Border Security
Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and Scholars Gao ID: GAO-04-371 February 25, 2004Each year thousands of international science students and scholars apply for visas to enter the United States to participate in education and exchange programs. They offer our country diversity and intellectual knowledge and are an economic resource. At the same time, the United States has important national security interests in screening these individuals when they apply for a visa. At a hearing held by the House Committee on Science on March 26, 2003, witnesses raised concern about the length of time it takes for science students and scholars to obtain a visa and about losing top international students to other countries due to delays in the visa process. GAO reviewed 1) how long it takes a science student or scholar from another country to obtain a visa and the factors contributing to the length of time, and 2) what measures are under way to improve the process and decrease the number of pending cases.
State Department (State) data are not available on how long it takes for a science student or scholar to obtain a visa. While State has not set specific criteria or time frames for how long the visa process should take, its goal is to adjudicate visas as quickly as possible, consistent with immigration laws and homeland security objectives. During this review, GAO found that the time it takes to adjudicate a visa depends largely on whether an applicant must undergo a security check known as Visas Mantis, which is designed to protect against sensitive technology transfers. Based on a random sample of Visas Mantis cases for science students and scholars sent from posts between April and June 2003, GAO found it took an average of 67 days for the security check to be processed and for State to notify the post. In addition, GAO's visits to posts in China, India, and Russia in September 2003 showed that many Visas Mantis cases had been pending 60 days or more. GAO also found that the way in which Visas Mantis information was disseminated at headquarters made it difficult to resolve some of these cases expeditiously. Furthermore, consular staff at posts GAO visited said they were unsure whether they were contributing to lengthy waits because they lacked clear guidance on when to apply Visas Mantis checks and did not receive feedback on whether they were providing enough information in their Visas Mantis requests. Another factor that may effect the time taken to adjudicate visas for science students and scholars is the wait for an interview. The wait time at posts GAO visited was generally 2 to 3 weeks but could be longer depending on the time of the year. While State and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials acknowledged there have been lengthy waits, they report having measures under way that they believe will improve the process and that they are collaborating to identify and resolve outstanding Visas Mantis cases. In addition, State officials told GAO they have invested about $1 million to upgrade the technology for sending Visas Mantis requests. According to State officials, the new system will help to reduce the time it takes to process Visas Mantis cases. But despite State's plans to improve the Visas Mantis process, challenges remain. For example, the FBI's systems will not immediately be interoperable with State's. GAO was unable to assess State's new system since it was not yet functioning at the time of the review.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-04-371, Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and Scholars
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-371
entitled 'Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to
Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and Scholars' which was released
on February 25, 2004.
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 the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on
Science, House of Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
February 2004:
Border Security:
Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate Visas for
Science Students and Scholars:
GAO-04-371:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-371, a report to the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Each year thousands of international science students and scholars
apply for visas to enter the United States to participate in education
and exchange programs. They offer our country diversity and
intellectual knowledge and are an economic resource. At the same time,
the United States has important national security interests in
screening these individuals when they apply for a visa. At a hearing
held by the House Committee on Science on March 26, 2003, witnesses
raised concern about the length of time it takes for science students
and scholars to obtain a visa and about losing top international
students to other countries due to delays in the visa process. GAO
reviewed 1) how long it takes a science student or scholar from
another country to obtain a visa and the factors contributing to the
length of time, and 2) what measures are under way to improve the
process and decrease the number of pending cases.
What GAO Found:
State Department (State) data are not available on how long it takes
for a science student or scholar to obtain a visa. While State has not
set specific criteria or time frames for how long the visa process
should take, its goal is to adjudicate visas as quickly as possible,
consistent with immigration laws and homeland security objectives.
During this review, GAO found that the time it takes to adjudicate a
visa depends largely on whether an applicant must undergo a security
check known as Visas Mantis, which is designed to protect against
sensitive technology transfers. Based on a random sample of Visas
Mantis cases for science students and scholars sent from posts between
April and June 2003, GAO found it took an average of 67 days for the
security check to be processed and for State to notify the post. In
addition, GAO‘s visits to posts in China, India, and Russia in
September 2003 showed that many Visas Mantis cases had been pending 60
days or more. GAO also found that the way in which Visas Mantis
information was disseminated at headquarters made it difficult to
resolve some of these cases expeditiously. Furthermore, consular staff
at posts GAO visited said they were unsure whether they were
contributing to lengthy waits because they lacked clear guidance on
when to apply Visas Mantis checks and did not receive feedback on
whether they were providing enough information in their Visas Mantis
requests. Another factor that may effect the time taken to adjudicate
visas for science students and scholars is the wait for an interview.
The wait time at posts GAO visited was generally 2 to 3 weeks but
could be longer depending on the time of the year.
While State and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials
acknowledged there have been lengthy waits, they report having
measures under way that they believe will improve the process and that
they are collaborating to identify and resolve outstanding Visas
Mantis cases. In addition, State officials told GAO they have invested
about $1 million to upgrade the technology for sending Visas Mantis
requests. According to State officials, the new system will help to
reduce the time it takes to process Visas Mantis cases. But despite
State‘s plans to improve the Visas Mantis process, challenges remain.
For example, the FBI‘s systems will not immediately be interoperable
with State‘s. GAO was unable to assess State‘s new system since it was
not yet functioning at the time of the review.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making a recommendation to the Secretary of State, in
coordination with the Director of the FBI and the Secretary of
Homeland Security, to develop and implement a plan to improve the
security check process known as Visas Mantis. State commented that it
had taken some action to improve the Visas Mantis process and it would
study our recommendation to make further improvements.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Length of Time to Adjudicate Visas Is Unknown; Security Check Is Major
Contributing Factor:
Agency Officials Cite Improvements:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Visas Mantis Cases for Science Students and Scholars:
Appendix III; Visa Statistics from Seven Posts:
Appendix IV: Distribution of Processing Time for Sample of Visas Mantis
Cases:
Appendix V: Comments from the State Department:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Federal Bureau of Investigation:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Number of Student and Exchange Visas Issued and Denied in
Fiscal Year 2003 by Selected Nationality:
Table 2: Visas Mantis Cases for Science Students and Scholars, April to
June 2003:
Table 3: Visa Statistics from Posts in China, India, and Russia:
Figures:
Figure 1: Visa Adjudication Process:
Figure 2: Average Time Frames for Visas Mantis Cases, April to June
2003:
Figure 3: Distribution of Days from Transmission by Post to Receipt by
FBI:
Figure 4: Distribution of Days from Receipt by FBI to Completion of
Clearance:
Figure 5: Distribution of Days from Clearance by FBI to Receipt by
State:
Figure 6: Distribution of Days from Receipt by State to State's
Response to Post:
Figure 7: Distribution of Total Days from Transmission by Post to
Response from State:
Abbreviations:
CLASS: Consular Lookout and Support System:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
INA: Immigration and Nationality Act:
OSTP: Office of Science and Technology Policy:
SAO: Security Advisory Opinion:
TAL: Technology Alert List:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 25, 2004:
The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert:
Chairman:
The Honorable Bart Gordon:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Science:
House of Representatives:
Each year thousands of international science students and scholars
apply for visas[Footnote 1] to enter the United States to participate
in education and exchange programs. Foreign science students and
scholars offer our country diversity and intellectual knowledge and are
also an economic resource. At the same time, the United States has
important national security interests in carefully screening science
students and scholars who apply for visas. At a hearing held by the
House Committee on Science on March 26, 2003, various witnesses raised
concerns about the length of time it takes for a science student or
scholar to obtain a visa. Moreover, university officials in the United
States have expressed concern about losing top international students
to other countries due to delays in the visa process. Visa decisions
need to be made as quickly as possible to ensure that the United States
remains a viable place for study and scientific exchanges; at the same
time, visa decisions must be consistent with immigration laws and
homeland security objectives.
You requested that we (1) determine how long it takes a science student
or scholar from another country to obtain a visa and the factors that
contribute to the length of time and (2) review what measures are under
way to improve the visa issuance process and decrease the number of
pending cases.
Based on our review of State Department (State) data systems regarding
visas, we determined that visa data are collected for students (F
visas) and for exchange visitors (J visas), but State's data systems do
not track science applicants within these categories. Thus, data are
not available to report how long it takes science applicants to obtain
a visa. However, we identified a security review procedure as the
factor most likely to affect the timeliness of science student and
scholar applicant visas. Consequently, we focused our review on the
length of time it takes an applicant to acquire a visa if he or she
must undergo a security review. Using State documents, we were able to
compile data on science applicants for this analysis. We also reviewed
relevant documents and interviewed officials at the Departments of
State and Homeland Security and at the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) in Washington, D.C. In addition, we observed visa operations and
analyzed data obtained at seven consular posts in three countries--
China, India, and Russia. We chose these countries in consultation with
your office because they are a major source of science students and
scholars visiting the United States. Appendix I provides more
information on our scope and methodology, including limitations to
State data we reviewed.
Results in Brief:
State Department data are not available on how long it takes for a
science student or scholar to obtain a visa. While State has not set
specific criteria or time frames for how long the visa process should
take, its goal is to adjudicate visas as quickly as possible,
consistent with immigration laws and homeland security objectives.
During our review, we found that the time it takes to adjudicate a visa
depends largely on whether an applicant must undergo a security check
known as Visas Mantis. Based on a random sample of Visas Mantis cases
for science students and scholars sent for review between April and
June 2003, we found that it took an average of 67 days for the security
check to be processed and for State to notify the post. In addition,
our visits to posts in China, India, and Russia in September 2003
showed that many Visas Mantis cases had been pending 60 days or more.
We also found that the way in which Visas Mantis information was
disseminated at the headquarters level made it difficult to resolve
some Visas Mantis cases expeditiously. For example, in some instances,
Visas Mantis cases sent by posts did not get to the FBI for its
security check because of improperly formatted requests. Furthermore,
consular staff at the posts we visited said they were unsure whether
they were contributing to lengthy waits because they lacked clear
guidance on when to apply Visas Mantis checks and did not receive
feedback on whether they were providing enough information in their
Visas Mantis requests. Another factor that may affect the time taken to
adjudicate visas for science students and scholars is the wait for an
interview. The wait time at posts we visited was generally 2 to 3
weeks, and officials in Chennai, India, told us that the wait was as
long as 12 weeks during the summer of 2003.
While State and FBI officials acknowledged that there have been lengthy
waits, they report having measures under way that they believe will
improve the process and resolve outstanding cases. Both State and FBI
have set up inquiry desks to answer questions about the status of
pending visa applications. In addition, officials from State's Bureau
of Consular Affairs and the FBI told us they are working together to
identify and resolve outstanding Visas Mantis cases. These officials
also told us that State has invested about $1 million to upgrade its
technology for transmitting Visas Mantis requests, and the system is
expected to be functional later this year. According to State
officials, the new system will help to reduce the time it takes to
process Visas Mantis cases. However, despite State's plans to improve
the Visas Mantis process, challenges remain. For example, according to
both FBI and State officials, the FBI's systems will not be immediately
interoperable with State's new system. As a result, data exchange
between State and FBI may continue to cause lengthy waits. FBI
officials told us they are actively working with State to seek
solutions to this problem but have not determined how the information
will be transmitted in the meantime. We were not able to assess the
system since it was not yet functioning at the time of our review.
To help improve the process and shorten the length of time it takes for
a science student or scholar to obtain a visa, we are recommending that
the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Director of the FBI
and the Secretary of Homeland Security, develop and implement a plan to
improve the Visas Mantis process.
We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of State and
Homeland Security and to the FBI. In commenting on our draft report,
State indicated that it had taken a number of recent actions to improve
the Visas Mantis process and has started to implement portions of our
recommendation. For example, State said that it has started to provide
feedback to posts regarding the information contained in Visas Mantis
cables and is providing expanded briefings on the Visas Mantis process
to new consular officers. State also said that it would study our
recommendation to explore possibilities for further improvements to the
Visas Mantis security check process. The Department of Homeland
Security and the FBI did not comment on our recommendation.
Background:
The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, is the
primary body of law governing immigration and visa operations.[Footnote
2] Among other functions, the INA defines the power given to the
Attorney General, the Secretary of State, immigration officers, and
consular officers; delineates the categories of and qualifications for
nonimmigrant visas; and provides a broad framework of operations
through which foreign citizens are allowed to enter the United States.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 establishes the role of the
Department of Homeland Security in the visa process, and a subsequent
Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretaries of State and
Homeland Security further outlines the visa issuance
authorities.[Footnote 3] According to the memorandum, the Department of
Homeland Security is responsible for establishing visa policy,
reviewing implementation of the policy, and providing additional
direction, while the State Department is responsible for managing the
visa process and carrying out U.S. foreign policy.
Process for Adjudicating Visas:
The visa adjudication process has several steps (see fig. 1). Visa
applicants generally begin the visa process by scheduling a visa
interview.[Footnote 4] On the day of the appointment, a consular
officer reviews the application, checks the applicant's name in the
Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS),[Footnote 5] and interviews
the applicant. Based on the interview and a review of pertinent
documents, the consular officer determines if the applicant is eligible
for nonimmigrant status under the Immigration and Nationality
Act.[Footnote 6] If the consular officer then determines that the
applicant is eligible to receive a visa, the applicant is notified
right away and he or she usually receives the visa within 24
hours.[Footnote 7]
Figure 1: Visa Adjudication Process:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In some cases, the consular officer decides that the applicant will
need a Security Advisory Opinion (SAO), which provides an opinion or
clearance from Washington on whether to issue a visa to the applicant.
SAOs are required for a number of reasons, including concerns that a
visa applicant may engage in the illegal transfer of sensitive
technology. An SAO based on sensitive technology transfer concerns is
known as a Visas Mantis and, according to State officials, is the most
common type of SAO applied to science applicants.[Footnote 8] It is
also the most common type of SAO sent from most of the posts we visited
in China, Russia, and India.
In deciding if a Visas Mantis check is needed, the consular officer
determines whether the applicant's background or proposed activity in
the United States could involve exposure to technologies on the
Technology Alert List (TAL). The list includes science and technology-
related fields where, if knowledge gained from research or work in
these fields were used against the United States, it could potentially
be harmful.[Footnote 9] If a Visas Mantis is needed, the consular
officer generally informs the applicant that his or her visa is being
temporarily refused under Section 221(g) of the U.S. Immigration and
Nationality Act,[Footnote 10] pending receipt of security clearance.
After a consular officer decides that a Visas Mantis is necessary for
an applicant, several steps are taken to resolve the process. The
officer drafts a Visas Mantis cable, which contains information from
the applicant's application and interview. The cable is then generally
reviewed by a consular section chief or other consular official at
post, who then approves the Visas Mantis cable for transmission to
Washington for an interagency security check. Once the cable is sent,
the State Department's Bureau of Nonproliferation, the FBI, and other
agencies review the information in the cable and provide a response on
the applicant to the Consular Affairs section of State
headquarters.[Footnote 11] The Bureau of Nonproliferation and other
agencies are given 15 working days to respond to State with any
objections. However, State has agreed to wait for a response from the
FBI before proceeding with each Visas Mantis case.
State's Bureau of Consular Affairs receives all agency responses
pertaining to an applicant, summarizes them, and prepares a response to
the consular posts. A cable is then transmitted to the post which
indicates that State does or does not have an objection to issuing the
visa, or that more information is needed.[Footnote 12] Generally, a
consular official at post reviews the cable and, based on the
information from Washington, decides whether to issue the visa to the
applicant. The officer then notifies the applicant that the visa has
been issued or denied, or that more information is needed. According to
consular officials, in the vast majority of the cases the visa is
approved. However, even when the visa is issued, the information
provided by the consular posts on certain visa applicants is very
useful to certain agencies in guarding against illegal technology
transfer. As a result, according to the State Department, the Visas
Mantis program provides State and other interested agencies with an
effective mechanism to screen out those individuals who seek to evade
or violate laws governing the export of goods, technology, or sensitive
information. This screening, in turn, addresses significant issues of
national security.
Availability of State Data:
State Department data are not available on the number of visas that
were issued or denied to science students and scholars or the length of
time it takes to issue visas to these people. Consular Affairs
officials told us that State's systems[Footnote 13] can track aggregate
student or scholar data by F and J visa categories, but they cannot
narrow their query search to specifically identify science students or
scholars.[Footnote 14] Table 1 shows the number of visas issued and
denied for students and scholars seeking visas by selected
nationalities in fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 15]
Table 1: Number of Student and Exchange Visas Issued and Denied in
Fiscal Year 2003 by Selected Nationality:
Nationality: South Korea;
Students (F visas): Issued: 34,697;
Students (F visas): Refused: 8,119;
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 14,218;
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 1,507.
Nationality: China (mainland) and Taiwan;
Students (F visas): Issued: 31,322;
Students (F visas): Refused: 22,995;
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 10,171;
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 7,003.
Nationality: Japan;
Students (F visas): Issued: 25,962;
Students (F visas): Refused: 1,387;
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 11,377;
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 305.
Nationality: India;
Students (F visas): Issued: 20,320;
Students (F visas): Refused: 17,973;
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 5,311;
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 1,718.
Nationality: Brazil;
Students (F visas): Issued: 7,625;
Students (F visas): Refused: 1,761;
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 8,297;
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 520.
Nationality: Germany;
Students (F visas): Issued: 5,376;
Students (F visas): Refused: 1,122;
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 22,600;
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 923.
Nationality: Great Britain;
Students (F visas): Issued: 3,536;
Students (F visas): Refused: 874;
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 17,354;
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 1,052.
Nationality: Russia;
Students (F visas): Issued: 1,645;
Students (F visas): Refused: 1,325;
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 17,185;
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 8,412.
Nationality: Poland;
Students (F visas): Issued: 1,243;
Students (F visas): Refused: 906;
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 20,675;
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 2,637.
Nationality: All others;
Students (F visas): Issued: 103,853;
Students (F visas): Refused: 71,733;
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 156,472;
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 30,537.
Total;
Students (F visas): Issued: 235,579;
Students (F visas): Refused: 128,195;
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 283,660;
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 54,614.
Source: GAO analysis of State Department visa data.
[End of table]
In addition, State data are not available on the overall number of
Visas Mantis cases in fiscal year 2003 or on the Visas Mantis cases by
visa category.[Footnote 16] State's systems can track the visa process
for individual cases but do not allow for aggregate queries of Visas
Mantis cases. For example, State does not have data on how many Visas
Mantis cases involved student visas.[Footnote 17] State also lacks data
on the number of science students and scholars that undergo a Visas
Mantis security check. Furthermore, State did not have aggregate data
on the time frame for adjudicating a visa that required a Visas Mantis
security check.
Length of Time to Adjudicate Visas Is Unknown; Security Check Is Major
Contributing Factor:
The length of time for a science student or scholar to obtain a visa is
not known, but a key factor in the time frame can be attributed to
whether an applicant must undergo a Visas Mantis check. Since State
could provide information on individual cases, we conducted our own
sample of Visas Mantis cases that we obtained from State for the period
between April and June 2003 and found that for these applicants, it
took an average of 67 days for the security check to be processed and
for State to notify the post of the results. Furthermore, our visits to
posts showed that as of October 1, 2003, 410 Visas Mantis cases
submitted by 7 posts in fiscal year 2003 were still pending after more
than 60 days.[Footnote 18] We also found that interoperability problems
among the systems that State and FBI use contributed to the time taken
to process a Visas Mantis check. In addition, officials at posts we
visited told us they were unsure whether they were adding to the
lengthy waits by not having clear guidance on when to apply the Visas
Mantis process and not receiving feedback on the amount of information
they provided in their Visas Mantis requests. Aside from the time it
takes to process Visas Mantis checks, we found during our fieldwork
that an applicant also has to wait for an interview. Post officials and
representatives of higher education scientific and governmental
organizations indicated that delays in processing visas for science
students and scholars could negatively affect U.S. national interests.
Analysis of State Data Indicates Lengthy Waits:
To obtain visa data on science students and scholars, and to determine
how long the visa process takes, we reviewed all Visas Mantis cables
received from posts between April and June 2003,[Footnote 19] which
totaled approximately 5,000. Of these cases, 2,888 pertain to science
students and scholars, of which approximately 58 percent were sent from
China,[Footnote 20] about 20 percent from Russia, and less than 2
percent from India. Appendix II provides additional information on the
number of science student and scholar cases sent from each post.
We drew a random sample of 71 cases from the 2,888 science student and
scholar visa applications to measure the length of time taken at
selected points in the visa process. The sample of 71 cases is a
probability sample, and results from the data in this sample project to
the universe of the 2,888 science visa applications. We found that
visas for science students and scholars took on average 67
days[Footnote 21] from the date the Visas Mantis cable was submitted
from post to the date State sent a response to the post.[Footnote 22]
This is slightly longer than 2 months per application, on average. In
the sample, 67 of the visa applications completed processing and
approval by December 3, 2003. In addition, 3 of the 67 completed
applications had processing times in excess of 180 days. Four of the
cases in our sample of 71 remained pending as of December 3, 2003. Of
the 4 cases pending, 3 had been pending for more than 150 days and 1
for more than 240 days as of December 3, 2003.[Footnote 23]
In addition to our sample of 71 cases, State provided us with data on
two samples it had taken of Visas Mantis case processing times. Data on
the first sample was provided on December 11, 2003, and included 40
visa cases taken from August to October 2003. Data on the second sample
was provided on February 13, 2004, and included 50 Visas Mantis cases
taken from November and December 2003. State indicated that both
samples show improvements in processing times compared to earlier
periods in 2003. Based on the documentation of how these cases were
selected, we were unable to determine whether these were scientifically
valid samples and therefore we could not validate that processing times
have improved. For the first sample, the data show that 58 percent of
the cases were completed within 30 days; for the second sample, the
data show that 52 percent were completed within this time frame. In
addition, the data for both samples show that lengthy waits remain in
some cases. For example, 9 of the 40 cases had been outstanding for
more than 60 days as of December 3, 2003, including 3 cases that had
been pending for more than 120 days. Also, 9 of the 50 cases were still
pending as of February 13, 2004, including 6 that had been outstanding
for more than 60 days. State officials commented that most of the
outstanding cases from both samples were still being reviewed by the
agencies. Moreover, for one case sent in December 2003, the FBI showed
no record of the Visas Mantis request.
Post Data Show Lengthy Waits in Visas Mantis Cases:
While Consular Affairs officials were not able to query their systems
for aggregate Visas Mantis data, we were able to obtain aggregate data
from the posts we visited. During our field visits, we found most posts
track Visas Mantis cases they send to State. Some posts designate a
consular official to track Visas Mantis cases while others had no
designated officers for this purpose. Overall, we found that most posts
kept a spreadsheet on the Visas Mantis cases, which generally contained
Visas Mantis applicant data such as when the cable was sent to State
and when a response was received at post. However, we found no standard
method for data or tracking. In addition, we found that most posts did
not have accurate data on the number of Visas Mantis cases they sent to
headquarters in a fiscal year. Posts could provide us with F and J visa
category data but could not break down the data by science students and
scholars.
During our fieldwork at posts in China, India, and Russia, we obtained
data indicating that 410 Visas Mantis cases submitted by 7 posts in
fiscal year 2003 were still outstanding more than 60 days as of October
1, 2003.[Footnote 24] In addition, we found numerous cases--including
27 from Shanghai--that were pending more than 120 days as of October
16, 2003.[Footnote 25] The following are examples of data we collected
during our fieldwork regarding the processing of Visas Mantis
cases:[Footnote 26]
* In September 2003, the three posts we visited in China had
approximately 174 security checks for students and exchange visitors
that had been pending between 60 and 120 days, and 49 that had been
pending for more than 120 days.[Footnote 27] In Shanghai in fiscal year
2003, it took approximately 47 days for a Visas Mantis case for a
student or scholar to be processed from the time a cable was sent from
post to the time the visa was issued.
* Approximately 25 percent of Chennai's Visas Mantis cases in fiscal
year 2003 took between 60 and 120 days to process, and 58 percent took
more than 120 days to process from application date to the date a
response was received from Washington. Further, the average time for
Visas Mantis cases to be processed in Chennai in fiscal year 2003 was
approximately 5 months or 144 days. Post officials told us that the
processing time has improved; however, the data show there are still
lengthy waits in Chennai. For example, of the 6 visa applications
submitted in October 2003 that required a Visas Mantis check, 4 were
still pending as of January 9, 2004, and the other 2 took an average of
55 days to process.[Footnote 28]
* Of the Visas Mantis applications completed in Moscow in fiscal year
2003, approximately 21 percent took between 60 and 120 days, and 10
percent took more than 120 days to process. In September 2003, Moscow
had 544 outstanding Visas Mantis cases. Of these cases, about 28
percent had been pending more than 60 days. In addition, in fiscal year
2003, the average time to adjudicate a visa[Footnote 29] for those
requiring a Visas Mantis security check was 53 days.
Systems Are Not Interoperable and Can Lead to Delays between Points in
Process:
Because many different agencies, bureaus, posts, and field offices are
involved in processing Visas Mantis security checks and each has
different databases and systems, we found that Visas Mantis cases can
get delayed or lost at different points in the process.[Footnote 30] We
found that in fiscal year 2003, some Visas Mantis cases did not always
reach their intended recipient and, as a result, some of the security
checks were delayed. For example, we followed up with the FBI on 14
outstanding cases from some of the posts we visited in China in
September 2003 to see if it had received and processed the cases. FBI
officials provided information indicating that they had no record of 3
of the cases, they had responded to State on 8 cases, and they were
still reviewing 3 cases. FBI officials stated that the most likely
reasons why they did not have a record of the 3 cases from State were
due to cable formatting errors and duplicate cases that were rejected
from the FBI database.[Footnote 31] State did not comment on the status
of the 14 cases we provided to the FBI for review. However, a Consular
Affairs official told us that in fall 2003, there were about 700 Visas
Mantis cases sent from Beijing that did not reach the FBI for the
security check. The official did not know how the cases got lost but
told us that it took Consular Affairs about a month to identify that
there was a problem and provide the FBI with the cases. As a result,
several hundred visa applications were delayed for another month.
Figure 2 illustrates some of the time-consuming factors in the Visas
Mantis process for our sample of 71 cases. While the FBI received most
of the cases from State within a day, 7 cases took a month or more,
most likely because they had been improperly formatted and thus were
rejected by the FBI's system.[Footnote 32] In more than half of the
cases, the FBI was able to complete the clearance process the same day,
but some cases took more than 100 days.[Footnote 33] These cases may
have taken longer because (1) the FBI had to investigate the case or
request additional information from State; (2) the FBI had to locate
files in field offices, because not all of its name check files are
electronic; or (3) the case was a duplicate, which the FBI's name check
system also rejects. In most of the cases, the FBI was able to send a
response--which it generally does in batches of name checks, not by
individual case--to State within a week. The FBI provides the results
of name checks for Visas Mantis cases to State on computer compact
disks (CDs), which could cause delays. In December 2003, a FBI official
told us that these CDs were provided to State twice a week. However, in
the past, the CDs were provided to State on a less frequent basis. In
addition, it takes time for data to be entered into State's systems
once State receives the information. In the majority of our sample
cases, it took State 2 weeks or longer to inform post that it could
issue a visa. State officials were unable to explain why it took State
this long to respond to post. Officials told us that the time frame
could be due to a lack of resources at headquarters or because State
was waiting for a response from agencies other than the FBI. However,
the data show that only 5 of the 71 cases were pending information from
agencies other than the FBI. Appendix IV provides additional
information on the distribution of processing time for our sample of
Visas Mantis cases.
Figure 2: Average Time Frames for Visas Mantis Cases, April to June
2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Post Officials Seek Clearer Guidance and Feedback on Visas Mantis Cases
to Expedite Process:
During our fieldwork, some consular officials expressed concern that
they could be contributing to the time it takes to process Visas Mantis
requests because they lacked clear guidance on determining Visas Mantis
cases and feedback on whether they were applying checks appropriately
and providing enough data in their Visas Mantis requests. According to
the officials, additional information and feedback from Washington
regarding these issues could help expedite Visas Mantis cases.
Currently, State provides some guidance to posts on Visas Mantis
requirements and processing, including how to use the TAL to determine
if a visa applicant should undergo a security check.[Footnote 34]
However, consular officers told us that they would like the guidance to
be simplified--for example, by expressing some scientific terms in more
comprehensible language. Several consular officers also told us they
had only a limited understanding of the Visas Mantis process, including
how long the process takes. They told us they would like to have better
information on how long a Visas Mantis check is taking so that they can
more accurately inform the applicant of the expected wait. Since our
visits to posts, State has issued additional updated guidance on
applying the TAL.[Footnote 35] However, after receiving the new
guidance, consular officials at some posts told us that although it was
an improvement, the updated guidance is still confusing to apply,
particularly for junior officers without a scientific background.
Consular officers at most of the posts we visited also told us they
would like more feedback from State on whether the Visas Mantis cases
they are sending to Washington are appropriate, particularly whether
they are sending too many or too few Visas Mantis requests. They said
they would like to know if including more information in the security
check request would reduce the time to process an application in
Washington. Moreover, consular officers indicated they would like
additional information on some of the outstanding Visas Mantis cases,
such as where the case is in the process. State confirmed that it has
not always responded to posts' requests for feedback or information on
outstanding cases. Officials at State's Bureau of Consular Affairs told
us that their office facilitates the Visas Mantis process but is not in
a position to provide feedback to consular posts on the purpose of
Visas Mantis or how the information is being used. However, officials
from the FBI and State's Bureau of Nonproliferation told us that
Consular Affairs should take the lead in providing feedback to posts
because it administers the program and supervises the consular
officers.
Wait for an Interview Can Add Significant Time:
In addition to the time needed for Visas Mantis checks, another
contributing factor in the length of time it takes to adjudicate a visa
is how long an applicant must wait to get an interview appointment at
post.[Footnote 36] State does not have data or criteria for the length
of time applicants at its overseas posts wait for an interview, but at
the posts we visited in September 2003, we found that it generally took
2 to 3 weeks. Furthermore, post officials in Chennai, India, told us
that the interview wait time was as long as 12 weeks during the summer
of 2003 when the demand for visas was greater than the resources
available at post to adjudicate a visa.[Footnote 37] Officials at some
of the posts we visited indicated they did not have enough space and
staffing resources to handle interview demands and the new visa
requirement. Factors such as the time of year an applicant applies for
a visa, the appointment requirements, and the staffing situation at
posts generally affect how long an applicant will have to wait for an
interview.
All the posts we visited had high and low seasons in which the visa
application volume fluctuated. For example, June was the busiest month
in Chennai, India, in 2000, 2001, and 2002, with the average number of
visa applicants exceeding 18,000.[Footnote 38] By contrast, Chennai saw
an average of 10,000 visa applicants in October during these same
years. During the summer months of 2003, the high demand for visas was
compounded by the new visa interview requirement State established in
May 2003.[Footnote 39] The new requirement, which went into effect on
August 1, 2003, states that, with a few exceptions, all foreign
individuals seeking to visit the United States need to be interviewed
prior to receiving a visa. As a result, interview volumes have
increased at some posts we visited. For example, in September 2002,
consular officials in Chennai interviewed 25 percent of visa
applicants, but by August 2003, that number had increased to 75 percent
and was projected to continue to rise. In addition, a consular official
in Moscow estimated that the volume of interviews increased from about
60 percent before August 2003 to about 90 percent in December 2003.
However, the interview requirement did not have a significant effect on
posts in China since the posts were already interviewing about 70
percent of the visa applicants.
In early summer 2003, Consular Affairs requested that posts give
priority to students and exchange visitors when scheduling visa
interviews. Below are the wait times at each post we visited and some
of the initiatives the posts have taken to accommodate applicants.
China:
At the time of our field visit in September 2003, two of the three
posts we visited in China had a 2-week wait for an interview. However,
applicants at one post were facing waits of about 5 to 6 weeks. The
extended waits for interviews were due to an imbalance between demand
for visas and the number of consular officers available to interview
applicants and staff to answer phone lines. Consular officials told us
that to reduce these waits, they were relying on temporary duty help
and also planned to request an additional consular officer at post. To
facilitate the issuance of visas to students who underwent a Visas
Mantis security check, one post in China opened on one weekend to issue
hundreds of visas and also allowed students and scholars to fax in
requests for expedited interviews.[Footnote 40] In such cases,
interviews were scheduled within a matter of days.
India:
During our field visit in September 2003, consular officers in New
Delhi and in Chennai told us that the wait for an interview was 2 to 3
weeks at each post. However, during the 2003 summer months, the wait
was as long as 12 weeks in Chennai. To help reduce lengthy waits,
applicants were allowed to interview at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi
or at the U.S. Consulate in Calcutta. In addition, the posts we visited
instituted longer interview hours, as well as overtime for consular
staff and the use of temporary staff to conduct interviews to reduce
interview wait times for all applicants. According to consular
officials in Chennai and New Delhi, some lengthy waits were attributed
to staffing shortages. In a May 2003 assessment conducted by Consular
Affairs, State officials concurred that staffing levels in Chennai's
consular section are below what is necessary to meet a rapidly
increasing workload. Since late summer 2003, the consulate in Chennai
has reserved interview appointments on Fridays for students and
temporary workers. However, an official at the consulate in Chennai
told us that unless students who go through a Visas Mantis security
check apply 2 to 3 months in advance, a significant portion of them
will start school late.
Russia:
Consular officials in Moscow told us that at the end of September 2003,
the wait for an interview was 1 week, while in St. Petersburg the wait
averaged 2 to 3 weeks. In Moscow the recent additions of new junior
officers and longer interviewing hours have helped officers keep up
with current visa demands. Both posts have also arranged for some visa
applicant groups, such as business applicants and official delegations,
to be interviewed separately. In addition, a consular official in
Moscow told us that the post is able to accommodate most requests for
students or scholars who need an expedited appointment.[Footnote 41] In
St. Petersburg, approximately 5 to 10 interview slots per day are
reserved for students and scholars.
Officials, Groups Note Impact of Visa Delays:
Although we did not attempt to measure the impact of the time it takes
to adjudicate a visa, consular officials and representatives of several
higher education, scientific, and governmental organizations expressed
concern that visa delays could be detrimental to the scientific
interests of the United States. Although they provided numerous
individual examples of the consequences of visa delays, they were
unable to measure the total impact of such lengthy waits.
Embassy officials in Moscow told us that visa delays are hindering
congressionally mandated nonproliferation goals. Department of Energy
officials at post explained that former Soviet Union scientists have
found it extremely difficult getting to the United States to
participate in U.S. government-sponsored conferences and exchanges that
are critical to nonproliferation. Furthermore, many officials with whom
we spoke cited specific examples where scientific research and
collaboration was delayed or prevented due to delays in obtaining a
visa. National Aeronautics and Space Administration officials at post
also noted that up to 20 percent of their time is spent dealing with
visa issues when they should be focusing on program issues.
During our field visits, Beijing's Deputy Chief of Mission and consular
officials at the embassy and consulates in China stated that visa
delays could have a negative impact on student and scholar exchanges.
They told us that the lengthy waits to obtain a visa might lead Chinese
students and scholars to pursue studies or research in countries where
it is easier to obtain a visa. A consular chief in Chennai, India,
agreed, saying that lengthy waits are also causing Indian students to
decide to study in countries where it is easier to get a visa and,
therefore, the United States could lose out on intellectual knowledge
these visa applicants bring to our country. Further, embassy officials
in Beijing reported that visa delays in nonproliferation cooperation
and scientific exchange could have enormous and lasting consequences.
Finally, research organizations and associations of American
universities have cited the difficulties their international students
and faculty are having in obtaining visas. According to a survey
conducted by a national scientific organization, applicants from 26
different countries, most notably Russia and China, have been delayed
or prevented from entering the United States.[Footnote 42] Another
survey conducted by a national educational association reported that
hundreds of students and scholars experienced delays in receiving a
visa or were denied a visa.[Footnote 43] According to several surveys,
scientific research was postponed, jobs were left unstaffed, and
conferences and meetings were missed as a result of the delays.
Agency Officials Cite Improvements:
FBI and State officials acknowledged that lengthy visa waits have been
a problem, but said they are implementing improvements to the process
and working to decrease the number of pending Visas Mantis cases.
Improvements include implementation of customer service initiatives,
coordination between agencies to identify and resolve outstanding
cases, and upgrades in information systems. In addition, State and FBI
officials told us that the validity of Visas Mantis checks for students
and scholars has been extended to 12 months.[Footnote 44]
State, FBI, and consular officials at posts have made customer service
improvements related to Visas Mantis checks that allow them to address
questions and provide information to people inquiring about a status of
a visa case. For example, consular officials at some of the posts we
visited told us that they have established inquiry lines at post for
visa applicants to check the status of their case and remind consular
officials that their case is still pending. This also helps consular
officers to monitor cases that have been outstanding. In addition,
State set up an inquiry desk at the beginning of 2003, and the FBI set
one up during the summer of 2003 to accommodate calls from the public
about the status of pending visa applications that have been submitted
for Visas Mantis checks.[Footnote 45] State has set up a separate e-
mail address for inquiries from agencies involved in Visas Mantis
processing. Consular Affairs officials also told us they have set up an
inquiry line where post officials can obtain additional information on
outstanding cases. However, some post officials told us that they would
still like more information on how long the Visas Mantis check takes.
Officials from State's Consular Affairs and the FBI told us they are
coordinating efforts to identify and resolve outstanding Visas Mantis
cases. For example, Consular Affairs officials have been working with
FBI officials on a case-by-case basis to make sure that cases
outstanding for several months to a year are completed. However, State
officials said they do not have a target date for completion of all the
outstanding cases, which they estimated at 1,000 in November
2003.[Footnote 46] According to these officials, while about 350 of
these outstanding cases required further review or more information,
State has not yet begun working to reconcile them.
FBI officials also told us that to address some of the delays on their
end, such as those that occur due to problems with lost case files or
inoperable systems, the FBI has taken several actions to improve its
Visas Mantis clearance process. For example, the officials indicated
that the FBI is working on automating its files and setting up a common
database between the field offices and headquarters.[Footnote 47] FBI
officials also told us that they have set up a tracking system for all
SAOs, including Visas Mantis cases.[Footnote 48] In addition, they said
the FBI has established new procedures to deal with name check files
the agency cannot locate within a certain amount of time. In a July
2003 letter to State, the FBI said it would notify State after 90 days
that it could proceed with visa processing in the event that the FBI
could not locate relevant files and there were no security concerns.
Consular Affairs officials told us that State has invested about $1
million on a new information management system that it said would
reduce the time it takes to process Visas Mantis cases. They described
the new system as a mechanism that would help strengthen the
accountability of Visas Mantis clearance requests and responses,
establish consistency in data collection, and improve data exchange
between State and other agencies involved in the clearance
process.[Footnote 49] In addition, officials said the system would
allow them to improve overall visa statistical reporting capabilities
and data integrity for Visas Mantis cases. The new system will be
paperless, which means that the current system of requesting Visas
Mantis clearances by cable will be eliminated. Through an
intergovernmental network known as the Open Source Information System,
the new system will allow most government agencies involved in the
Visas Mantis process, such as the FBI, to obtain visa applicant
information and coordinate Visas Mantis responses. State officials told
us that the system is on schedule for release early this year, and that
the portion relating to SAOs will be operational sometime later this
year. However, challenges remain. FBI officials told us that the name
check component of the FBI's system would not immediately be
interoperable with State's new system, but that they are actively
working with State to seek solutions to this problem. However, FBI and
State have not determined how the information will be transmitted in
the meantime. We were not able to assess the new system since it was
not yet functioning at the time of our review.
In addition to improvements to the Visas Mantis process, State
officials told us that they are taking some actions to continue to
monitor the resource needs at post. To alleviate concerns about
staffing, Consular Affairs officials told us that temporary
adjudicating officers are sent to the posts as needed. These officials
also told us that State added 66 new officers in 2003 and plans to add
an additional 80 in 2004.[Footnote 50] However, the decision to add
these new officers was made before the new August 2003 interview
requirements were implemented and thus it is unknown if there are
enough resources for the task at hand. In addition, post officials told
us that State plans to expand some consular sections, such as in
Chennai, India, where the consulate is scheduled to undergo an
expansion in spring 2004.
Conclusions:
Agency officials recognize that the process for issuing a visa to a
science student or scholar can be an important tool to control the
transfer of technology that could put the United States at risk. They
also acknowledge that if the process is lengthy, students and scholars
with science backgrounds might decide not to come to the United States,
and technological advancements that serve U.S. and global interests
could be jeopardized. Our analysis of a sample of Visas Mantis cases
from April to June 2003 show that some applicants faced lengthy waits.
While the State Department and the FBI report improvements in visa
processing times, our analysis of data from the posts we visited in
September 2003 and our contact with post officials in January 2004 show
that there are still some instances of lengthy waits. State's and FBI's
implementation of the Visas Mantis process still has gaps that are
causing lengthy waits for visas. Consular officers believe that if they
receive clearer guidance and feedback on Visas Mantis cases, they could
help reduce the time it takes for Washington to process applications
and provide better information to applicants. Finally, State and FBI do
not have interoperable systems that would help complete security checks
of visa applicants more quickly. State's new information management
system could improve the Visas Mantis process. Nevertheless, it is
unclear whether the new system will address all the current issues with
the process.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To help improve the process and reduce the length of time it takes for
a science student or scholar to obtain a visa, we are recommending that
the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Director of the FBI,
and the Secretary of Homeland Security, develop and implement a plan to
improve the Visas Mantis process. In developing this plan, the
Secretary should consider actions to:
* establish milestones to reduce the current number of pending Visas
Mantis cases;
* develop performance goals and measurements for processing Visas
Mantis checks;
* provide additional information through training or other means to
consular posts that clarifies guidance on the overall operation of the
Visas Mantis program, when Mantis clearances are required, what
information consular posts should submit to enable the clearance
process to proceed as efficiently as possible, and how long the process
takes; and:
* work to achieve interoperable systems and expedite transmittal of
data between agencies.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the State Department, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Homeland Security.
State's and FBI's written comments are presented in appendix V and VI,
respectively. The Department of Homeland Security did not provide
official written comments, but provided technical comments that we have
incorporated in the report where appropriate.
The State Department commented that it is committed to providing the
best possible visa services while also maintaining security as its
first obligation. State indicated that it had taken a number of recent
actions to improve the Visas Mantis process that we believe are
positive steps in implementing our recommendation. For example, State
said that it has started to provide feedback to posts regarding the
information contained in Visas Mantis cables and is providing expanded
briefings on the Visas Mantis process to new consular officers at the
National Foreign Affairs Training Center. State also said that it would
study our recommendation to explore possibilities for further
improvements to the Visas Mantis security check process.
State emphasized the importance of the Visas Mantis clearance process
in protecting U.S. national security and acknowledged that in the past
some visa applicants have been required to wait long periods to obtain
a visa. However, as a result of recent improvements, State claims that
most security checks are now being completed within 30 days and
therefore our analysis of Visas Mantis cases from April to June 2003
does not represent current processing times. State commented that it
had recently conducted two samples of Visas Mantis cases that show
improvements in processing times. However, we were unable to
independently validate either sample. In addition, the data for both
samples show that lengthy waits remain for some cases. Moreover,
because State's sample selection methods were different from ours, and
because its samples would have a wide margin of error, its samples
cannot demonstrate improvements in processing times. Thus we are not in
a position to conclude that the Visas Mantis processing turnaround
times have improved.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation did not comment on our
recommendation. The FBI acknowledged that the visa program was
overwhelmed in the summer of 2002. However, the FBI believes that it is
now processing the name checks more quickly and today only a few
applicants encounter a significant wait for the FBI to complete the
security review process. The FBI indicated that it is working closely
with State and other agencies to improve the Visas Mantis process.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 7 days
from the report date. At that time we will send copies of this report
to interested congressional committees and to the Secretary of State,
the Director of the FBI, and the Secretary of Homeland Security. We
also will make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http:/
/www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff has any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-4128. Additional GAO contacts and staff
acknowledgments are listed in appendix VII.
Signed by:
Jess T. Ford, Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine (1) how long it takes a science student or scholar from
another country to obtain a visa and the factors that contribute to the
length of time and (2) what measures are under way to improve the visa
issuance process and decrease the number of pending cases, we collected
data from agencies in Washington, as well as at U.S. embassies and
consulates overseas, and conducted interviews with agency officials. We
reviewed the Immigration and Nationality Act and associated
legislation, the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual, and cables
and other related documents from State's Bureau of Consular Affairs. In
addition, we reviewed State's data on visa applications and issuances
worldwide and for selected posts. We also requested data from State to
conduct a sample of Visas Mantis cases to help us determine the number
of science students and scholars that were undergoing a Visas Mantis
security check and how long those applicants waited for a visa. In
Washington, we interviewed officials from the Departments of State,
Homeland Security, and Justice. At State, we met with officials from
the Bureau of Consular Affairs, the Bureau of Nonproliferation, the
Office of the Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary, and the
Office of Science and Cooperation in the Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. At the Department
of Homeland Security, we met with officials from the Directorate of
Border Transportation and the Office of Policy and Planning. At the
Department of Justice, we met with officials from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's Name Check Unit and country desk officers for China and
Russia. We requested meetings with officials from the Central
Intelligence Agency and the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP), but they declined to meet with us. However,
OSTP provided us with written answers to questions pertaining to its
involvement in visa policies for science students and scholars.
Based on our review of State Department data systems regarding visas,
we determined that visa data are collected for students (F visas) and
for exchange visitors (J visas), but State's data systems do not track
science applicants within these categories. Thus, data are not
available to report how long it takes science applicants to obtain a
visa. However, agency officials identified a special security review
procedure known as Visas Mantis as the factor most likely to affect the
timeliness of science student and scholar applicant visas.
Consequently, we focused our review on the length of time it takes an
applicant to acquire a visa if he or she must undergo a security
review. Using State documents, we were able to compile data on science
applicants for this analysis.
To obtain data for our sample of Visas Mantis cases, we asked State in
July 2003 to provide us all the incoming Visas Mantis cables for the
first 6 months of 2003. State indicated that our request would yield
approximately 9,000 cables, and that such a large volume would be too
time consuming to compile. To address State's concern, we requested
Visas Mantis cables from April 1 through June 30, 2003. We requested
these 3 months because they were the most recent months from our
initial request and would include some of the summer student visa
applicants. Because Consular Affairs did not have electronic,
aggregated data on Visas Mantis cases, they provided us with 5,079 hard
copy cables submitted during that time period. We reviewed the cables
to determine which ones pertained to a science student or scholar or
other categories, including business. The science student and research
scholar category included applicants studying at universities or
conducting research at universities, national laboratories, and medical
centers. We included applicants attending conferences, symposiums,
workshops, and meetings hosted or sponsored by universities,
professional institutes, and other organizations. We did not include in
our sample universe business-related cables, cables that were
incomplete, and cables that were duplicates.
We entered all the data from the cables into an Excel spreadsheet, gave
each a GAO number for control and identification purposes, and verified
that there were no duplicates. We ended up with 2,888 Visas Mantis
entries in the Excel database. From these 2,888 Visas Mantis cases, we
took a computer-generated random sample of 124 cases and requested
further data on those cases and their time frames from State. State
replied that our request was too labor intensive and asked that we
modify it. Therefore, we took a smaller subsample of 71 cases from the
124.
Of the 71 cases we received from State, 67 were processed by December
3, 2003. Four cases were still pending. The 71 cases yielded an average
completion time of 67 days. This estimate is accurate to within plus or
minus 17 days at the 95 percent level of confidence. We assessed the
reliability of the sample data provided by State by tracing a
statistically random sample of data to source documents. We determined
that the data was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this
report.
State created its own two randomly selected samples of Visas Mantis
cases. However, based on the documentation of how these records were
selected, GAO was not able to determine whether these were
scientifically valid samples whose results project to the entire
population of all science student and scholar visa applications. As
such, results reported by the agency from these application records
should be treated as testimonial information from a judgmental[Footnote
51] sample rather than data from a probability sample.
We conducted fieldwork at seven visa-issuing posts in three countries-
-China, India, and Russia. We chose these countries because they are
leading places of origin for international science students and
scholars visiting the United States. We limited our review to
nonimmigrant visa applicants. During our visits at all of these posts,
we observed visa operations, reviewed selected Visas Mantis data, and
interviewed consular staff about visa adjudication procedures. In
China, we met with consular officers at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and
the consulates in Shanghai and Guangzhou. We also met with the Deputy
Chief of Mission, as well as officers from the Office of Environment,
Science, Technology, and Health in Beijing. In India, we visited the
U.S. Embassy in New Delhi and the U.S. consulate in Chennai. We met
with consular officers at both posts as well as the Consul General in
Chennai and officials from the FBI and the Office of Environment,
Science, and Technology in New Delhi. In addition, we met with three
students who had outstanding visa applications in Chennai; a Honeywell
business representative; and administrators, professors, and students
at the Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research in Chennai.
In Russia, we visited the U.S. Embassy in Moscow and the U.S. consulate
in St. Petersburg and met with consular officials there. While in
Moscow, we also met with officials from the economic section of the
embassy, Office of Environment, Science, and Technology, the Department
of Energy, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In
addition, we spoke with a representative of the International Science
and Technology Center in Moscow. While in the field, we collected data
and reviewed documents pertaining to the visa process for science
students and scholars at all posts. Because post tracking and recording
of Visas Mantis data varied, we could not make post comparisons of
Visas Mantis cases.
Finally, to gather information on the visa issues that science students
and scholars face, we spoke with representatives from educational
organizations, including the National Academies, the Association of
International Educators, the American Council on Education, and the
Association of American Universities. We also obtained information from
the American Physical Society and the International Institute for
Education.
We conducted our work from May 2003 through January 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Visas Mantis Cases for Science Students and Scholars:
This appendix provides information on the Visas Mantis cables State
received from posts between April and June 2003. Table 2 shows the
breakdown of the 2,888 Visas Mantis cases we identified pertaining to
science students and scholars. In our sample, we identified a total of
57 posts that had sent one or more Visas Mantis cables to Washington.
Table 2: Visas Mantis Cases for Science Students and Scholars, April to
June 2003:
Post: Shanghai, China;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 701.
Post: Beijing, China;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 600.
Post: Moscow, Russia;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 505.
Post: Guangzhou, China;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 197.
Post: London, United Kingdom;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 75.
Post: Chengdu, China;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 74.
Post: Hong Kong, China;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 67.
Post: Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 51.
Post: Toronto, Canada;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 41.
Post: Kiev, Ukraine;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 38.
Post: St. Petersburg, Russia;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 37.
Post: Krakow, Poland;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 36.
Post: Cairo, Egypt;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 34.
Post: Tokyo, Japan;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 34.
Post: Chennai, India;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 33.
Post: Havana, Cuba;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 32.
Post: Berlin, Germany;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 26.
Post: Bern, Switzerland;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 24.
Post: Yekaterinburg, Russia;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 24.
Post: Madrid, Spain;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 23.
Post: Shenyang, China;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 23.
Post: Ankara, Turkey;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 19.
Post: Stockholm, Sweden;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 17.
Post: Bucharest, Romania;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 14.
Post: Frankfurt, Germany;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 11.
Post: Damascus, Syria;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 10.
Post: Brussels, Belgium;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 9.
Post: Hanoi, Vietnam;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 9.
Post: Melbourne, Australia;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 9.
Post: Mumbai, India;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 9.
Post: New Delhi, India;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 9.
Post: Ciudad Juarez, Mexico;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 8.
Post: Singapore;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 8.
Post: Amsterdam, the Netherlands;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 7.
Post: Istanbul, Turkey;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 7.
Post: Montreal, Canada;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 7.
Post: Ottawa, Canada;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 7.
Post: Mexico, Mexico;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 6.
Post: Seoul, South Korea;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 6.
Post: Oslo, Norway;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 5.
Post: Amman, Jordan;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 4.
Post: Lisbon, Portugal;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 4.
Post: Osaka-Kobe, Japan;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 4.
Post: Paris, France;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 4.
Post: Tel Aviv, Israel;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 4.
Post: Calgary, Canada;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 2.
Post: Dublin, Ireland;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 2.
Post: Jerusalem, Israel;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 2.
Post: Vienna, Austria;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 2.
Post: Athens, Greece;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 1.
Post: Beirut, Lebanon;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 1.
Post: Bogota, Colombia;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 1.
Post: Johannesburg, South Africa;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 1.
Post: Matamoros, Mexico;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 1.
Post: Minsk, Belarus;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 1.
Post: Taipei, Taiwan;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 1.
Post: Vladivostok, Russia;
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of State Department Visas Mantis cables.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Visa Statistics from Seven Posts:
This appendix provides selected visa statistical information for the
posts we visited in China, India, and Russia. Table 3 shows the number
of visas issued, visa refusal rates, and interview wait times at posts.
Table 3: Visa Statistics from Posts in China, India, and Russia:
Number of U.S. consular officers[A];
Beijing: 7;
Shanghai: 4;
Guangzhou: 4;
New Delhi: 4;
Chennai: 7;
Moscow: 7;
St. Petersburg: 2.
Number of visa applications in FY 2003[B];
Beijing: 129,927;
Shanghai: 71,859;
Guangzhou: 53,247;
New Delhi: 88,525;
Chennai: 166,676;
Moscow: 98,553;
St. Petersburg: 17,771.
Number of visas issued in FY 2003[B];
Beijing: 76,165;
Shanghai: 44,821;
Guangzhou: 28,602;
New Delhi: 56,820;
Chennai: 120,535;
Moscow: 63,541;
St. Petersburg: 14,302.
F-1[C] issued in FY 2003;
Beijing: 5,233;
Shanghai: 4,852;
Guangzhou: 1,667;
New Delhi: 3,981;
Chennai: 7,544;
Moscow: 918;
St. Petersburg: 147.
J-1[D] issued in FY 2003;
Beijing: 1,861;
Shanghai: 1,268;
Guangzhou: 371;
New Delhi: 1,541;
Chennai: 1,222;
Moscow: 11,384;
St. Petersburg: 1,666.
Number of visas refused in FY 2003[B];
Beijing: 53,762;
Shanghai: 27,038;
Guangzhou: 24,645;
New Delhi: 30,580;
Chennai: 46,065;
Moscow: 35,012;
St. Petersburg: 3,469.
Overall refusal rate FY 2003;
Beijing: 41%;
Shanghai: 38%;
Guangzhou: 46%;
New Delhi: 36%;
Chennai: 28%;
Moscow: 35%;
St. Petersburg: 20%.
F-1[C] refusal rate FY 2003;
Beijing: 63%;
Shanghai: 44%;
Guangzhou: 61%;
New Delhi: 40%;
Chennai: 50%;
Moscow: 51%;
St. Petersburg: 44%.
J-1[D] refusal rate FY 2003;
Beijing: 57%;
Shanghai: 42%;
Guangzhou: 54%;
New Delhi: 24%;
Chennai: 29%;
Moscow: 39%;
St. Petersburg: 25%.
Wait time for interview in September 2003;
Beijing: 2 weeks;
Shanghai: 5-6 weeks;
Guangzhou: 2 weeks;
New Delhi: 2-3 weeks;
Chennai: 3 weeks;
Moscow: 1 week;
St. Petersburg: 2-3 weeks.
Wait time for interview in December 2003;
Beijing: About 4 weeks;
Shanghai: About 4 weeks;
Guangzhou: 3 weeks;
New Delhi: None;
Chennai: 3 weeks;
Moscow: 4-5 days;
St. Petersburg: 4-5 days.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by posts in China, India, and
Russia.
[A] This number only includes Foreign Service officers working in the
Non-Immigrant Visa Unit of the Consular Section.
[B] For the posts in China, the data we obtained does not cover the
entire fiscal year; it covers the period from October 2002 through
August 2003.
[C] The F category of visa is designated for students.
[D] The J category of visa is designated for exchange visitors.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Distribution of Processing Time for Sample of Visas Mantis
Cases:
This appendix provides information on the distribution of processing
time for our sample of Visas Mantis cases.
Figure 3: Distribution of Days from Transmission by Post to Receipt by
FBI:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: The width of the bar = 5 days.
Total number of cases = 71.
[End of figure]
Figure 4: Distribution of Days from Receipt by FBI to Completion of
Clearance:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: The width of the bar = 10 days.
Total number of cases = 70.
[A] The application was resent during our sample. We used the original
Visas Mantis application date of July 2002.
[End of figure]
Figure 5: Distribution of Days from Clearance by FBI to Receipt by
State:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: The width of the bar = 5 days.
Total number of cases = 70.
[End of figure]
Figure 6: Distribution of Days from Receipt by State to State's
Response to Post:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: The width of the bar = 10 days.
Total number of cases = 67.
[End of figure]
Figure 7: Distribution of Total Days from Transmission by Post to
Response from State:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: The width of the bar = 20 days.
Total number of cases = 67.
[A] The application was resent during our sample. We used the original
Visas Mantis application date of July 2002.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the State Department:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
United States Department of State
Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
Washington, D.C. 20520:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "BORDER
SECURITY: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate Visas
for Science Students and Scholars," GAO-04-371, GAO Job Code 320188.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Paul
Doherty, Division Chief, Bureau of Consular Affairs, at (202) 663-1246.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Christopher B. Burnham:
cc:
GAO - John Brummet
CA - Maura Harty
State/OIG - Luther Atkins
State/H - Paul Kelly:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report BORDER SECURITY:
Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate Visas for
Science Students and Scholars (GAO-04-371, GAO Code 320188):
The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to review and
comment on the GAO draft report, "Border Security: Improvements Needed
to Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and
Scholars." We have a strong commitment to providing the best possible
services to our country and this program is one of the many ways we do
so. The balance between "secure borders and open doors" is delicate.
While our first obligation is to the security of the nation, we also
owe appropriate service to the legitimate traveler who wishes to come
to this country. With that background, State has a number of
observations for your consideration.
The report seems to assume that all nonimmigrant visa applicants are
qualified for a U.S. visa. They are not. The Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) presumes that all nonimmigrant visa applicants
are intending immigrants. They must convince the consular officer that
they intend to return to a residence in their home country after a
temporary visit to the United States. In addition, our experience with
Visas Mantis cases indicates to the interagency community that some
applicants are also ineligible because they intend to enter the U.S. to
obtain sensitive technology illegally, thereby creating a potential
threat to U.S. national security.
The report does not recognize the key role of the Visas Mantis
screening process in protecting U.S. national security, particularly in
combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their
delivery systems, and conventional weapons. The President has made
reference repeatedly to the fact that the U.S. Government attaches high
priority to nonproliferation efforts. The Visas Mantis program is an
important tool in achieving the President's nonproliferation goals.
Through the Visas Mantis process, the U.S. has prevented the entry to
the U.S. of foreign nationals seeking to undermine our national
security.
The role of the Department of State in the Visas Mantis process stems
from the requirement of Section 212(a)(3)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) that renders ineligible for a visa:
"Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has
reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to
engage solely, principally, or incidentally in any activity (1) to
violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage
or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the
United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information.":
The Visas Mantis screening process for aliens who might fall within the
purview of Section 212(a)(3)(A) of the INA was established some years
ago, in recognition of the need to prevent the transfer of sensitive
technology abroad. In this process, the State Department's Bureau of
Consular Affairs (CA) acts in a coordinating role among clearing
agencies from the major law enforcement and intelligence communities
and responds to Visas Mantis Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) requests
submitted by consular officers at posts abroad. The Department's Bureau
of Nonproliferation (NP) as well as the FBI and other agencies review
all SAO requests.
The screening process of Visas Mantis cases is in-depth and conducted
with careful scrutiny of the applicant, his/her purpose of visit,
academic background, employment history and associations. It is not a
perfunctory namecheck. Some clearing agencies have agreed to a 15
working-day processing period and the goal of all parties is to
complete their respective reviews within that time frame. State engages
actively with all agencies in the process to ensure that cases do not
languish or suffer an inexplicable delay.
Given the importance of the Visas Mantis screening process to our
national security, the Department's NP bureau carefully reviews each
Visas Mantis SAO and responds to CA within 10 working days. In some
cases, analysts require further information from posts. Obtaining the
requested information from the applicant and getting it back to
Washington can take time. Sometimes, other clearing agencies do not
provide State with timely clearance on Visas Mantis cases. As the
report correctly states, technological problems have accounted for some
of the delays and you can be assured that we are tirelessly working
through the technology challenges implicit in inter-agency programs.
Let us outline for you the steps the Visa Office has taken to meet the
challenge of Visas Mantis processing every step of the way.
The events of September 11, 2001 triggered broader non-Mantis security
clearance requirements for visa applicants later that year and
throughout 2002. The Visa Office's Coordination Division (CA/VO/L/C),
which acts in a coordinating capacity among the various Visas Mantis
clearers, was faced with a significant increase in workload as new
clearance requirements were added. Staffing was at first inadequate to
handle the workload increase. However, the Department brought in
additional human resources to help with the new workload realities and
we continue to add resources to the Coordination Division.
Originally, the geographic analysts in CA/VO/L/C handled their own
Visas Mantis cases in the same way that other clearances are processed.
At the end of 2002, we decided to centralize the Visas Mantis function
in order to increase the efficiency of the process. In January 2003 we
created a three-person Visas Mantis team. We subsequently added
additional personnel and now have a five-person Visas Mantis team. The
team is exclusively dedicated to processing Visas Mantis cases.
We are confident that the Visas Mantis team is sufficiently staffed to
handle the present workload. Should we decide additional resources are
required, however, we will add them.
The Draft Report focuses on Visas Mantis cases that posts submitted in
April, May and June of 2003 and the results show some delays in the
Department's processing of these cases, which we do, of course, regret.
However, we have conducted our own studies of Visas Mantis processing
for subsequent time frames and believe we can demonstrate a positive
and improving level of performance. We did a study of 40 randomly-
selected cases that posts submitted in August, September and October,
2003 and it shows improved turnaround time from the earlier study. The
GAO team received a copy of this study. More recently, we have done
another random study of 50 cases from the November and December 2003
time frame and the results show clearly that the turnaround time has
improved even more and is well within 30 days in nearly all cases. The
GAO report fails to note that processing times continue to drop. In
addition, it still counts as outstanding those cases where the
applicant never responded to requests for further information or
provided incomplete information. Other cases are "outstanding" due to
ongoing investigations by U.S. authorities. In neither case is the
delay a fault of the process. In the former instance, the traveler has
failed to work with us to reach a determination on visa eligibility.
In the latter case, an agency charged with nonproliferation
responsibilities is attempting to do its job.
Our more recent Visas Mantis reviews demonstrate that the GAO Draft
Report is a snapshot in time and an analysis of past performance during
a challenging time when agencies were still reacting to the after-
effects of September 11, 2001. Our studies clearly show that the
turnaround times have improved dramatically. The Department invite you
to review them to ensure the most balanced product possible. We were
slow. We have taken strong measures to improve - and we will continue
to do so.
Throughout 2003, we worked closely with the FBI to iron out many of the
interoperability problems with our systems. We have addressed a number
of issues and developed a plan to eliminate the source of several
persistent problems related to the transmission of data, particularly
the method used to transmit data between consular officers overseas
and the FBI.
To meet the interoperability challenge, the Department is making a
substantial investment (one million dollars) in the development of an
SAO Improvement Project (SAO IP), a new automated system that will
allow posts to make requests and other agencies to respond to them
electronically. The cable-less system will eliminate errors in the
transmission of data that have occurred in the past and will complete
data transmission in near real-time. The pilot program for the new
system has been tested successfully at several posts and we have
already begun distributing the new system software to the field. We
hope to have all posts up and running with the new system in the coming
months.
As the GAO report states correctly, SAO cable formatting errors have
been the cause of some delays in responses. The possibility of such
errors occurring will no longer exist once SAO IP is implemented.
Working with our partner agencies, we have identified three other
points at which transmission errors can occur at present. We have also
together identified solutions to these problems and are aggressively
pursuing the requisite technical fixes.
The report recommends that we develop performance goals and
measurements for processing Visas Mantis checks. Our performance goal,
whenever possible, is 15 working days from the date of receipt of the
SAO by Washington agencies, after which the Visa Office sends a
response to post as quickly as possible upon receipt of other agency
clearances. Some of the factors that can contribute to longer processing
times have already been described.
The report further recommends that the Department provide clarified
guidance to consular officers in the field about the Visas Mantis
clearance process. The Technology Alert List (TAL) annual guidance
cable to the field describes in some detail the procedures that
consular officers should follow in preparing Visas Mantis cases. The
TAL is a list of some 200 technologies that are designated through the
interagency process as sensitive ones. The TAL cable also lists the
specific technology fields to which consular officers should be alert.
Despite the thorough guidance contained in the TAL cable and our
expectation that consular officers use good analytical skills and
judgment when deciding whether or not to submit a Visas Mantis SAO, we
are aware that some consular officers in the field might benefit from
more direction.
Recently we established a quality-control procedure with NP whereby
analysts from that bureau provide the Coordination Division with
feedback for posts on individual Visas Mantis cables. NP has started
identifying for the Coordination Division cables that they have found
well-prepared and contain all of the pertinent information NP analysts
need to make an informed recommendation on visa eligibility. For
example, NP recently praised a cable from a China post as an excellent
example of what a Visas Mantis cable should contain for an applicant
coming to a conference in the United States. NP also points out cables
that do not contain sufficient information on which to reach a
recommendation. It also called to the Coordination Division's attention
the fact that one post was submitting Visas Mantis cables for
applicants whose purpose of travel to the U.S. did not fall within the
purview of the TAL. In all instances, the Coordination Division passes
NP's comments on to the relevant post as a means of providing feedback
and guidance to the post's consular officers. In December 2003, NP
began providing regular Visas Mantis briefings for new consular
officers at the National Foreign Affairs Training Center. At CA's
expense, NP will participate in the China Consular Conference in
February 2004 and brief on the Visas Mantis process to consular
officers.
We would like to comment on several other points in the report.
The chart on the report's introductory page is misleading. It counts
processing time from the date of application when, in fact, there can
be lag time for a variety of reasons between the date of application
and the date the SAO is submitted to Washington for interagency review.
Some of these reasons are: the consular officer may have asked the visa
applicant to provide more information, has decided to consult other
experts on the Embassy or Consulate staff, or is conducting fraud-
prevention checks. Consular officers submit SAO cases to Washington
for a Visas Mantis clearance only if all other potential
ineligibilities have been resolved.
The report generally presents a misleading impression of delays
although we believe that our mutual goal is as efficient a process as
possible. For instance, on page 7, it states that in fiscal year 2003,
410 Visas Mantis cases were still pending after more than 60 days. This
number represents only 2.5% of the total number of Visas Mantis cases
submitted in fiscal year 2003. The fact is that, at the present time,
the processing time for most Visas Mantis cases is well within 30 days.
Some of the statistics in the Report, particularly in the section on
pages 9-10 that discusses delays at posts, also give a misleading
impression. For example, the report states that 67% of October 2003
Visas Mantis cases from Chennai were still pending on January 9 and
that the other 33% of cases took an average of 55 days to process. The
impression given is one of a significant delay situation at Chennai
when, in fact, the total number of Chennai October 2003 cases was 3.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment, and we hope that
the final report will accurately reflect the fact that the Visas Mantis
program serves important national interests, and that the Department of
State, working with other agencies, has made considerable progress in
making the program more effective and streamlined, while continuing to
protect the U.S. national security at a critical time in our history.
We intend to study the report's recommendations carefully to explore
possibilities for further improvements to the Visas Mantis screening
process.
The following are GAO's comments on the State Department's letter dated
February 11, 2004.
GAO Comments:
1. The report does not assume that all nonimmigrant visa applicants are
qualified for a visa as indicated in footnote 6 on page 5 and
discussion on pages 5-6. To further clarify that some applicants are
eligible for a visa and some are not, we modified our discussion of the
visa adjudication process as presented in figure 1.
2. We acknowledge the importance of the Visas Mantis screening process
in protecting U.S. national security. We discuss the utility and value
of the Visas Mantis process on pages 7-8. In addition, we modified
footnote 11 on page 7 to indicate State's views on the importance of
the Visas Mantis process.
3. On December 11, 2003, State provided us with a study of 40 randomly
selected Visas Mantis cases that posts submitted in August, September,
and October 2003. In addition, on February 13, 2004, State provided us
with another random study of 50 cases from November and December 2003.
We discuss both samples on pages 11-12 and how the data was developed.
4. We added wording to footnote 22 on page 11 to acknowledge that in
some cases the length of time to process a Visas Mantis check is not
under the control of State.
5. We modified the chart on the introductory page to clarify that the
Visas Mantis processing time begins when the post sends a Visas Mantis
cable request to Washington. The chart shows the total length of time
it could take an applicant to obtain a visa if a Visas Mantis security
clearance is needed.
6. Our data for the 410 Visas Mantis cases pending after more than 60
days is based on information collected at 7 posts. We were not able to
determine the total number of Visas Mantis cases sent in fiscal year
2003 from these posts. In addition, at the time of our review State was
not able to provide data on the total number of Visas Mantis cases sent
from all posts in fiscal year 2003.
7. We modified the text on page 13 of the report to reflect the number
of cases pending from Chennai, India. The information was provided by
consular officials at post. For our analysis of Visas Mantis processing
time frames, we used the date of application, not the date the Visas
Mantis request was submitted, as stated in footnote 28.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
U.S. Department of Justice:
Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001:
February 5, 2004:
Mr. Jess T. Ford:
Director, International Affairs and Trade
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Ford:
This represents the FBI's response to your draft report, "Improvements
Needed to Reduce Time taken to Adjudicate Visas for Science Students
and Scholars" (GAO-04-371/320188), dated January 22, 2004:
General comments: The GAO study mirrors testimony by the FBI before
three Congressional committees and sub-committees and information
informally provided by the FBI to Congressional members and their
staffs. The visa program was overwhelmed in the summer of 2002.
During the subsequent months the FBI and other agencies cooperated
closely in a series of technological and internal and external process
improvements that brought stability and predictability to the process.
The FBI is able to track the status of each Mantis application during
the security review process. Today, only a few applicants encounter a
significant wait for the FBI to complete its security review. These
waits are primarily due to delays encountered in retrieving FBI record
information from locations outside of Washington, D.C.
The GAO study does not accurately reflect the challenges related to the
State Department's technology improvements. The FBI and State are
developing interoperability between their systems. In the interim, the
phased increase in use of electronic media by the State Department to
submit names from its new database (versus cables from individual
posts) is eliminating delays attributable to format errors.
Below are more specific comments to the GAO report:
Page 2: "Data are not available on how long it takes for a science
student or scholar to obtain a visa." This statement is accurate for
the overall process, but not for the FBI security review process. The
FBI tracks and has available the status of each Mantis application.
Recommend, "State Department data are not available on how long it
takes for a science student or scholar to obtain a visa.":
Page 2: "While State and FBI officials acknowledged that there have
been lengthy waits, they report having measures under way theybelieve
will improve the process and resolve outstanding cases." After the
problems of summer-fall 2002, the FBI implemented a number of
improvements to its visa screening process. By spring 2003 the FBI had
eliminated significant waits for all but a very small number of Visa
Mantis applicants and, in cooperation with State, began resolving
"stale" cases.
Page 2: "As a result, data exchange between State and FBI may continue
to cause lengthy waits." The FBI and State are developing
interoperability between their systems. In the interim, the phased
increase in use of electronic media by the State Department to submit
names from its new database (versus cables from individual posts) has
eliminated delays attributable to format errors.
Page 10, footnote 30: The FBI ensures that State receives its response.
Recommend the first sentence of the footnote be modified in part to
read, "...and the FBI has no way to ensure that its results are
forwarded to the posts.":
Page 11, Page 12, Figure 2: Discussion of times to process Visa Mantis
on Page 11 and illustrated by Figure 2 should reference the chart
Appendix IV, Figure 4, Page 26. This latter chart provides a more
insightful analysis of FBI's performance in reviewing Visa Mantis
applications.
Page 17, footnote 45: The FBI data system counts 850 pending Visas
Mantis as of January 28, 2004. This number reflects all Visa Mantis
submitted to the FBI since June 26, 2002. (The date the FBI automated
its visa screening process.) The FBI name check system accurately
reflects submissions not just from State, but also from 70 other
government entities.
Please feel free to contact me at 202-324-2901 if you have any further
questions.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Steven C. McCraw
Assistant Director
Inspection Division:
The following are GAO's comments on the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's letter dated February 5, 2004.
GAO Comments:
1. Because State's new system is not currently operational, we did not
assess its technology improvements and therefore could not assess
whether the information in State's new database is eliminating delays
attributable to format errors. We discuss that FBI is working together
with State to achieve interoperability between their systems on page 23
of the report.
2. We modified the draft to reflect that State Department data are not
available on how long it takes for a science student or scholar to
obtain a visa.
3. We discuss FBI's improvements to its visa screening process,
including cooperation with State on pages 21-23.
4. We modified the text in the footnote on page 14 to reflect that the
FBI has no way to ensure that its Visas Mantis security check results
are forwarded to the posts.
5. We added a footnote on page 15 to reference the distribution of
FBI's processing times.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Jess Ford (202) 512-4128 John Brummet (202) 512-4128:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the above named individuals, Jeanette Espinola, Heather
Barker, Janey Cohen, and Andrea Miller made key contributions to this
report. Martin de Alteriis, Carl Barden, Laverne Tharpes, and Mary
Moutsos provided technical assistance.
FOOTNOTES
[1] In this report, we use the term "visa" to refer to nonimmigrant
visas only. The United States also grants visas to people who intend to
immigrate to the United States. A visa is a travel document that allows
a foreign visitor to present himself or herself at a port of entry for
admission to the United States. Citizens of 27 countries that
participate in the Visa Waiver Program; Canada and certain other
locations are not required to obtain visas for business or pleasure
stays of short duration. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Border
Security: Visa Process Should be Strengthened as an Antiterrorism Tool,
GAO-03-132NI (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2002); and U.S. General
Accounting Office, Border Security: Implications of Eliminating the
Visa Waiver Program, GAO-03-38 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002).
[2] The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (P.L. 82-414; 8 U.S.C.
§1101 et seq.) has been amended several times, most recently by the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(P.L. 104-208), the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-56), the Enhanced
Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-173), and
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296).
[3] Memorandum of Understanding Between the Secretaries of State and
Homeland Security Concerning Implementation of Section 428 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, September 30, 2003.
[4] Depending on the post, applicants can set up a visa interview by
calling a designated number or using an online scheduling system. There
are some special programs at posts where an applicant does not need to
call for an appointment and can appear at the post on designated days
or at designated times for a visa interview. In addition, in select
cases, some applicants may not be required to appear for an interview.
[5] CLASS is a State Department name check database that posts use to
access critical information for visa adjudication. The system contains
records provided by numerous agencies and includes information on
persons with visa refusals, immigration violations, and terrorism
concerns.
[6] The term nonimmigrant generally refers to a foreign national
seeking to enter the United States temporarily for one of the specific
purposes allowed under the INA. The most common reason for denial of a
visa is that the applicant intends to come to the United States and
remain. Section 214(b) of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act
presumes that every alien is an immigrant until he or she establishes
that he or she is eligible to nonimmigrant status under the INA. Often
this means establishing, in addition to other criteria, that the alien
has sufficient social or economic ties to compel him or her to return
home after visiting the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §1184(b) and 8
U.S.C. §1101(a)(15).
[7] At some posts the visa is issued to the applicant shortly after the
interview or in the afternoon if the interview was in the morning,
while at other posts, the visa is issued the next day.
[8] Visas Mantis applies to all visa categories including student,
business, and tourist applicants.
[9] Under Section 212(a)(3)(A) of the INA, an applicant is rendered
inadmissible if there is reason to believe that the applicant is
seeking to enter the U.S. to violate U.S. laws prohibiting the export
of goods, technology, or sensitive information from the United States.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(i)(II).
[10] According to the State Department's consular training guide,
generally 221(g) is applied when an applicant lacks required documents,
or some visa processing is incomplete.
[11] The Visas Mantis process allows all participating agencies to
provide information and raise any particular concerns that they may
have regarding the applicant and/or the applicant's proposed activities
in the United States. According to State, the key role of the Visas
Mantis process is to protect U.S. national security, particularly in
combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their
delivery systems, and conventional weapons.
[12] A cable requesting more information is sent to post when State or
other agencies involved in the Visas Mantis process require additional
information, such as an itinerary, on a visa applicant.
[13] There are several systems that the Consular Office uses to input
and track visa information. For example, the Consolidated Consular
Database includes information on all visa applications and visa
issuances; and the Visa Information System and Tracking of Applicants
database is used for all Security Advisory Opinions including Visas
Mantis cables.
[14] The F visa category applies to students in an academic or language
training program, while the J visa category applies to exchange
visitors.
[15] The data from State are used for background purposes only.
Therefore, we did not assess the reliability of the data.
[16] State estimates that for fiscal year 2003, there were
approximately 212,000 SAO cases processed. In addition, State estimates
that about 2.2 percent of all visa applications result in an SAO, but
it could not provide a percentage specific to Visas Mantis.
[17] State officials told us that their systems are used for tracking
of case processing and were not designed to capture specific
information, such as how many students and scholars undergo a Visas
Mantis check.
[18] We define pending as any visa application that has neither been
issued nor denied.
[19] For more information on our methodology for obtaining the Visas
Mantis sample, see appendix I.
[20] Post officials in Beijing told us that the number of Visas Mantis
cases from China sent during our sample period was less than what it
has been for corresponding months in previous years. They stated that
the outbreak of SARS significantly reduced the number of visa
applicants at all posts in China.
[21] The 95 percent confidence interval for the average number of days
to process a science visa application is between 50 and 84 days.
[22] According to State, factors that contribute to the length of time
it takes to process a Visas Mantis check include ongoing investigations
by clearing agencies or requests for additional applicant information.
Once State sends a response regarding a Visas Mantis check, the post
has to contact the applicant to issue or deny the visa. However, we did
not attempt to determine how long this process takes.
[23] In December 2003, the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs
reported that the time frame in our sample and the ensuing months
represented the peak season in the Visa Office as the demands
pertaining to students and other summer travel generated large numbers
of SAO requests. She also indicated that the processing environment
during our sample time frame no longer exists, and that the Visa Office
is responding to post within 30 days on every case, provided that there
is timely input from the agencies reviewing the case.
[24] Outstanding cases include those where the posts have not heard
back from State headquarters and those where State has responded to the
posts by indicating that additional information or review time is
needed. The number of outstanding Visas Mantis cases is based only on F
and J Visas Mantis cases for the posts in China but include other visa
categories for the remaining posts we visited.
[25] The 27 cases pending from Shanghai are student and scholar cases.
[26] Appendix III provides additional data on the posts we visited.
[27] The data we obtained from Beijing included all pending SAO cases,
not just Visas Mantis cases. However, according to a consular officer,
almost all were Visas Mantis cases.
[28] The processing time frames for Chennai cases are from the
application date to the date of response from Washington. It does not
include the time between the response to post and visa issuance.
[29] This refers to the time between when the visa application was
received at post to when the post received the Visas Mantis response
from State for completed cases. This does not include the interview
wait time or the time it takes to issue the visa once the response is
sent back from Washington.
[30] Posts have no way to ensure that State receives the Visas Mantis
request, State has no systematic check to know if the FBI receives the
cases, and the FBI has no way to ensure that its results are forwarded
to the posts. Information regarding a case may potentially be sent back
and forth between different agencies and offices several times before a
decision can be made on whether to issue a visa.
[31] Posts enter visa applicant information into State's system, which
then generates a Visas Mantis cable. If the post does not format the
cable according to the standard State specifications, the FBI's system
will not recognize the information in the cable. Examples of duplicates
in the FBI's system may include (1) any application that shows up more
than once within 120 days and (2) more than one application with the
same name and date of birth.
[32] The FBI considers improperly formatted cables an error and asks
State to resend the cable.
[33] For additional information on the distribution of FBI processing
times see figure 4 in appendix IV.
[34] U.S. Department of State, Using the Technology List: Update
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 12, 2002) and U.S. Department of State,
Standard Operating Procedures No. 22: Revision to Visas Mantis
Clearance Procedure (Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2003).
[35] U.S. Department of State, Standard Operating Procedure 41: Using
the Technology Alert List (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2003).
[36] There are other contributing factors to the length of time it
takes to adjudicate a visa --for example, when a consular officer asks
an applicant for additional documentation or information, such as proof
of income or, in the case of student applicants, school acceptance
information.
[37] According to Consular officials, the wait time for an interview in
Chennai, India averaged about 3 to 4 weeks and was 12 weeks for a short
period of time during the summer of 2003.
[38] Data for 2000-2002 are the most recent available.
[39] U.S. Department of State, Border Security--Waiver of Personal
Appearance for Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants--Revision to the
Regulations (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2003).
[40] Because the post had received hundreds of security check responses
from Washington within a short time frame, consular officers were not
able to issue the visas within normal post hours.
[41] In late 2003, Moscow also instituted an online appointment system
to more efficiently schedule interviews.
[42] American Physical Society, Survey of Physics PhD-granting
Departments (College Park, Md.: September 2002).
[43] Association of American Universities, AAU Survey on International
Students and Faculty (Washington, D.C.: November 2003).
[44] Following an interagency consultation, State authorized a 12-month
validity clearance for Visas Mantis applicants who are returning to a
program or activity and will perform the same functions at the same
facility or organization that was the basis for the original Visas
Mantis check. This means that a student or scholar who had received a
visa after a Visas Mantis check could reapply for a new visa without
having to undergo another Visas Mantis check, provided that certain
conditions are met. U.S. Department of State, Standard Operating
Procedure No. 45: Revision to Visas Mantis Clearance Process
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2003).
[45] State officials also told us that an applicant can verify that
State is reviewing the application, but it does not provide any
detailed information about how long it will take or where the
application is in the process.
[46] In November 2003, State officials estimated that there were about
2,000 to 2,200 Visas Mantis cases pending in its system. Half of these
cases had just recently been entered into the system, while the other
half had been pending in the system for some time.
[47] In January 2004, FBI officials told us that they were working on
acquiring funding to set up a central records repository so that FBI
case records could be housed in one place.
[48] The tracking system allows FBI officials to see where a Visas
Mantis case is in the name check process at the FBI.
[49] The new system is aimed at improving the entire SAO process, which
includes Visas Mantis. For the purpose of this report, we focus only on
the Visas Mantis portion of the system.
[50] In fiscal year 2003, Consular Affairs established 39 consular
officer positions funded with Machine Readable Visa fees. In addition,
27 consular officer positions were established with Diplomatic
Readiness Initiative funding.
[51] A judgmental sample is a nonprobability sample because the
elements are handpicked and expected to serve the research purpose.
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 e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" 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:
