Visa Issuance

Issues Concerning the Religious Worker Visa Program Gao ID: NSIAD-99-67 March 26, 1999

In response to concerns from the U.S. religious community about the shortage of domestic religious workers to fill vacancies for religious positions, Congress established special immigrant and nonimmigrant visa categories in 1990 for religious workers, religious professionals, and ministers. Religious worker visas constituted about 11,000 of the 7 million immigrant and nonimmigrant visas issued in fiscal year 1997. As a result of recent fraud investigations, both the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have raised concerns that some individuals and groups that sponsor religious workers may be exploiting this category to enable unqualified aliens to enter or stay in the United States illegally. Although INS and the State Department have uncovered some fraud, they lack the data and analysis to firmly establish its extent in the religious worker visa program. The fraud uncovered typically involved (1) applicants making false statements about their qualifications as religious workers or their plans in the United States or (2) conspiracy between an applicant or a sponsoring group to misrepresent facts about the applicant's qualifications or the nature of the position to be filled. To increase the availability of information needed to determine the eligibility of visa applicants and sponsors, INS, with State's support, is considering changes to the visa-screening process. These changes include having an applicant submit additional evidence of his or her qualifications, having the sponsoring organization submit additional evidence on its ability to financially support the applicant, and incorporating new software applications that alert reviewers to organizations filing petitions for many workers. INS is also proposing a regulatory change to require that the prior work experience specific for immigrant religious worker visa applicants be full-time and that the persons work for the religious organizations in the United States on a full-time basis.

GAO noted that: (1) although INS and State have identified some program fraud through the visa screening process and investigations, they do not have data or analysis to firmly establish the extent of fraud in the religious worker visa program; (2) the nature of the fraud uncovered typically involved: (a) applicants making false statements about their qualifications as religious workers or their exact plans in the United States; or (b) conspiracy between an applicant and a sponsoring organization to misrepresent material facts about the applicant's qualifications or the nature of the position to be filled; (3) INS and State sometimes detect fraud schemes when a sponsoring organization petitions INS for hundreds of religious workers at a time; (4) in order to increase the availability of information necessary to allow reviewers to determine the eligibility of visa applicants and sponsors, INS, with State's support, is considering changes to the visa screening process; (5) these changes include: (a) having an applicant submit additional evidence of his or her qualifications; (b) having the sponsoring organization submit additional evidence regarding its ability to financially support the applicant; and (c) incorporating new software applications that alert reviewers to organizations filing petitions for numerous workers; (6) INS is also proposing a regulatory change to expressly require that the prior work experience specified for immigrant religious worker visa applicants be full-time and that the individuals work for the religious organization in the United States on a full-time basis; (7) the religious organizations GAO met with believe the program meets their needs; and (8) of the seven organizations commenting on the proposed regulatory change, three opposed it because some part-time religious workers that are eligible may no longer qualify.



The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.