Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to
Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and Scholars (25-FEB-04,
GAO-04-371).
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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-371
ACCNO: A09345
TITLE: Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken
to Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and Scholars
DATE: 02/25/2004
SUBJECT: Foreign students
Information systems
Interagency relations
National preparedness
Strategic planning
Systems conversions
Passports
Administrative procedures
Scientists
Timeliness
Visas
Dept. of State Visas Mantis Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-371
United States General Accounting Office
GAO Report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives
February 2004
BORDER SECURITY
Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate Visas for Science
Students and Scholars
GAO-04-371
Highlights of GAO-04-371, a report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member, Committee on Science, House of Representatives
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.
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.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-371.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Jess T. Ford at (202)
512-4128 or [email protected].
February 2004
BORDER SECURITY
Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate Visas for Science
Students and Scholars
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.
Average Time Frames for Visas Mantis Adjudication Process, April to June
2003
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.
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
1
2 4
10 21 24 24 25
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 39
GAO Comments 46
Appendix VI Comments from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation 48
GAO Comments 50
Appendix VII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 51
GAO Contacts 51
Staff Acknowledgments 51
Tables
Table 1: Number of Student and Exchange Visas Issued and Denied in Fiscal
Year 2003 by Selected Nationality 9 Table 2: Visas Mantis Cases for
Science Students and Scholars, April to June 2003 31 Table 3: Visa
Statistics from Posts in China, India, and Russia 33
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
6 16 34 35 36 37 38
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
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. However, 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.
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 visas1 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.
1In 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).
Results in Brief
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.
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.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.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.
2The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (P.L. 82-414; 8 U.S.C. S: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).
3Memorandum 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.
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.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),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.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.7
4Depending 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.
5CLASS 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.
6The 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. S:1184(b) and 8 U.S.C. S:1101(a)(15).
7At 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.
Figure 1: Visa Adjudication Process
Visas Mantis process
INA Immigration and Nationality Act CLASS Consular Lookout and Support
System SAO Security Advisory Opinion
Source: GAO analysis of State Department documents and visa operations.
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.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.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,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.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.
8Visas Mantis applies to all visa categories including student, business,
and tourist applicants.
9Under 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. S:
1182(a)(3)(A)(i)(II).
10According 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.
11The 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.
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.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 systems13 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.14 Table 1 shows the
number of visas issued and denied for students and scholars seeking visas
by selected nationalities in fiscal year 2003.15
12A 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.
13There 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.
14The F visa category applies to students in an academic or language
training program, while the J visa category applies to exchange visitors.
15The data from State are used for background purposes only. Therefore, we
did not assess the reliability of the data.
Table 1: Number of Student and Exchange Visas Issued and Denied in Fiscal
Year 2003 by Selected Nationality
Students Exchanges (F visas) (J visas)
Nationality Issued Refused Issued Refused
South Korea 34,697 8,119 14,218 1,507
China (mainland) and Taiwan 31,322 22,995 10,171 7,003
Japan 25,962 1,387 11,377 305
India 20,320 17,973 5,311 1,718
Brazil 7,625 1,761 8,297 520
Germany 5,376 1,122 22,600 923
Great Britain 3,536 874 17,354 1,052
Russia 1,645 1,325 17,185 8,412
Poland 1,243 906 20,675 2,637
All others 103,853 71,733 156,472 30,537
Total 235,579 128,195 283,660 54,614
Source: GAO analysis of State Department visa data.
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.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.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.
16State 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.
17State 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.
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.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 2003,19 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,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.
18We define pending as any visa application that has neither been issued
nor denied.
19For more information on our methodology for obtaining the Visas Mantis
sample, see appendix I.
20Post 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.
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 days21 from the date the Visas
Mantis cable was submitted from post to the date State sent a response to
the post.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, 2003.23
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
21The 95 percent confidence interval for the average number of days to
process a science visa application is between 50 and 84 days.
22According 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.
23In 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.
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,
2003.24 In addition, we found numerous cases-including 27 from
Shanghai-that were pending more than 120 days as of October 16, 2003.25
The following are examples of data we collected during our fieldwork
regarding the processing of Visas Mantis cases:26
24Outstanding 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.
25The 27 cases pending from Shanghai are student and scholar cases.
26Appendix III provides additional data on the posts we visited.
o 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.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.
o 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.28
o 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 visa29 for those requiring a Visas Mantis
security check
was 53 days.
27The 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.
28The 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.
29This 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.
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.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.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.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
30Posts 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.
31Posts 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.
32The FBI considers improperly formatted cables an error and asks State to
resend the cable.
than 100 days.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.
33For additional information on the distribution of FBI processing times
see figure 4 in appendix IV.
Figure 2: Average Time Frames for Visas Mantis Cases, April to June 2003
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.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
34U.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).
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.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.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
35U.S. Department of State, Standard Operating Procedure 41: Using the
Technology Alert List (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2003).
36There 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.
demand for visas was greater than the resources available at post to
adjudicate a visa.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 18,000.38 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 2003.39 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.
37According 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.
38Data for 2000-2002 are the most recent available.
39U.S. Department of State, Border Security-Waiver of Personal Appearance
for Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants- Revision to the Regulations (Washington,
D.C.: May 21, 2003).
China
India
Russia
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.40 In such cases, interviews were scheduled within a
matter of days.
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.
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
40Because 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.
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.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
41In late 2003, Moscow also instituted an online appointment system to
more efficiently schedule interviews.
Agency Officials Cite Improvements
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.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.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.
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.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
42American Physical Society, Survey of Physics PhD-granting Departments
(College Park, Md.: September 2002).
43Association of American Universities, AAU Survey on International
Students and Faculty (Washington, D.C.: November 2003).
44Following 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).
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.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 2003.46 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.47 FBI officials also told us
that they have set up a tracking system for all SAOs, including Visas
Mantis
45State 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.
46In 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.
47In 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.
cases.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.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
48The tracking system allows FBI officials to see where a Visas Mantis
case is in the name check process at the FBI.
49The 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.
Conclusions
Recommendation for Executive Action
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 2004.50 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.
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.
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
50In 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.
the Visas Mantis process. In developing this plan, the Secretary should
consider actions to
o establish milestones to reduce the current number of pending Visas
Mantis cases;
o develop performance goals and measurements for processing Visas Mantis
checks;
o 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
o work to achieve interoperable systems and expedite transmittal of data
Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation
between agencies.
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.
Jess T. Ford, Director International Affairs and Trade
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
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
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
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
agency from these application records should be treated as testimonial
information from a judgmental1 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
1A judgmental sample is a nonprobability sample because the elements are
handpicked and expected to serve the research purpose.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
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.
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 Number of Visas Mantis cables
Shanghai, China
Beijing, China
Moscow, Russia
Guangzhou, China
London, United Kingdom
Chengdu, China
Hong Kong, China
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Toronto, Canada
Kiev, Ukraine
St. Petersburg, Russia
Krakow, Poland
Cairo, Egypt
Tokyo, Japan
Chennai, India
Havana, Cuba 32 Berlin, Germany 26 Bern, Switzerland 24 Yekaterinburg,
Russia 24 Madrid, Spain 23 Shenyang, China 23 Ankara, Turkey 19 Stockholm,
Sweden 17 Bucharest, Romania 14 Frankfurt, Germany 11 Damascus, Syria 10
Brussels, Belgium 9 Hanoi, Vietnam 9 Melbourne, Australia 9 Mumbai, India
9
Appendix II: Visas Mantis Cases for Science Students and Scholars
Post Number of Visas Mantis cables
New Delhi, India 9
Ciudad Juarez, Mexico 8
Singapore
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Istanbul, Turkey
Montreal, Canada
Ottawa, Canada
Mexico, Mexico
Seoul, South Korea
Oslo, Norway
Amman, Jordan
Lisbon, Portugal
Osaka-Kobe, Japan
Paris, France
Tel Aviv, Israel
Calgary, Canada
Dublin, Ireland
Jerusalem, Israel 2
Vienna, Austria 2
Athens, Greece 1
Beirut, Lebanon 1
Bogota, Colombia 1
Johannesburg, South Africa 1
Matamoros, Mexico 1
Minsk, Belarus 1
Taipei, Taiwan 1
Vladivostok, Russia 1 Source: GAO analysis of State Department Visas
Mantis cables.
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
St.
Beijing Shanghai Guangzhou New Chennai Moscow Petersburg
Delhi
aNumber of
U.S. consular 7 4 4 4 7 7
officers
Number of
visa 129,927 71,859 53,247 88,525 166,676 98,553 17,771
applications
in FY 2003b
Number of
visas issued 76,165 44,821 28,602 56,820 120,535 63,541 14,302
in FY 2003b
F-1c issued 5,233 4,852 1,667 3,981 7,544 918
in FY 2003
J-1d issued 1,861 1,268 371 1,541 1,222 11,384 1,666
in FY 2003
Number of
visas refused 53,762 27,038 24,645 30,580 46,065 35,012 3,469
in FY 2003b
Overall
refusal rate 41% 38% 46% 36% 28% 35% 20%
FY 2003
F-1c refusal 63% 44% 61% 40% 50% 51% 44%
rate FY 2003
J-1d refusal 57% 42% 54% 24% 29% 39% 25%
rate FY 2003
Wait time for
interview in 2 weeks 5-6 weeks 2 weeks 2-3 3 weeks 1 week 2-3 weeks
September weeks
2003
Wait time for
interview in About About 3 weeks None 3 weeks 4-5
December 2003 days 4-5 days
4 weeks 4 weeks
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by posts in China, India, and
Russia.
aThis number only includes Foreign Service officers working in the
Non-Immigrant Visa Unit of the Consular Section.
bFor 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.
cThe F category of visa is designated for students.
dThe J category of visa is designated for exchange visitors.
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
Notes: The width of the bar = 5 days. Total number of cases = 71.
Appendix IV: Distribution of Processing Time for Sample of Visas Mantis
Cases
Figure 4: Distribution of Days from Receipt by FBI to Completion of
Clearance
Notes: The width of the bar = 10 days.
Total number of cases = 70.
aThe application was resent during our sample. We used the original Visas
Mantis application date of July 2002.
Appendix IV: Distribution of Processing Time for Sample of Visas Mantis
Cases
Figure 5: Distribution of Days from Clearance by FBI to Receipt by State
Notes: The width of the bar = 5 days. Total number of cases = 70.
Appendix IV: Distribution of Processing Time for Sample of Visas Mantis
Cases
Figure 6: Distribution of Days from Receipt by State to State's Response
to Post
Notes: The width of the bar = 10 days. Total number of cases = 67.
Appendix IV: Distribution of Processing Time for Sample of Visas Mantis
Cases
Figure 7: Distribution of Total Days from Transmission by Post to Response
from State
Notes: The width of the bar = 20 days.
Total number of cases = 67.
aThe application was resent during our sample. We used the original Visas
Mantis application date of July 2002.
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
Page 39 GAO-04-371 Visas for Science Students and Scholars
See comment 1.
See comment 2.
Page 40 GAO-04-371 Visas for Science Students and Scholars
Page 41 GAO-04-371 Visas for Science Students and Scholars
See comment 3.
See comment 4.
Page 42 GAO-04-371 Visas for Science Students and Scholars
Page 43 GAO-04-371 Visas for Science Students and Scholars
See comment 5.
Page 44 GAO-04-371 Visas for Science Students and Scholars
See comment 6. See comment 7.
Page 45 GAO-04-371 Visas for Science Students and Scholars
Appendix V: Comments from the State Department
GAO Comments
The following are GAO's comments on the State Department's letter dated
February 11, 2004.
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
Appendix V: Comments from the State Department
time frames, we used the date of application, not the date the Visas
Mantis request was submitted, as stated in footnote 28.
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.
See comment 1.
See comment 2.
See comment 3.
See comment 1.
Appendix VI: Comments from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
See comment 4. See comment 5.
Appendix VI: Comments from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
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.
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts
Staff Acknowledgments
(320188)
Jess Ford (202) 512-4128 John Brummet (202) 512-4128
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.
GAO's Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
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 fulltext 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
Contact:
To Report Fraud, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***