    Foreign Affairs: Agencies Have Improved the Intercountry Adoption
    Process, but Further Enhancements Are Needed (21-OCT-05,
    GAO-06-133).

    U.S. intercountry adoptions nearly tripled from more than 8,000
    to more than 22,000 between fiscal years 1994 and 2004. While the
    Department of State (State) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
    Services (USCIS) manage the process, factors ranging from
    corruption to inadequate legal frameworks in foreign countries
    could lead to abuses such as the abduction of children. GAO (1)
    describes the U.S. intercountry adoption process, (2) assesses
    the U.S. government's efforts to manage the intercountry adoption
    process, (3) assesses U.S. efforts to strengthen safeguards and
    mitigate against the potential for fraudulent adoptions, and (4)
    describes the Hague Convention (Convention) and the statuses of
    U.S. and top sending countries' implementation of the Convention.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-133
        ACCNO:   A40097
      TITLE:     Foreign Affairs: Agencies Have Improved the Intercountry
    Adoption Process, but Further Enhancements Are Needed
         DATE:   10/21/2005
      SUBJECT:   Child adoption
    	     Citizenship
    	     Eligibility criteria
    	     Foreign governments
    	     Fraud
    	     Immigration
    	     Interagency relations
    	     International relations
    	     Orphans
    	     Program abuses
    	     Safeguards
    	     Hague Convention on Protection of
    	     Children and Co-Operation in Respect of
    	     Intercountry Adoption

    ******************************************************************
    ** 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-06-133

         * Report to the Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate
              * October 2005
         * FOREIGN AFFAIRS
              * Agencies Have Improved the Intercountry Adoption Process, but
                Further Enhancements Are Needed
         * Contents
              * Results in Brief
              * Background
                   * Intercountry Adoptions Have Steadily Increased
                   * Current Restrictions on Intercountry Adoptions
              * USCIS and State Implement Law for U.S. Intercountry Adoptions,
                with Foreign Governments Playing a Role in the Process
                   * Phase I-Prospective Parents' Suitability to Adopt Is
                     Determined
                   * Phase II-Child's Status as an Orphan Is Determined
                   * Phase III-Child's Eligibility to Immigrate to the United
                     States Is Determined
                   * U.S. Citizenship Requirements Differ Depending on Visa
                     Classification
                   * A Range of Factors Contribute to Varying Adoption Completion
                     Times and Costs
              * U.S. Agencies Improved the U.S. Intercountry Adoption Process,
                but USCIS Lacks a Formal Quality Assurance Process
                   * USCIS and State Improved the Intercountry Adoption Process
                   * USCIS Has Taken Measures to Review the Quality of the
                     Adoptions Process, but a Structured Quality Assurance
                     Program Is Not in Place
              * USCIS and State Have Taken Steps to Strengthen Safeguards to the
                Process in Foreign Environments, but USCIS Does Not
                Systematically Document Incidents of Potential Abuses
                   * Factors in Some Foreign Countries May Contribute to Abuses
                     in U.S. Intercountry Adoptions
                   * Both Agencies Have Taken Steps to Strengthen Intercountry
                     Adoption Safeguards in Foreign Countries, but USCIS Has Not
                     Formally and Systematically Documented Incidents of
                     Potential Abuses
              * United States and Some U.S. Top Sending Countries Have Not
                Ratified Multilateral Convention That Establishes Minimum
                Intercountry Adoption Standards
                   * Hague Convention Establishes Minimum Standards for
                     Intercountry Adoptions
                   * United States and Some Top Sending Countries Have Yet to
                     Ratify the Convention
              * Conclusions
              * Recommendations for Executive Action
              * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
         * Scope and Methodology
         * Total Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by Country, Fiscal Year
           2004
         * List of USCIS Overseas District and Sub Offices
         * Hague Ratification by Country and U.S. Intercountry Adoption Totals
           for Fiscal Year 2004
         * Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
         * Comments from the Department of State
              * GAO Comments
         * GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
         * PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf
              * Order by Mail or Phone

                     United States Government Accountability Office

    Report to the Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate

    October 2005

    FOREIGN AFFAIRS

         Agencies Have Improved the Intercountry Adoption Process, but Further
                                Enhancements Are Needed

                                           a

    GAO-06-133

    FOREIGN AFFAIRS

    Agencies Have Improved the Intercountry Adoption Process, but Further
    Enhancements Are Needed

      What GAO Found

    Adoptive parents must meet domestic and foreign government requirements to
    complete intercountry adoptions. However, factors such as foreign
    governments' procedures may contribute to varying time frames for
    adoptions. USCIS and State are the domestic agencies responsible for
    intercountry adoptions.

    USCIS and State made efforts to enhance the process by improving
    interagency coordination and communication with parents and developing
    additional guidance on adoptions. In addition, USCIS streamlined the
    intercountry adoption process by eliminating the application and fees for
    parents to obtain U.S. citizenship certificates for eligible children.
    While USCIS has taken measures to review the quality of the adoptions
    process, GAO found that the agency does not have a formal quality
    assurance program in place where results are summarized and reported to
    senior agency officials so that an assessment of the quality of the
    intercountry adoption process can be made over time.

    Factors in foreign countries' environments may allow for abuses in
    adoptions. To reduce the likelihood of such abuses, USCIS and State have
    taken such steps as holding diplomatic discussions with foreign
    governments and imposing additional U.S. procedural requirements. However,
    USCIS has not established a formal and systematic process for documenting
    specific incidents of problems in foreign countries. Such a process would
    allow for a systematic approach to analyze problematic trends and retain
    institutional knowledge.

    The Hague Convention governing intercountry adoptions establishes minimum
    standards designed to help alleviate some of the risk associated with the
    adoption process. The United States has signed the Convention and taken
    several steps toward implementing the Convention; however, key steps
    remain, including formal ratification of the Convention. Since its
    creation, 66 countries (which represented about 39 percent of all U.S.
    intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004) have ratified the Convention.

        Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions from Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004

    24 Adoptions in thousands 22.884 22 20 18 16 14 12

    10 8.333 8

          1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Fiscal year

    Source: GAO analysis of State data.

                     United States Government Accountability Office

    Contents

    Letter 1

    Results in Brief 2 Background 6 USCIS and State Implement Law for U.S.
    Intercountry Adoptions,

    with Foreign Governments Playing a Role in the Process 12

    U.S. Agencies Improved the U.S. Intercountry Adoption Process, but USCIS
    Lacks a Formal Quality Assurance Process 19 USCIS and State Have Taken
    Steps to Strengthen Safeguards to the Process in Foreign Environments, but
    USCIS Does Not Systematically Document Incidents of Potential Abuses 24
    United States and Some U.S. Top Sending Countries Have Not Ratified
    Multilateral Convention That Establishes Minimum Intercountry Adoption
    Standards 28 Conclusions 33 Recommendations for Executive Action 33 Agency
    Comments and Our Evaluation 34

    Appendixes

         Appendix I: Appendix II: Appendix III: Appendix IV: Appendix V: Appendix
                                                                VI: Appendix VII:

    Scope and Methodology 36 Total Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by
    Country, Fiscal Year 2004 39 List of USCIS Overseas District and Sub
    Offices 43 Hague Ratification by Country and U.S. Intercountry Adoption
    Totals for Fiscal Year 2004 44 Comments from the Department of Homeland
    Security 46 Comments from the Department of State 48 GAO Comments 60 GAO
    Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 61

    Table 1: Countries That Currently Have Restrictions on

    Tables

    Intercountry Adoptions, as of September 30, 2005 12 Table 2: Approximate
    Length of Time for Completion of Adoption Overseas and Estimated Adoption
    Costs in Top Four Sending Countries (2005) 19

    Contents

    Figures Figure 1: Number U.S. Intercountry Adoptions from Fiscal Years
                         1994 through 2004                                      8
               Figure 2: Distribution of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by
                         Sending
                         Countries from Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004          9
               Figure 3: Number of Intercountry Adoptions from Top Four
                         Sending Countries from Fiscal Years 1994 through
                         2004                                                  10
               Figure 4: U.S. Intercountry Adoption Process                    17
               Figure 5: Hague Implementation Time Line by Fiscal Year         31
               Figure 6: World Map of Hague Ratification by Country and U.S.
                         Intercountry Adoption Totals for Fiscal Year 2004     44

                                     Abbreviations

    DHS          Department of Homeland Security
    IAA          Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000
    INA          Immigration and Nationality Act
    INS          Immigration and Naturalization Service
    IR           immediate relative
    IVO          Immigrant Visa Overseas System
    PAS          Performance Analysis System
    UNICEF       United Nations Children's Fund
    USCIS        U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

    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.

    A

    United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

    October 21, 2005

    The Honorable Richard G. Lugar Chairman Committee on Foreign Relations
    United States Senate

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    More and more U.S. citizens are starting and expanding their families by
    adopting children from other countries. The number of children that
    entered the United States through intercountry adoptions increased from
    about 8,000 in fiscal year 1994 to about 22,000 in fiscal year 2004.1 The
    U.S. intercountry adoption process is managed by the Department of
    Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
    (USCIS) and the Department of State (State) and is complicated by a number
    of domestic and foreign government requirements for adopting a child from
    another country. Prospective parents often use the services of an adoption
    agency to help guide them through this adoption process and identify
    orphans that need families. To adopt a foreign-born child that will live
    in the United States, the prospective parents must meet qualifications
    outlined by U.S. immigration law. Additionally, the child and the
    prospective parents must meet the legal requirements for adoption in the
    child's country of origin, and the child must meet requirements outlined
    by

    U.S. immigration law to enter the United States. Despite the existence of
    such U.S. and foreign government regulations, a number of factors in
    foreign countries, such as corruption, may lead to abuses in intercountry
    adoption procedures. In recent years, several countries have suspended
    their intercountry adoption programs in response to concerns over abuses
    in intercountry adoptions, as well as to review their intercountry
    adoption processes and improve safeguards. The 1993 Hague Convention on
    Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry
    Adoption (Convention) provides additional safeguards by establishing
    uniform standards for intercountry adoptions.

    1A U.S. intercountry adoption is defined as an adoption of a child who
    changed his or her habitual country of residence, the sending country, to
    the United States, the receiving country. This report measures the number
    of U.S. intercountry adoptions using the number of visas issued to these
    children to immigrate to the United States. Unless otherwise specified,
    the report uses the term "intercountry adoption" to refer to children
    coming into the United States.

    In response to your interest in intercountry adoptions, this report (1)
    describes the U.S. intercountry adoption process, (2) assesses USCIS' and
    State's efforts to manage the intercountry adoption process, (3) assesses

            U.S.
                    efforts to strengthen safeguards and mitigate against the
                    potential for fraudulent adoptions, and (4) describes the
                    Hague Convention and the statuses of U.S. and top sending
                    countries' implementation of the Convention. To address our
                    objectives, in Washington, D.C., we interviewed USCIS and
                    State officials responsible for intercountry adoptions and
                    reviewed relevant agency documents on the U.S. intercountry
                    adoption process. We also visited USCIS offices in New York
                    and Los Angeles to see how USCIS implements domestic
                    procedures related to intercountry adoptions. Both of these
                    offices ranked in the top 20 percent of domestic offices for
                    the number of intercountry adoption cases received in fiscal
                    year 2004 and demonstrate geographic diversity. In addition,
                    we contacted U.S. adoption organizations and agencies to
                    understand their roles, as well as some adoptive parents who
                    belonged to national adoptive parent support groups and were
                    willing to respond to us, to hear about their experiences
                    with the

    U.S.
               intercountry adoption process. To understand the intercountry
               adoption environment and U.S. processes and procedures in overseas
               locations, we visited Guatemala and Russia. These two countries
               were consistently ranked among the countries where the majority of
               children adopted into the United States originated from in fiscal
               years 1994 to 2004. In both countries, we met with USCIS and State
               Bureau of Consular Affairs officials managing the U.S.
               intercountry adoption process, foreign government officials, and
               private adoption facilitators, and visited orphanages to learn
               about their respective roles in the adoption process. We conducted
               research on the Convention by reviewing it, obtaining information
               on countries' current statuses, verifying that the Convention's
               Web site data was current through a discussion with a member of
               the Convention, and discussing the implementation statuses with
               Guatemalan and Russian government officials. Appendix I contains a
               more detailed description of our scope and methodology.

    We performed our work from February to October 2005 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Adopting a child from a foreign country is a complex process with a
    variety

    Results in Brief

    of domestic and foreign government requirements that prospective parents
    must meet. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) establishes

    Page 2 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

    requirements for prospective adoptive parents seeking to adopt children
    from foreign countries and criteria for the child's entry into the United
    States. USCIS and State are the two federal agencies responsible for
    implementing the INA's intercountry adoption requirements. In addition to
    domestic requirements, the parents and the child must also meet the
    requirements for adoption established by the national government where the
    child resides. USCIS is the principal federal focal point for receiving
    and processing intercountry adoption applications, determining the
    parent's eligibility and fitness to adopt, and determining whether the
    child meets the INA's definition of an orphan. In overseas locations where
    there is no USCIS office, USCIS has delegated its authority to determine
    orphan status to State.2 In addition, State's overseas consular offices
    issue visas for entry into the United States. After the U.S. intercountry
    adoption requirements have been met and the child has immigrated to the
    United States, eligible children receive automatic U.S. citizenship. Due
    to various factors, including foreign country requirements, time frames
    and costs incurred for adopting children may vary.

    We found that USCIS and State made efforts to improve the process by
    implementing many of the priorities that an interagency task force
    identified in 2002. To enhance the process, both agencies improved
    interagency coordination and communication with parents and developed
    additional guidance. In addition, USCIS made efforts to streamline the
    intercountry adoption process by eliminating the application and fees for
    parents to obtain U.S. citizenship certificates for eligible children. The
    task force identified problems with consistency in applying procedures
    among adoption adjudicators and a lack of centralized guidance from
    headquarters. To ensure better consistency among its adjudicators, USCIS
    developed standard operating procedures in 2003. However, the agency has
    not provided training on these new procedures. Although USCIS has taken
    measures to review the quality of the adoptions process, we found that the
    agency does not have a formal quality assurance program in place where
    results are summarized and formally reported to senior agency officials.
    To help ensure the accuracy and completeness of adoption documents, in
    early 2004, a USCIS district office began a document review of completed
    adoption files and addressed individual cases through e-mails sent to
    relevant officials at USCIS and State. However, a more structured approach
    would allow the agencies to assess the quality of the intercountry
    adoption

     2One exception is Moscow, Russia, where USCIS has an office present, but State
      has this delegated authority. See appendix III for a list of USCIS Overseas
                               District and Sub Offices.

                        Page 3 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

    process over time, ensure that senior officials from USCIS and State are
    aware of the results, and identify opportunities where additional training
    or guidance may be warranted.

    Although USCIS and State have taken steps to strengthen safeguards to
    reduce the likelihood of fraudulent adoptions in foreign countries, USCIS
    has not established a procedure to systematically document problematic
    incidents that it has identified in its work so that these trends can be
    analyzed by its staff. Some factors in the foreign country, such as
    corruption and the lack of a legal framework over intercountry adoptions,
    may allow for inappropriate activities in adoptions to occur. To reduce
    the likelihood of abuses in intercountry adoptions, State and USCIS have
    taken such steps as holding diplomatic discussions with foreign
    governments and imposing additional U.S. procedural requirements. For
    instance, in Guatemala, concerns of illegally obtained children for
    adoption led to the

    U.S. requirement for DNA testing of mothers and children. Also, USCIS and
    State provide publicly available information on Web sites regarding
    country-specific requirements and any known problems with the countries'
    processes. Although agency officials are aware of general risk
    environments in foreign countries, USCIS has not established a formal and
    systematic process for analyzing and documenting specific incidents of
    potential abuses in the foreign environment. Such a process would include
    documenting USCIS staff's knowledge of unscrupulous facilitators and
    disreputable adoption agencies identified in their work on adoptions.
    Given the experience with past intercountry adoption concerns related to
    child selling and buying activities, documentation of problematic
    individuals and incidents in foreign countries would allow for a
    systematic approach to analyze problematic trends and retain institutional
    knowledge.

    The Convention governs intercountry adoptions by establishing minimum
    standards designed to help alleviate some of the risk associated with
    intercountry adoption processes; however, since the United States and
    three out of its four top sending countries have not ratified it, the
    benefits of the Convention have not been fully realized. The Convention
    provides some safeguards by establishing international minimum standards
    in the intercountry adoption process. Under the Convention, countries are
    to designate a Central Authority to carry out the Convention, prohibit
    improper financial gains from intercountry adoptions, and accredit
    adoption service providers that perform certain functions specified by the
    Convention. The United States has signed the Convention, designating State
    as the Central Authority, and State has taken several steps toward
    implementing the Convention. However, key steps remain, which include
    finalizing regulations and accrediting entities to carry out some of the
    functions in the adoption process. Once these steps are completed, the
    United States plans to ratify the Convention. Although State's target date
    for implementation is fiscal year 2007, agency officials stated that they
    could not predict how long it will take to complete implementation due to
    the reliance on other bodies to complete certain steps, such as adoption
    service providers applying for accreditation. Three of the top four
    sending countries of U.S. adoptions over the past 10 fiscal
    years-Guatemala, Russia, and South Korea-have not ratified the Convention.
    In September 2005, China, the top sending country of U.S. adoption,
    ratified the Convention. Since its creation, 66 countries (which
    represented about 39 percent of all U.S. intercountry adoptions in fiscal
    year 2004) have ratified the Convention.

    To improve the management of the U.S. intercountry adoption process, we
    recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following
    actions working with the Director of USCIS to

         o formalize its quality assurance mechanisms so that the agency can
           assess the quality of the intercountry adoption process over time,
           ensure that senior officials from USCIS and State are aware of the
           outcomes of the quality assurance process, and identify opportunities
           where additional training or guidance may be warranted; and
         o consider establishing a formal and systematic approach to document
           specific incidents of problems in intercountry adoptions that it has
           identified in foreign countries to retain institutional knowledge and
           analyze trends of individuals or organizations involved in improper
           activities.

    The Departments of Homeland Security and State provided written comments
    on a draft of this report, which we have reprinted in appendixes V and VI.
    DHS generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
    State also agreed with our findings and conclusions and provided
    additional information regarding its outreach efforts to the adoption
    community. In addition, State provided supplementary information on its
    Actions on Intercountry Adoptions in Selected Countries in appendix VI.

    Background

    The INA3 defines U.S. parameters for intercountry adoptions. INA
    establishes criteria for children's entry into the United States and
    eligibility requirements for prospective adoptive parents of children from
    foreign countries. A child is eligible for an immediate relative (IR)
    classification under the INA if the child meets the definition of an
    "orphan," as stipulated in the act.4 In addition, adopting parents must
    meet certain requirements related to their age, financial status, and
    medical condition.

    Over the past 5 years, there have been legislative developments in the
    U.S. intercountry adoption process, with further changes proposed. The
    Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA)5 provides the domestic legislation
    to implement the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and
    Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, hereinafter referred to
    as the Hague Convention or the Convention in this report. The IAA
    designates State to serve as the Central Authority of the United States to
    carry out most responsibilities of the Convention, including accreditation
    of adoption service providers.6 Also in 2000, the United States enacted
    the Child Citizenship Act7 to allow automatic citizenship for eligible
    adopted

    3Codified at 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.

    4The act includes in its definition of immediate relative children who
    have been orphaned by the death or disappearance of, or abandonment or
    desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents. If one parent
    remains, that parent must be incapable of providing the proper care for
    the child and must, in writing, irrevocably release the child for adoption
    and emigration. Additionally, a child can qualify as an IR if the child
    has resided with and been in the legal custody of the adopting parent for
    at least 2 years, or, in some instances, where the child has not yet been
    adopted, but is traveling to the United States for purposes of adoption.
    Also, a child qualifies as an IR if he or she is the natural sibling of a
    child that has been adopted or is being adopted by the same family and
    meets all requirements above except that the child is under the age of 18.

    5Pub. L. No. 106-279 (Oct. 6, 2000).

    6The act assigns functions specified in Article 14 of the Convention
    (relating to the filing of applications of prospective adoptive parents)
    to the Attorney General.

    7Pub. L. No. 106-395 (Oct. 30, 2000).

                     Intercountry Adoptions Have Steadily Increased

    children.8 Furthermore, in 2005 congressional legislation was introduced
    regarding the U.S. intercountry adoption process.9

    Intercountry adoptions may be a viable alternative to domestic adoptions
    for parents interested in adopting an infant, according to the National
    Adoption Information Clearinghouse. In fiscal years 2002 to 2004, DHS
    reported that at least 40 percent of children adopted by U.S. parents were
    under age 1, and at least 42 percent were between the ages of 1 and 4. In
    the past 10 years, the annual number of U.S. intercountry adoptions has
    consistently increased and nearly tripled, from more than 8,000 in fiscal
    year 1994 to more than 22,000 in fiscal year 2004 (see fig. 1).10

    8To be eligible, a child must meet the following requirements: (1) has at
    least one U.S. citizen parent (by birth or naturalization), (2) is under
    18 years of age, (3) resides permanently in the United States in the legal
    and physical custody of a U.S. citizen parent, and (4) meets the
    requirements applicable to adopted children under the INA.

    9The legislation, known as the Intercountry Adoption Reform Act of 2005,
    proposes to establish an Office of Intercountry Adoptions within State and
    appoint an Ambassador at Large to head the office; transfer functions and
    resources related to intercountry adoptions currently performed by DHS to
    State; amend INA to grant automatic U.S. citizenship to some foreign-born
    adopted children; and require an annual report on intercountry adoption.

    10To assess the reliability of the data we used from the State's Immigrant
    Visa Overseas System (IVO), we interviewed knowledgeable agency officials
    about the completeness and accuracy of the data. Based on the information
    and documentation we obtained, we concluded that the data were
    sufficiently reliable to use in this report.

    Figure 1: Number U.S. Intercountry Adoptions from Fiscal Years 1994
    through 2004 Adoptions in thousands

    22.884

                 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

      Fiscal year

    Source: GAO analysis of State data.

    The majority of children adopted into the United States between 1994 and
    2004 have originated from four countries-China, Russia, South Korea, and
    Guatemala-which consistently ranked among the top five sending countries
    of children adopted by U.S. parents (see app. II for a listing of all
    intercountry adoptions by country in fiscal year 2004). In total,
    adoptions from these four countries accounted for over 70 percent of all
    U.S. intercountry adoptions in the past 10 years (see fig. 2).

    Figure 2: Distribution of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by Sending Countries
    from Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004

    South Korea

    Guatemala

    Russia

    China

    Other countriesa

    Source: GAO analysis of State data.

    aEach of the countries included in "other countries" makes up less than 3%
    of intercountry adoptions during this time.

    Adoptions from China, Russia, and Guatemala increased significantly
    between fiscal years 1994 and 2004, accounting for the vast majority (92
    percent) of the total increase (about 14,000) in U.S. intercountry
    adoptions during this time. The number of adoptions from South Korea has
    remained more consistent during this time (see fig. 3).

    Figure 3: Number of Intercountry Adoptions from Top Four Sending Countries
    from Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004

    Adoptions 7,500 China 6,875

      6,250

    Russia

    5,625 5,000 4,375 3,750 3,125 2,500 1,875 1,250

    625 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Fiscal year

    Source: GAO analysis of State data.

    Although the United States is one of the world's leading receiving
    countries for intercountry adoptions, some U.S. children are adopted by
    foreigners. Statistics on the number of U.S. children adopted by
    foreigners are not currently collected on a national level,11 however,
    Canada, for example, reports adoptions of over 700 U.S. children from 1993
    to 2002.

    Current Restrictions on In recent years, several countries, including the
    United States, have Intercountry Adoptions restricted12 intercountry
    adoptions from or to all or specified countries for various reasons,
    including concerns of fraud, medical concerns,

    11With U.S. implementation of the Hague Convention through IAA, State will
    be required to submit a report to Congress that includes the number of
    U.S. children emigrating from the United States for intercountry
    adoptions.

    12The term restriction in this report may refer to suspensions, bans, or
    moratoriums.

    Page 10 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

    natural disasters,13 and time allowed for a country to review safeguards
    in its intercountry adoption process. Although some of these restrictions
    have since been removed, such as those recently in China, Azerbaijan, and
    Vietnam,14 several remain in effect. Currently, the United States has a
    suspension on intercountry adoptions from Cambodia-the only U.S.-imposed
    suspension-which was issued in 2001 due to evidence of widespread
    corruption. Additionally, several foreign governments currently have
    restricted intercountry adoptions, in some cases because the countries are
    examining their adoption process (see table 1).

    13For example, countries affected by the 2004 Tsunami, such as Indonesia
    and Sri Lanka, announced measures to prevent adoptions of children who
    lost their parents in the disaster until all reasonable efforts to reunite
    such children with immediate or close relatives had been concluded.
    According to State officials, this practice follows accepted international
    practice regarding intercountry adoptions rather than imposing
    restrictions on adoptions.

    14China issued a suspension on intercountry adoptions due to medical
    reasons (SARS outbreak) that was lifted in 2003. Vietnam issued a decree
    in 2002 that required an agreement on intercountry adoptions between
    Vietnam and other countries. The United States and Vietnam did not have an
    agreement at the time the decree was issued and, therefore, intercountry
    adoptions were stopped. However, after the two countries signed an
    agreement in June 2005, adoptions have resumed. Azerbaijan issued a
    suspension in 2004 pending the implementation of new adoption procedures.
    Azerbaijan lifted the suspension in August 2005 when an Azerbaijani
    investigation into adoption practices was concluded.

    USCIS and State Implement Law for

    U.S. Intercountry Adoptions, with Foreign Governments Playing a Role in
    the Process

    Table 1: Countries That Currently Have Restrictions on Intercountry
    Adoptions, as of September 30, 2005

                             Country Reason for restriction

    Belarus Adoptions are on hold while the government conducts an
    investigation of allegations of adoption irregularities; a new adoption
    law was signed in January 2005, but a new adoption procedure has not yet
    been finalized.

    Costa Rica Issued a moratorium in 2003 with countries that have not
    ratified the Hague Convention; however, Costa Rican law permits
    intercountry adoptions to be performed by attorneys, and maintains no
    restrictions on such adoptions.

    Georgia Banned directed adoptions, in which birth parents relinquish a
    child directly to adoptive parents, in 2003 (this was the most common
    method of adoption by U.S. citizens in Georgia); State notes that this is
    generally viewed in the adoption community as a positive development.

    Romania Limited intercountry adoptions to biological grandparents,
    effective in 2005, making permanent the moratorium it issued in 2001
    because its adoption framework did not protect the best interest of the
    child.

    Ukraine Suspended acceptance of new adoption dossiers from U.S. citizens
    and citizens of several other countries; according to Ukraine, this
    decision was based in part on the past noncompliance of some families with
    post adoption reports required by Ukrainian law.

                       Source: GAO analysis of State information.

    The U.S. intercountry adoption process, which is defined by the INA and
    primarily implemented by USCIS and State, is complicated by a number of
    domestic and foreign government requirements and can be separated into
    three phases.15 First, USCIS determines the parents' eligibility and
    fitness to adopt through its review of the prospective parents'
    application, home study reports, and background checks. Next, USCIS-or
    State, in countries where USCIS has no offices-determines the child's
    orphan status by examining documents and, when warranted, conducting
    overseas investigations. Finally, State's overseas consular officers
    verify the child's orphan status and eligibility for an immigrant visa.
    (Fig. 4 illustrates the three phases of the U.S. government's process for
    intercountry adoptions.) Depending on the type of visa issued, children
    admitted to the United States may qualify for automatic citizenship.
    Various factors, such as different foreign government's requirements,
    contribute to varying lengths

    15Most parents who permanently reside in the United States and adopt
    overseas go through this three-step process.

    Page 12 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

    Phase I-Prospective Parents' Suitability to Adopt Is Determined

    of time required for the process and the varying costs incurred by
    adoptive parents.

    In the first phase of the U.S. intercountry adoption process, USCIS
    determines the potential parents' suitability to adopt a child who resides
    outside of the United States. The INA defines qualifications for
    prospective adoptive parents.16 USCIS implements this requirement through
    its 68 domestic offices.17 Prospective parents submit to USCIS
    fingerprints; a filing fee; home study;18 proof of compliance with
    preadoption requirements of the prospective parent's state of residence;
    other documents such as proof of citizenship, age, marriage license, and
    divorce decrees; and, in some cases, an Application for Advance Processing
    of Orphan Petition (Form I-600A).19 The home study is completed by a party
    approved under the laws of the prospective parent's state of residence,
    such as an adoption agency, and includes interviews with the family and an
    assessment of the prospective parent's suitability to adopt a child. After
    USCIS receives all required documents from parents, the agency reviews the
    documents, conducts background checks on all adult members living in the
    household, and makes its determination. If USCIS determines that the
    prospective parents are eligible to adopt and fit to provide the child
    with proper care, then it sends them a Notice of Favorable Determination

    16Under the INA, the prospective parent of an orphan must be a U.S.
    citizen and, if married, apply for permission to adopt a foreign orphan
    jointly with his or her spouse or, if unmarried, be at least 25 years old
    at the time he or she files the orphan petition. Meeting preadoption
    requirements of the child's proposed state of residence is applicable to
    cases in which parents are required to readopt the child in the United
    States.

    17At USCIS domestic offices, staffing to handle intercountry adoptions is
    determined by each office. In offices with large caseloads, between one
    and two staff handle intercountry adoption cases. Intercountry adoption
    cases make up less than 1 percent of the agency's overall workload, about
    22,000 cases of approximately 6 to 7 million total cases.

    18The laws of every state and the District of Columbia require all
    prospective parents (no matter where they intend to adopt) to participate
    in a home study. This process has two purposes for intercountry adoption:
    to educate and prepare the adoptive family for adoption and to evaluate
    the fitness of the adoptive family. Specific home study requirements vary
    greatly from agency to agency, state to state, and (in the case of
    intercountry adoption) by the child's country of origin. USCIS includes
    requirements for the home study in its standard operating procedures.

    19Filing of the Form I-600A is optional, and it enables parents who want
    to adopt, yet have not identified an orphan, to initiate the adoption
    process. Regardless of whether parents file a Form I-600A, they must file
    a Form I-600.

                   Phase II-Child's Status as an Orphan Is Determined

    Concerning Applications for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition (Form
    I-171H or I-797C).

    The second phase in the process requires U.S. federal agencies to
    determine the orphan status of the child to be adopted, as defined by the
    INA. Depending upon the location of the child, either an USCIS officer or
    State consular officer determines whether the prospective adoptive child
    meets the U.S. immigration law definition of an orphan.20

    Once a child has been identified, adopting parents file a Petition to
    Classify the Orphan as an Immediate Relative (Form I-600), provide proof
    of the child's age and identity, proof that the child is an orphan, and
    proof of a foreign government-issued adoption decree or guardianship. In
    order to obtain adoption decree or guardianship in the foreign country,
    parents must meet the foreign government's laws and requirements. Foreign
    governments may place additional requirements on prospective parents,
    including those regarding the prospective parents' age and residency in
    country, as well as the requirement for parents to agree to provide post
    adoption information. The Russian government, for example, requires an
    agreement from adoptive parents to provide periodic and on time
    postplacement reports. However, Russian government officials have noted
    that American adoptive parents have not always complied with this
    requirement.

    USCIS or State officials review the documentation for Form I-600 and,
    depending on the specifics of the case, may also undertake a field
    investigation. Sometimes officers interview birth mothers or visit
    orphanages to verify the circumstances surrounding the child's orphan
    status. Following the completed review, USCIS or State officials make a
    determination. If all documents are sufficient and the child has been
    determined an orphan, USCIS or State officials approve the I-600 petition
    and send parents a Notice of Approval of Relative Immigration Visa
    Petition (Form I-171).

    20In 30 overseas USCIS offices, USCIS adjudicates orphan cases. In
    countries where USCIS does not have an overseas office, State consular
    officers help determine the child's orphan status and approve adoption
    cases; if cases are not approvable, consular officers send these to one of
    USCIS' three district offices overseas in Bangkok, Mexico City, and Rome.
    See appendix III for a list of USCIS Overseas District and Sub Offices.

    Page 14 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

    Phase III-Child's Eligibility to Immigrate to the United States Is
    Determined

    The third step of the process involves State's issuance of an immigrant
    visa to the child for admission into the United States.21 With respect to
    state law, most states grant full recognition to a foreign adoption
    decree. In some instances, states require adoptive parents to validate the
    foreign decree.22

    After parents have an approved Form I-600, they submit a completed
    Immigrant Visa application (Form DS-230, Parts I and II) along with the
    application fee and required documentation. The consular officer then
    examines the documents, which include the following:23

         o child's birth certificate and passport (or other valid travel
           document);
         o evidence of adoption or legal custody for purposes of emigration and
           adoption, as well as evidence of whether the adopting parents saw the
           child prior to or during adoption proceedings (if applicable); and
         o record of medical exam from the embassy's panel physician (this exam
           is largely to ensure that children with communicable diseases do not
           enter the United States; parents are advised by State to consult with
           other professionals for complete physical or mental evaluations of the
           orphan's health). If significant health problems are uncovered,
           parents may be asked to sign an affidavit acknowledging their desire
           to continue with the case given the medical condition of the child
           and, in some cases, parents may be requested to sign an affidavit
           regarding their intent to obtain necessary vaccinations for the child
           upon entry to the United States.

    21In Guatemala, the U.S. embassy schedules specific immigrant visa
    appointment dates and times for all adoption cases.

    22According to the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, states
    such as Colorado and Connecticut do not grant full recognition until that
    decree is validated by a state court. For more information, see
    http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/general/legal/statutes/international.pdf .

    23For children not yet adopted, not seen by both adopting parents, or who
    will reside in states requiring readoption, parents must also submit the
    Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support) with accompanying documentation.

    State consular officers then approve the child for an IR-3 or IR-4
    immigrant visa,24 if all documentation for the orphan is in order. State
    provides an immigrant visa package25 for the child to be presented to the
    Customs and Border Protection officer at the U.S. port of entry. According
    to State officials, the visa issuance process usually takes about 1 or 2
    days.

    24IR-3 visas are issued for orphans who had a full and final adoption
    overseas by both adopting parents, when both parents physically saw the
    child prior to or during local adoption proceedings. IR-4 visas are is
    sued when a full and final adoption has not been completed overseas, or
    when a full and final adoption has been completed but one or both
    parents(s) did not see the child prior to or during the adoption process.

    25The visa package includes the Application for Advance Processing of
    Orphan Petition, Petition to Classify the Orphan as an Immediate Relative,
    a USCIS or State official's Determination on Child for Adoption, court
    adoption decree, birth certificate, abandonment or relinquishment
    documents, DS-230, medical-panel physician report, immunizations or
    waiver, evidence of employment, and evidence of assets and liabilities.
    Additionally, the Affidavit of Support (Form I-864) and 3 years' income
    tax reports are included in the package for IR-4 visas.

    Figure 4: U.S. Intercountry Adoption Process

                 Sources: GAO analysis of USCIS and State information.

    U.S. Citizenship Requirements Differ Depending on Visa Classification

    The INA establishes the criteria by which foreign-born children adopted by

    U.S. parents become U.S. citizens. Foreign-born children under the age of
    18 admitted to the United States and residing permanently in the United
    States based on an issued IR-3 visa automatically acquire U.S. citizenship
    as of the date of admission to the United States. USCIS reviews IR-3 visa
    packages and sends Certificates of Citizenship to eligible children
    without requiring any additional forms or fees. In most cases, children
    that receive IR-4 visas may automatically acquire U.S. citizenship at
    entry if there was a final adoption abroad by a U.S. citizen parent and
    the state where the child resides does not require readoption. Other
    children that receive IR-4 visas acquire U.S. citizenship upon full and
    final adoption in the United States.

    A Range of Factors Contribute to Varying Adoption Completion Times and
    Costs

    Various factors make it difficult to generalize the length of time
    required and exact costs incurred by adoptive parents for intercountry
    adoptions. Country-specific adoption requirements, particularly in the top
    sending countries of U.S. intercountry adoptions, may contribute to the
    different time frames it may take to adopt a child. For example, the
    Russian government requires adoptive parents to travel to Russia to meet
    the prospective adoptive child. Since Russia also requires that the child
    remain in Russia before the court hearing, adoptive parents may travel a
    second time to Russia to attend the court hearing and adopt the child. In
    addition, procedural requirements in the foreign country may be difficult
    to meet. For instance, in Guatemala, birth certificates of the adopted
    child and documents proving the identity of birth mothers may be difficult
    and timeconsuming to locate. Other factors, such as the prospective
    parents' ability to provide adequate and timely information to meet U.S.
    intercountry adoption requirements, may also contribute to the length of
    time it takes for U.S. government officials to approve adoptions. For
    example, prospective parents may file application forms for intercountry
    adoptions to USCIS, which allows prospective parents up to 12 months to
    submit supportive documentation, such as the home study. Estimated total
    adoption costs incurred by adoptive parents may also vary depending on the
    foreign country.26 Table 2 shows the variations on the estimated length of
    time that foreign governments take to approve typical U.S. intercountry

    26These costs include U.S. government fees, such as the USCIS application
    fee of $525, State's visa fee of $335, and Federal Bureau of Investigation
    fingerprint fee of $70 per adoptive family member. The remainder of the
    costs to adoptive parents includes adoption agency, facilitator, and
    attorney fees; fees charged for the home study; travel expenses; and fees
    charged by foreign governments.

    Page 18 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

    U.S. Agencies Improved the U.S. Intercountry Adoption Process, but USCIS
    Lacks a Formal Quality Assurance Process

    adoption cases in country and estimated cost of an adoption incurred by
    adoptive parents among the top sending countries of U.S. intercountry
    adoptions.

    Table 2: Approximate Length of Time for Completion of Adoption Overseas
    and Estimated Adoption Costs in Top Four Sending Countries (2005)

                          Approximate length of time Estimated adoption costs for
                         foreign governments take to        adoptive parents (per
    Country        approve adoption in countrya                      adoption)
    China          10 to12 months                           $15,000 to $20,000
    Russia         5 months                                            $40,000
    Guatemala      6 to 7 months                            $20,000 to $25,000
    South Korea    1 year                                   $18,000 to $24,000

    Source: Data provided by State.

    Note: Data is based on testimonial information obtained by State Consular
    Affairs officials reviewing intercountry adoption cases in foreign
    countries. This data provides estimated information on typical

    U.S. intercountry adoption cases.

    aAccording to State officials, this length of time is the approximate time
    spent on U.S. intercountry adoption cases by the foreign government and
    does not include time spent by the U.S. government for approval.

    In 2002, an interagency task force on intercountry adoptions was created
    to examine ways to improve the U.S. intercountry adoption process, and
    USCIS and State implemented most of the priorities that the task force
    identified as necessary for improving the adoption process. USCIS has
    taken measures to review the quality of the adoptions process but lacks a
    structured quality assurance program where results are summarized and
    communicated to senior agency officials.

    USCIS and State Improved USCIS and State have taken several measures to
    improve the intercountry adoptions process. The Commissioner of the
    Immigration and

    the Intercountry Adoption

    Process Naturalization Service (INS) 27 made intercountry adoptions a
    priority for the agency in March 2002, after the Commissioner suspended
    orphan visa

    27On March 1, 2003, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services became one
    of three INS components to join DHS.

    Page 19 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

    processing for Cambodia.28 The INS created an adoptions task force with
    State to comprehensively review the existing INS structure for handling
    intercountry adoptions. The task force identified several priorities to
    improve the intercountry adoption process, and the agencies have, over the
    past 3 years, addressed many of the priorities by taking the following
    actions:

         o Improved interagency coordination: The task force suggested that
           coordination needed to continue and that USCIS consider how adoption
           work should be distributed and coordinated between USCIS and State.
           USCIS and State's Bureau of Consular Affairs have established a
           relationship to work together to address and resolve adoption issues.
           For instance, the agencies hold quarterly meetings to coordinate
           implementing changes to regulations, discuss challenges to the
           process, and improve the forms used by officials in the process. In
           particular, USCIS and State officials regularly discuss specific
           adoption cases and issues that arise in overseas posts, as well as
           regulatory, administrative, and policy matters related to intercountry
           adoptions. Moreover, in April 2005, USCIS and State's Bureau of
           Consular Affairs officials met at a USCIS field office to establish a
           mechanism for sharing information on visa processing.
         o Improved efforts to communicate with parents: The adoptions task force
           identified the need for USCIS and State to provide advisory notices
           for prospective adoptive parents. The task force suggested that
           emphasis should be placed on ensuring that parents were consistently
           informed about procedures, as well as prohibitions related to child
           buying in the process, and that parents receive the most current and
           complete information available on issues identified in countries where
           adoptions occur. To improve communications with parents, USCIS and
           State's Office of Children's Issues in the Bureau of Consular Affairs
           provide information on their Web sites,29 USCIS and State officials
           meet with adoption organizations and parents to discuss various issues
           and USCIS field offices have taken steps to provide customer service
           to parents. For example, USCIS and State Web sites provide information
           on the process in the United States and overseas, and the roles of
           both

    28The Cambodia situation is discussed later in this report.

    29USCIS' Web site is http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/index2.htm .
    State's Web site is
    http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/adoption_485.html .

    Page 20 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

    agencies, and alert parents to potential concerns through advisory notices
    about adoption procedures in other countries. USCIS and State's Office of
    Children's Issues provide outreach to parents and the adoption community
    by presenting information at regional and national conferences. In the two
    domestic USCIS field offices we visited, we found that officials had taken
    several actions to communicate with prospective adoptive parents, such as
    establishing procedures to meet prospective parents and providing
    telephone numbers for parents to directly contact the Adoption
    Adjudication Officer.

         o Developed standard operating procedures: Another priority of the
           adoptions task force was for USCIS to provide consistent guidance for
           its field officers adjudicating orphan petitions by developing
           standard operating procedures on how to determine parents' suitability
           to adopt and a child's orphan status. The task force pointed out that,
           in some cases, an adjudicator may be the only person in the field
           office that handles adoptions and may have a supervisor reviewing
           their work who does not have expertise in adoptions. The task force
           also reported that, even among the best adjudicators, there was little
           procedural consistency in adjudicating adoptions and no centralized
           guidance from headquarters. To address this priority, in 2003, USCIS
           developed standard operating procedures on adoption adjudications and
           made them available to their staff electronically. We reviewed the
           standard operating procedures and found that they described in a very
           detailed manner the process for adjudicating orphan petitions.
           Furthermore, State provides guidance to consular officers on how to
           process orphan visa cases in its Foreign Affairs Manual.
              * Conducted agency training: The task force noted that both USCIS
                and State officials sometimes lacked the training necessary to
                determine orphan status. In response, USCIS developed training
                materials for its domestic and overseas field adjudicators for
                determining orphan status and conducted an intercountry adoptions
                training course in 2002, which some State officials attended. We
                reviewed the training materials and found that they re-emphasized
                INA statutes for defining orphan status, defined the agency's
                role and responsibilities for adjudicating orphan petitions, and
                provided details for conducting orphan investigations. In
                addition, to assist consular officers in their orphan
                investigations, State offers fraud training to help its officers
                ascertain whether information in documents for determining orphan
                status, such as birth certificates, is false or whether documents
                have been altered or falsified. According to
              * a State official, State increased the frequency of the course
                from twice a year to 8 to 10 times per year in 2005.
         o Streamlined the intercountry adoption process: The task force
           emphasized that the agency continue to demonstrate its commitment to
           maintaining the intercountry adoption process as a priority. USCIS
           streamlined some of its intercountry adoption procedures as a result.
           A USCIS official acknowledged that the agency is challenged to balance
           the prospective parents' interest in creating their new family as
           quickly as possible with the need to review and process each
           application and the required documents in accordance with U.S. law. To
           address issues relating to timeliness, the agency has instituted a
           policy requiring completion of all immigration related applications
           within 6 months. Between October 2003 and July 2005, the agency has
           processed adoption applications in less than 4 months, on average.30
           According to USCIS officials, many petitioners file an incomplete
           Advanced Orphan Petition (Form I-600A) or Orphan Petition (Form I-600)
           while they are in the process of completing their home study.
           Regulations allow the petitioner(s) up to 12 months to submit
           supportive documentation. The agency strives to process completed
           applications within 30 days of receiving all required documentation,
           according to USCIS officials.

    In addition, in November 2003, USCIS made efforts to eliminate its backlog
    of U.S. citizenship certificates by centralizing the process. USCIS
    advised its field offices that, if they needed assistance with their
    backlog, to send these cases to a central location for processing.
    According to a USCIS official, from November through December 2003, this
    central office processed 671 of the 700 backlogged cases-the remaining
    cases were either denied or returned to the field office for additional
    follow-up. In addition, to streamline and simplify the issuance of
    Certificates of Citizenship for adopted children who receive IR-3 visas
    and have their adoption finalized overseas, USCIS created the IR-3 Entrant
    Program in January 2004. The program eliminates the application and fee
    for citizenship certificates for about 70 percent of children adopted by
    U.S. citizens. A USCIS official noted that the

    30Since USCIS allows parents up to 1 year to file their home study after
    USCIS has received the parents' application and fee, USCIS determines the
    application processing time from when USCIS receives the parents'
    application and fees to when USCIS completes adjudication of the
    application including the submitted home study.

    Page 22 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

    USCIS Has Taken Measures to Review the Quality of the Adoptions Process,
    but a Structured Quality Assurance Program Is Not in Place

    agency has consistently met its goal to provide certificates within 45
    days after the family has entered the United States.

    Further, in the intercountry adoption process, a system of checks and
    balances has developed that allows State, in the visa issuance phase, to
    review USCIS paperwork before issuing the visa to the child. Additionally,
    as a part of the streamlined process for issuing the citizenship
    certificates to adopted children, USCIS reviews IR-3 immigrant visa
    packages to verify that the child acquired automatic

    U.S. citizenship upon admission to the United States as required under the
    INA. Since April 2005, USCIS and State have established procedures to
    specifically address issues in visa classification decisions.

    The adoptions task force reported that USCIS should adopt a quality
    assurance program for orphan adjudications. Although USCIS has taken
    measures to review the quality of the adoptions process, we found that
    USCIS has not developed a formal quality assurance process, similar to the
    programs used in other areas of the agency. The activities of the quality
    assurance program could include such procedures as the review of random
    cases adjudicated by field officers to determine whether they are
    following agency guidance and procedures, as well as the evaluation of
    statistics to determine average processing times of orphan petitions by
    field offices.

    The task force reported that, even among the best officers, there was
    little procedural or substantive consistency in approach or a centralized
    source of guidance from headquarters. In 2003, USCIS developed standard
    operating procedures that detailed a step by step approach for
    adjudicating orphan petitions with the goal of improved consistency among
    its adjudications, but the agency has not provided training to
    adjudicating officers on these new procedures. The task force also
    reported that problems in adjudicating orphan petitions can be traced to
    the fact that individuals train their successors as best as they can, but
    there is no routine mechanism for obtaining feedback on written work from
    someone with specialized adoption expertise. In the field offices we
    visited, we found that the adjudicators had learned the process for
    adjudicating adoption petitions mostly through on-the-job training and
    mentoring. USCIS held intercountry adoptions training in 2002 as a result
    of the task force's suggestion; however, not all adjudicators who process
    adoption cases attended the training. A USCIS official stated that the
    agency plans to hold similar training in fiscal year 2006, but no dates
    have been set.

    In January 2004, as part of the Child Citizenship Act Program, the USCIS
    Buffalo office began its review of adoption documents for children who
    received IR-3 visas to help ensure the accuracy and completeness of the
    information relating to the adoption process. This review process accounts
    for about 70 percent of the adoption cases, with the remaining 30 percent
    not included. The USCIS Buffalo office has an informal process for
    addressing individual cases by sending e-mails to relevant officials at
    USCIS and State. We reviewed several of the e-mails sent by the USCIS
    Buffalo office, which identified issues such as insufficient
    documentation, misclassifications of visas, and inconsistent
    interpretation of INA regulations. While USCIS Buffalo's review process
    has merits, the results of the review are not summarized and formally
    reported to either senior USCIS or State officials. Moreover, USCIS does
    not have a structured approach that would allow the agencies to assess the
    quality of the intercountry adoption process over time, ensure that senior
    officials from USCIS and State are aware of the results, and identify
    opportunities where additional training or guidance may be warranted.

    The conditions in foreign environments can contribute to potential abuses
    in the intercountry adoptions process. USCIS and State have taken steps to
    increase safeguards and mitigate the potential for fraudulent adoptions,
    though USCIS has not formally and systematically documented specific
    problematic incidents to help USCIS adjudicators better understand the
    potential pitfalls in some intercountry adoptions.

    USCIS and State Have Taken Steps to Strengthen Safeguards to the Process
    in Foreign Environments, but USCIS Does Not Systematically Document
    Incidents of Potential Abuses

    Factors in Some Foreign Countries May Contribute to Abuses in U.S.
    Intercountry Adoptions

    While the U.S. immigration law covering intercountry adoptions is designed
    to ensure that adopting parents are suitable and fit to provide proper
    care of the child and that the foreign-born child is an orphan, conditions
    in some countries-such as corruption and the lack of a legal framework
    over intercountry adoptions-may lead to abuses in the intercountry
    adoption process. According to the United Nations Children's Fund
    (UNICEF),31 such abuses are more likely to occur in countries where
    legislative provisions are nonexistent, inadequate, or plagued with gaps
    and loopholes. UNICEF research also identified that risk for abuses
    significantly increased when government entities that oversee the adoption
    process are absent, insufficient, or when the prospective parents act
    through intermediaries that may not be licensed. For example, State has
    received a growing number of complaints concerning adoption facilitators
    operating in various countries. Licensing of agents and facilitators is
    done in accordance with local law. However, not all foreign governments
    require that agents and facilitators be licensed. Accordingly, it can be
    difficult to hold facilitators accountable for fraud, malfeasance, or
    other bad practices in general.

    According to USCIS, State, and UNICEF, there have been some known cases of
    abuse in intercountry adoptions, which include

         o abducting children;
         o exchanging a child for financial or material rewards to the birth
           family, or "child buying";
         o deliberately providing misleading information to birth parents to
           obtain their consent;
         o providing false information to prospective adopters;
         o falsifying documents; and

    o  obtaining favorable adoption decisions from corrupt local or central
    government officials.

    Past difficulties with intercountry adoptions in foreign countries, most
    notably in Cambodia, illustrate the potential effect of high-risk adoption
    environments. The United States issued a suspension on intercountry
    adoptions from Cambodia in December 2001 after receiving complaints from
    nongovernmental organizations in Cambodia that criminals were involved in
    "baby buying" for adoptions. From 1997 to 2001, the conspirators operated
    a scheme to defraud U.S. citizens who adopted some

    31Innocenti Digest, Intercountry Adoption (Florence, Italy: December
    1998).

    Both Agencies Have Taken Steps to Strengthen Intercountry Adoption
    Safeguards in Foreign Countries, but USCIS Has Not Formally and
    Systematically Documented Incidents of Potential Abuses

    700 children from Cambodia. The conspirators received approximately $8
    million dollars from adoptive parents in the United States. The conspiracy
    involved assorted crimes, including alien smuggling, visa fraud, and money
    laundering, and included schemes such as the use of baby buyers obtaining
    children from birth parents by informing the birth parents that they may
    have their child back at any time, then obtaining false Cambodian
    passports to enable the children to leave the country. In 2004, after a
    DHS investigation, a U.S. adoption facilitator pled guilty to conspiracy
    to commit visa fraud and conspiracy to launder money.

    The United States has also noted ongoing concerns with intercountry
    adoptions in certain countries, as of the date of this report. These
    countries include Guatemala, where a large number of U.S. adopted children
    originate from, as well as Nepal, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. In Guatemala,
    USCIS and State noted on their Web sites that the use of a false birth
    mother to release her child is the usual method chosen by unscrupulous
    operators to create a paper trail for an illegally obtained child. USCIS
    and State officials acknowledged the known problems in Guatemala of birth
    mothers who are paid by private adoption attorneys to relinquish their
    children for adoption. According to State, problematic cases may further
    be complicated by high incidence of corruption and civil document fraud in
    Guatemala. In Nepal, visa fraud is a significant problem facing potential
    adoptive parents, according to State's Web site. State also emphasized
    that document and identity fraud related to adoptions are serious concerns
    in Nigeria, and a high rate of adoption fraud has been uncovered in Sierra
    Leone.

    USCIS and State have taken various steps to strengthen safeguards against
    abuses associated with adoptions from foreign countries. USCIS and State's
    Office of Children's Issues coordinate to provide publicly available
    information to alert prospective adoptive parents to country-specific
    adoption processes and serious problems that may develop or already exist
    in foreign adoption processes State officials also hold diplomatic
    discussions with foreign countries regarding intercountry adoptions.
    Through discussions between the United States and Vietnam, for example,
    intercountry adoptions, which had been suspended, resumed after the two
    countries signed an agreement of cooperation in June 2005. In addition,
    USCIS has established written guidance for ways to identify fraud in
    intercountry adoption cases. The guidance provides that USCIS officers
    consider specific fraud indicators, such as documentary deficiencies and
    delays in registering birth certificates. Furthermore, State has provided
    fraud prevention management training to State consular officers, and USCIS
    officials said that all USCIS officers receive training, which includes an
    antifraud segment, when hired.

    USCIS and State have established procedures for determining the orphan
    status of the child based on the conditions that exist in the country
    relating to the intercountry adoption process. These procedures may add to
    the length of time for the adoption process. For example, in countries
    where the adoption process is clear and transparent, and when officers
    deal with adoption agencies with high standards, USCIS allows the field
    investigation to be completed through a documentary review. In some
    instances, however, deficiencies or inconsistencies in the documentation
    presented will require in-depth field investigations. In certain
    countries, these investigations can include additional steps, such as
    interviews with the birth mother, DNA testing when necessary and feasible,
    and interviews with adoption entities such as facilitators, orphanage
    directors, and local officials. In Guatemala, for example, USCIS requires
    DNA testing in all cases where the child is released by an identified
    birth mother due to concerns over the use of false birth mothers to
    release illegally obtained children. In Nigeria, where document and
    identity fraud related to adoptions are serious concerns, all adoptions
    are required to undergo full field investigations to verify the
    authenticity of the information provided in the adoption decrees and U.S.
    orphan petitions. These added steps in the process may contribute to a
    lengthier completion time for intercountry adoptions, but may also help
    the U.S. government in ensuring the legitimacy of information provided on
    the adopted child and in detecting fraud.

    Both USCIS and State publicize general knowledge of the risk environment
    in foreign countries. However, while State has documented specific
    concerns via cable communication, USCIS has not established a procedure to
    systematically document instances of individual problematic situations
    identified through its intercountry adoption work in foreign countries,
    including its staff's knowledge of unscrupulous adoption attorneys and
    facilitators, as well as disreputable orphanages and adoption agencies.
    Although USCIS officials informed us that they discuss the risk
    environment in foreign countries with overseas staff on a periodic and
    informal basis, agency officials' knowledge of specific incidents of
    concern may be better captured in a systematically documented method. In
    Guatemala, for example, USCIS staff informed us of instances where
    facilitators may have provided substantial funds to birth mothers who have
    relinquished their children for adoption. A USCIS official had also banned

    United States and Some U.S. Top Sending Countries Have Not Ratified
    Multilateral Convention That Establishes Minimum Intercountry Adoption
    Standards

    specific adoption attorneys in Guatemala from submitting intercountry
    adoption cases due to the USCIS official's suspicions of the attorneys'
    fraudulent practices. This information, however, is communicated
    anecdotally to other USCIS officials without being specifically and
    systematically documented. In addition, while USCIS provides information
    for State's publicly available notices documenting country conditions,
    individual and detailed accounts of concern are not systematically
    captured. USCIS officials also noted that they have access to cables
    prepared by State officials that discuss concerns with intercountry
    adoptions in foreign countries. Contents in State's documented cables
    range from documentation of general risks to intercountry adoptions in
    foreign countries to findings during orphan investigations in specific
    adoption cases.

    GAO internal control standards specify that agencies consider adequate
    mechanisms to identify risks arising from external factors, including
    careful considerations of the risks resulting from interactions with other
    federal entities and parties outside the government. Our standards also
    note that agency management should establish a formal process to analyze
    these risks. Documentation by USCIS staff of specific problematic
    incidents would provide a systematic method to retain institutional
    knowledge, analyze trends in the occurrence of these problems, and share
    critical information.

    The Hague Convention, which governs intercountry adoptions, establishes
    minimum standards designed to help alleviate some of the risk associated
    with foreign governments' adoption processes. The United States has signed
    the Convention and taken key steps toward implementation but has not yet
    formally ratified it, while some U.S. top sending countries have also not
    ratified the Convention.32

    32In order to become a party to the Convention, states must either ratify
    or accede to the Convention. Member states to the Hague Conference
    typically sign and then subsequently ratify the Convention. Nonmember
    states, including, for example, Guatemala, do not sign the Convention, but
    can accede to it.

    Page 28 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

    Hague Convention Establishes Minimum Standards for Intercountry Adoptions

    The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect
    of Intercountry Adoptions is designed to help alleviate some of the risks
    associated with the adoption process by establishing international minimum
    standards that sending and receiving countries must abide by.33 In
    particular, the objectives of the Convention are (1) to establish
    safeguards to ensure that intercountry adoptions take place in the best
    interests of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental rights
    as recognized in international law; (2) to establish a system of
    cooperation among Contracting States to ensure that those safeguards are
    respected and thereby prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in
    children; and

    (3) to secure the recognition in Contracting States of adoptions made in
    accordance with the Convention. Standards of the Convention will only be
    applicable for intercountry adoptions in which both the sending and
    receiving country have ratified the Convention.

    More specifically, the Convention's safeguards include the required
    designation of a Central Authority in each country to implement Convention
    procedures, as well as requirements regarding prospective parents,
    adoptable children, and other involved entities. These Central Authorities
    must coordinate with each other, provide evaluation reports on their
    country's adoption experiences to other countries, and take the
    appropriate measures to prevent improper financial gain from an
    intercountry adoption, among other responsibilities. Additionally, under a
    Hague adoption, a prospective adoptive parent must apply for an adoption
    through the sending country's Central Authority. To meet these
    requirements, the sending country must establish that a child is eligible
    for adoption by ensuring that adoption is in the best interest of the
    child and that appropriate counseling and consents, not induced by
    payment, have been provided, while the receiving country must determine
    that the prospective parents are eligible and suitable to adopt. Moreover,
    the Convention requires the receiving country to ensure that the child
    will be authorized to enter and permanently reside in the country before
    the adoption takes place, though this is not a prerequisite to
    parent-child contact. Under the Convention, the Central Authority may
    delegate certain functions to a public authority or an accredited body, as
    long as this body pursues only nonprofit objectives, is staffed by
    qualified persons, and is

    33The Convention also allows countries that have implemented the
    Convention to enter into agreements to improve the function of the
    Convention procedures.

    Page 29 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

    United States and Some Top Sending Countries Have Yet to Ratify the
    Convention

    subject to supervision. The Convention also permits many Central Authority
    functions to be performed by other bodies or persons who meet certain
    ethical, training, and experience standards.34

    Although the Convention establishes minimum standards, it does not
    establish formal means to determine whether countries are complying with
    them. The United States has monitoring mechanisms, outlined in the IAA,35
    to ensure it adheres to the standards of the Convention. However, the
    Convention does not include mechanisms to determine whether other
    countries are doing so as well. For example, although the Convention
    requires the sending countries to prepare a report for each child, it is
    up to the sending country to ensure that its report is factual.

    Although State has taken some key steps to implement the Convention,
    several remain. The United States signed the Convention in 1994. In 2000,
    the Senate gave its advice and consent, but the United States will not
    formally ratify the Convention until it is able to carry out the
    obligations required of it by the Convention. That same year, the United
    States passed the implementing legislation, the IAA, which established
    State as the U.S. Central Authority for intercountry adoptions. Following
    passage of the legislation, State has taken several steps to prepare for
    implementation, including drafting and issuing regulations for comment as
    required by IAA,36 hiring staff to carry out some of the responsibilities
    of the Convention, and requesting applications for accrediting entities,
    which under IAA are responsible for accrediting adoption service
    providers. However, some key steps remain, which include finalizing
    regulations, deploying case registry software to track adoption cases,37
    and signing agreements with accredited entities. Implementation of the
    Convention is

    34Central Authorities from other countries have the right to not accept
    nonaccredited entities involvement in the process. The Central Authority
    is required to provide the names of accredited and nonaccredited bodies
    involved in the process.

    35Pub. L. No. 106-279 (Oct. 6, 2000), 42 USC4901 et seq.

    36IAA requires the issuance of new regulations for the accreditation
    process for adoption service providers and preservation of Convention
    records. In addition, regulations will need to be drafted to account for
    the changes made to the visa issuance process.

    37IAA requires State to submit a report to Congress that includes the
    number of intercountry adoptions that involve a child immigrating to and
    emigrating from the United States for both Hague and non-Hague adoption
    cases.

    one of State's highest priorities, according to State officials. Figure 5
    provides a detailed time line of the United States' implementation of the
    Convention.

    Figure 5: Hague Implementation Time Line by Fiscal Year 2000 2001 2002
    20032004 2005 2006 2007

    Source: GAO analysis of State documents.

    State officials said the implementation of the Convention is a long-term
    project and attributed its lengthiness to several challenges. First, IAA
    required that State consider the standards or procedures developed or
    proposed by the adoption community before issuing regulations.38 Once
    regulations were issued to the public for comment, State received about
    1,500 comments from more than 200 entities expressing a wide range of
    views, some calling for more stringent standards and others for less

    3842 U.S.C. 14923 (b).

    stringent. State revised the regulations, including responses to comments,
    and sent them to Office of Management and Budget. Second, State is further
    challenged in drafting agreements with accrediting entities because such
    entities could be either state licensing bodies or nonprofits, both of
    which entail a variety of different restrictions, such as state laws.
    Finally, State must complete some steps in sequential order. For example,
    agreements with accrediting entities can not be signed until the
    regulations are finalized. Further, although State's target date for
    implementation is fiscal year 2007, agency officials stated that they
    could not predict how long it will take accrediting entities to approve
    adoption service agencies. According to officials, State will have
    completed its work needed to implement the Convention by the end of 2005,
    at which time the adoption service providers will have to apply for
    accreditation. In addition, USCIS must revise regulations to implement the
    Convention, and, according to USCIS, they are currently in the process of
    making the revisions.

    Since its creation, 66 countries (which represented about 39 percent of
    all

    U.S. intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004) have ratified the
    Convention.39 Three out of four top sending countries for U.S.
    intercountry adoptions-Guatemala, Russia, and South Korea-have not
    ratified the Convention. In September 2005, China, the top sending country
    of U.S. adoptions, ratified the Convention. State officials said that
    Russia is working toward ratification of the Convention. Guatemala acceded
    to the Convention in 2002, but, in 2003, the Guatemalan court ruled the
    accession to be unconstitutional based on technicalities. South Korea has
    not signed the Convention. See appendix IV for the countries that have
    implemented the Convention, as well as the total number of U.S.
    intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004 from these countries, as well
    as the top four sending countries.

    Following implementation of the Convention, the United States plans to
    continue adoptions with non-Hague Convention countries, according to State
    officials. However, State officials told us that prior to U.S.
    implementation of the Convention, other Hague Convention countries could
    potentially suspend adoptions with the United States. For example, Costa
    Rica announced the suspension of non-Hague adoptions in 2003, though the
    country has continued to allow some adoptions by U.S. citizens, according
    to State officials.

                                 39For a full list, see
          http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.statusprint&cid=69.

                       Page 32 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

    Conclusions

    With more and more U.S. citizens expanding their families by adopting
    children who live in other countries, it is important for the U.S.
    government to have procedures in place that provide prospective parents
    with transparent and accessible information on adoptions, coordination
    between the two primary agencies responsible for implementing U.S.
    immigration law on intercountry adoptions, and mechanisms to evaluate the
    suitability of prospective parents and to determine the child's status as
    an orphan and eligibility to immigrate to the United States. The United
    States has such procedures in place, and the designated agencies have
    worked to improve them. While U.S. adoptive parents desire a smooth and
    expedited adoption process, agency officials are challenged to balance the
    importance of prioritizing and expediting intercountry adoption cases with
    the need to conduct thorough investigations to ensure the legitimacy of
    each adoption.

    In recent years, State and USCIS have taken measures to enhance the
    intercountry adoption process. However, the development of an intercountry
    adoptions quality assurance program would help to ensure that U.S.
    intercountry adoption procedures are consistently followed domestically
    and worldwide. Moreover, because foreign governments play a prominent role
    in U.S. intercountry adoptions, the U.S. government is limited in its
    ability to mitigate against abuses that take place abroad. Although the
    U.S. government has taken measures to address some risks to intercountry
    adoptions, a systematic documentation of such incidents in foreign
    countries would allow for a formal mechanism for retaining and sharing
    specific information among staff working on adoption cases.

    To improve the management of the U.S. intercountry adoption process, we

    Recommendations for

    recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following
    actions working with the Director of USCIS to

         o formalize its quality assurance mechanisms so that the agency can
           assess the quality of the intercountry adoption process over time,
           ensure that senior officials from USCIS and State are aware of the
           outcomes of the quality assurance process, and identify opportunities
           where additional training or guidance may be warranted; and
         o consider establishing a formal and systematic approach to document
           specific incidents of problems in intercountry adoptions that it has
           identified in foreign countries to retain institutional knowledge and

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    analyze trends of individuals or organizations involved in improper
    activities.

    The Departments of Homeland Security and State provided written comments
    on a draft of this report (see apps. V and VI). GAO incorporated technical
    comments from both agencies as appropriate. Both DHS and State generally
    agreed with the report draft's observations and conclusions. DHS agreed
    with our two recommendations for USCIS to formalize its quality assurance
    mechanisms and for USCIS to consider establishing a formal and systematic
    approach to document specific incidents of problems in intercountry
    adoptions identified in foreign countries. DHS also commented that the
    report accurately describes the process and responsibilities of both
    agencies in the intercountry adoption process. DHS noted that both
    agencies have improved interagency coordination and efforts to communicate
    with parents, developed standard operations procedures, conducted
    training, and streamlined the process.

    State commented that the department and USCIS have established procedures
    that provide prospective adoptive parents with transparent and accessible
    information, ensure coordination between their distinct supportive roles,
    and meet the requirements of U.S. law. State also noted that the report
    outlines the separate responsibilities of each agency and recognizes the
    steps that both agencies have taken to ensure that intercountry adoptions
    take place within the context of strong safeguards. State replied that it
    is deeply concerned about the welfare of children around the world and
    regards the Hague Convention as an important means of promoting strong
    safeguards and ensuring that intercountry adoption remains a viable option
    for children around the world who seek permanent family placements. The
    department also discussed its action on implementing the Hague Convention
    and indicated that it plans to complete the tasks necessary to ratify the
    Convention in 2005 and to enable adoption service providers to be
    accredited in time for the United States to be able to ratify the
    Convention in 2007. Also, State provided additional information regarding
    its outreach efforts to the adoption community that we added to the report
    and provided supplementary information on Department of State Actions on
    Intercountry Adoptions in Selected Countries.

    We will send copies of this report to appropriate Members of Congress, the
    Secretaries of the Departments of Homeland Security and State, and the
    Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 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 fordj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
    Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
    of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are
    listed in appendix VII.

    Sincerely yours,

    Jess T. Ford Director, International Affairs and Trade Appendix I

    Scope and Methodology

    To describe the U.S. intercountry adoption process, we met with Department
    of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
    (USCIS) and Department of State (State) officials in Washington, D.C.,
    with responsibilities for managing intercountry adoptions cases.
    Specifically, we met with officials in USCIS' Offices of Field Operations
    and International Operations, and State's Bureau of Consular Affairs'
    Offices of Children's Issues and Visa Services. We reviewed documents on
    U.S. intercountry adoptions, including information on USCIS and State Web
    sites, which outlined specific procedures for prospective adoptive parents
    to complete during the intercountry adoption process, as well as
    information on the child's eligibility for citizenship. Furthermore, we
    reported on the varying intercountry adoption completion times and costs
    incurred by adoptive parents in the top four sending countries based on
    discussions with officials from State's Office of Children's Issues, who
    obtained this information from State's Bureau of Consular Affairs officers
    handling intercountry adoption cases in the four overseas locations. These
    Bureau of Consular Affairs officers provided approximate time frames based
    on their experiences in reviewing intercountry adoption cases. We did not
    test the reliability of this data.

    To assess the U.S. government agencies' efforts to manage the intercountry
    adoption process, we interviewed USCIS and State officials in Washington,

    D.C. We reviewed a USCIS task force report from June 2002, which assessed
    the U.S. intercountry adoption process and identified areas for
    improvements. We discussed actions taken to address these issues with
    USCIS officials. We further reviewed USCIS and State documents to
    understand their procedures for handling intercountry adoptions cases and
    their management of the process. These documents include USCIS Standard
    Operating Procedures and Adjudicator's Field Manual, as well as State's
    Foreign Affairs Manual. Additionally, we reviewed USCIS and State's
    caseload data, documentation of communication and coordination between the
    two agencies, as well as training materials provided to USCIS and State
    officials related to intercountry adoptions. The estimate of the time that
    USCIS officials took to process intercountry adoption applications relies
    on their Performance Analysis System (PAS). GAO tested the reliability of
    the PAS data and found that it was sufficiently reliable at the aggregate
    level to identify overall trends. We also visited USCIS offices in New
    York and Los Angeles to see how USCIS implements domestic procedures
    related to intercountry adoptions. Both of these offices ranked in the top
    20 percent of domestic offices for the number of adoption cases received
    in fiscal year 2004 and demonstrate geographic diversity. Additionally, we
    visited Guatemala City, Guatemala, and Moscow,

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    Russia, to see how USCIS and State implement intercountry adoption
    procedures overseas. Our reasons for selecting those two countries are
    discussed below. Furthermore, we contacted U.S. adoption organizations and
    agencies to understand their roles, as well as some adoptive parents who
    belonged to national adoptive parent support groups and were willing to
    respond to us, to hear about their experiences with the U.S. intercountry
    adoption process.

    To understand the intercountry adoption process and the adoption
    environment in overseas locations, we visited Guatemala City and Moscow;
    we selected these locations for various reasons. Both countries were
    consistently ranked among the top five sending countries for U.S.
    intercountry adoptions from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 2004. In
    Guatemala City, USCIS officials adjudicate all orphan petitions to
    determine the eligibility of the adopted children while State officials
    issue visas to the adopted children. In contrast, State officials with
    designated responsibility in Moscow approve the eligibility of the adopted
    children and issue their visas. In addition, USCIS and State officials
    noted concerns with intercountry adoptions abuses in Guatemala, which
    research conducted for United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)
    corroborated. In both countries, we interviewed USCIS and State Bureau of
    Consular Affairs officials managing the U.S. intercountry adoption
    process. We also met with foreign government officials and private
    adoption facilitators and visited orphanages to learn about their
    respective roles in the adoption process and their views on the risks
    associated with intercountry adoptions in Guatemala and Russia. The
    information on foreign law in this report does not reflect our independent
    legal analysis, but is based on interviews and secondary sources.

    To describe the Hague Convention and the statuses of U.S. and top sending
    countries' implementation of the Convention, we analyzed the text of the
    Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of
    Intercountry Adoption to identify the purpose and standards of the
    Convention. We also analyzed the U.S. Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000,
    which provides for the implementation of the Convention by the United
    States. We also reviewed State's Web sites and documents regarding the
    status of its implementation of the Convention, including comments on
    draft regulations and State's Fiscal Year 2006 Performance Summary. In
    addition, we interviewed USCIS and State officials to determine the status
    of the U.S. implementation of the Convention. Finally, we obtained data on
    other countries' ratification of the Convention from the Web site of The
    Hague Conference on Private International Law, which tracks the statuses

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    of countries that have signed and ratified the Convention. To verify that
    this data on the Web site was current, we interviewed an official from the
    member of the permanent bureau of the Convention. Furthermore, we
    discussed the implementation statuses of the Convention in their own
    countries with Guatemalan and Russian government officials.

    We performed our work from February to October 2005 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards.

                                      Appendix II

    Total Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by Country, Fiscal Year 2004

    Sending country                                        Number of adoptions
    Afghanistan                                                              1
    Albania                                                                  9
    Algeria                                                                  1
    Armenia                                                                 31
    Azerbaijan                                                              26
    Bangladesh                                                               9
    Barbados                                                                 1
    Belarus                                                                202
    Belize                                                                  13
    Benin                                                                    1
    Bolivia                                                                  5
    Bosnia-Herzegovina                                                       1
    Brazil                                                                  69
    Bulgaria                                                               110
    Burma                                                                    2
    Burundi                                                                  3
    Cameroon                                                                 6
    Canada                                                                   6
    Cape Verde                                                               1
    Central African Republic                                                 1
    Chile                                                                    4
    China-mainland born                                                  7,044
    China-Taiwan born                                                      109
    Colombia                                                               287
    Congo, Democratic Republic of the                                        1
    Costa Rica                                                              10
    Croatia                                                                  1
    Czech Republic                                                           2
    Djibouti                                                                 3
    Dominica                                                                 2
    Dominican Republic                                                      18
    Ecuador                                                                 28
    El Salvador                                                             16
    Eritrea                                                                  6
    Estonia                                                                 13
    Page 39                                  GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

    Appendix II Total Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by Country, Fiscal
    Year 2004 Appendix II Total Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by
    Country, Fiscal Year 2004 Appendix II Total Number of U.S. Intercountry
    Adoptions by Country, Fiscal Year 2004

         (Continued From Previous Page)
         Sending country                                      Number of adoptions
         Ethiopia                                                             289
         Fiji                                                                   2
         Georgia                                                               24
         Germany                                                                2
         Ghana                                                                 13
         Great Britain and Northern Ireland                                     1
         Greece                                                                 2
         Guatemala                                                          3,264
         Guyana                                                                36
         Haiti                                                                356
         Honduras                                                               8
         Hong Kong S.A.R.                                                      15
         Hungary                                                                8
         India                                                                406
         Indonesia                                                              2
         Iran                                                                   6
         Ireland                                                                3
         Jamaica                                                               51
         Japan                                                                 45
         Jordan                                                                 4
         Kazakhstan                                                           826
         Kenya                                                                 21
         Korea, South                                                       1,716
         Kyrgyzstan                                                             2
         Laos                                                                   4
         Latvia                                                                15
         Lebanon                                                               14
         Lesotho                                                                1
         Liberia                                                               86
         Lithuania                                                             29
         Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Rep. of                                 1
         Madagascar                                                             4
         Malaysia                                                               1
         Mali                                                                   1
         Marshall Islands, Republic of the                                      8
         Mexico                                                                89
         Moldova                                                               32
         Page 40                                GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

    (Continued From Previous Page)
    Sending country                                        Number of adoptions
    Mongolia                                                                23
    Morocco                                                                  7
    Mozambique                                                               3
    Nepal                                                                   73
    Nicaragua                                                               11
    Nigeria                                                                 71
    Pakistan                                                                32
    Panama                                                                   6
    Peru                                                                    21
    Philippines                                                            196
    Poland                                                                 102
    Portugal                                                                 4
    Romania                                                                 57
    Russia                                                               5,865
    Rwanda                                                                   3
    Saint Lucia                                                              2
    Saint Vincent and the Grenadines                                         2
    Samoa                                                                   34
    Senegal                                                                  2
    Serbia and Montenegro                                                    2
    Seychelles                                                               1
    Sierra Leone                                                            36
    Singapore                                                                1
    Slovakia                                                                 1
    Somalia                                                                  4
    South Africa                                                             8
    Sri Lanka                                                               13
    Swaziland                                                                1
    Syria                                                                    3
    Tajikistan                                                               6
    Tanzania                                                                 4
    Thailand                                                                69
    Togo                                                                     1
    Tonga                                                                    4
    Trinidad and Tobago                                                      8
    Turkey                                                                   5
    Uganda                                                                  17
    Page 41                                  GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

    (Continued From Previous Page)
    Sending country                                        Number of adoptions
    Ukraine                                                                723
    Uzbekistan                                                               3
    Vietnam                                                                 21
    Zambia                                                                  10
    Total                                                               22,884

                                     Source: State.

    Appendix III

    List of USCIS Overseas District and Sub Offices

    City             Country            Office type
    Bangkok          Thailand           District Office
    Beijing          China                   Sub Office under Bangkok District
                                                                           Office
    Guangzhou        China                   Sub Office under Bangkok District
                                                                           Office
    Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam                 Sub Office under Bangkok District
                                                                           Office
    Hong Kong        China                   Sub Office under Bangkok District
                                                                           Office
    Manila              Philippines          Sub Office under Bangkok District
                                                                           Office
    Seoul            Korea                   Sub Office under Bangkok District
                                                                           Office
    Mexico City      Mexico             District Office
    Ciudad Juarez    Mexico              Sub Office under Mexico City District
                                                                           Office
    Guatemala City       Guatemala       Sub Office under Mexico City District
                                                                           Office
    Havana           Cuba                Sub Office under Mexico City District
                                                                           Office
    Kingston         Jamaica             Sub Office under Mexico City District
                                                                           Office
    Lima             Peru                Sub Office under Mexico City District
                                                                           Office
    Monterrey        Mexico              Sub Office under Mexico City District
                                                                           Office
    Panama City      Panama              Sub Office under Mexico City District
                                                                           Office
    Port-au-Prince   Haiti               Sub Office under Mexico City District
                                                                           Office
    San Salvador        El Salvador      Sub Office under Mexico City District
                                                                           Office
    Santo Domingo    Dominican Republic  Sub Office under Mexico City District
                                                                           Office
    Tegucigalpa           Honduras       Sub Office under Mexico City District
                                                                           Office
    Tijuana          Mexico              Sub Office under Mexico City District
                                                                           Office
    Rome             Italy              District Office
    Accra            Ghana              Sub Office under Rome District Office
    Athens           Greece             Sub Office under Rome District Office
    Frankfurt        Germany            Sub Office under Rome District Office
    Islamabad        Pakistan           Sub Office under Rome District Office
    Johannesburg        South Africa    Sub Office under Rome District Office
    London           England            Sub Office under Rome District Office
    Moscowa          Russia             Sub Office under Rome District Office
    Nairobi          Kenya              Sub Office under Rome District Office
    New Delhi        India              Sub Office under Rome District Office

    Source: USCIS data.

    aAlthough USCIS has a Sub Office in Moscow, Russia, USCIS officials in
    Moscow do not handle U.S. intercountry adoption cases. Instead, State's
    consular officers approve these cases in Moscow.

    Appendix IV

    Hague Ratification by Country and U.S. Intercountry Adoption Totals for Fiscal
    Year 2004

    Figure 6: World Map of Hague Ratification by Country and U.S. Intercountry
    Adoption Totals for Fiscal Year 2004

    Hague   Number of            Hague Number of             Hague   Number of
    countries adoptions        countries adoptions         countries adoptions
    Albania         9          Brazil         69          Costa Rica        10
    Andorra         0           Bulgaria      110             Cyprus         0
    Australia         0        Burkina Faso     0         Czech Republic     2
    Austria           0         Burundi         3           Denmark          0
    Azerbaijan       26         Canada          6           Ecuador         28
    Belarus       202            Chile          4         El Salvador       16
    Belgium           0          China      7,044           Estonia         13
    Bolivia           5        Colombia     287             Finland          0

    Appendix V

    Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

    GAO-06-133.

    Appendix V Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

                                      Appendix VI

                         Comments from the Department of State

    Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
    end of this appendix.

    Appendix VI Comments from the Department of State

                                      GAO-06-133.

    Appendix VI Comments from the Department of State

    Appendix VI Comments from the Department of State

    Now on p. 12. See comment 1.

    Appendix VI Comments from the Department of State

    Now on p. 21. See comment 2.

    Appendix VI Comments from the Department of State

    Appendix VI Comments from the Department of State

    Appendix VI Comments from the Department of State

    Appendix VI Comments from the Department of State

    Appendix VI Comments from the Department of State

    Appendix VI Comments from the Department of State

    Appendix VI Comments from the Department of State

    Appendix VI Comments from the Department of State

    The following are GAO's comments on the letter from the Department of
    State dated October 12, 2005.

    GAO Comments 1. State commented that the draft report's table of countries
                       that currently
                       maintain restrictions on intercountry adoptions included
                       countries
                       affected by the 2004 South Asian tsunami. The department
                       did not
                       believe that it was appropriate to do so because the
                       region was
                       following accepted international practices rather than
                       imposing
                       restrictions on intercountry adoptions in contrast to the
                       other countries
                       included in the table. We removed this listing from the
                       table.
                       State provided additional information regarding its
                    2. outreach efforts to
                       the adoption community, which we added to the report.

    Appendix VII

                         GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    Jess Ford (202) 512-4268 or fordj@gao.gov

    GAO Contact

    In addition to the individual named above, Phyllis Anderson, Assistant

    Staff

    Director; Joe Carney; Tracey Cross; Mark Dowling; Joel Grossman; Rhonda
    Horried; and Victoria Lin made key contributions to this report.

    GAO's Mission

    The Government Accountability 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 GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov) . Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
    Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
    Web site. To

    have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
    www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

                                 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. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
    512-6061

    To Report Fraud, Contact:

    Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

    Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
    512-7470

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
    Washington, D.C. 20548

    Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

    Public Affairs

    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548

      PRINTED ON

    RECYCLED PAPER
    *** End of document. ***