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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
Washington, D.C. 20548

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (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. ***