Boder Security: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered
Burden on Foreign Science Students and Scholars, but Further
Refinements Needed (18-FEB-05, GAO-05-198).
In February 2004, GAO reported that improvements were needed in
the time taken to adjudicate visas for science students and
scholars. Specifically, a primary tool used to screen these
applicants for visas (the Visas Mantis program) was operating
inefficiently. We found that it took an average of 67 days to
process Mantis checks, and many cases were pending for 60 days or
more. GAO also found that the way in which information was shared
among agencies prevented cases from being resolved expeditiously.
Finally, consular officers lacked sufficient program guidance.
This report discusses the time to process Mantis checks and
assesses actions taken and timeframes for improving the Mantis
program.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-05-198
ACCNO: A17977
TITLE: Boder Security: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has
Lowered Burden on Foreign Science Students and Scholars, but
Further Refinements Needed
DATE: 02/18/2005
SUBJECT: Counterterrorism
Foreign students
Immigration information systems
Information systems
Interagency relations
Students
Visas
F-1 Visas
J-1 Visas
Program evaluation
Strategic planning
Homeland security
Background checks
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-05-198
Report to Congressional Requesters
February 2005
BORDER SECURITY
Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered Burden on Foreign Science
Students and Scholars, but Further Refinements Needed
Contents
Table
Figures
February 18, 2005Letter
The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert Chairman The Honorable Bart Gordon Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Science House of Representatives
The Honorable Curt Weldon 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.
A primary tool that the U.S. government uses to conduct this screening is
the Visas Mantis program, a security review procedure involving multiple
U.S. government agencies, which aims to identify those visa applicants who
may pose a threat to our national security by illegally transferring
sensitive technology. Visa applicants from China account for more than
half of all Visas Mantis security reviews.
In February 2004, we reported3 that there were delays in the 2 and
testifiedVisas Mantis program and interoperability problems between the
State Department (State) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
that contributed to these delays and allowed cases to get lost. We
determined that in the spring of 2003, it took an average of 67 days for
Visas Mantis checks to be processed and for State to notify consular posts
of the results. Further, we reported that visa officers at posts lacked
clear guidance and sufficient feedback regarding when to apply the Visas
Mantis program and the amount of information to include in Mantis requests
sent to headquarters. We recommended that the Secretary of State, in
coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of
the FBI, develop and implement a plan to improve the Visas Mantis process.
Specifically, we recommended that, in developing this plan, the Secretary
should consider several actions, including establishing milestones;
providing additional guidance to consular posts on the Mantis program; and
working to achieve interoperable systems and expedite transmittal of data
between agencies.
At your request, we (1) determined the length of time taken to process a
Mantis check;4 and (2) assessed actions taken to implement our
recommendation to improve the Mantis program and to address other issues
that may affect science students' and scholars' efforts to obtain visas.
To determine the length of time it takes to process a Mantis check, we
obtained and analyzed data from the State Department's electronic tracking
system for Mantis cases. To fulfill our second objective, we analyzed
policies and procedures put in place to improve the Visas Mantis program
and interviewed key State, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and FBI
officials. We also observed visa operations and interviewed officials
responsible for maintaining Visas Mantis data at three consular posts in
China and the U.S. embassies in Russia and Ukraine. We chose these five
posts because they account for almost 71 percent of all Mantis requests.
Appendix I provides more information on our scope and methodology. We
conducted our evaluation in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Results In Brief
State Department data show that the average time to process Mantis checks
and notify posts is significantly lower than the average we previously
reported for the period April-June 2003.5 In November 2004, the average
Mantis processing time was about 15 days. Consular officials at posts we
visited confirmed that they were receiving faster responses from
Washington and also reported that the number of Mantis cases pending in
Washington for more than 60 days had declined dramatically.
The Department of State and other government agencies took several steps
in response to our February 2004 report to reduce Mantis processing times
and address other issues that science students and scholars face in
traveling to the United States. In response to our recommendation, State
developed a Visas Mantis action plan, which was submitted to DHS on May
26, 2004. Although this plan remained in draft and was never fully
implemented, State, DHS, and other agencies acted on many of the steps
called for in the plan and took other measures to improve the Visas Mantis
program. These actions included adding staff to process Mantis cases;
providing additional guidance and feedback to consular posts; developing
an electronic tracking system for Mantis cases; clarifying the roles and
responsibilities of agencies involved in the Mantis process; reiterating
State's policy of giving students and scholars priority scheduling for
interview appointments; and extending the validity of Visas Mantis
clearances. These initiatives contributed to a decline in Mantis
processing times. However, some issues remain unresolved. Consular
officers at key posts continue to have questions about how to apply the
Mantis program and identify visa applicants who should receive Mantis
checks. Our work suggests that these officers learn best through direct
interaction with State officials knowledgeable about the program. However,
State has not developed a program for consular officers at these posts
that provides opportunities for routine direct interaction with agency
officials, through such activities as videoteleconferences and one-on-one
meetings. We also found that many agencies that receive Mantis cases are
not fully connected to State's electronic tracking system. As a result,
consular officers must send Mantis cases both electronically and by cable,
and some agencies provide their responses to State via courier. This
system can lead to unnecessary delays in the process. Finally, State
Department officials made a proposal to the Chinese government to extend
visa validities for students, on a reciprocal basis. This proposal, if
implemented, could lower consular workload and facilitate travel by
science students and scholars. However, the Chinese government has not
agreed to the proposal.
To further refine the Mantis program, we recommend that the Secretary of
State, in coordination with the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security,
o develop a formal timeframe for fully connecting all necessary U.S.
agencies and bureaus to the computer system used to track and process
Mantis cases; and
o provide additional opportunities for consular officers at key posts to
interact directly with State officials responsible for the Visas Mantis
program. These opportunities could include more frequent
videoteleconferences, mandatory one-on-one meetings with State officials
knowledgeable about the program, and more visits by State officials to
consular conferences.
We provided a draft of this report to State, DHS, and DOJ. In commenting
on our report, State and DHS stated that they were taking actions to
implement our recommendations. DOJ commented on a recommendation included
in the draft, but which we chose not to include in the final report.
Background
Foreign science students and scholars generally begin the visa process by
scheduling a visa interview. 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),6 takes the applicant's
digital fingerprints and photograph, 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
1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).7 If the consular officer
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.
In some cases, the consular officer decides that the applicant will need a
Security Advisory Opinion (SAO), a response from Washington on whether to
issue a visa to the applicant.8 SAOs are required for a number of reasons,
including concerns that a visa applicant may engage in illegal transfer of
sensitive technology.9 An SAO based on sensitive technology transfer
concerns is known as Visas Mantis and, according to State officials, is
the most common type of SAO applied to science applicants. It is also the
most common type of SAO sent from the posts we visited in China, as well
as in Kiev, Ukraine.10
The Visas Mantis process is designed to further four important national
security objectives:
o prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their
missile delivery systems;
o restrain the development of destabilizing conventional military
capabilities in certain regions of the world;
o prevent the transfer of arms and sensitive dual-use items to terrorists
and states that sponsor terrorism; and
o maintain U.S. advantages in certain militarily critical technologies.
The Visas Mantis process has several steps and involves multiple U.S.
agencies (see fig. 1). 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, published by the State
Department in coordination with the interagency community and based on
U.S. export control laws, 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. 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 INA, pending further administrative processing.11
Figure 1: Visa Adjudication Process
After a consular officer decides that a Visas Mantis is necessary for an
applicant, several steps are taken to complete the process. The officer or
a Foreign Service National drafts a Visas Mantis SAO request, which
contains information from the applicant's application package and
interview. The case is then generally reviewed and approved by a consular
section chief or other consular official at post before it is transmitted
both electronically and through State's traditional cabling system. Once
the request is sent, the State Department's Bureau of Nonproliferation and
other agencies review the information in the cable and respond within 10
working days to State's Bureau of Consular Affairs. Several agencies, such
as the Departments of Commerce and Energy, receive Mantis cases but do not
routinely respond to Consular Affairs.
State's Bureau of Consular Affairs receives all responses pertaining to an
applicant, summarizes them, and prepares a security advisory opinion. This
SAO is then transmitted to the post electronically indicating that State
does or does not have an objection to issuing the visa, or that more
information is needed.12 A consular official at post reviews the SAO and,
based on the information from Washington, decides whether to deny or issue
the visa to the applicant. The officer then notifies the applicant that
the visa has been denied or issued, or that more information is needed.
Last year, consular officers submitted roughly 20,000 Mantis cases.
According to consular officials, the visa is approved in the vast majority
of cases. Data provided show that less than 2 percent of all Mantis
requests result in visa denial. However, even when the visa is issued, the
information provided by the consular posts on certain visa applicants is
useful to various U.S. government agencies in guarding against illegal
technology transfer. According to State, 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.
Mantis Processing Times Have Declined
Mantis processing times and the number of cases pending more than 60 days
have declined significantly. In February 2004, we reported that the
average length of time it took to process Mantis checks in Washington and
for State to notify posts was 67 days for Mantis cases initiated from
April-June 2003. State reported that the average Mantis processing time in
October 2003 was 75 days. However, by November 2004, the processing and
notification time for Mantis cases submitted was only about 15 days.
Figure 2 demonstrates how the average Mantis processing time for cases
submitted by all consular posts has declined since October 2003.
Figure 2: Average Time to Close Mantis Cases by Month
Note: This graph does not include data on cases that were still pending as
of November 2004.
State Department data also show significant improvement in the number of
Mantis cases pending more than 60 days. In February 2004, we reported that
410 Visas Mantis cases submitted by seven posts in China, India, and
Russia had been pending more than 60 days. However, recent data provided
by the State Department show that, as of October 2004, only 63 cases (or 9
percent of all pending Mantis cases) had been pending for more than 2
months. Figure 3 shows a breakdown of all pending Mantis cases, sorted by
the length of time they have been pending.
Figure 3: Pending Mantis Cases as of November 30, 2004
Consular officials at the posts we visited confirmed that they were
receiving faster responses from Washington and that the number of Mantis
cases pending more than 60 days had declined.
Actions Taken to Improve the Mantis Process, but Some Issues Are
Unresolved
In response to our February 2004 report, State, DHS, and the FBI took
several steps to achieve this reduction in Mantis processing times. State
submitted a Visas Mantis action plan to DHS in May 2004. Although this
plan remained a draft and was not fully implemented, State and other
agencies acted on many of the steps called for in the plan and undertook
other efforts to address difficulties that students and scholars face in
obtaining visas. These actions included establishing a stand-alone Mantis
team; providing additional guidance to consular officers; creating an
electronic tracking system for Mantis cases; clarifying the roles and
responsibilities of agencies involved in the Mantis process; reiterating a
policy to give students and scholars priority interviews; and extending
the validity period for Mantis clearances. These actions contributed to a
decline in overall Mantis processing times.
Despite these improvements, some issues remain that, if resolved, could
further refine the Mantis process. Consular officers in key Mantis posts
continue to have questions about how to implement the Mantis program.
Several agencies that participate in the Mantis process are not fully
connected electronically to State's tracking system. In addition, the U.S.
visa reciprocity schedule with China (which accounts for more than half of
all Mantis cases) limits students and scholars to 6-month, two-entry
visas. In order to facilitate travel, State Department officials proposed
to extend visa validities for students and scholars on a reciprocal basis.
However, the Chinese government did not agree to do so. Table 1 outlines
the actions taken to improve Visas Mantis and the outstanding issues that
need to be addressed.
Table 1: Actions Taken to Improve Visas Mantis and Address Other Obstacles
Faced by Students and Scholars in Obtaining Visas
Action Taken Unresolved Issues
State added staff dedicated to
1. processing Mantis cases and None.
created procedures for expediting
cases.
State provided additional guidance Consular officers need more direct
2. and feedback to consular officers. interaction with State officials to
understand the Mantis program.
U.S. Government agencies that
3. State implemented a Mantis receive Mantis cases are not yet
electronic tracking system. fully connected electronically to
the system.
FBI agreed that, while it would
4. continue to receive Mantis cases, None.
it would not routinely clear them.
5. Agencies agreed to clear Mantis None.
cases in 10 working days.
State reiterated its policy of
6. giving priority scheduling to None.
students and scholars.
7. State extended the validity of None.
Mantis clearances.
U.S. government proposed to extend Visa validities were extended on a
visa validities for business reciprocal basis for business
8. travelers, tourists, and students travelers and tourists from China,
and scholars in China, based on but the Chinese government did not
reciprocal treatment by China. agree to extend visa validities for
students and scholars.
Source: GAO.
State Added Staff and Created Processes for Expediting Cases
On February 25, 2004, the Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services
testified before the House Science Committee that the agency had taken
steps to increase efficiency in the Visas Mantis process. These steps
included creating a stand-alone Mantis team composed of five full-time
employees dedicated to processing only Mantis cases. A key State official
told us that he believed this action contributed significantly to the
decline in Mantis processing times. The Assistant Secretary of State also
testified that the agency had established procedures for expediting
individual Mantis cases, when appropriate. These procedures involved
faxing requests for expedition to the appropriate clearing agencies.
Again, a key State official told us that closer cooperation with other
agencies had led to faster Mantis processing times.
State Provided Additional Guidance and Feedback
In February 2004, we reported that consular staff at 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. As a result, State undertook a number of
initiatives to provide guidance and feedback to the consular officers
responsible for adjudicating cases that require Mantis checks. In 2004,
the State Department:
o Added a special presentation on Visas Mantis to the nonimmigrant visa
portion of the Basic Consular Training course.
o Funded a trip by Nonproliferation (NP) and Consular Affairs (CA)
officials to a regional consular conference in China to make presentations
and hold discussions with consular officers on specific Mantis issues.
o Organized a series of videoteleconferences with posts that submit large
numbers of Visas Mantis SAO requests to provide direct feedback to embassy
and consular officers on the quality of their Visas Mantis requests.
o Began issuing quarterly reports to the field about Visas Mantis policy
and procedural issues to "help consular officers understand the Visa
Mantis program better, provide guidance on what cases should be submitted
as Visas Mantis SAO requests and what information should be included in
requests, and to give feedback on the quality of those requests." The
first quarterly report was issued in March 2004, followed by two more in
July and October.
o Arranged one-on-one meetings with the CA and NP offices for new junior
officers assigned to posts with high Mantis volumes.
o Provided feedback to individual consular officers on the Mantis SAOs
they have submitted. This initiative is designed both to recognize
consular officers who are submitting well-documented requests that
correctly target applicants of concern and to guide officers on what kind
of information should be included in requests, depending on the type of
visit the applicant plans to make. The direct feedback program also allows
State to guide officers as to whether they are submitting SAO requests on
the correct applicants.
o Established a classified webpage through the State Department's intranet
for consular officers to gain access to country-specific and other useful
information related to the Mantis program. For example, it identifies
websites that officials in NP use when determining how to respond to a
Mantis case.
Officers at the posts we visited stated that some of these steps were
extremely useful, especially those initiatives that allowed for direct
interaction with officials from Consular Affairs and Nonproliferation. For
example, a junior officer in Guangzhou who had attended the new Mantis
presentation in consular training and had held a one-on-one meeting with
Consular Affairs stated that these initiatives were useful for
understanding how the SAO process works and why it is necessary. Another
junior officer in Shanghai stated that a videoteleconference his post held
with NP was invaluable for addressing his questions about the Visas Mantis
program. Consular officials in China who met with representatives from NP
and CA at the consular conference in February 2004 said that they found
the opportunity helpful in addressing some of their Mantis-related
questions.
State Implemented an Electronic Tracking System
State developed and implemented an electronic system to track Mantis
cases. Beginning in early 2003, State invested about $1 million to upgrade
its Consular Consolidated Database to allow for electronic processing and
tracking of all SAOs, including Visas Mantis requests, and to eliminate
use of its traditional cabling system. This upgrade, called the "SAO
Improvement Project" (SAO IP), resulted in a computer-based system that
allows posts to send Mantis requests electronically. Previously, consular
officers relied solely on the cabling system to transmit Mantis cases to
Consular Affairs. As we found in our February 2004 report, this system
resulted in Mantis cases getting lost due to cable formatting errors and
duplicate cases being rejected by the FBI database. By attaching a unique
identifier to each Mantis case, the SAO IP ensures that cases can be
easily tracked. As an added measure, a block is built into the system that
prevents consular officers from resubmitting Mantis requests on the same
visa application.
The SAO IP allows the State Department to more easily produce and track
important statistics. For example, it enables State to follow average
Mantis processing times, the number of Mantis cases submitted by each
post, and the amount of time each step in the Mantis process is taking.
Officials at posts we visited told us that they like being able to track
individual cases as they go through the interagency process in Washington.
In both Moscow and Kiev, for example, the SAO IP institutionalizes and
expands upon tracking efforts that posts had begun on their own. Officials
in Beijing told us that when they receive a public inquiry on a pending
Mantis case, they can use the tracking system to determine the status of
the case.
FBI No Longer Routinely Clears Mantis Cases
In July 2004, the FBI, State, and DHS reached an agreement that
fundamentally changed the FBI's role in the Visas Mantis process.
Officials from these agencies had determined that the FBI could fulfill
its law enforcement role in the Mantis process without routinely clearing
Mantis cases. Under the new "no objections policy," the State Department
does not have to wait for an FBI response before processing Mantis cases,
but the FBI continues to receive information on visa applicants subject to
Mantis checks.
Prior to this change, State's policy was to wait for a response from the
FBI before proceeding with each Visas Mantis case. If the FBI requested
that State "put a hold" on an individual Mantis case, State could not
provide a response to post on the case until the hold was removed. This
policy resulted in a backlog of almost 1,000 cases and contributed to
lengthy wait times for visa applicants. As we reported in February 2004,
it took the FBI an average of about 29 days to complete clearances on
Mantis cases. In fact, FBI clearance often took longer than any other step
in the Mantis process. Once cases had been cleared by the FBI, it could
take another 6 days before State was informed. Some of the Mantis cases in
the random sample we reviewed took more than 100 days to be processed at
the FBI.
The FBI's new role allows State to process Mantis cases more easily. As
the Bureau of Consular Affairs reported to consular posts in October 2004,
"the change in the FBI's role has made it easier for us to respond to most
Mantis SAO requests more expeditiously." The new agreement also allowed
State to clear about 1,000 Mantis cases that the FBI had maintained on
hold, many of them for a "very long time," according to State officials.
Consular officers we spoke to in China, Russia, and Ukraine confirmed that
they were beginning to receive clearances on Mantis cases that had been
pending for long periods of time.
Agencies Agreed to Clear Mantis Cases in 10 Working Days
In November 2004, the remaining agencies responsible for clearing Mantis
cases agreed to respond to the Bureau of Consular Affairs within 10
working days. Before this agreement, the agencies had 15 working days to
respond to State. As a result, the total Mantis processing time could not
be lower than about 20 calendar days (to account for weekends). According
to Consular Affairs, under the new rule, State should be able to achieve
total Mantis processing times of about 15 to 17 calendar days.
State Reiterated Its Policy of Giving Students and Scholars Priority
In July 2004, the Secretary of State reminded posts via cable that they
should give priority scheduling to persons applying for F, J, and M13
visas. As explained in the cable, students and exchange visitors are often
subject to deadlines, so posts must have well-publicized and transparent
procedures in place for obtaining priority appointments for them. Data
show that this policy is critical for ensuring that students and scholars
obtain their visas in time to meet their deadlines. For example, between
January and September 2004, non-student, nonimmigrant visa applicants
applying in Shanghai could expect to wait between 1 and 2 months to obtain
an interview.14 Data provided by the State Department also point to long
interview wait times for non-student or scholar visa applicants at other
posts. As of October 7, 2004 (when visa demand has usually declined from
summer levels), the nonimmigrant visa interview wait time was 32 days in
Beijing, 49 days in Guangzhou, and 34 days in Kiev. Post-specific data
show that interview wait times for students are much shorter. For example,
on June 15, 2004 (when visa demand is typically high), students and
scholars in Shanghai could get an interview within 13 days, while other
nonimmigrant visa applicants had to wait 56 days. Figure 4 illustrates
that, in June 2004, a peak visa application period, non-student visa
applicants could wait as long as 87 days to receive visas, while student
applicants could receive visas in as few as 44 days.
Figure 4: Comparison of Mantis Processing Timelines for Non-Student
Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants and Student Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants in
Shanghai, China, June 2004
State, DHS, and the FBI Agreed to Extend the Validity of Visas Mantis
Clearances
On February 11, 2005, State issued a cable to consular posts establishing
new maximum validities for Mantis clearances, thereby allowing students
and others to reapply for visas without undergoing frequent Mantis checks.
Previously, Mantis clearances were valid for 1 year. Under that rule, if
an applicant reapplied for a visa more than 1 year after the processing of
the original Mantis check, he or she would have to undergo another Mantis
check before receiving the new visa. Organizations representing the
international scientific community argued that this validity period was
too short. For example, foreign students attending 4-year college programs
had to renew their Mantis clearances each year.
Under the new validity periods, students can receive Mantis clearances
valid for the length of the approved academic program up to 4 years, and
temporary workers, exchange visitors, and intracompany transferees can
receive clearances for the duration of an approved activity for up to 2
years.15 State estimates that this change will allow the agency to cut in
half the total number of Mantis cases processed each year.
The new validity periods are the result of negotiations between State,
DHS, and the FBI. Although State and DHS proposed extending Mantis
clearances in the summer of 2004, the FBI argued that an extension in
Mantis clearances would significantly reduce its capability to track and
investigate individuals subject to the Visas Mantis program. The FBI
informed us that without the same frequency of automatic Mantis
notifications, it would have far less knowledge of when these individuals
enter the country, where they go, and what they are supposed to do while
here. As a result, the FBI made its agreement to State's and DHS's
proposal conditional on receiving access to the US-VISIT system and the
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). US-VISIT is
housed in DHS and is a governmentwide program for collecting, maintaining,
and sharing information on certain foreign nationals who enter and exit
the United States. SEVIS is a system that maintains information on
international students and exchange visitors and their dependents in the
United States. In February 2005, the FBI and DHS reached agreement on the
terms of the FBI's access to these two systems, allowing the proposed
extension of Mantis clearances to take effect.
Consular Officers at Key Posts Still Need Additional Guidance
China and Russia account for roughly 76 percent of all Mantis cases.
However, we found that some consular officers at these posts remain
confused about how to apply the Mantis program. For example, Beijing
consular officers, some of them new to the post, consistently told us that
they needed more clarity and guidance regarding how to use the Technology
Alert List (TAL). According to a key consular official in Beijing, because
these officers generally do not have scientific or technical backgrounds,
they often do not understand what entries on the TAL mean or whether the
visa applicant has advanced knowledge about the subject he or she plans to
study in the United States. They are also confused about how to apply
vague, seemingly benign categories. For example, officers in Beijing did
not know whether to continue submitting Mantis requests for all
individuals that fall under the category of "Communications - wireless
systems, advanced," even if the visa applicant works for a foreign
multinational corporation that is not a Chinese government-owned telecom
enterprise. Few of the consular officers we spoke with in China, Russia,
or Ukraine were familiar with the quarterly reports issued by Consular
Affairs on Mantis issues. The only officer aware of the classified webpage
maintained by the Consular Affairs Bureau told us that he did not find it
useful because it had very little information on it and because it was
hard for him to access the classified computer system, which is housed in
a separate building far from the consular section.
We found that consular officers at the consular posts we visited did not
have regular opportunities to interact directly with officials from the
Nonproliferation Bureau or the Consular Affairs Bureau knowledgeable about
the Mantis program. For example, representatives from State's
Nonproliferation Bureau and Consular Affairs Bureau have visited just one
consular conference-the February 2004 conference in China. Although new
consular officers are given the option to meet with NP and CA officials
before traveling to post, State does not require these one-on-one meetings
for officers assigned to key Mantis posts. Although China accounts for
more than half of Mantis requests submitted, only one of the country's six
consular posts has held a videoteleconference. Kiev requested a
videoteleconference in early 2004, but had been unable to schedule one, as
of December. Finally, in Beijing, only one of the officers who had
attended the consular conference in February was still at post.
Agencies Are Not Connected to State's Electronic Tracking System
Several law enforcement, intelligence and non-intelligence agencies that
receive Mantis cases, including the Departments of Commerce and Treasury,
are not fully connected to State's electronic tracking system. This
system, in addition to allowing State to track individual cases, was
designed to eliminate the use of cables for the transmission of SAO cases
because, according to State, they were "the source of garbled information
and other errors that resulted in lost or delayed cases that required
human intervention." For example, as we found in our February 2004 report,
700 Mantis cables that were sent from Beijing in fall 2003 did not reach
the FBI. It took Consular Affairs about a month to identify that there was
a problem and to provide the FBI with the cases.
However, since several of the agencies that receive Mantis cases are not
yet fully connected electronically to the system they continue to receive
Mantis cases through State's traditional cabling system. For the time
being, consular officers send Mantis cases both electronically and by
cable. Those agencies that are responsible for routinely clearing Mantis
cases provide responses to State on compact discs that must be
hand-carried between the agencies. As we found previously, this use of
cables and couriers can lead to unnecessary delays in the process.
State officials informed us that they are working to establish full
connectivity with other agencies. However, State's goals for fully
connecting certain agencies to the system have not been met. Further,
State has not set milestones for connecting the remaining agencies to the
system. In July 2004, State's Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations wrote in a letter to the House Science Committee and other House
and Senate committees that he expected the FBI to begin relying on the
network on a regular basis by the end of that month. State and the FBI
also signed a memorandum of understanding in July outlining the terms of
the FBI's electronic connectivity to the system. However, it was not until
December 2004 that the FBI had developed the ability to gain access to
State's electronic tracking system to test the connection and discontinue
using the cabling system. Although the FBI no longer actively clears
Mantis cases, all agencies and bureaus that receive Mantis cases,
regardless of whether they routinely clear cases, must be connected
electronically to the system before use of the cabling system can be
eliminated. State's goal was to establish connectivity with another
intelligence agency responsible for clearing Mantis cases by the end of
2004, but an agency official told us that a deadline of February 2005 was
more realistic. State has not set milestones for connecting the remaining
agencies that receive Mantis cases to the tracking system. A key agency
official told us that providing full electronic connectivity to all
agencies that receive Mantis cases will be a gradual process.
Students and Scholars from China Are Limited to 6-Month, Two-Entry Visas
China has one of the strictest visa reciprocity schedules for students and
scholars. Under the United States' reciprocity agreement with China, visas
for F-1 and J-1 visa holders are only valid for up to 6 months, with two
entries into the United States allowed.16 According to a key State
official, the agency's instructions to consular officers are to give
single-entry, 3-month visas for applicants who undergo Mantis checks. This
reciprocity schedule is one of the primary concerns of the international
scientific community. Under the reciprocity schedule, if a Chinese citizen
in the United States on an F or J visa leaves the United States, he or she
will have to reapply for a visa.
In 2004, State Department officials entered negotiations with the Chinese
government to revise the visa reciprocity schedule for business travelers,
tourists, and students. However, in December, State officials informed us
that, while the Chinese government agreed to extend visa validities for
business travelers and tourists, it did not agree to do so for students
and scholars. While the new agreement with the Chinese government may
address some of the concerns that the business community and tourism
industry hold about travel to the United States, students and scholars
will still need to reapply for visas frequently.
Conclusions
In 2004, State, DHS, and the FBI collaborated successfully to reduce
Mantis processing times. However, opportunities remain to further refine
the Visas Mantis program and facilitate legitimate travel to the United
States. As we reported in 2004, the use of the cabling system to transmit
Mantis cases can lead to unnecessary delays in the process. The State
Department has also noted that the cabling system is the source of garbled
information and other errors. However, agencies continue to receive cases
via cable because they are not yet fully connected electronically to
State's computer database. State has not established milestones for
connecting these agencies to the electronic tracking system. Additionally,
because consular officers have only a few minutes to determine whether a
visa applicant who appears at their interview window needs to undergo a
Mantis check, it is critical that they fully understand the purpose of the
Mantis program. Our work suggests that consular officers learn best
through direct interaction with those agency officials responsible for
implementing the Mantis program in Washington. However, because consular
officers at key Mantis posts do not routinely have opportunities for such
interaction, there is a risk that they may submit Mantis cases on
applicants who do not need them or fail to submit cases when appropriate.
Further, officers may fail to include information in their Mantis requests
that is most useful to agencies in Washington.
Recommendations for Executive Action
In order to further streamline the Visas Mantis process, we recommend that
the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland
Security, take the following two actions.
o In order to eliminate use of the cabling system in the Mantis process,
establish milestones for fully connecting all necessary U.S. agencies and
bureaus to the computer system used to track and process Mantis cases.
o Provide more opportunities for consular officers at key Mantis consular
posts to receive guidance and feedback on the Visas Mantis program through
direct interaction with agency officials knowledgeable about the program.
These opportunities could include, among other initiatives, mandatory
one-on-one meetings with officials from the Bureaus of Consular Affairs
and Nonproliferation for new consular officers before they travel to post;
additional visits by State officials to consular conferences; and more
frequent videoteleconferences with posts that submit large numbers of
Mantis requests.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of State, Homeland
Security, and Justice for their comments. State, DHS, and Justice provided
written comments on the draft (see appendixes II, III, and IV,
respectively). State commented that it had already made considerable
progress with regard to the report's recommendations and outlined the
actions it had taken to do so. For example, State has committed to sending
representatives from its Consular Affairs and Nonproliferation Bureaus to
India, China, and Russia to engage in on-site discussions of Mantis issues
with consular officers. In addition, State is in the process of
negotiating and signing memoranda of understanding with five U.S. agencies
to share Mantis data electronically. DHS expressed appreciation for our
work to identify actions to improve the Visas Mantis process and stated
that it will pursue completion of GAO's recommendations.
Justice responded to a recommendation included in the draft report that
directed the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to
set a formal timeframe for completing negotiations on FBI access to
US-VISIT and SEVIS. Because the two agencies reached agreement prior to
publication of the final draft, the recommendation is not included in this
report. The Department of Justice also provided technical comments, which
we have incorporated where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of
Congress. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of State 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
have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4128
or [email protected]. Staff contacts and other key contributors to this report
are listed in Appendix V.
Jess T. Ford Director, International Affairs and Trade
Objectives, Scope, and MethodologyAppendix I
The scope of our work covered improvements to and implementation of the
Visas Mantis program between February 2004 and February 2005. To determine
how long it takes to process Visas Mantis checks, we obtained and analyzed
data from the State Department's electronic tracking system for Security
Advisory Opinions (SAOs). Specifically, we reviewed "SAO Processing
Statistics" reports for all Mantis requests submitted to the State
Department between April 1, 2004, and August 31, 2004, as well as other
Mantis statistics produced by the State Department. These reports showed
the average total processing time (in calendar days) for Mantis cases
worldwide. To assess the reliability of State's data on Visas Mantis
cases, we (1) interviewed State officials responsible for creating and
maintaining the electronic tracking system used for Mantis cases, (2)
observed use of the tracking system, and (3) examined data collected
through the tracking system. We noted in our report that average Mantis
processing times, as calculated through State's tracking system, do not
take into account Mantis cases that are still pending. As a result,
reported average Mantis processing times can change as cases that have
been pending are cleared. State may also calculate average Mantis
processing times based on the date on which a consular post initially
drafted a Mantis case, rather than the date on which the consular post
submitted the final draft to Washington. As a result, total Mantis
processing times can seem longer than they really are. Despite these
limitations, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for
the purposes of identifying trends in Mantis processing.
To identify and assess actions taken to implement our recommendation to
improve the Visas Mantis program, we obtained documentation from key U.S.
agencies, primarily the State Department, interviewed officials from these
agencies, and observed training classes for new consular officers at the
State Department's Foreign Service Institute. We reviewed the Immigration
and Nationality Act, the Foreign Affairs Manual, the Bureau of Consular
Affairs' quarterly reports on Visas Mantis, and other cables and related
documents from that bureau. 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 and the Bureau of
Nonproliferation. At the Department of Homeland Security, we met with
officials from the Directorate of Border Transportation and Security. At
the Department of Justice, we met with officials from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation's Name Check Unit. We requested a meeting with Department
of Justice and FBI officials to discuss negotiations with DHS regarding
access to US-VISIT and SEVIS; they agreed to answer questions in writing.
In August 2004, we observed classes at the Foreign Service Institute for
newly assigned consular officers. As part of that training, we attended
the Visas Mantis briefing that had been added to the curriculum for new
officers in response to our recommendation in the February 2004 report.
To identify whether there were any remaining issues that affect the total
amount of time it takes for science students and scholars to obtain visas,
we analyzed data on interview wait times, spoke with representatives of
various educational organizations, and observed a roundtable discussion on
Mantis issues sponsored by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We
obtained data on interview wait times at consular posts worldwide from
State's Bureau of Consular Affairs. We also obtained information on
interview wait times from the consular posts in China and Russia. We met
with representatives from the National Academies of Science, NAFSA:
Association of International Educators, and the Alliance for International
Education. The roundtable discussion we attended involved officials from
the Departments of State and Homeland Security, as well as representatives
from the International Institute for Education; the Association of
American Universities; the National Institutes of Health; the National
Academies of Science; NAFSA: Association of International Educators; and
others. Representatives from various colleges and universities were also
in attendance.
We conducted fieldwork at five visa-issuing posts in three
countries-China, Russia, and Ukraine. We chose these countries because
they are leading places of origin for international science students and
scholars visiting the United States and because they account for 78
percent of all Mantis cases. During our visits to these posts, we observed
visa operations, reviewed selected Visas Mantis data, and interviewed
consular staff about the Visas Mantis program. 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 officials from the Office of the Defense Attache; the Office of
Environment, Science, Technology, and Health; the Office of Public
Diplomacy; and the Foreign Commercial Service. In Beijing, we observed a
meeting of the American Chambers of Commerce in China, where they
discussed their experience with the Visas Mantis program. In both Shanghai
and Guangzhou, we met with the Consul General. In Russia, we met with
consular officers at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. We met with the Consul
General and his Deputy, as well as officials from the Department of
Energy; the Office of Environment, Science, Technology, and Health; and
Public Affairs. In Ukraine, we met with consular officers at the U.S.
Embassy in Kiev. We met with the Deputy Chief of Mission, the Consul
General and her Deputy, as well as officials from the Department of
Energy; the Office of Public Affairs; and the Office of the Defense
Attache. Furthermore, in both Russia and Ukraine we held meetings with
various organizations that sponsor summer work/travel exchanges, and they
expressed their opinions and observations about the effects of U.S. visa
policy on their programs.
We conducted our work from July 2004 through February 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Comments from the Department of StateAppendix II
Comments from the Department of Homeland SecurityAppendix III
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Homeland Security's
letter dated January 28, 2005.
GAO Comment
1.We have revised the report to reflect the fact that the FBI requested
access to both US-VISIT and the Student and Exchange Visitor Information
System and that US-VISIT does not contain SEVIS.
Comments from the Department of JusticeAppendix IV
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Justice's letter
dated February 7, 2005.
GAO Comment
1.Because the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice reached
agreement on the FBI's access to US-VISIT and SEVIS prior to publication
of the final draft, we did not include the recommendation in this report.
The validity period for certain Visas Mantis clearances was extended on
February 11, 2005.
GAO Contacts and Staff AcknowledgmentsAppendix V
GAO Contacts
Jess Ford (202) 512-4128 John Brummet (202) 512-5260
Acknowledgments
In addition to those named above, Elizabeth Singer, Carmen Donohue, Maria
Oliver, Judith Williams, Mary Moutsos, Joe Carney, Martin de Alteriis, and
Etana Finkler made key contributions to this report.
(320300)
*** End of document. ***