..
Source: GAO analyses based on site visits.
[A] Lead interviewing agency.
[B] Not involved in first phase of interviews, but involved in second
phase.
[End of table]
As shown in table 1, the FBI served as the lead interviewing agency in
three districts, and as a participating agency in one district. Four
districts opted not to have INS agents conduct any interviews because
they felt it would intimidate the interviewees or was understaffed.
Local law enforcement was generally involved in conducting interviews
in four districts, and minimally involved in two districts. According
to DOJ's February 2002 status report, local police departments in a
handful of jurisdictions refused to conduct interviews, citing concerns
about racial profiling and local laws or regulations that restricted
their participation in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Complete Information Lacking on Status:
It is not possible to provide complete information on the current
status of the interview project because of limitations in EOUSA's data.
On February 26, 2002, DOJ reported some aggregate information on the
first phase of interviews. Out of 4,793 potential interviews, DOJ
reported that:
* 4,112 individuals were in the country, and 681 had left the country;
* 2,261 interviews were conducted;
* 1,097 individuals--about 27 percent of the 4,112 individuals who
remained in the country--were not located;
* 785 individuals had relocated to another district; and:
* small percentage of individuals declined to be interviewed.[Footnote
10]
DOJ reported that fewer than 20 people were arrested,[Footnote 11]
mostly on immigration violations charges. Most of these arrests
occurred when people who had agreed to be interviewed were found to
have immigration violations. Three individuals were arrested on
criminal charges--none of them appeared to have any connection to
terrorism.
Since February 2002, EOUSA did not collect data on the status of the
first phase of interviews. Therefore, of the 4,112 individuals who were
determined to be in the country, we do not know how many were
interviewed in addition to the 2,261 who had already been interviewed
as of February 2002. For example, EOUSA did not have follow-up data on
the status of the interviews of the 785 individuals who relocated to
another district. In these instances, the ATTF in the district to which
the individual had moved was tasked with completing the interview.
EOUSA also did not have data on the total number of aliens who declined
to be interviewed, although it reported that 8 out of 313 individuals
in the Eastern District of Michigan, 1 out of 69 individuals in Oregon,
and 1 out of 59 individuals in Minnesota refused to be interviewed.
EOUSA's data indicated that, as of March 2003, 3,216 nonimmigrant
aliens had been interviewed during the two phases of the interview
project. This is about 42 percent of 7,602 names sent to U.S. Attorney
offices for interviewing. However, according to EOUSA officials, the
following data problems make it difficult to determine the status of
the project:
* The names of aliens to be interviewed were not "scrubbed for
duplicates" before being sent to the U.S. Attorney offices.
* Arabic names consist of four distinct parts, while American databases
were traditionally designed to accommodate three-part names.
* Variations in the spelling of traditional Arabic names and in the
Arabic vs. American format for recording birth dates may have resulted
in data entry errors.
These data problems limited EOUSA's ability to determine exactly how
many unique individuals (1) the list represented, (2) had left the
country, (3) could not be located, and (4) had moved to another
district. Because there were duplicate names on the interview list,
however, we can deduce that the number of individuals who were to be
interviewed was fewer than 7,602, and the interview completion rate may
have been higher than
42 percent. Problems with the data also mean that EOUSA has not been
able to determine how many interviews remain to be completed. (See app.
III for data on the number of intended interview subjects and the
number of people interviewed by district.):
As of January 2003, EOUSA's senior officials responsible for the
project did not know the extent to which the interviews had been
completed. Out of 94 U.S. Attorney districts, 26 districts had not
conducted any interviews as part of the second phase of the project.
The second phase was to begin in March 2002 and end in May 2002. EOUSA
officials provided us the following information about the 26 districts
that had not conducted any interviews during the second phase:
* Four districts did not receive any names for the first or second
phase.
* Six districts did not receive any new names for the second phase.
* Seven districts determined that the individuals they were to
interview for the second phase had left the country, transferred to
another district, or could not be located.
* One district reported that all of the names provided for the second
phase were duplicates from the first phase.
* EOUSA had no information on why the remaining 8 districts had not
conducted any interviews during the second phase.
EOUSA officials told us that the interview project was a priority for
DOJ because the directive to undertake the project came from the
Attorney General. They noted, however, that they were asking law
enforcement agents to interview people who were not under
investigation. Therefore, at the field level, investigative needs may
have shifted the priority assigned to conducting the interviews.
Nonetheless, officials at EOUSA told us that the interview project was
ongoing, and they expected it to be completed by March 1, 2003.
EOUSA officials told us that they have not done an assessment of the
interview project to determine "lessons learned" in the event that a
similar effort should be undertaken in the future. As of January 2003,
EOUSA officials said they had no specific plans to conduct an
assessment of their interview project. In response to our inquiries
about what improvements, if any, could be made if such a project were
undertaken again, they noted that information on project status could
be more complete and reliable if several steps are taken when preparing
for the project. For example, they said that it would be helpful to
eliminate duplicate names from the interview list before disseminating
the list to U.S. Attorney offices. They also said that a technical
specialist should be involved in designing the project to ensure that
the database can be readily updated. This would eliminate the need for
EOUSA to query the districts individually to ascertain the status of
the project. In addition, they noted that data consistency could be
improved if districts were given guidance on how to interpret and
report information (for example, what evidence would be needed to
conclude that an individual had left the country). Finally, they stated
that it might be useful to obtain feedback from federal, state, and
local law enforcement on the interview instrument that was used in the
project to ascertain what improvements could be made.
Project Results Not Analyzed and Hard to Measure:
The data gathered from the interview project had not been analyzed as
of March 2003, according to senior EOUSA officials. These data have
been maintained by the Justice Management Division in a centralized
database. According to DOJ officials, there are no specific plans to
analyze the project data. Further, it is difficult to measure the value
and results of investigative leads obtained from the interview project.
Law enforcement representatives with whom we spoke expressed differing
views on how the interview project affected community relations.
EOUSA instructed the districts to forward to them any potential leads
developed from the interviews. How and to what extent the interview
project--including investigative leads and the increased presence of
law enforcement in communities--helped the government combat terrorism
is hard to measure. DOJ has asserted that the project netted
intelligence information and had a disruptive effect on terrorists. DOJ
also stated that the interview project strengthened relationships
between law enforcement and Arab communities. Some law enforcement
officials and representatives for aliens held the opposite view.
In its February 26, 2002, report to the Attorney General, DOJ officials
stated that the project was helpful in disrupting potential terrorist
activities. According to DOJ's report, "These contacts, combined with
the widespread media attention the project received, ensured that
potential terrorists sheltering themselves within our communities were
aware that law enforcement was on the job in their
neighborhoods."[Footnote 12] The report also stated that the project
led to meaningful investigative leads--for example, to persons
manufacturing fraudulent documents--though it did not specify how many
or where because DOJ considered the information too sensitive to
divulge. None of the law enforcement officials with whom we spoke could
provide examples of investigative leads that resulted from the project.
However, nine of the officials offered the opinion that if the
interviews provided just one lead that helped prevent a terrorist
attack, the project would have been worthwhile.
Law enforcement officials differed on whether the interview project was
helpful in building ties to the community. DOJ stated in its report
that the project contributed to community building by forging stronger
ties between the law enforcement and Arab communities. Law enforcement
officials who conducted interviews in 4 of the 6 districts visited
expressed similar views to us. They said that the project gave them an
opportunity to present a friendly law enforcement presence, obtain
information (including on potential hate crimes directed against the
interviewees), and leave a business card so the interviewee could
contact them at a later time, if necessary. They also noted that the
interviewed aliens were generally cooperative and appeared willing to
help. Nine of the 47 law enforcement officials with whom we spoke
reported that aliens offered to work as linguists to help them with
their investigation. In contrast, federal law enforcement officials at
the Central California and Eastern New York districts we visited
expressed the view that the interview project had a negative effect on
relations between the Arab community and law enforcement personnel.
In the 3 districts we visited where we were told that immigration
rights advocates and attorneys sat in on interviews, they expressed the
view that the project had a chilling effect on relations between the
Arab community and law enforcement, even though the interviewers were
professional and unthreatening. Attorneys and advocates told us that
interviewed aliens told them they felt they were being singled out and
investigated because of their ethnicity or religious beliefs. Moreover,
as noted earlier, aliens reportedly feared repercussions from INS if
they did not agree to the interview. According to the attorneys, this
may have been the reason many of the interviewees offered their
linguistic services in support of the government's efforts to combat
terrorism.
Conclusions:
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, quickly set in motion a
number of government measures intended to combat terrorism. One of
these was a project designed to gather information on terrorists and
terrorist activities from selected nonimmigrant aliens who were to
voluntarily agree to participate in interviews with law enforcement
agents. Our review found that the project's intent of obtaining aliens'
voluntary compliance with the interview project was met. However, the
results of the project--in terms of how many, what types, and the value
of investigative leads obtained from the interviews--are unknown
because DOJ considers the information too sensitive to divulge. Views
about the impact of the project on community relations were mixed, with
some law enforcement officials indicating that the project helped build
ties between law enforcement and the Arab community, while others
indicated that the project had a negative effect on such relations.
Further, 9 months after the interview project was scheduled to end, it
was still ongoing. DOJ did not know what the status of the project was,
and it had no specific plans for conducting a comprehensive assessment
of lessons learned from the project. This makes oversight of the
project difficult, and it does not capitalize on experience so that
future interview projects could be implemented more efficiently and
effectively.
We recognize that in initiating the interview project after the
September
11 attacks, DOJ acted quickly in an effort to develop leads that could
help deter another attack. National security, as opposed to interview
project methodology and oversight, was rightfully paramount in
importance. It is also the case that national security concerns may
impel the government to conduct additional interview projects (for
example, interviews with Iraqi nationals residing in the United States)
such as the one discussed in this report. We believe that lessons that
can assist similar future efforts can be gleaned from DOJ's experience
conducting the two-phased interview project discussed in this report.
In undertaking the interview project, DOJ encountered a host of issues
that may provide useful input to implementing an interview project in
the future. For example, EOUSA officials told us that the status of the
interview project could have been tracked more smoothly if there had
been more up-front planning in certain areas, such as eliminating
duplicate names from lists and setting up a mechanism for tracking case
status. However, DOJ has not conducted a systematic, comprehensive
assessment of the interview project to obtain feedback on what worked
well and what could have been improved in implementing it. In
discussions with EOUSA officials, they agreed that such an assessment
would be valuable.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Because there are indications that the government's antiterrorism
efforts will continue to rely, in part, on conducting interview
projects with aliens who reside in this country, we believe that the
interview project affords an opportunity to build a knowledge base that
could assist future efforts to collect interview data and monitor
project status. Accordingly, we recommend that the Attorney General,
upon completion of the interview project, initiate a formal review of
the project and report on the lessons learned. The issues that such a
review might address include methods for identifying and locating
aliens, constructing effective interview questions, designing a
database for maintaining the data collected, issuing guidance on
interview methods and inputting data into the database, conducting the
interviews, obtaining state and local support for the project,
overseeing project status, and analyzing the data. The review should
include input from participating law enforcement officials on what
aspects of the project were effective and how the objectives of the
project might have been better or more efficiently met.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Our draft report was reviewed by representatives of the Office of the
Deputy Attorney General, Executive Office for United States Attorneys,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Immigration and Naturalization
Service, now part of the Department of Homeland Security. DOJ provided
us with written comments that were primarily technical in nature, and
we incorporated them into the report as appropriate. DOJ was silent on
our findings, conclusions, and recommendation.
DOJ made two substantive points concerning our draft report. In its
first point, DOJ took issue with our focus on data limitations and
EOUSA's resulting inability to have firm and complete information on
the status of the interview project. DOJ stated that the project's
primary purpose was not to measure the number of persons interviewed,
but to deter and disrupt potential terrorist activities, gather
intelligence, and facilitate community outreach. DOJ noted that none of
these purposes can be measured meaningfully by raw data on the number
of persons interviewed. We agree with DOJ and made this point ourselves
in the report. We state in the Results in Brief and Conclusions
sections that interview project methodology and oversight are not of
paramount concern when national security is at stake. Nevertheless, we
believe that timely, quality data (for example, eliminating duplicate
names from interview lists, maintaining current data on how many
interviews were completed, and clearly tracking how many interviews
could not be completed and why) serve an important function in terms of
efficient project management and effective project oversight.
Capitalizing on the lessons learned from how this interview project was
designed and implemented can help future similar projects avoid
potential pitfalls. That the government may have continuing interest in
conducting interview projects with foreign nationals is evidenced by
the FBI's current effort to conduct voluntary interviews with Iraqis to
gather intelligence information to help with the war effort.
In its second point, DOJ took issue with how we present EOUSA data in
two instances in the report. In one instance, DOJ stated that our
graphical presentation of data on the Highlights page of the report
does not provide an accurate picture of the project's accomplishments
because it implies that interviews could have been completed with more
effort. DOJ noted specifically that the chart does not account for a
large number of aliens who had left the country and, therefore, could
not have been interviewed. We did not present data on the number of
potential interviewees who had left the country because our interviews
with EOUSA officials had indicated the data were not reliable. For
example, there may have been duplicate entries on the list of
individuals who were thought to have left the country, or an individual
may have been classified both as "unable to locate" and "left the
United States." Because of limitations in the data, it was not possible
to determine how many distinct individuals the number reported as
having left the country represented. The chart on the Highlights page
is intended as a summary of the most reliable information available on
project status. In presenting the information, we attach no value
judgment regarding DOJ's performance.
In the second instance, DOJ stated that the table in appendix III does
not provide a complete and accurate representation of the project
because we present less than half of the data provided by EOUSA. In
appendix III, we present information, by judicial district, on the
number of names sent to the district for interview, and the number of
interviews conducted. We limit the information to these three variables
because our discussions with EOUSA officials suggested that the data
are reliable. We do not present other numbers provided by EOUSA--
specifically, on people referred to another district, transferred out
of a district, left the United States, and unable to locate--because
our discussions with EOUSA officials indicated that the data are not
reliable for a variety of reasons. For example, in addition to the
types of problems cited above, some districts may have double counted
individuals who were referred into their district and then transferred
out of the district. We added a footnote to the table in
appendix III that makes explicit what additional information EOUSA
provided us, and why we decided not to present it.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30
days from the date of this report. We will then send copies of the
report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary; the Chairman of the House Committee on the
Judiciary; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee
on Immigration, Senate Committee on the Judiciary; the Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border
Security, and Claims, House Committee on the Judiciary; the Attorney
General; the Director of the FBI; the Director of the Foreign Terrorist
Tracking Task Force; the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget; the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Under
Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, the Director of the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Director of the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security; and other interested parties. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact Evi Rezmovic or me at (202) 512-8777. Key contributors to this
report are listed in appendix IV.
Richard M. Stana
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
Signed by Richard M. Stana:
[End of section]
Appendix I: List of Questions Used in Interviews:
[See PDF for image]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Notification Letter Sent in the Eastern District of
Michigan:
[See PDF for image]
[End of section]
Appendix III: March 2003 Data on the Interview Project, by District,
First and Second Phases of Interviews Combined:
Judicial district: Alabama-Middle; Number of names assigned to
districts: 1; Number of interviews conducted: 1.
Judicial district: Alabama-Northern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 25; Number of interviews conducted: 14.
Judicial district: Alabama-Southern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 7; Number of interviews conducted: 4.
Judicial district: Alaska; Number of names assigned to districts: 8;
Number of interviews conducted: 1.
Judicial district: Arizona; Number of names assigned to districts: 109;
Number of interviews conducted: 54.
Judicial district: Arkansas-Eastern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 27; Number of interviews conducted: 14.
Judicial district: Arkansas-Western; Number of names assigned to
districts: 18; Number of interviews conducted: 12.
Judicial district: California-Central; Number of names assigned to
districts: 259; Number of interviews conducted: 110.
Judicial district: California-Eastern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 39; Number of interviews conducted: 18.
Judicial district: California-Northern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 126; Number of interviews conducted: 63.
Judicial district: California-Southern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 42; Number of interviews conducted: 16.
Judicial district: Colorado; Number of names assigned to districts:
178; Number of interviews conducted: 82.
Judicial district: Connecticut; Number of names assigned to districts:
103; Number of interviews conducted: 70.
Judicial district: Delaware; Number of names assigned to districts: 15;
Number of interviews conducted: 9.
Judicial district: District of Columbia; Number of names assigned to
districts: 66; Number of interviews conducted: 21.
Judicial district: Florida-Middle; Number of names assigned to
districts: 423; Number of interviews conducted: 128.
Judicial district: Florida-Northern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 55; Number of interviews conducted: 26.
Judicial district: Florida-Southern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 248; Number of interviews conducted: 109.
Judicial district: Georgia-Middle; Number of names assigned to
districts: 4; Number of interviews conducted: 2.
Judicial district: Georgia-Northern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 202; Number of interviews conducted: 42.
Judicial district: Georgia-Southern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 6; Number of interviews conducted: 3.
Judicial district: Guam/Northern Mariana[B]; Number of names assigned
to districts: 6; Number of interviews conducted: 4.
Judicial district: Hawaii; Number of names assigned to districts: 18;
Number of interviews conducted: 4.
Judicial district: Idaho; Number of names assigned to districts: 4;
Number of interviews conducted: 0.
Judicial district: Illinois-Central; Number of names assigned to
districts: 55; Number of interviews conducted: 29.
Judicial district: Illinois-Northern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 482; Number of interviews conducted: 99.
Judicial district: Illinois-Southern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 10; Number of interviews conducted: 6.
Judicial district: Indiana-Northern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 53; Number of interviews conducted: 37.
Judicial district: Indiana-Southern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 39; Number of interviews conducted: 19.
Judicial district: Iowa-Northern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 18; Number of interviews conducted: 8.
Judicial district: Iowa-Southern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 141; Number of interviews conducted: 69.
Judicial district: Kansas; Number of names assigned to districts: 69;
Number of interviews conducted: 52.
Judicial district: Kentucky-Eastern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 25; Number of interviews conducted: 14.
Judicial district: Kentucky-Western; Number of names assigned to
districts: 19; Number of interviews conducted: 14.
Judicial district: Louisiana-Eastern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 60; Number of interviews conducted: 26.
Judicial district: Louisiana-Middle; Number of names assigned to
districts: 24; Number of interviews conducted: 12.
Judicial district: Louisiana-Western; Number of names assigned to
districts: 28; Number of interviews conducted: 9.
Judicial district: Maine; Number of names assigned to districts: 8;
Number of interviews conducted: 3.
Judicial district: Maryland; Number of names assigned to districts:
157; Number of interviews conducted: 53.
Judicial district: Massachusetts; Number of names assigned to
districts: 117; Number of interviews conducted: 77.
Judicial district: Michigan-Eastern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 555; Number of interviews conducted: 330.
Judicial district: Michigan-Western; Number of names assigned to
districts: 106; Number of interviews conducted: 60.
Judicial district: Minnesota; Number of names assigned to districts:
188; Number of interviews conducted: 77.
Judicial district: Mississippi-Northern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 6; Number of interviews conducted: 3.
Judicial district: Mississippi-Southern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 7; Number of interviews conducted: 5.
Judicial district: Missouri-Eastern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 53; Number of interviews conducted: 32.
Judicial district: Missouri-Western; Number of names assigned to
districts: 66; Number of interviews conducted: 44.
Judicial district: Montana; Number of names assigned to districts: 5;
Number of interviews conducted: 4.
Judicial district: Nebraska; Number of names assigned to districts: 16;
Number of interviews conducted: 11.
Judicial district: Nevada; Number of names assigned to districts: 17;
Number of interviews conducted: 6.
Judicial district: New Hampshire; Number of names assigned to
districts: 15; Number of interviews conducted: 8.
Judicial district: New Jersey; Number of names assigned to districts:
220; Number of interviews conducted: 106.
Judicial district: New Mexico; Number of names assigned to districts:
28; Number of interviews conducted: 20.
Judicial district: New York-Eastern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 246; Number of interviews conducted: 65.
Judicial district: New York-Northern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 39; Number of interviews conducted: 21.
Judicial district: New York-Southern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 134; Number of interviews conducted: 49.
Judicial district: New York-Western; Number of names assigned to
districts: 46; Number of interviews conducted: 7.
Judicial district: North Carolina-Eastern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 12; Number of interviews conducted: 6.
Judicial district: North Carolina-Middle; Number of names assigned to
districts: 12; Number of interviews conducted: 3.
Judicial district: North Carolina-Western; Number of names assigned to
districts: 25; Number of interviews conducted: 11.
Judicial district: North Dakota; Number of names assigned to districts:
6; Number of interviews conducted: 4.
Judicial district: Ohio-Northern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 32; Number of interviews conducted: 28.
Judicial district: Ohio-Southern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 51; Number of interviews conducted: 20.
Judicial district: Oklahoma-Eastern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 0; Number of interviews conducted: 0.
Judicial district: Oklahoma-Northern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 57; Number of interviews conducted: 49.
Judicial district: Oklahoma-Western; Number of names assigned to
districts: 41; Number of interviews conducted: 16.
Judicial district: Oregon; Number of names assigned to districts: 209;
Number of interviews conducted: 83.
Judicial district: Pennsylvania-Eastern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 65; Number of interviews conducted: 18.
Judicial district: Pennsylvania-Middle; Number of names assigned to
districts: 13; Number of interviews conducted: 10.
Judicial district: Pennsylvania-Western; Number of names assigned to
districts: 35; Number of interviews conducted: 21.
Judicial district: Puerto Rico; Number of names assigned to districts:
0; Number of interviews conducted: 0.
Judicial district: Rhode Island; Number of names assigned to districts:
5; Number of interviews conducted: 4.
Judicial district: South Carolina; Number of names assigned to
districts: 50; Number of interviews conducted: 22.
Judicial district: South Dakota; Number of names assigned to districts:
1; Number of interviews conducted: 0.
Judicial district: Tennessee-Eastern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 15; Number of interviews conducted: 5.
Judicial district: Tennessee-Middle; Number of names assigned to
districts: 17; Number of interviews conducted: 6.
Judicial district: Tennessee-Western; Number of names assigned to
districts: 16; Number of interviews conducted: 6.
Judicial district: Texas-Eastern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 89; Number of interviews conducted: 45.
Judicial district: Texas-Northern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 364; Number of interviews conducted: 196.
Judicial district: Texas-Southern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 660; Number of interviews conducted: 148.
Judicial district: Texas-Western; Number of names assigned to
districts: 265; Number of interviews conducted: 111.
Judicial district: Utah; Number of names assigned to districts: 6;
Number of interviews conducted: 4.
Judicial district: Vermont; Number of names assigned to districts: 5;
Number of interviews conducted: 2.
Judicial district: Virgin Islands; Number of names assigned to
districts: 0; Number of interviews conducted: 0.
Judicial district: Virginia-Eastern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 212; Number of interviews conducted: 83.
Judicial district: Virginia-Western; Number of names assigned to
districts: 6; Number of interviews conducted: 8.
Judicial district: Washington-Eastern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 21; Number of interviews conducted: 14.
Judicial district: Washington-Western; Number of names assigned to
districts: 97; Number of interviews conducted: 30.
Judicial district: West Virginia-Northern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 16; Number of interviews conducted: 11.
Judicial district: West Virginia-Southern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 10; Number of interviews conducted: 9.
Judicial district: Wisconsin-Eastern; Number of names assigned to
districts: 59; Number of interviews conducted: 24.
Judicial district: Wisconsin-Western; Number of names assigned to
districts: 89; Number of interviews conducted: 37.
Judicial district: Wyoming; Number of names assigned to districts: 0;
Number of interviews conducted: 0.
Judicial district: Total; Number of names assigned to districts: 7,602[
A]; Number of interviews conducted: 3,216.
[End of table]
Source: Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.
Note: EOUSA also provided us the following data: number of people
referred to a district, number of people transferred out of a district,
number of people who left the United States, and number of people law
enforcement was unable to locate. We are not presenting these data
because EOUSA officials told us that the data were unreliable for a
variety of reasons. One reason cited was lack of criteria for the
categories. For example, if there was testimonial evidence that a
person left the country, one district might classify that as "unable to
locate" while another district might classify that as "left the United
States." Additionally, some districts might have double-counted people
in certain categories, such as people who might have transferred in and
out of a district. Finally, except for number of interviews conducted,
the other categories may have contained duplicate entries.
[A] FTTTF sent 8,335 nonimmigrant alien names to districts for
interviewing during the two phases of the interview project. After
eliminating some of the duplicate names, the districts' lists of names
totaled 7,602 as of March 14, 2003. There remains a degree of
inaccuracy even in this number because, among other things, it contains
duplicate names that were not always detected, as well as data entry
errors.
[B] Guam/Northern Mariana consists of two districts that are under one
U.S. Attorney.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Richard M. Stana (202) 512-8777
Evi L. Rezmovic (202) 512-8777:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the above, Cheryl Dorfman, Sam Van Wagner, Mark
Macauley, Keith Wandtke, David Alexander, Ann Finley, Jan Montgomery,
and Amy Rosewarne made key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] P.L. 107-56 (2001).
[2] Homeland Security Act of 2002, P.L. 107-296 (2002).
[3] Nonimmigrants are foreign nationals, such as students, tourists,
and certain types of workers, who enter the United States on temporary
visas.
[4] You have also raised issues regarding other antiterrorism measures
implemented after September 11. We will be issuing reports to address
your request for information on them.
[5] In addition to the U.S. Attorney districts visited where we met
with 22 immigration rights advocates interviewed, we also went to
Houston, Texas, and met with 8 immigration rights advocates.
[6] ATTFs operate under the direction of the U.S. Attorneys and are
comprised of federal, state, and local law enforcement officials. They
are charged with implementing and coordinating the DOJ's antiterrorism
plan, serving as a conduit for disseminating information about
terrorists between federal and local agencies, and providing a standing
organizational structure for a coordinated response to a terrorist
incident in the district. ATTFs were established by the Attorney
General shortly after September 11.
[7] In our recent report, U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland
Security: INS Cannot Locate Many Aliens Because It Lacks Reliable
Address Information, GAO-03-188 (Washington D.C.: November 21, 2002),
we reported that INS alien address information could not be relied on
to locate many aliens of interest to the United States, and recommended
specific measures to improve INS's program for gathering the
information.
[8] GAO-03-188.
[9] EOUSA distributed the guidance to all 94 U.S. Attorney districts
even though not every district was given a list of nonimmigrant aliens
to interview. EOUSA wanted all districts to be aware of the project and
its guidelines in case they were asked to conduct interviews at a later
point in time.
[10] Except for reporting on a few districts, DOJ did not report the
number of people who declined to be interviewed.
[11] DOJ did not report the exact number of people arrested.
[12] Final Report of Interview Project, DOJ, EOUSA (February 26, 2002).
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products" under the GAO Reports heading.
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. General Accounting 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: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: