t5 b64 gao visa docs 2 of 6 fdr- 5-7-03 gao dos exit conference re findings- visa revocation

8/14/2019 T5 B64 GAO Visa Docs 2 of 6 Fdr- 5-7-03 GAO DOS Exit Conference Re Findings- Visa Revocation

1/4

Prepared by: J. McCloskeyDate Prepared: 5/23/03 Index: State-*-f2DOCNumber: 888582JobCode:320172

Record of InterviewTitle State Department Exit ConferencePurpose Toprovide the preliminary findingsfor our review of the visa

revocation process. During this discussion State Departmentofficials provided additional information on policies andprocedures for the revocation process.Contact MethodContact PlaceContact DateIn personState Department,Office of Visa ServicesMay 7, 2003

Participants State/Bureau of Consular AffairsMs.Catherine Barry, Managing Director, Office of VisaServicesMr. Steve Fischel, Director, Office of Legislation, Regulationsand Advisory AssistanceMr. Richard Beer, Chief, Coordination Division, Office ofLegislation, Regulations,and Advisory AssistanceGAOMr.Jess Ford, Director, IATMs. Kate Brentzel, Analyst,IATMs. Mary Moutsos,Attorney,IATMs.Judy McCloskey, Senior Analyst, IATComments/Remarks:

According to Ms. Barry and Mr.Fischel, the U.S. government has no overall written policy onhow agencies should use visa revocations as an antiterrorism tool. However, Ms. Barry andMr. Fischel told us they envision the revocation process as taking place before the visa holder- |enters the country. This would allowState and other agencies more time to investigate anddetermine whether a suspected terrorist is in fact ineligible for a visa on terrorism groundsbefore allowingthe visa holder to enter. As these officials explained, since the September 11attacks, State's consular affairs bureau has been receiving a large volume of informationonsuspected terrorists from the intelligence community, law enforcement agencies, overseasposts, and other units within State, particularly Diplomatic Security. The department reviewsthis information to determine if a suspected terrorist has a U.S.visa. If the identifyinginformation is incomplete, as is often the case, State mayhave difficulty indeterminingwhether a visa holder with the same or a similar nameas a suspected terrorist is in fact the

Isuspected terrorist. It may also lack sufficient proof of a specific act that would render the iPage1 Record of Interview


2/4

Prepared by: J. McCloskey Index: State 1.12Date Prepared: 5/23/03 DOC Number: 888582Job Code: 320172suspected terrorist ineligible for a visa, as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act(INA). In these cases, State would revoke the person's visa under the Secretary of State'sdiscretionary authority, requiring the person to reapply for a visa if he or she still intended to !visit the United States. State would then use the visa issuance process to obtain additionalbiographic and other data on the visa applicant and make a determination on the person's /eligibility. 1

Mr.Fischel and Ms.Barry further explained that under the INA, the Secretary of State hasdiscretionary authority to revoke anyvisa that a consular officer has issued, including cases in'which he believes that the visa holder may be ineligible for a visa under the INA's terrorism n/'^\' 'provision. They said that all 240 isa revocations in our review were revoked under theSecretary of State's discretionary authority. Alldepartment revocations are prudentialrevocations, i.e., they are done under the Secretary of State's authority. Thus, the wording inthe revocation cables that they are "prudential revocations" means only that they are done junder that authority.

Ms. Barry said that there are no written procedures to guide the interagency process forrevoking visas on terrorism or other grounds. These officials explained that prior toSeptember 11, 2001, State revoked only a small number of visas for terrorism-related reasons.This relatively small number resulted in State and INS operating in an informal manner whencooperating on denying admission to revoked visa holders at ports of entry. State officials saidthat they and the Department of Justice (DOJ) had agreed to informal notification proceduresbetween the two agencies and crafted language for the visa revocation certificates severalyears ago; however, they did not develop formal written procedures. Ms. Barry said that Statedoes not have any statistics on the number ofpre-September 11visas that were revoked onterrorism grounds; the Visa Office does not these figures in its annual report.

Accordng to Mr.Fischel, State and DOJ lawyers carefully crafted the language of the visarevocation certificates so that the revocations for people in the United States would only takeeffect when they left the country. This language ensures that there will be no judicial review ofthe Secretary of State's revocation decisions. Mr. Fischel said that revoking a visa while a

K f/

Page 2 -'.'-- - " : , . , ' " ~~ / I Record o f Interview, , / ! . , - n ,; ''- -- ^ ' yL-klJCA/-MU'~ -


3/4

Prepared by: J. McCloskey Index: State 1.12Date Prepared: 5/23/03 DOC Number: 888582Job Code: 320172person is here would be irrelevant, since the revocation would no t provide any additionalweapons for the U.S. governmentwhile the visa holders are still in the country.

According to Ms. Barry and Mr.Fischel, the policies and procedures contained in the ForeignA f f a i r s Manua l (FAM) apply only to situations when a consular officer revokes a visa andexplain under what conditions a consular officer may do so. The FA M instructs consularofficers to obtain a security advisory opinion from the department before determining that avisa holder is ineligible for a visa on terrorism grounds. Inpractice this means that department

) officials at headquarters acting under the authority of the Secretary of Statenot the consularv officers at overseas postsrevoke visas based on terrorism concerns. Because the FAM is

written for consular officers overseas, it does not include the standard operating proceduresthat the Department uses in revoking visas. Mr. Beer and Ms. Barry said that the departmentfollows specific, but unwritten, operating procedures when revokingvisas . They said thatonce the Deputy Assistant Secretary signs a revocation certificate, the department is supposedto take the following actions, as soon after the visa is revoked as possible:(1) notify the INS Lookout Unit via a faxed copy of the revocation certificate so that the unit

can enter the individual into its watch list, IBIS. State considers the faxed revocationcertificate to be the primary notification method for the INS LookoutUnit. State officialstold us that they try to send notification to the LookoutUnit the same day the revocationcertificate is signed. If a revocation is time sensitive, State will call the Lookout Unit aswell.

(2) notify consular officers at all overseas post that the individual is a suspected terrorist byentering a lookout on the person into State's watch list, CLASS. This would alert theconsular officers that they need to ask for a security advisory opinion before issuing a newvisa to the person whose visa had been revoked.

(3)notify the issuing post via cable so that the post can attempt to contact the individual tophysically cancel his visa. Information-onlycopies of these cables are also sent to INS'sand FBI's main communication centers. State relies on INS and FB I internal distribution

Imechanisms to ensure that these cables are routed to appropriate units within the agencies.-'State considers the cable was an additional backup method. M s. Barry said that the cables

Page 3 Record of Interview


4/4

Prepared by: J. McCloskeyDate Prepared: 5/23/03 Index: State 1.12DOC Number: 888582Job Code:320172

are the only method State uses to inform the FBI of the revocation. State does notcoordinate its visa revocations with the FBI.

Ms.Barry and Mr.Beer said they did not have fax transmission receipts to confirm thatsent revocation certificates for each of the 240cases we reviewed, although they,- said this

I !would become a standard operating procedure for the Visa Office in the future/they alsosaid the State Visa Office did not keep a central log of visas it revoked based on terrorismconcerns, nor did it monitor whether notifications were sent to other agencies.

All three officials attributed the breakdowns in the interagencyand interagency notificationprocess to personnel changes in the INSLookoutUnit and FBI's reorganization andexpansion of its counterterrorism efforts.

Mr. Beer was not aware that the VRVK code was not being entered into CLASS. He said hewould check into it.

0

Page 4 Record of Interview

t5 b64 gao visa docs 2 of 6 fdr- 5-7-03 gao dos exit conference re findings- visa revocation

Documents