Immigration Benefits: Internal Controls for Adjudicating	 
Humanitarian Parole Cases Are Generally Effective, but Some Can  
Be Strengthened (06-FEB-08, GAO-08-282).			 
                                                                 
The Immigration and Nationality Act requires that most visitors  
and immigrants to the United States obtain a visa. Aliens unable 
to obtain a visa, and with a compelling humanitarian need, may	 
apply to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be granted 
humanitarian parole. This permits an alien to enter the United	 
States on a temporary basis. Parole responsibility rests with	 
DHS's Humanitarian Assistance Branch (HAB), which was transferred
to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in	 
August 2007. In response to congressional requesters, GAO	 
examined (1) the characteristics of those who applied for	 
humanitarian parole since October 1, 2001, and (2) internal	 
controls HAB designed to adjudicate applications along with the  
extent to which HAB adhered to them. To conduct this work, GAO	 
analyzed HAB documents and data, such as its protocols and	 
database of all parole applications since October 1, 2001;	 
interviewed HAB officials about adjudication processes; and	 
interviewed attorneys who had helped individuals file for parole.
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-282 					        
    ACCNO:   A80533						        
  TITLE:     Immigration Benefits: Internal Controls for Adjudicating 
Humanitarian Parole Cases Are Generally Effective, but Some Can  
Be Strengthened 						 
     DATE:   02/06/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Aliens						 
	     Claims						 
	     Claims processing					 
	     Data collection					 
	     Employee training					 
	     Illegal aliens					 
	     Immigration					 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Visas						 
	     Policies and procedures				 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-282

   

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. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

February 2008: 

Immigration Benefits: 

Internal Controls for Adjudicating Humanitarian Parole Cases Are 
Generally Effective, but Some Can Be Strengthened: 

GAO-08-282: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-282, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Immigration and Nationality Act requires that most visitors and 
immigrants to the United States obtain a visa. Aliens unable to obtain 
a visa, and with a compelling humanitarian need, may apply to the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be granted humanitarian 
parole. This permits an alien to enter the United States on a temporary 
basis. Parole responsibility rests with DHSï¿½s Humanitarian Assistance 
Branch (HAB), which was transferred to the U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) in August 2007. In response to 
congressional requesters, GAO examined (1) the characteristics of those 
who applied for humanitarian parole since October 1, 2001, and (2) 
internal controls HAB designed to adjudicate applications along with 
the extent to which HAB adhered to them. To conduct this work, GAO 
analyzed HAB documents and data, such as its protocols and database of 
all parole applications since October 1, 2001; interviewed HAB 
officials about adjudication processes; and interviewed attorneys who 
had helped individuals file for parole. 

What GAO Found: 

The 8,748 humanitarian parole applications that HAB adjudicated from 
October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, displayed various 
characteristicsï¿½54 percent of the applicants were female and 46 
percent, male; 45 percent of the applicants came from 11 countries, 
with the largest number from Mexico. Sixty-four percent of the requests 
for humanitarian parole were for family reunification or medical 
emergency. Persons under age 18 had a 35 percent grant rateï¿½higher than 
the rate for applicants over 18 and consistent with the stated purposes 
of humanitarian parole. Seventy-six percent of applications were 
denied; 24 percent were granted. Among multiple reasons cited for 
denial by adjudicators in a projectible sample of cases we analyzed, an 
estimated 57 percent of applicants had not exhausted other avenues of 
immigration available to them before applying for humanitarian parole, 
as generally is required. Data analysis revealed few differences in 
parole denial rates with regard to gender or, with two exceptions, 
country of residence. While denial recommendation rates for individual 
adjudicators varied, HAB officials stated that this is expected because 
the facts and circumstances of cases vary and adjudicators have 
different backgrounds and experiences that might affect their reviews 
of an application. 

HAB has designed internal controls to help ensure that requests for 
humanitarian parole are decided in accordance with applicable 
guidelines; these controls have been functioning as intended. 
Specifically, HAB has, among other controls, clear and detailed written 
policies and procedures, including a requirement that every application 
be reviewed by two adjudicators and that if they disagree, a third is 
to make a ï¿½tie-breakingï¿½ recommendation. A final decision is then made 
by the HAB Branch Chief or a designee, but if the Branch Chief decides 
to override the adjudicatorsï¿½ recommendations, the case is first 
discussed with higher-level officials. A computerized data system also 
records key information in every case. While HABï¿½s controls are 
generally effective, three areas can be strengthened. First, following 
a transfer of HAB to USCIS, HAB may no longer have a sufficient number 
of permanent staff to ensure it continues to follow policies and 
procedures, since two adjudicators are insufficient to provide 
independent reviews of requests for reconsiderationï¿½HAB guidance 
recommends that such requests be reviewed by two additional 
adjudicators not previously involved. Second, HAB does not have a 
formal training program for new staff who may be detailed to help 
process applications. Such training is essential to ensure that 
criteria for granting and denying parole are applied consistently and 
fairly by the adjudicators. Third, USCISï¿½s Web site has limited 
information about the circumstances under which a person may apply for 
humanitarian parole. More information and clearer instructions could 
reduce the number of applications from those who had not taken the 
steps generally required before applying for humanitarian parole, such 
as exhausting other available avenues for entry into the United States. 

What GAO Recommends: 

To ensure that HAB processes applications consistent with its 
protocols, GAO recommends that DHS review HAB staffing levels; create a 
formal training program for adjudicating parole cases; and revise Web 
site instructions for parole applicants. DHS concurred with the 
recommendations and stated that it had begun taking actions to 
implement them. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-282]. For more information, contact 
Richard Stana at (202) 512-8777 or [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

About Three-Fourths of Humanitarian Parole Applications Were Denied 
with Few Differences in Denial Rates by Demographic Characteristic and 
Some Differences in Adjudicator Recommendations: 

HAB Generally Had Effective Internal Controls, but Those Related to 
Staffing, Training, and Communication with Stakeholders Could Be 
Strengthened: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Major Reasons for Humanitarian Parole Requests and Factors 
HAB Considers when Adjudicating Applications: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Humanitarian Parole Adjudication Decision Outcomes, Fiscal 
Years 2002 to 2007: 

Table 2: Gender of Humanitarian Parole Applicants, Fiscal Years 2002 to 
2007: 

Table 3: Countries of Residence of Humanitarian Parole Applicants, 
Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007: 

Table 4: Humanitarian Parole Applicants by Age Group, Fiscal Years 2002 
to 2007: 

Table 5: Estimated Percentage of Applications Where Reason for Denial 
Was Cited, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007: 

Table 6: Approval and Denial Rates by Gender, Fiscal Years 2002 to 
2007: 

Table 7: Humanitarian Parole Adjudications by Applicantsï¿½ Country of 
Residence, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007: 

Table 8: Percentage of Applications Granted and Denied by Age Group, 
Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007: 

Table 9: Number and Percentage of Adjudication Recommendations for 
Granting and Denying Humanitarian Parole by Adjudicator, Fiscal Years 
2002 to 2007: 

Table 10: Sample Population Used for Content Analyses: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: The Humanitarian Parole Application and Adjudication Process: 

Figure 2: Estimated Frequency of Reasons for Humanitarian Parole 
Requests, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007: 

Figure 3: Median Number of Calendar Days to Process Humanitarian Parole 
Applications, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007: 

Abbreviations: 

AILA: American Immigration Lawyers Association: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

FMFIA: Federal Management Financial Integrity Act of 1982: 

HAB: Humanitarian Assistance Branch: 

HRIFA: Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998: 

HIAS: Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society: 

ICE: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

INA: Immigration and Nationality Act: 

INS: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service: 

PCTS: Parole Case Tracking System: 

USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

February 6, 2008: 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 
Chairman: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren: 
Chairwoman: 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and 
International Law: Committee on the Judiciary: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee: 
House of Representatives: 

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) generally requires that most 
aliens wishing to visit or immigrate to the United States obtain a 
Department of State-issued visa.1 As a method of last resort, foreign 
nationals normally required to have a visa may be allowed to enter the 
United States without oneï¿½with the approval of the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS)ï¿½on a temporary, case-by-case basis for urgent 
humanitarian reasons. This process is called humanitarian parole and 
may be used for such reasons as to allow aliens to obtain urgent 
medical treatment in the United States or to reunify young children 
with relatives. Humanitarian parole does not constitute permanent 
admission of the alien into the country; once the purpose of the parole 
is fulfilled, the alien is to leave the United States. 

Prior to the creation of DHS in March 2003, the authority to parole 
individuals into the United States rested within the Department of 
Justiceï¿½s U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Parole 
authority was transferred to DHS upon the agencyï¿½s creation and 
administered by the Humanitarian Assistance Branch (HAB) [Footnote 2] 
within U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In August 2007, 
DHS transferred HAB from ICE to its U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS). 

In response to several news articles citing delays and denials of 
humanitarian parole to young children, you asked us to review DHSï¿½s 
policies and procedures for adjudicating humanitarian parole 
applications. This report addresses the following questions: (1) What 
are the characteristics of those who applied for and were either 
granted or denied humanitarian parole since fiscal year 2002 and did 
approval and denial rates differ according to these characteristics or 
the adjudicator assigned? (2) What internal controls has HAB designed 
to adjudicate humanitarian parole applications and to what extent did 
HAB adhere to these internal controls when processing humanitarian 
parole applications? 

To determine the characteristics of those who applied for and were 
either granted or denied humanitarian parole, we analyzed data on 8,748 
humanitarian parole applications adjudicated from October 1, 2001, 
through June 30, 2007, contained in DHSï¿½s automated Parole Case 
Tracking System (PCTS). The system contains various applicant 
demographic characteristics such as age; gender; and country of 
residence; the reason why the applicant requested humanitarian parole 
(e.g., medical emergency or family reunification); the recommendations 
by individual adjudicators involved in adjudicating the application; 
and the adjudication decision. To determine whether approval and denial 
rates differed according to applicantsï¿½ demographic characteristics 
(e.g., gender, country of residence, age) and whether these rates 
differed by adjudicator, we analyzed PCTS data on the outcomes of 
adjudication decisions by these characteristics and by the 
recommendations made by adjudicators. We did not review the underlying 
merits of these decisions to identify possible reasons for any 
similarities or differences. 

Hard copy application files (for both granted and denied cases) were 
only available for the March 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007, time 
period. To determine the reliability of the PCTS data, we compared 
selected data from a stratified probability sample of 145 hard-copy 
application case files from this time period with the PCTS data for 
those cases, reviewed relevant documentation such as HAB protocols for 
adjudicating humanitarian parole applications, and met with 
knowledgeable officials. We determined that the PCTS data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. 

Each adjudication case in PCTS has two text boxes into which two 
different adjudicators each enter information about the reason for the 
request, and their explanation for their recommendation for or against 
granting humanitarian parole. To examine the reasons for requests for 
humanitarian parole, we selected a stratified probability sample of 462 
cases from fiscal year 2002 through June 30, 2007, and performed a 
content analysis of the reasons for the requests contained in the text 
boxes. [Footnote 3] We categorized the explanations in the text boxes 
for requesting humanitarian parole into the four major categories 
defined by HAB: (1) life-threatening medical emergencies; (2) family 
reunification for compelling humanitarian reasons; (3) emergent, 
defined by the HAB as including the need to visit an ill family member 
or to resolve matters associated with the death of a relative or to 
attend a funeral; and (4) ï¿½other,ï¿½ such as a caregiver needed to care 
for someone in the United States. To determine the reasons for which 
applicants were denied humanitarian parole, we reviewed the cases in 
our sample in which the applicant was denied humanitarian parole and 
performed a content analysis of the reasons for the denials of parole 
contained in the text boxes. We then categorized the explanations for 
denials into 10 categories; HAB officials confirmed these categories. 
These included, for example, that the applicant had not first exhausted 
alternative immigration processes that might have been available, such 
as obtaining a visa, absent urgent circumstances that made it 
impractical to do so, or had not provided sufficient evidence of a 
claimed medical emergency, or that the applicant had committed a prior 
immigration violation or crime. 

To determine what internal controls HAB designed to adjudicate 
humanitarian parole applications and the extent to which HAB adhered to 
these internal controls, we obtained HAB policies and procedures and 
compared them with standards for internal control in the federal 
government [Footnote 4] and other internal control guidance related to 
control activities, staffing levels, training, and communication with 
external clients. [Footnote 5] We also interviewed HAB officials 
regarding how HAB internal controls are interpreted and followed. To 
determine the extent to which internal controls were adhered to, we 
reviewed our sample of cases selected to assess the reliability of the 
PCTS data to determine whether the case files contained documentation 
that a required control, (e.g., supervisory review), had been followed. 
Our probability sample allowed us to conclude that this control was 
effective for PCTS applications in the March 1, 2007, to June 30, 2007, 
time period. 

We also interviewed attorneys and accredited representatives who had 
helped individuals file humanitarian parole applications to obtain 
their views on the humanitarian parole process. We interviewed 10 
immigration attorneys who belonged to the American Immigration Lawyers 
Association (AILA) as well as 2 accredited representatives from 2 non-
profit organizations that offer legal assistance to immigrants. The 
attorneys whom we interviewed responded to a request from the 
organization that invited its members to contact us regarding their 
experiences with humanitarian parole issues. Because we selected the 
attorneys and accredited representatives using nonprobabilistic 
methods, their views cannot be generalized to the immigration law 
community. Additional details on our scope and methodology can be found 
in appendix I. We conducted this performance audit from May 2007 
through January 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform 
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

The 8,748 humanitarian parole applications that HAB adjudicated from 
October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, displayed various 
characteristics. Specifically, 54 percent of the applicants were 
female; 46 percent, male. Forty-five percent of the applicants were 
residents of 11 foreign countries, with Mexico having the greatest 
number of applicants. Based on our content analysis sample, an 
estimated 64 percent [Footnote 6] of the requests for humanitarian 
parole were for two reasonsï¿½family reunification (49 percent) and 
medical emergency (15 percent). Of the 8,748 adjudicated applications, 
24 percent were granted and 76 percent were denied. Based on our review 
of a probability sample from the PCTS database for applications that 
were denied, we estimate that the adjudicators noted that 57 percent of 
all applicants had not first exhausted other avenues of immigration 
available to themï¿½such as applying for a visa, absent urgent 
circumstances that made it impractical to do soï¿½before applying for 
humanitarian parole. Under HAB protocols, application for a visa 
generally should have been made and rejected, prior to applying for 
humanitarian parole. Our analysis of data in PCTS found few differences 
in the granting or denial of humanitarian parole related to gender and, 
with two exceptions, related to country of residence. Men and women 
were granted parole in almost identical percentages every year since 
fiscal year 2002. With regard to country of residence, of the 11 
foreign nations in which most applicants were residing, applicants from 
Haiti had the lowest rate of approval (8 percent) while those from 
Cuba, El Salvador, India, Iran, Iraq, and Mexico had almost identical 
approval rates (between 18 and 22 percent), and applicants from Lebanon 
had the highest approval rate (55 percent). HAB officials attributed 
the Haitiansï¿½ low rate to special immigration eligibility rules for 
Haitians that were not well understood by applicants, and the high rate 
for Lebanese residents to special circumstances resulting from 
evacuations associated with the July 2006 conflict between Israel and 
Hezbollah, in southern Lebanon. Applicants under age 18 were more 
likely to have been granted humanitarian parole than were adult 
applicants. This is consistent with the stated purposes of humanitarian 
parole and the HAB protocols that facilitate family reunification of 
minors in circumstances of compelling humanitarian need. While 35 
percent of the applicants under age 18 were granted humanitarian 
parole, no other age group had a grant rate over 25 percent. While the 
27 adjudicators who have made recommendations since fiscal year 2002 
collectively recommended that 75 percent of the humanitarian parole 
applications be denied, the denial recommendation rates for individual 
adjudicators varied. HAB officials stated that they expected variation 
among individual adjudicators because the facts and circumstances of 
each application varied and adjudicators do not all review the same 
applications. Officials noted that no single adjudicatorï¿½s 
recommendation can serve as the basis for a final decision; every case 
requires at least two adjudicatorsï¿½ recommendations, followed by review 
and a final decision by the HAB Branch Chief or a designee. The six 
adjudicators who had the highest workload from fiscal year 2002 through 
June 30, 2007ï¿½accounting for about 84 percent of all adjudication 
recommendationsï¿½had denial recommendation rates that ranged from 66 
percent to 84 percent. 

HAB has designed internal controls to help ensure that requests for 
humanitarian parole are decided in a fair, equitable, and objective 
manner. Our review of case files and the PCTS database found that these 
controls were generally effective, that is, functioning as intended. To 
help ensure objectivity and fairness in a decision-making process that 
is discretionary under the law, HAB has written policies and 
procedures, including a requirement that every application be reviewed 
by two adjudicators who make a recommendation on whether to approve or 
deny the application. If the first two disagree, a third makes a ï¿½tie-
breakingï¿½ recommendation. Further, each application is then reviewed by 
the HAB Branch Chief or a designee, who then makes the final decision. 
However, according to the HAB Branch Chief, if he or the designee 
decides to override the adjudicatorsï¿½ recommendations, he or the 
designee would discuss this with one of his two supervisors before a 
final decision is made. HAB staff also used informal roundtable 
discussions to help decide especially difficult or complex cases. 
Another internal control requires a data system to track, process, and 
record the key information in every single case. Our review found that 
PCTS is used and does serve to reliably track application information 
and record the adjudication results. Another HAB internal control 
intended to ensure that applicantsï¿½ requests are processed reasonably 
quicklyï¿½an important factor in humanitarian cases that involve 
emergency medical or family issuesï¿½is a stated goal to adjudicate cases 
within 60 to 90 days. PCTS data show that cases were adjudicated within 
this time frame, with the median time for grants being 8 to 18 days and 
the median time for denials ranging from 10 to 22 days in fiscal years 
2002 through 2006. Through June 30 of fiscal year 2007, the median time 
increased to 53 days for grants and 36 days for denials, which the HAB 
Branch Chief attributed to the additional security checks now required 
before final approval. While HAB generally has effective controls, 
three areas can be strengthened to more fully comport with internal 
control standards. First, although internal controls standards state 
that an agency must have sufficient staff to carry out its duties, HAB 
may no longer have a sufficient number of staff to ensure it continues 
to follow its policies and procedures. As of December 2007, the program 
had two permanent adjudicatorsï¿½significantly fewer than the number 
available before the August 2007 movement of HAB from ICE to USCISï¿½-and 
less than the number needed to ensure that at least two adjudicators 
and a third, if needed, are available to process applications. HAB 
officials told us that the prospects for getting additional staff were 
uncertain and that until permanent staff were assigned, HAB planned to 
use adjudicators detailed from other USCIS units to help adjudicate 
humanitarian parole applications. Second, internal control standards 
state that providing formal training is a method by which an agency can 
address expertise and experience issues. HAB does not have a formal 
training program for new staff who may be detailed to its office from 
elsewhere in USCIS to help process humanitarian parole applications, 
thereby increasing the risk that adjudicators may not have the 
expertise to adjudicate applications in accordance with applicable 
guidelines. Third, internal control standards state that agencies 
should establish open and effective communications channels with 
customers. USCISï¿½s Web siteï¿½the primary means of communicating program 
criteria to potential applicantsï¿½does not have all needed information 
about the circumstances under which a person may apply for humanitarian 
parole, including the need to first exhaust other immigration 
alternatives (e.g., obtaining a visa), except in circumstances of 
compelling emergency. Nor does it state that those convicted of an 
immigration infraction, or other crime, are generally ineligible for 
humanitarian parole. This lack of information about the need for 
applicants to generally first exhaust other immigration alternatives, 
absent a compelling emergency, leaves open the possibility that some 
applicants might not realize that they generally have to have been 
denied a visa, or be unable to obtain one in time to cope with an 
emergency, such as attending a funeral, to request humanitarian parole. 
As a result, applicants may be losing time, as well as the $305 
application fee required to apply for humanitarian parole. In addition, 
HABï¿½s workload could be increased unnecessarily, putting additional 
strains on its limited staff. 

To help ensure that HAB continues to adhere to its existing policies 
and procedures and to strengthen its internal controls, we are 
recommending that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the 
Director of USCIS to ensure that the appropriate number of permanent 
staff is available to process humanitarian parole applications, develop 
a formal training program for new and detailed staff, and revise 
USCISï¿½s Web site information and instructions for humanitarian parole. 
In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS said it agreed with our 
recommendations and discussed actions it has underway to address them. 
Written comments from DHS are in appendix III. 

Background: 

Humanitarian paroleï¿½in the context of immigrationï¿½refers to official 
permission for an otherwise inadmissible alien to legally enter the 
United States temporarily. This includes aliens required to have a visa 
to visit or immigrate to the United States who are unable to obtain 
one, either due to ineligibility or urgent circumstances that make it 
impractical to apply for one. Specifically, the Immigration and 
Nationality Act grants the Secretary of Homeland Security discretionary 
authority to parole an alien into the United States temporarily on a 
case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons, such as to obtain 
medical treatment not available in his or her home country, visit a 
dying relative, or reunify young children with relatives. [Footnote 7] 
Granted for a maximum of 1 year, humanitarian parole does not 
constitute permanent admission of the alien into the country. Once the 
purpose of the parole is fulfilled, the alien is to leave the United 
States. [Footnote 8] According to the associated HAB protocols for 
adjudicating humanitarian parole applications, humanitarian parole is 
an extraordinary measure, to be used sparingly and not to circumvent 
normal visa-issuing procedures. 

The humanitarian parole application process begins when HAB receives an 
application and supporting evidence (e.g., a doctorï¿½s statement 
regarding a physical ailment or a death certificate for a family 
member) from the requester, who may be the applicant, the applicantï¿½s 
attorney, or someone applying on the applicantï¿½s behalf. [Footnote 9] 
Upon receiving an application, a HAB staff member checks to ensure that 
the applicant is seeking humanitarian parole, the required information 
is entered on the application form (Form I-131), and the package 
includes the $305 application processing fee. If the application is 
complete, the HAB staff member enters the information from the Form I-
131 into the PCTS database. In turn, the PCTS generates a letter to 
confirm receipt of the application and assigns a case number. The 
adjudicator [Footnote 10] then runs a security check on both the 
applicant (called the beneficiary) and the person requesting 
humanitarian parole, if different from the applicant, against two 
federally operated security databases. 

If there is no match with immigration or national security databases 
indicating a security issue with the person(s) applying for 
humanitarian parole, the HAB Chief (or designee) signs the confirmation-
of-receipt letter, which is sent to the applicant or the person 
applying on his or her behalf. The HAB staff then create a working case 
file. Urgent cases, such as those related to medical treatment, are 
placed in red folders and given higher priority over less urgent cases, 
which are placed in green folders. HAB officials told us that urgent 
cases are processed immediately. Figure 1 illustrates the process for 
adjudicating applications for humanitarian parole. 

Figure 1: The Humanitarian Parole Application and Adjudication Process: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the Humanitarian Parole Application 
and Adjudication Process, depicting the following data: 

Process: 
Applicant: mails application to: 
Humanitarian Assistance Branch (HAB) (Washington D.C.); HAB employee 
checks package: 
* Applicant for humanitarian parole? 
* Required information filled in? 
* Check for processing fee included? HAB staff member prioritizes 
applications: 
* Emergency or juvenile (urgent) ï¿½ red folder; 
* All others (less urgent) ï¿½ green folder; I-131 info entered into 
PCTS; 
Preliminary background check against immigration and national security 
data bases; Print confirmation of receipt letter and assign case 
number; HAB Branch Chief or designee signs letter; First adjudication 
drawer; 
Case file sent to First adjudicator; Recommendation entered in PCTS; 
Second adjudication drawer; 
Case file sent to Second adjudicator; Recommendation entered in PCTS; 
First and second adjudicators concur: 
* If yes, sent to HAB Branch Chief or designee; 
* If no, Third adjudicator reviews and breaks tie, then sent to HAB 
Branch Chief or designee; Additional security check against national 
security data bases of applicants recommended for approval; HAB Branch 
Chief or designee reviews decision; signs if she/he concurs; Letter is 
sent to applicant and attorney (if any); If parole is granted, HAB 
electronically notifies consulate or embassy; Parolee obtains official 
travel document at embassy or consulate. 

Source: GAO analysis of HAB information. 

[End of figure] 

About Three-Fourths of Humanitarian Parole Applications Were Denied 
with Few Differences in Denial Rates by Demographic Characteristic and 
Some Differences in Adjudicator Recommendations: 

The 8,748 humanitarian parole applications that HAB adjudicated from 
October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, displayed various 
characteristics, and grant and denial rates did not differ for most of 
them, although there were some differences in adjudicator 
recommendations. Specifically, 54 percent were female; 46 percent, 
male. Forty-five percent of the applicants came from 11 countries, with 
Mexico having the greatest number of applicants. Most, 68 percent, were 
under the age of 40. Sixty-four percent of the requests for 
humanitarian parole were for two reasonsï¿½family reunification (49 
percent) and medical emergency (15 percent). Of the 8,748 adjudicated 
applications, 6,615, or about 76 percent, were denied. 

We estimate that 57 percent of the denials specified as a reason that 
the applicant had not first exhausted all other avenues of immigration, 
such as applying for a visa, and that in 13 percent of the denials, 
applicants had committed an infraction of immigration law or other 
crimeï¿½both of which are generally disqualifying factors, absent what 
the USCIS Web site on humanitarian parole describes as ï¿½a very 
compelling emergency.ï¿½ We found few differences in the granting or 
denial rates with regard to the demographic characteristic of gender 
and, with two exceptions, with regard to country of residence. However, 
we did find a difference in adjudication decisions for applicants under 
age 18, who had a higher grant rate than other age groups. This is 
consistent with the stated purposes of humanitarian parole and the HAB 
protocols that facilitate family reunification of minors in 
circumstances of compelling humanitarian need. There were some 
differences in grant/denial recommendation rates among adjudicators, 
with a denial recommendation rate of 66 to 84 percent for the 6 
adjudicators with the greatest workload who made 15,000 adjudication 
recommendations from fiscal year 2002 through June 30, 2007, or 84 
percent of all adjudicator recommendations. However, there was 
considerably greater variation among those who adjudicated fewer cases, 
with denial rates ranging from 43 percent to 93 percent of total 
recommendations among 18 other adjudicators who made 2,957 
recommendations, or 16 percent of the total. [Footnote 11] 

HAB Approved Humanitarian Parole for 24 Percent of Applicants: 

From October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, HAB adjudicated 8,748 
applications for humanitarian parole; of these, 24 percent were granted 
humanitarian parole, while 76 percent were denied parole. Table 1 
displays data on humanitarian parole adjudication decision outcomes 
from fiscal years 2002 through 2007. 

Table 1: Humanitarian Parole Adjudication Decision Outcomes, Fiscal 
Years 2002 to 2007: 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Grants: Numbers: 365; 
Grants: Percent of total decisions: 29; 
Denials: Numbers: 898; 
Denials: Percent of total decisions: 71; 
Total Decisions: 1,263. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Grants: Numbers: 364; 
Grants: Percent of total decisions: 25; 
Denials: Numbers: 1,092; 
Denials: Percent of total decisions: 75; 
Total Decisions: 1,456. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Grants: Numbers: 348; 
Grants: Percent of total decisions: 19; 
Denials: Numbers: 1,519; 
Denials: Percent of total decisions: 81; 
Total Decisions: 1,867. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Grants: Numbers: 367; 
Grants: Percent of total decisions: 23; 
Denials: Numbers: 1,263; 
Denials: Percent of total decisions: 77; 
Total Decisions: 1,630. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Grants: Numbers: 407; 
Grants: Percent of total decisions: 28; 
Denials: Numbers: 1,043; 
Denials: Percent of total decisions: 72; 
Total Decisions: 1,450. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Grants: Numbers: 282; 
Grants: Percent of total decisions: 26; 
Denials: Numbers: 800; 
Denials: Percent of total decisions: 74; 
Total Decisions: 1,082. 

Fiscal year: Total; 
Grants: Numbers: 2,133; 
Grants: Percent of total decisions: 24; 
Denials: Numbers: 6,615; 
Denials: Percent of total decisions: 76; 
Total Decisions: 8,748. 

Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data. 

Note: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007. 

[End of table] 

Applicants by Gender: 

Fifty-four percent of the humanitarian parole applicants were female 
and 46 percent were male. The gender ratios were generally consistent 
year to year, with the exception of fiscal year 2005 when 51 percent of 
applicants were male and 49 percent were female. Table 2 shows the 
number of humanitarian applicants by gender for fiscal years 2002 
through 2007. 

Table 2: Gender of Humanitarian Parole Applicants, Fiscal Years 2002 to 
2007: 

Fiscal Year: 2002; 
Total: 1,183; 
Male: 532; 
Percent: 45%; 
Female: 651; 
Percent: 55%. 

Fiscal Year: 2003; 
Total: 1,422; 
Male: 628; 
Percent: 44%; 
Female: 794; 
Percent: 56%. 

Fiscal Year: 2004; 
Total: 1,833; 
Male: 840; 
Percent: 46%; 
Female: 993; 
Percent: 54%. 

Fiscal Year: 2005; 
Total: 1,622; 
Male: 828; 
Percent: 51%; 
Female: 794; 
Percent: 49%. 

Fiscal Year: 2006; 
Total: 1,366; 
Male: 594; 
Percent: 43%; 
Female: 772; 
Percent: 57%. 

Fiscal Year: 2007; 
Total: 1,064; 
Male: 494; 
Percent: 46%; 
Female: 570; 
Percent: 54%. 

Fiscal Year: Total; 
Total: 8,490; 
Male: 3,916; 
Percent: 46%; 
Female: 4,574; 
Percent: 54. 

Gender not listed in PCTS: 258; 
Total number of decisions: 8,748. 

Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data. 

Note: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007. 

[End of table] 

Applicants by Country of Residence: 

Individuals from 167 different countries applied for humanitarian 
parole. Of the 8,748 applicants, 3,933 or 45 percent, were from 11 
countries; 4,632 applicants or 53 percent, were residents of 156 other 
countries, and no country of residence was listed in PCTS for 183 
applicants (2 percent). Residents of Mexico constituted the largest 
number of humanitarian parole applicants, about 9 percent. Table 3 
provides data on the number of final adjudications by country of 
residence for the top eleven countries. 

Table 3: Countries of Residence of Humanitarian Parole Applicants, 
Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007: 

Country of Residence: Mexico; 
Number of total final adjudications: 788; 
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 9%. 

Country of Residence: Philippines; 
Number of total final adjudications: 577; 
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 7%. 

Country of Residence: Cuba; 
Number of total final adjudications: 552; 
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 6%. 

Country of Residence: Lebanon; 
Number of total final adjudications: 307; 
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 4%. 

Country of Residence: India; 
Number of total final adjudications: 302; 
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 3%. 

Country of Residence: Colombia; 
Number of total final adjudications: 279; 
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 3%. 

Country of Residence: China, Peoples Republic of; 
Number of total final adjudications: 238; 
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 3%. 

Country of Residence: El Salvador; 
Number of total final adjudications: 235; 
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 3%. 

Country of Residence: Iraq; 
Number of total final adjudications: 231; 
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 3%. 

Country of Residence: Haiti; 
Number of total final adjudications: 212; 
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 2%. 

Country of Residence: Iran; 
Number of total final adjudications: 212; 
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 2%. 

Adjudication decisions total for top 11 countries: 
Number of total final adjudications: 3,933; 
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 45%. 

Rest of world total: 
Number of total final adjudications: 4,632; 
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 53%. 

Country of Residence unknown: 
Number of total final adjudications: 183; 
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 2%. 

Total: 
Number of total final adjudications: 8,748; 
Applications as a percent of total final adjudications: 100%. 

Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data. 

Notes: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007. 

The category ï¿½Rest of world totalï¿½ includes 316 applications for 
potential beneficiaries of humanitarian parole whom the PCTS database 
categorized as residing in the United States. 

[End of table] 

Applicants by Age Group: 

Most of the applicants for humanitarian parole were under age 40. Of 
the 8,692 applicants for whom the application contained data on their 
age in PCTS, 5,966, or 68 percent, were under age 40. Twenty-seven 
percent of all applicants were under the age of 18. Table 4 shows the 
number of humanitarian parole applicants by age group. 

Table 4: Humanitarian Parole Applicants by Age Group, Fiscal Years 2002 
to 2007: 

Age group of adjudicated applicants: Under 18; 
Number: 2,369; 
Percent of Total: 27. 

Age group of adjudicated applicants: 18-29; 
Number: 2,096; 
Percent of Total: 24. 

Age group of adjudicated applicants: 30-39; 
Number: 1,501; 
Percent of Total: 17. 

Age group of adjudicated applicants: 40-49; 
Number: 1,130; 
Percent of Total: 13. 

Age group of adjudicated applicants: 50-59; 
Number: 798; 
Percent of Total: 9. 

Age group of adjudicated applicants: 60-99; 
Number: 798; 
Percent of Total: 9. 

Age group of adjudicated applicants: No birth date in PCTS; 
Number: 56; 
Percent of Total: 1. 

Age group of adjudicated applicants: Total; 
Number: 8,748; 
Percent of Total: 100%. 

Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data. 

Note: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007. 

[End of table] 

HAB officials identified four broad reasons for humanitarian parole 
applications: (1) life-threatening medical emergencies; (2) family 
reunification for compelling humanitarian reasons; (3) emergent, such 
as to visit an ill family member, or to resolve matters associated with 
the death of a relative; and (4) "other," such as a caregiver needed to 
care for someone in the United States. We estimated that 64 percent of 
the requests for humanitarian parole were for two reasons--family 
reunification for compelling humanitarian reasons (49 percent) and 
medical emergency (15 percent). Figure 2 shows the percentage of 
applications adjudicated by reason for the request for fiscal years 
2002 through 2007, based on a probability sample of 462 cases that we 
reviewed. 

Figure 2: Estimated Frequency of Reasons for Humanitarian Parole 
Requests, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a pie-chart, depicting the following data: 

Family reunification for compelling humanitarian reasons: 49%; 
Life-threatening medical emergency: 15%; 
Emergent requests: 13%; 
Other compelling humanitarian requests: 23%. 

Source: GAO content analysis of sampled PCTS data. 

Note: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007. 

[End of figure] 

Several Reasons Were Cited for HAB's Denying Humanitarian Parole 
Applications: 

The PCTS database shows that since fiscal year 2002, 76 percent of all 
applicants were denied humanitarian parole. Based upon our review of 
the narrative summaries in our sample of denied applications, we 
identified 10 reasons adjudicators cited when recommending a 
humanitarian parole application be denied. HAB officials agreed that 
these categories represented the reasons for denial; they noted that 
because their decisions are discretionary, none of these reasons are in 
and of themselves automatically disqualifying. Rather, these are the 
reasons cited in the probability sample as the basis of the reasoning 
by the HAB adjudicators as leading to their denial recommendation. The 
10 categories were: 

* The applicant had not exhausted alternative immigration processes 
available to them for which they might have been eligible, such as 
obtaining a visa, absent urgent circumstances that made it impractical 
to do so. 

* The applicant provided no evidence supporting an emergent condition, 
such as a death certificate in the case where the request was to attend 
a funeral. 

* The applicant provided no or inadequate evidence to support the 
reason for the request for humanitarian parole, such as a claimed 
medical emergency. 

* The applicant had committed a prior immigration violation or other 
criminal violation. 

* The purpose of the parole was not temporary in nature. That is, HAB 
believed that the applicant intended to stay in the United States 
beyond the duration of a parole period. 

* Other family members already in the United States could provide care 
to the person intended to benefit from the presence of the applicant. 

* The needed medical treatment was available outside the United States. 

* There was insufficient evidence of adequate financial support to 
prevent the applicant from becoming a public charge while in the United 
States. 

* The applicant provided no proof of familial relationship in cases 
where a family relationship was claimed as the basis of the 
application. 

* Other: This was for applications that did not fall into the other 
categories. For example, other cases included when persons already 
approved for humanitarian parole mistakenly applied to HAB for an 
extension of their parole period rather than apply with a local USCIS 
district office. Another example was when an applicant for lawful 
permanent residency departed the United States without first obtaining 
the needed permission from USCIS and then applied for humanitarian 
parole to re-enter the United States, a situation that is not valid 
grounds for humanitarian parole. 

In recommending that an application be denied, adjudicators sometimes 
cited more than one reason in explaining their recommendation. For 
example, an adjudicator may have cited both that the applicant had not 
exhausted alternative immigration processes available and that the 
applicant provided no evidence supporting an emergent condition. Table 
5 below shows the estimated percentage of applications where a 
particular reason for denial was cited. 

Table 5: Estimated Percentage of Applications Where Reason for Denial 
Was Cited, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007: 

Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: Requester has not 
exhausted alternative immigration processes; 
Estimated percent: 57. 

Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: No evidence of an 
emergent condition; 
Estimated percent: 46. 

Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: No evidence or 
inadequate evidence provided to support the reason for application for 
humanitarian parole; 
Estimated percent: 36. 

Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: Prior immigration 
violation or crime; 
Estimated percent: 13. 

Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: Purpose of 
obtaining humanitarian parole is not temporary in nature (i.e., it was 
believed that the applicant intended to stay in the United States 
beyond the duration of a parole period); 
Estimated percent: 12. 

Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: Other family 
members in the US can provide care; 
Estimated percent: 4. 

Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: Needed medical 
treatment was available outside the U.S.; 
Estimated percent: 3. 

Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: Inadequate 
financial support to keep applicant from becoming a public charge while 
in the US; 
Estimated percent: 3. 

Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: Other; 
Estimated percent: 3. 

Reason for denial of humanitarian parole application: No proof of 
familial relationship as claimed by applicant; 
Estimated percent: 2. 

Source: GAO content analysis of sampled PCTS data. 

Note: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007. 

[End of table] 

Table 5 shows that an estimated 57 percent of the denials had as a 
reason that the applicant had not first exhausted other avenues of 
immigration, such as applying for a visa, absent urgent circumstances 
that made it impractical to do so. Table 5 also shows that an estimated 
46 percent of all the denied applicants had not provided evidence of an 
emergent condition and that an estimated 13 percent of denied 
applicants had committed an infraction of immigration law or other 
crime. These and the other reasons cited are generally disqualifying 
factors in applications for humanitarian parole. 

Humanitarian Parole Decision Outcomes Show Few Differences by Gender 
and Country of Residence, but Grant Rates Were Higher for Applicants 
under Age 18: 

HAB has considerable discretion in adjudicating humanitarian parole 
applications. According to HAB's guidance on adjudicating humanitarian 
parole applications, exercising discretion involves the ability to 
consider all factors in making a decision on whether a parole request 
rises to the level of an urgent humanitarian reason. The exercise of 
discretion requires that an adjudicator take into account applicable 
immigration law, regulations, policy and a consideration of the 
totality of the circumstances of the case including any significant 
mitigating factors. Most importantly, according to the guidance, 
discretionary decisions on humanitarian parole applications should be 
reached in a fair, equitable, and objective manner. 

We analyzed the PCTS data to determine whether there were differences 
in grant and denial rates according to applicants' gender, country of 
residence, age, and by adjudicators. The latter factor--the adjudicator 
involved--must be considered in the context of the adjudication 
process, which requires that each application be reviewed by two 
different adjudicators and that if the first two adjudicators disagree 
in their recommendation, a third adjudicator then reviews the 
application and makes a recommendation. Then, the HAB Branch Chief or a 
designee is required to provide supervisory review and make the final 
decision. Therefore, while individual adjudicators could vary in their 
recommendations, the internal control system is set up to ensure that 
no single adjudicator has a decisive role in the outcome decision. (We 
discuss these internal controls later in this report.) 

Our analysis showed virtually no difference in the grant and denial 
rates according to applicants' gender. With regard to country of 
residence, of the 11 foreign nations from which most applicants 
applied, applicants from Haiti had a lower rate of approval than the 
others while those from Cuba, El Salvador, India, Iran, Iraq, and 
Mexico had almost identical rates, and applicants from Lebanon had the 
highest grant rate. HAB officials attributed the lower rate for 
Haitians to special immigration eligibility rules for Haitians that 
were not well understood by applicants and the higher rate for Lebanese 
residents to special humanitarian circumstances resulting from 
evacuations associated with the July 2006 conflict in southern Lebanon 
between Israel and Hezbollah. 

Humanitarian parole-granting rates were higher for applicants under age 
18 than they were for adults, consistent with HAB protocols and 
practices that favor reunification of children under age 18 with 
parents or close relatives. Grant and denial recommendation rates by 
individual adjudicators varied, with greater variation among those who 
adjudicated fewer cases. According to HAB officials, variations were 
expected in the grant/denial recommendation rates among adjudicators, 
since the facts and circumstances of each application varied and 
adjudicators do not all review the same applications. However, these 
officials stated that the application process had been designed with 
multiple checks to ensure that no single person would be able to 
unfairly influence the decision outcome, and that informal roundtable 
discussions among many staff were also used to deal with particularly 
difficult cases. As a result, they said, while grant/denial 
recommendation rates could vary by adjudicator, the process had been 
set up to achieve outcomes based on what amounts to a consensus, rather 
than being the product of a single adjudicator's recommendation. 

Decision Outcomes Were Similar for Male and Female Applicants: 

For fiscal years 2002 to 2007, there were few differences in the annual 
grant/denial rates for male and female applicants, in adjudicated 
humanitarian parole decisions, with the exception of fiscal year 2005, 
when the grant rate for females was 21 percent and the grant rate for 
males was 24 percent. Table 6 shows the yearly approval and denial 
rates by gender. 

Table 6: Approval and Denial Rates by Gender, Fiscal Years 2002 to 
2007: 

Fiscal Year: 2002; 
Female: Grant: Number: 192; 
Female: Grant: Percent: 29%; 
Female: Deny: Number: 459; 
Female: Deny: Percent: 71%; 
Male: Grant: Number: 153; 
Male: Grant: Percent: 29%; 
Male: Deny: Number: 379; 
Male: Deny: Percent: 71%. 

Fiscal Year: 2003; 
Female: Grant: Number: 198; 
Female: Grant: Percent: 25%; 
Female: Deny: Number: 596; 
Female: Deny: Percent: 75%; 
Male: Grant: Number: 159; 
Male: Grant: Percent: 25%; 
Male: Deny: Number: 469; 
Male: Deny: Percent: 75%. 

Fiscal Year: 2004; 
Female: Grant: Number: 185; 
Female: Grant: Percent: 19%; 
Female: Deny: Number: 808; 
Female: Deny: Percent: 81%; 
Male: Grant: Number: 159; 
Male: Grant: Percent: 19%; 
Male: Deny: Number: 681; 
Male: Deny: Percent: 81%. 

Fiscal Year: 2005; 
Female: Grant: Number: 164; 
Female: Grant: Percent: 21%; 
Female: Deny: Number: 630; 
Female: Deny: Percent: 79%; 
Male: Grant: Number: 198; 
Male: Grant: Percent: 24%; 
Male: Deny: Number: 630; 
Male: Deny: Percent: 76%. 

Fiscal Year: 2006; 
Female: Grant: Number: 219; 
Female: Grant: Percent: 28%; 
Female: Deny: Number: 553; 
Female: Deny: Percent: 72%; 
Male: Grant: Number: 169; 
Male: Grant: Percent: 28%; 
Male: Deny: Number: 425; 
Male: Deny: Percent: 72%. 

Fiscal Year: 2007; 
Female: Grant: Number: 147; 
Female: Grant: Percent: 26%; 
Female: Deny: Number: 423; 
Female: Deny: Percent: 74%; 
Male: Grant: Number: 129; 
Male: Grant: Percent: 26%; 
Male: Deny: Number: 365; 
Male: Deny: Percent: 74%. 

Fiscal Year: Total[A]; 
Female: Grant: Number: 1105; 
Female: Grant: Percent: 24%; 
Female: Deny: Number: 3469; 
Female: Deny: Percent: 76%; 
Male: Grant: Number: 967; 
Male: Grant: Percent: 25%; 
Male: Deny: Number: 2949; 
Male: Deny: Percent: 75%. 

Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data. 

Notes: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007. 

The analysis did not include 258 applications for which PCTS did not 
contain the applicants' gender. 

[End of table] 

With Two Exceptions, There Were Few Differences in Decision Outcomes by 
Country of Residence: 

With two exceptions, there were few differences in the adjudication 
outcomes for grant or denial of humanitarian parole applications by 
country of residence. With the exception of applicants from Haiti and 
Lebanon, denial rates for the 11 countries that had the most applicants 
ranged from 68 percent to 82 percent, compared to the overall denial 
rate of 76 percent. The denial rate for Haitian applicants was 92 
percent; in contrast, applicants from Lebanon had the lowest denial 
rate--45 percent. According to HAB officials, the higher denial rate 
for Haitians may be in part a result of a high number of applications 
made by Haitians applying for humanitarian parole on behalf of 
relatives who did not qualify as derivative beneficiaries (spouses and 
dependent children) under the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act 
(HRIFA) of 1998.[Footnote 12] For example, an applicant might have 
applied on behalf of a sibling or extended relative who did not meet 
the requirements of the Act or those of the humanitarian parole 
program. With respect to applicants from Lebanon, HAB officials told us 
that the July 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah had generated 
applications for humanitarian parole under special urgent circumstances 
that probably produced a high grant rate. Table 7 shows the percentage 
of humanitarian parole applications granted and denied by the 11 
countries from which the most applicants originated as well as for the 
total program for fiscal years 2002 through 2007. 

Table 7: Humanitarian Parole Adjudications by Applicants' Country of 
Residence, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007: 

Country of Residence: Mexico; 
Number of final adjudications: 788; 
Number of grants: 139; 
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 18%; 
Number of denials: 649; 
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 82%. 

Country of Residence: Philippines; 
Number of final adjudications: 577; 
Number of grants: 137; 
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 24%; 
Number of denials: 440; 
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 76%. 

Country of Residence: Cuba; 
Number of final adjudications: 552; 
Number of grants: 103; 
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 19%; 
Number of denials: 449; 
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 81%. 

Country of Residence: Lebanon; 
Number of final adjudications: 307; 
Number of grants: 170; 
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 55%; 
Number of denials: 137; 
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 45%. 

Country of Residence: India; 
Number of final adjudications: 302; 
Number of grants: 57; 
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 19%; 
Number of denials: 245; 
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 81%. 

Country of Residence: Colombia; 
Number of final adjudications: 279; 
Number of grants: 88; 
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 32%; 
Number of denials: 191; 
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 68%. 

Country of Residence: China, People's Republic of; 
Number of final adjudications: 238; 
Number of grants: 63; 
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 26%; 
Number of denials: 175; 
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 74%. 

Country of Residence: El Salvador; 
Number of final adjudications: 235; 
Number of grants: 43; 
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 18%; 
Number of denials: 192; 
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 82%. 

Country of Residence: Iraq; 
Number of final adjudications: 231; 
Number of grants: 50; 
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 22%; 
Number of denials: 181; 
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 78%. 

Country of Residence: Haiti; 
Number of final adjudications: 212; 
Number of grants: 16; 
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 8%; 
Number of denials: 196; 
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 92%. 

Country of Residence: Iran; 
Number of final adjudications: 212; 
Number of grants: 42; 
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 20%; 
Number of denials: 170; 
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 80%. 

Country of Residence: Total Adjudication Decisions top 11 countries; 
Number of final adjudications: 3,933; 
Number of grants: 908; 
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 23%; 
Number of denials: 3,025; 
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 77%. 

Country of Residence: Rest of World; 
Number of final adjudications: 4,815; 
Number of grants: 1,225; 
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 25%; 
Number of denials: 3,590; 
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 75%. 

Country of Residence: Total Adjudication Decisions; 
Number of final adjudications: 8,748; 
Number of grants: 2,133; 
Grants as a percent of adjudications: 24%; 
Number of denials: 6,615; 
Denials as a percent of adjudications: 76%. 

Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data. 

Notes: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007. 

The category "Rest of World" includes 316 applications for potential 
beneficiaries of humanitarian parole that the PCTS database categorized 
as residing in the United States. This category also includes 183 
persons whose country of residence was not entered into the PCTS 
database. 

[End of table] 

Applicants under Age 18 Had Higher Rates of Being Granted Humanitarian 
Parole, Consistent with HAB Guidance: 

One of the reasons individuals can request humanitarian parole is to 
reunite young children with family members. HAB officials told us that 
they have followed a practice of applying this policy to those who are 
under age 18, since 18 is the age of majority in many countries. 
Consistent with this program goal, HAB granted humanitarian parole to 
35 percent of the applicants under 18, a higher rate than those for 
other age groups and 11 percentage points higher than the overall grant 
rate of 24 percent. Table 8 shows the grant and denial rates by age 
distribution. 

Table 8: Percentage of Applications Granted and Denied by Age Group, 
Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007: 

Age Group: Under 18; 
Percent Granted: 35%; 
Percent Denied: 65%. 

Age Group: 18-29; 
Percent Granted: 19%; 
Percent Denied: 81%. 

Age Group: 30-39; 
Percent Granted: 25%; 
Percent Denied: 75%. 

Age Group: 40-49; 
Percent Granted: 24%; 
Percent Denied: 76%. 

Age Group: 50-59; 
Percent Granted: 17%; 
Percent Denied: 83%. 

Age Group: 60-99; 
Percent Granted: 17%; 
Percent Denied: 83%. 

Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data. 

Note: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007. 

[End of table] 

Although Grant/Denial Recommendation Rates Varied among Adjudicators, 
Those Responsible for Most of the Cases Had Similar Rates: 

HAB's process for adjudicating humanitarian parole requests requires 
that at least two adjudicators review the application and make a 
recommendation to grant or deny the request. For the 8,748 applications 
adjudicated from October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, 27 
adjudicators made a total of 17,963 recommendations. Our analysis of 
PCTS data showed that of the 17,963 recommendations, 13,480 (75 
percent) were to deny the application. The grant/denial recommendation 
rates by adjudicators varied to some extent among adjudicators, with a 
denial rate of 66 to 84 percent for the 6 adjudicators with the 
greatest workloads, who made 15,000, or 84 percent, of all adjudicator 
recommendations from fiscal year 2002 through June 30, 2007. 
Collectively, these six adjudicators had a recommendation denial rate 
of 77 percent, slightly higher than the overall 75 percent 
recommendation denial rate for the period. Of these six adjudicators, 
the four who had the highest number of humanitarian parole cases-- 
accounting for just over 69 percent of all adjudicator recommendations-
-had recommendation denial rates that ranged from just over 76 percent 
to just under 84 percent. However, there was considerably greater 
variation among those who adjudicated fewer cases, with denial 
recommendation rates ranging from 43 percent to 93 percent of total 
recommendations among 18 other adjudicators who each made 15 or more 
recommendations, and a total of 2,957 recommendations, or 16 percent of 
the total, from fiscal year 2002 through June 30, 2007.[Footnote 13] 
Table 9 shows the approval and denial rates for all 27 adjudicators. 

Table 9: Number and Percentage of Adjudication Recommendations for 
Granting and Denying Humanitarian Parole by Adjudicator, Fiscal Years 
2002 to 2007: 

Adjudicator: 1; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 5,074; 
Percent of all recommendations: 28%; 
Number of denial recommendations: 3,863; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 76%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 1,211; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 24%. 

Adjudicator: 2; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 3,536; 
Percent of all recommendations: 20%; 
Number of denial recommendations: 2,957; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 84%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 579; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 16%. 

Adjudicator: 3; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 2,297; 
Percent of all recommendations: 13%; 
Number of denial recommendations: 1,754; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 76%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 543; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 24%. 

Adjudicator: 4; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 1,523; 
Percent of all recommendations: 8%; 
Number of denial recommendations: 1,185; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 78%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 338; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 22%. 

Adjudicator: 5; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 1,484; 
Percent of all recommendations: 8%; 
Number of denial recommendations: 973; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 66%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 511; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 34%. 

Adjudicator: 6; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 1,086; 
Percent of all recommendations: 6%; 
Number of denial recommendations: 819; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 75%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 267; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 25%. 

Adjudicator: 7; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 492; 
Percent of all recommendations: 3%; 
Number of denial recommendations: 337; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 69%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 155; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 32%. 

Adjudicator: 8; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 462; 
Percent of all recommendations: 3%; 
Number of denial recommendations: 314; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 68%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 148; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 32%. 

Adjudicator: 9; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 446; 
Percent of all recommendations: 2%; 
Number of denial recommendations: 191; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 43%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 255; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 57%. 

Adjudicator: 10; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 364; 
Percent of all recommendations: 2%; 
Number of denial recommendations: 218; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 60%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 146; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 40%. 

Adjudicator: 11; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 221; 
Percent of all recommendations: 1%; 
Number of denial recommendations: 155; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 70%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 66; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 30%. 

Adjudicator: 12; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 215; 
Percent of all recommendations: 1%; 
Number of denial recommendations: 169; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 79%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 46; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 21%. 

Adjudicator: 13; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 195; 
Percent of all recommendations: 1%; 
Number of denial recommendations: 108; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 55%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 87; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 45%. 

Adjudicator: 14; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 150; 
Percent of all recommendations: 1%; 
Number of denial recommendations: 112; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 75%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 38; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 25%. 

Adjudicator: 15; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 104; 
Percent of all recommendations: 1%; 
Number of denial recommendations: 77; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 74%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 27; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 26%. 

Adjudicator: 16; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 74; 
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty]; 
Number of denial recommendations: 65; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 88%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 9; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 12%. 

Adjudicator: 17; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 61; 
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty]; 
Number of denial recommendations: 57; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 93%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 4; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 7%. 

Adjudicator: 18; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 37; 
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty]; 
Number of denial recommendations: 31; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 84%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 6; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 16%. 

Adjudicator: 19; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 36; 
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty]; 
Number of denial recommendations: 19; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 53%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 17; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 47%. 

Adjudicator: 20; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 28; 
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty]; 
Number of denial recommendations: 23; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 82%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 5; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 18%. 

Adjudicator: 21; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 22; 
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty]; 
Number of denial recommendations: 12; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 55%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 10; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 45%. 

Adjudicator: 22; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 20; 
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty]; 
Number of denial recommendations: 18; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 90%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 2; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 10%. 

Adjudicator: 23; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 15; 
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty]; 
Number of denial recommendations: 8; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 53%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 7; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 47%. 

Adjudicator: 24; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 15; 
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty]; 
Number of denial recommendations: 13; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 87%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 2; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 13%. 

Adjudicator: 25; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 4; 
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty]; 
Number of denial recommendations: 0; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: [Empty]; 
Number of grant recommendations: 4; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 100%. 

Adjudicator: 26; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 1; 
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty]; 
Number of denial recommendations: 1; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 100%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 0; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: [Empty]. 

Adjudicator: 27; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 1; 
Percent of all recommendations: [Empty]; 
Number of denial recommendations: 1; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 100%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 0; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: [Empty]. 

Adjudicator: Total; 
Number of recommendations by adjudicator: 17,963; 
Percent of all recommendations: 100%; 
Number of denial recommendations: 13,480; 
Denials as a percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 75%; 
Number of grant recommendations: 4,483; 
Grants as percent of adjudicator's recommendations: 25%. 

Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data. 

Notes: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007. 

In the "percent of all recommendations" columns, if the percentage was 
less than 0.5 percent of the total, no percentage is shown. 

The total number of adjudication recommendations exceeds the number of 
applications adjudicated because two adjudicators are to make a 
recommendation on each case and, at times, a third adjudicator is asked 
to make a tie-breaking recommendation when the first two do not agree. 

[End of table] 

In discussing these data with HAB officials, they noted that three 
factors should be taken into consideration. First, the facts and 
circumstances of each application varied, and it is not expected that 
the grant/denial recommendation rate would be the same for all 
adjudicators because they do not all review the same applications. 
Second, each adjudicator brings a different background and work 
experience to the position. Thus, the adjudicators might judge the 
facts and circumstances of the same application somewhat differently. 
Third, no individual adjudicator has sole authority to make the final 
adjudication decision. Each adjudication outcome requires at least two 
adjudicators' recommendations and sometimes a "tie breaker" 
recommendation by a third adjudicator before a final decision is made 
by the HAB Branch Chief or a designee. 

HAB Generally Had Effective Internal Controls, but Those Related to 
Staffing, Training, and Communication with Stakeholders Could Be 
Strengthened: 

HAB has designed internal controls to help ensure that requests for 
humanitarian parole are decided in a fair, equitable, and objective 
manner, and our review of case files and the PCTS database found that 
these controls have been generally effective, that is, functioning as 
intended. However, three areas could be strengthened to improve HAB's 
ability to adhere to internal control standards. First, following HAB's 
transfer from ICE to USCIS, HAB may no longer have a sufficient number 
of permanent staff to ensure continued compliance with its policies and 
procedures. Second, HAB does not have a formal training program for 
staff unfamiliar with humanitarian parole who may be detailed to its 
office to help process applications thereby increasing the risk that 
these adjudicators may not have the expertise to make decisions in 
accordance with applicable guidelines. Third, USCIS's Web site--the 
primary means of communicating program criteria to potential 
applicants--has limited information about the circumstances under which 
a person may apply for humanitarian parole and therefore may be of 
limited use to those who seek information about the program. 

HAB's Internal Controls Were Generally Effective: 

HAB designed internal controls to help ensure requests for humanitarian 
parole were decided in a fair, equitable, and objective manner and our 
review of case files and PCTS data found these controls were generally 
effective, that is, functioning as intended. For example, our standards 
for internal control in the federal government require that programs 
have policies and procedures to help ensure management's directives are 
carried out.[Footnote 14] HAB has two documents--the Protocol for 
Humanitarian Parole Requests and the Standard Operating Procedures for 
Humanitarian Paroles--that provide detailed instructions on how to 
adjudicate and process humanitarian parole applications. The protocols 
list the major reasons for humanitarian parole and the factors 
adjudicators are to consider given the type of humanitarian parole 
request. For example, in considering medical requests, HAB adjudicators 
are to consider, among other things, the nature and severity of the 
medical condition for which treatment is sought and whether or not the 
requested treatment is available in the applicant's home or neighboring 
country. Regarding family reunification, HAB adjudicators are to 
consider, among other things, whether the request is designed to 
circumvent the normal visa issuance procedures. Appendix II contains 
more information on factors HAB adjudicators are to consider when 
adjudicating humanitarian parole applications. The procedures call for 
two adjudicators to review each application and make a recommendation 
regarding whether the application should be approved or denied. 
Adjudicators are to provide a short summary explaining their reasoning 
behind their recommendation in a text box in PCTS. Should the two 
adjudicators disagree, a third adjudicator, or "tie-breaker," is asked 
to review the application and make a recommendation. The protocols also 
require the HAB Branch Chief or a designee to review the application 
and make a final decision. According to the HAB Branch Chief, the 
process of having two adjudicators review each case, including a third 
adjudicator if needed, as well as the Branch Chief's review and final 
decision on approval or disapproval, is intended to provide consistency 
in applying the decision criteria. The Branch Chief also told us that 
in difficult cases it was not uncommon for all the professional staff 
in the office to have an informal roundtable discussion to ensure that 
all the factors and complexities of the application were adequately and 
fairly considered. He also told us that if he decides to override 
adjudicators' recommendations in a case, he does not finalize such a 
decision until he has first discussed the case with at least one of his 
two supervisors. 

HAB also maintains information in PCTS that is contained in the 
application as well as data such as the HAB adjudicator summary 
explanation of the case, the adjudication recommendations made by the 
various adjudicators, and the decision reached. The system also 
contains built-in checks to help ensure internal controls are followed. 
For example, the PCTS database will not allow a grant or denial letter 
to be printed unless the system contains information that two 
adjudicators reviewed the application, as evidenced by their having 
filled in the appropriate text boxes. 

Our review of a sample of humanitarian parole application case files 
and associated data in PCTS showed that HAB staff followed established 
policies and procedures. For example, in all cases the PCTS database 
showed that at least two adjudicators reviewed each application and had 
written an explanation in the designated text box explaining the 
reasoning behind their adjudication recommendation. Our direct 
observation of PCTS in use confirmed that the edit checks built into 
PCTS to ensure that all required steps are taken before an applicant 
grant or denial letter could be printed were working. In addition, all 
hard copy files we reviewed contained a letter notifying the applicants 
or their representative of HAB's decision and signed by a HAB official. 
The letters in the files were signed by the HAB Branch Chief or a 
designee, indicating that supervisory review was performed. Our 
probability sample allowed us to conclude that this control was 
effective for PCTS applications in the March 1, 2007, to June 30, 2007, 
time period. 

HAB has a goal of adjudicating humanitarian parole applications within 
60 to 90 calendar days, although HAB officials told us that decisions 
in the most urgent cases are sometimes made almost immediately. As 
shown in figure 3, from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2006, HAB 
achieved this goal, with the median processing time for grants ranging 
from 8 to 18 days and the median time for denials ranging from 10 to 22 
days in this period. Processing some applications took longer than 
these times, for various reasons. For example, HAB officials cited 
delays in obtaining the results of DNA testing to confirm a family 
relationship. For fiscal year 2007 through June 30, 2007, the median 
time to adjudicate cases increased to 53 days for grants and 36 days 
for denials. HAB officials told us that they had increased the number 
of security databases against which applicants provisionally approved 
for humanitarian parole are checked, prior to granting final approval. 
As a result, the median number of days to process applications 
increased in fiscal year 2007 compared to previous years. 

Figure 3: Median Number of Calendar Days to Process Humanitarian Parole 
Applications, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Grants: 14 median calendar days; 
Denials: 11 median calendar days. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Grants: 18 median calendar days; 
Denials: 20 median calendar days. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Grants: 16 median calendar days; 
Denials: 16 median calendar days. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Grants: 11 median calendar days; 
Denials: 10 median calendar days. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Grants: 8 median calendar days; 
Denials: 22 median calendar days. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Grants: 53 median calendar days; 
Denials: 36 median calendar days. 

Source: GAO analysis of PCTS data. 

Note: Data for fiscal year 2007 are through June 30, 2007. 

[End of figure] 

All 10 immigration attorneys we interviewed, as well as both accredited 
representatives of two non-profit organizations that offer legal 
assistance to immigrants, including sometimes helping humanitarian 
parole applicants, told us that they were generally satisfied with the 
speed of the adjudication of applications and had no complaints about 
the time HAB took to adjudicate their client applications. Five of the 
12 attorneys and accredited representatives also told us that HAB 
decided their cases within 30 to 45 calendar days of the submission of 
the application. Ten of the 12 attorneys and accredited representatives 
with whom we spoke were generally satisfied with the responsiveness of 
the HAB staff, including their willingness to grant applicants more 
time to provide additional evidence to support applications for 
humanitarian parole. 

Controls Related to Staffing, Training, and Communication with 
Stakeholders Could be Strengthened: 

Our work showed that controls related to staffing, training, and 
communication with stakeholders could be strengthened to enable HAB to 
carry out its mission and to more fully comport with internal control 
standards. These areas relate to the number of HAB staff needed to 
ensure it continues to follow its policies and procedures, a training 
program for new staff not familiar with humanitarian parole and/or 
staff who may be detailed to the HAB to help process applications, and 
whether USCIS's Web site--the primary means of communicating program 
criteria to potential applicants--has sufficient information about the 
circumstances under which a person may apply for humanitarian parole. 

Staffing: 

Prior to the transfer of HAB from ICE to USCIS, HAB had 11 permanent 
staff, including the Branch Chief, for processing requests for both 
humanitarian and other types of parole. According to the HAB Branch 
Chief, this staffing level helped ensure that HAB (1) adhered to its 
policies and procedures of having two adjudicators, a third adjudicator 
when necessary to break ties, different adjudicators to review 
applications submitted for reconsideration, and supervisory review of 
each application; (2) performed data entry requirements; and, (3) could 
meet its goal of adjudicating applications within 60 to 90 calendar 
days. However, the memorandum of agreement that transferred the 
humanitarian parole program from ICE to USCIS in August 2007 provided 
for the reassignment of only the Branch Chief and two adjudicators to 
administer the humanitarian parole program. 

Standards for internal controls in the federal government state that an 
agency must have sufficient staff, including supervisors, to 
effectively carry out its assigned duties. Having only a Chief and two 
adjudicators to administer the humanitarian parole program may not be a 
sufficient number of staff to ensure HAB can continue to comply with 
its policies and procedures. For example, as noted above and according 
to HAB policies and procedures, two adjudicators are to review each 
application. Should the two adjudicators disagree, a third adjudicator, 
a tie-breaker, is needed to review the application and make a 
recommendation. The HAB Branch Chief or a designee is to review each 
application and make a final decision. With only two adjudicators, 
there is no one to act as a "tie-breaker" because the Branch Chief 
normally does not assume this role. In addition, if an applicant's 
request for humanitarian parole is denied, he or she has the 
opportunity to provide additional information and have HAB reconsider 
the application. HAB protocols recommend that in these situations, two 
different adjudicators--and a third adjudicator when necessary to break 
a tie--review the reconsidered application. However, having only two 
adjudicators could put a strain on the program's ability to continue to 
meets its goal of processing applications within 60 to 90 days. 
According to the HAB Branch Chief, based on HAB's current workload, at 
least nine staff members are needed to administer the humanitarian 
parole program--a branch chief, a senior adjudications officer, four 
adjudications officers, two data entry and case management clerks to 
enter application information into PCTS and to create and maintain the 
hardcopy folders of the cases, and one case manager to respond to the 
400 to 500 associated inquiries that the branch receives each year. 
Until permanent staff are requested, approved, and assigned, HAB plans 
to use adjudications officers detailed from other parts of USCIS to 
help adjudicate humanitarian parole applications. 

In addition to having a limited number of staff transferred with the 
humanitarian parole program, staff members who transferred were those 
who had relatively less experience processing humanitarian parole 
applications. The two permanent adjudicators now at HAB accounted for 
11 percent of the cases adjudicated between October 1, 2001, and June 
30, 2007. None of the top three adjudicators who decided a total of 61 
percent of the cases during that period transferred to USCIS. HAB 
officials also told us that when the program had 11 staff (including 
the Branch Chief), if a backlog of cases began to develop, they could 
have everyone work to reduce it. With only two permanent adjudicators 
and the Branch Chief, HAB does not have the staff needed to address 
backlogs that might develop or to provide backup in the event of staff 
require leave for illness, training, or vacations. 

Training: 

Although HAB plans to use detailed adjudicators as necessary, HAB 
officials told us that they have no formal training curriculum on how 
to adjudicate humanitarian parole applications. Officials told us that 
to date, adjudicators have come from the ranks of those who have 
considerable experience in immigration-related issues and that this 
enabled adjudicators to know how to adjudicate humanitarian parole 
applications after brief on-the-job instruction. Officials also told us 
that they intend to develop training curriculum on adjudication of 
humanitarian parole cases. Internal control standards in the federal 
government state that providing formal training is a method by which an 
agency can address expertise and experience issues. Until a training 
program is in place, staff detailed to HAB and new permanent staff not 
familiar with adjudicating humanitarian parole applications may not get 
the training they need. Having untrained staff increases the risk that 
they may not have the expertise to make humanitarian parole decisions 
in accordance with applicable guidelines. 

Communication with Stakeholders: 

Internal control standards in the federal government state that 
agencies should establish open and effective communications channels 
with customers and other groups that can provide significant input on 
agency products and services. This is particularly important with 
respect to humanitarian parole applications where the applicant pays a 
$305 fee for a government service. Our standards for internal controls 
offer guidelines for communication between an agency and both its 
internal and external customers. These guidelines state that an agency 
should provide sufficient information so that clients can understand 
the rules and processes and can make effective use of the services the 
agency is supposed to offer. 

However, those seeking humanitarian parole may not fully understand the 
rules for applying. As noted earlier in this report, an estimated 57 
percent of those denied humanitarian parole were denied, in whole or in 
part, because the requester had not exhausted alternative immigration 
processes, such as requesting a visa, a process that generally must be 
used prior to requesting a humanitarian parole visa absent urgent 
circumstances that made it impractical to do so. We also found that an 
estimated 13 percent of those denied humanitarian parole had committed 
an infraction of immigration law or other crime, which is also 
generally a disqualifying factor. 

USCIS uses its Web site as the primary tool to communicate information 
about the humanitarian parole process to the public. The U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services has developed Research Based 
Web Design and Usability Guidelines. The 2006 guidelines state that Web 
sites should be designed to facilitate effective human-computer 
interaction and that if the content of the Web site does not provide 
the information needed by users, it will provide little value no matter 
how easy it is to use. The instructions included on the USCIS Web site 
for how and under what circumstances to apply for humanitarian parole 
were limited. For example, the Web site does not state that to be 
eligible for humanitarian parole, applicants must generally have first 
exhausted other available avenues of relief, other than in 
circumstances of compelling humanitarian emergency or when urgency 
makes it impractical to do so. The instructions state that the 
applicant is to submit a statement on "why a U.S. visa cannot be 
obtained instead of having to apply for humanitarian parole" but does 
not state that an application for a visa generally should have been 
made and rejected, again absent urgent circumstances that make it 
impractical to do so.[Footnote 15] 

Further, the written instructions may be confusing to some applicants. 
For example, the instructions state that "anyone can file an 
application for humanitarian parole," including "the prospective 
parolee, a sponsoring relative, an attorney, or any other interested 
individual or organization." While technically true, the language could 
lead persons to file and pay the $305 application fee when they first 
should have exhausted other immigration alternatives (such as filing 
for a visa), except when there are circumstances that constitute an 
emergency. This potential lack of information about the need for most 
applicants to first exhaust other immigration alternatives, absent an 
emergency, leaves open the possibility that some applicants might not 
realize that they generally have to have been denied a visa to request 
humanitarian parole. As a result, applicants may be losing time, as 
well as the $305 application fee required to apply for humanitarian 
parole. In addition, HAB's workload could be increased unnecessarily, 
therefore putting additional strains on its limited staff. 

Although HAB has extensive protocols on what to consider when 
adjudicating humanitarian parole applications, there is little 
information on USCIS's Web site regarding what HAB considers when 
adjudicating these applications and finding such information can be 
difficult. Six of the 12 attorneys and accredited representatives we 
interviewed said that they and their clients would have benefited from 
more guidance on the application process, including an explanation of 
what supporting documentation and evidence to include in the 
application, adjudication criteria, and examples of circumstances 
warranting humanitarian parole. Clearer and more explicit information 
about the humanitarian parole process could better inform potential 
applicants and their attorneys and representatives. Six of 12 attorneys 
and accredited representatives stated that having either a phone number 
or an e-mail address on the Web site to contact HAB would help 
facilitate communication. Two attorneys suggested that using e-mail 
could speed correspondence with HAB as well as the submission of 
application materials. 

Four attorneys who had represented clients who were denied parole told 
us that HAB should include more information on the grounds for denial 
in the decision letter. Specifically, four of the seven attorneys who 
had at least one client denied parole were dissatisfied with the brief 
form language included with the notification letter. Two attorneys 
stated that the brief letters gave them the impression that the 
applications had not received sufficient or serious consideration. HAB 
officials, however, expressed concern that providing detailed 
explanations of denials would lead to reapplications of denials 
tailored to overcome the original grounds for the denial, even when the 
underlying facts of the case had not changed. This, in their view, 
would increase the number of potentially frivolous applications and add 
to the agency's overall workload from persons who were ineligible for 
humanitarian parole--and slow down the processing times for genuinely 
urgent cases. Finally, two attorneys who received approvals for their 
clients stated they would have appreciated clearer instructions about 
how to obtain the necessary travel documents from an embassy or 
consulate. HAB officials told us that the letters they provide to 
applicants or to their representatives can at most tell them whether 
they have been granted or denied parole and, if granted, which embassy 
or consulate they need to contact to obtain the travel documents. The 
officials stated that information regarding embassy and consulate 
locations and hours of operations is available on the Department of 
State Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.travel.state.gov]. 

Conclusions: 

HAB has instituted internal controls that are designed to help ensure 
that humanitarian parole applications are decided in a fair, equitable, 
and objective manner, and these controls were generally effective, that 
is, functioning as intended. With the move to USCIS resulting in the 
transfer of only the HAB Branch Chief and two permanent adjudicators, 
HAB does not have sufficient staff for two independent reviews of an 
application and a possible tie breaker--a key internal control 
mechanism. Until an adequate staffing level is decided and implemented, 
HAB may face challenges in adhering to its policies and procedures on 
adjudication. Without a formal training program for potential new staff 
and those who might be detailed to HAB, the agency cannot ensure that 
these staff will be properly trained to make recommendations in 
accordance with applicable guidelines. Lastly, additional information 
on USCIS's Web site about the need for applicants to first exhaust 
other immigration avenues before applying for humanitarian parole and 
more information about the criteria HAB uses to adjudicate humanitarian 
parole applications could help applicants decide whether the 
expenditure of time and the $305 application fee would be appropriate 
and what types of evidence are needed to help ensure HAB makes an 
informed decision. Without this additional information, applicants may 
lose time and money applying for humanitarian parole and HAB's workload 
may be increased unnecessarily, straining its already limited staff. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To help ensure that HAB is able to process applications for 
humanitarian parole consistent with its own policies and procedures and 
to help ensure applicants understand the humanitarian parole rules and 
processes, we recommend that the Secretary of DHS direct the Director 
of USCIS to take the following three actions: 

* coordinate with the HAB Branch Chief to determine the number of staff 
HAB needs to process humanitarian parole applications in accordance 
with its policies and procedures and assign them to HAB; 

* develop a formal training program curriculum on adjudication of 
humanitarian parole cases for new and detailed staff; and: 

* revise USCIS's Web site instructions for humanitarian parole to help 
ensure that applicants understand the need to first exhaust all other 
immigration avenues and the criteria HAB uses to adjudicate 
humanitarian parole applications. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a copy of a draft of this report to DHS for comment. In 
commenting on our draft report, DHS stated that it concurred with our 
recommendations and that it has begun taking actions to implement each 
of them. DHS stated that the HAB is finalizing a comprehensive staffing 
assessment for review by USCIS and that, in the short-term, HAB has 
made interim arrangements to have experienced USCIS staff assist its 
staff. DHS stated that USCIS intends to implement a formal humanitarian 
parole training program during fiscal year 2008 and that the program 
would offer an orientation process for all staff members responsible 
for processing humanitarian parole applications. Last, DHS stated that 
USCIS will undertake a thorough review of the Web site and make 
appropriate modifications, including but not limited to the development 
of a frequently-asked-questions section, and that these modifications 
would be implemented during fiscal year 2008. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, the Secretary of State, the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, and interested congressional committees. We will 
also make copies available to others on request. In addition, this 
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-8777 or by e-mail at [email protected]. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this 
report are listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

Richard M. Stana: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report addresses U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service's 
(USCIS) Humanitarian Assistance Branch's (HAB) policies and procedures 
for adjudicating applications for humanitarian parole. Specifically, we 
answered the following questions: (1) What are the characteristics of 
those who applied for and were either granted or denied humanitarian 
parole since fiscal year 2002 and did approval and denial rates differ 
according to these characteristics or the adjudicator assigned? (2) 
What internal controls has HAB designed to adjudicate humanitarian 
parole applications and to what extent did HAB adhere to these internal 
controls when processing humanitarian parole applications? We performed 
our work at HAB's office in Washington, D.C. 

To determine the characteristics of those who applied for and were 
either granted or denied humanitarian parole since fiscal year 2002 and 
what differences, if any, there were in grant or denial rates according 
to these characteristics or the adjudicator assigned, we obtained and 
analyzed data from DHS's Parole Case Tracking System (PCTS), a database 
that contains computerized records of all individuals whose 
applications for humanitarian parole have been approved, denied, 
suspended, terminated, or are pending. We analyzed the data on the 
8,748 cases that were either approved or denied from October 1, 2001, 
through June 30, 2007, the cutoff date necessary to ensure that the 
cases under review had been fully adjudicated and closed. PCTS is a 
database that was carried over from the (former) Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) to DHS, when the latter was formed and 
absorbed the INS. The PCTS is now maintained by HAB. PCTS contains no 
interfaces to any external computer or communication systems. 

To determine the reliability of PCTS data, we compared the data in PCTS 
with the information contained in a sample of hard-copy humanitarian 
parole applications. While the HAB keeps indefinitely humanitarian 
parole applications that were approved, the HAB only keeps for 6 months 
those that were denied. Therefore, to include both approvals and 
denials in our sample, we selected a stratified probability sample of 
145 cases from the 544 cases that were either approved or denied from 
March 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007, to evaluate data reliability for 
this period. 

The results of our data verification were as follows: 

* We sampled 74 denied cases from the population of 378 denied cases 
and found no errors. 

* We sampled 71 granted cases from the population of 166 granted cases 
during this period and found no errors. 

Because we found no instances of error between the data in PCTS and the 
underlying hard-copy applications, we are 95 percent confident that the 
frequency of these errors would be less than 4 percent for both the 
granted and the denied cases for the time period we reviewed. 
Therefore, we consider the results of our analyses using data from 
DHS's PCTS to yield accurate representations of the distribution of 
humanitarian parole grant and denial decisions by applicant 
characteristics and by adjudicator. We also consider the results of our 
analyses using PCTS data to yield accurate representations of time 
frames for adjudicating humanitarian parole applications and of reasons 
for denial of humanitarian parole applications. 

Data Analysis: 

We performed comprehensive analyses on PCTS data covering the period 
from October 1, 2001 through June 30, 2007. Our analyses included: 

* the distribution of humanitarian parole grant and denial decisions by 
applicant age, gender, and country of residence; 

* distribution of grant and denial decisions by reason for request and 
reason for denial; 

* distribution of grant and denial recommendations by adjudicator; and: 

* time frames required for adjudication (calendar days). 

Specifically, we summarized data on the number of applications approved 
or denied humanitarian parole from October 1, 2001, through June 30, 
2007. To determine whether there were any differences in the 
demographic characteristics among those granted or denied humanitarian 
parole, we analyzed key demographic characteristics of the applicants 
(i.e., age, gender, and country of origin). We also examined whether 
there were any differences in the approval and denial rates between 
specific adjudicators: 

To examine the reasons for requesting humanitarian parole and the 
reasons for which applicants were denied, we selected a stratified 
probability sample of 462 cases from fiscal year 2002 through June 30, 
2007, and performed content analyses on these cases. The sample strata 
were defined in terms of time period and whether the request was denied 
or granted. Table 10 summarizes the population of humanitarian parole 
cases and our sample selected for the content analyses. 

Table 10: Sample Population Used for Content Analyses: 

Type of Humanitarian Parole Case: Denied; 
Time Period: 10/01/01 to 2/28/07; 
Population: 6,238; 
Sample Size: 131. 

Type of Humanitarian Parole Case: Denied; 
Time Period: 3/1/07 to 6/30/07; 
Population: 377; 
Sample Size: 149. 

Total Denied: 
Population: 6,615; 
Sample Size: 280. 

Type of Humanitarian Parole Case: Granted; 
Time Period: 10/01/01 to 2/28/07; 
Population: 1,972; 
Sample Size: 122. 

Type of Humanitarian Parole Case: Granted; 
Time Period: 3/1/07 to 6/30/07; 
Population: 161; 
Sample Size: 60. 

Grand Total: 
Population: 8,748; 
Sample Size: 462. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

We performed a content analysis of the reasons for the requests 
contained in the text boxes on all 462 applications. We then 
categorized the explanations in the text boxes for requesting 
humanitarian parole into four major categories: (1) life-threatening 
medical emergencies; (2) family reunification for compelling 
humanitarian reasons; (3) emergent, defined by the HAB guidelines as 
including the need to visit an ill family member, or to resolve matters 
associated with the death of a relative, or to attend a funeral; and 
(4) "other," such as a caregiver needed to care for someone in the 
United States. These categories are in the protocols that HAB 
adjudicators use in making their recommendations. We confirmed these 
categories with HAB. 

To determine the reasons for which applicants were denied humanitarian 
parole, we reviewed the 280 cases in our sample in which the applicant 
was denied humanitarian parole and performed a content analysis of the 
explanations for denial of parole contained in the text boxes. We then 
categorized the explanations for denials contained in these text boxes 
into 10 categories. HAB officials agreed that these 10 categories 
represented the reasons for denial. They noted that because their 
decisions are discretionary, none of these reasons are in and of 
themselves automatically disqualifying. Rather, these are the reasons 
cited in the text boxes found in the probability sample as the basis of 
the reasoning by the HAB adjudicators as leading to their denial 
recommendation. The 10 categories were: 

* The applicant had not exhausted alternative immigration processes 
available to them and for which they might have been eligible, such as 
obtaining a visa, absent urgent circumstances that made it impractical 
to do so. 

* The applicant provided no evidence supporting an emergent condition, 
such as a death certificate in the case where the request was to attend 
a funeral. 

* The applicant provided no or inadequate evidence to support the 
reason for the request for humanitarian parole, such as a claimed 
medical emergency. 

* The applicant had committed a prior immigration violation or other 
criminal violation. 

* The purpose of the parole was not temporary in nature. That is, HAB 
believed that the applicant intended to stay in the United States 
beyond the duration of a parole period. 

* Other family members already in the United States could provide care 
to the person intended to benefit from the presence of the applicant. 

* The needed medical treatment was available outside the United States. 

* There was insufficient evidence of adequate financial support to 
prevent the applicant from becoming a public charge while in the United 
States. 

* The applicant provided no proof of familial relationship in cases 
where a family relationship was claimed as the basis of the 
application. 

* Other: This was for applications that did not fall into the other 
categories. For example, other cases included when a person already 
approved for humanitarian parole mistakenly applied to HAB for an 
extension of the parole period rather than apply with a local USCIS 
district office. Another example was when an applicant for lawful 
permanent residency left the United States without first obtaining the 
needed permission from USCIS and then applied for humanitarian parole 
to re-enter the United States, a situation that is not valid grounds 
for humanitarian parole. 

In recommending that an application be denied, adjudicators sometimes 
cited more than one reason in explaining their recommendation. 
Therefore, we counted all reasons cited by the adjudicators in the PCTS 
text boxes. 

Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections, 
our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have 
drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we 
express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample's 
results as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 8 
percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the actual 
population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As 
a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence 
intervals in this report will include the true values in the study 
population. For example, we estimate that 49 percent of requests were 
for family reunification for compelling humanitarian reasons, so we are 
95 percent that for the entire population of requests, between 41 and 
57 percent of the time family reunification for compelling humanitarian 
reasons was the reason for requesting humanitarian parole. 

Estimates from this sample are to the population of humanitarian parole 
cases processed by DHS (or its precursor, the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service) from October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. 
The 8,748 applications contained in the PCTS data through June 30, 
2007, provided by DHS represent 100 percent of the application cases 
either granted or denied within the Humanitarian Parole program at the 
time of our analysis. 

To determine what internal controls HAB designed to adjudicate 
humanitarian parole applications and to what extent HAB adhered to 
these internal controls when processing humanitarian parole 
applications, we obtained HAB policies and procedures and compared them 
with standards for internal control in the federal government and other 
internal control guidance related to control activities, staffing 
levels, training, and communication with external clients. In assessing 
the adequacy of internal controls, we used the criteria in GAO's 
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD 00- 
21.3.1, dated November 1999. These standards, issued pursuant to the 
requirements of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 
(FMFIA), provide the overall framework for establishing and maintaining 
internal control in the federal government. Also pursuant to FMFIA, the 
Office of Management and Budget issued Circular A-123, revised December 
21, 2004, to provide the specific requirements for assessing the 
reporting on internal controls. Internal control standards and the 
definition of internal control in Circular A-123 are based on GAO's 
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We also used 
the guidance contained in Internal Control Management and Evaluation 
Tool, GAO-01-1008G, dated August 2001. In addition, we tested 
compliance with two internal controls--that at least two adjudicators 
reviewed each case, and that a signature of the HAB Branch Chief or a 
designee existed--for each of the 145 cases selected for our validation 
sample. From this review, we found no instances of noncompliance with 
the internal controls. This means that we are 95 percent confident the 
frequency of this type of noncompliance would be less than 4 percent 
for the both the granted and the denied cases for the time period we 
reviewed. Based on this review, we concluded that these internal 
controls are effective. 

Structured interviews with Attorneys and Representatives: 

To obtain a more complete understanding of the humanitarian parole 
process, we interviewed accredited representatives (non-attorneys 
accredited to represent aliens before immigration courts) of 2 non- 
profit groups that have handled humanitarian parole cases--Catholic 
Charities USA and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)--as well as 
10 private attorneys who are members of the American Immigration 
Lawyers Association (AILA). The 12 individuals we interviewed 
collectively had assisted with 20 humanitarian parole applications 
since 2000. We asked each of these individuals a similar set of 
questions about their experiences with the application process. 
Additionally, we asked them to describe aspects of that process that 
worked well and to identify areas where they felt it could be improved. 
Because these individuals and groups were selected using 
nonprobabilistic methods, conclusions drawn from these interviews 
cannot be generalized to the immigration law community. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Major Reasons for Humanitarian Parole Requests and Factors 
HAB Considers when Adjudicating Applications: 

The HAB has a protocol document that states in general, that HAB looks 
at the totality of the circumstances when reviewing requests for 
humanitarian parole. The protocol also describes broad reasons for 
humanitarian parole applications and lists factors within these that 
HAB may consider in determining parole eligibility. According to its 
protocols, HAB determines whether the reasons given in the requests are 
urgent or an emergency compared to other seemingly similar requests. 

The following information does not constitute a comprehensive list of 
factors included in the protocol, but rather provides examples of the 
types of factors HAB considers. 

* Medical Requests: In considering medical requests, HAB adjudicators 
are to carefully review the application, supporting documentation, and 
other resources to determine among other factors: 

* the nature and severity of the medical condition for which treatment 
is sought; 

* whether or not the requested treatment is available in the home or 
neighboring country; and: 

* the medical verification of the need of the prospective parolee. 

* Family Reunification: Regarding family reunification, HAB will 
consider many elements, such as: 

* whether the request is designed to circumvent the normal visa 
issuance process; 

* evidence of a bona fide relationship between the applicant and 
claimed relatives in the United States; and: 

* the age and mental and/or physical limitations of the family member 
who is seeking to be paroled into the United States. 

"Emergent" requests: Emergent conditions that the HAB considers 
include: humanitarian situations, such as visiting dying family member; 
the need to attend a funeral; or resolution of matters associated with 
the death of a family member. In addition, according to PHAB protocols, 
the agency considers: 

* evidence of a bona fide relationship; 

* Medical documentation supporting the prognosis of the family member, 
or death certificate (when a relative has died); and: 

* whether there are no other next of kin residing in the United States 
who can provide emotional support or settle an estate. 

Other Humanitarian Requests: Humanitarian parole is a discretionary 
decision that inherently permits the HAB to consider any circumstances 
brought to its attention by the applicant. HAB protocols note that 
while every situation is "emergent" to the applicant and/or sponsor, 
many requests for humanitarian parole are for the convenience of the 
applicant and/or sponsor. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 
[hyperlink, http://www.dhs.gov]: 

January 28, 2008: 

Mr. Richard M. Stana: 
Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Stana: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report GAO-08-282 entitled 
Immigration Benefits: Internal Controls for Adjudicating Humanitarian 
Parole Cases are Generally Effective but Some Can Be Strengthened. 

The Department of Homeland Security would like to thank GAO for its due 
diligence and thoroughness in the preparation of this report. Overall, 
this report provides an accurate description of the process, internal 
controls and the challenging responsibilities of U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services' (USCIS') Humanitarian Assistance Branch (HAB). 

To enhance the humanitarian parole process, the GAO issued the 
following three recommendations addressed to the Director of USCIS. 
USCIS agrees with these three recommendations and has begun to take 
action to implement the recommended actions, as detailed below. 

Recommendation 1: Coordinate with the HAB Branch Chief to determine the 
number of staff HAB needs to process humanitarian parole applications 
in accordance with its policies and procedures and assign them to HAB. 

The Humanitarian Assistance Branch is finalizing a comprehensive 
staffing assessment for review by USCIS leadership. As a short-term 
strategy, HAB has made interim arrangements to have experienced USCIS 
staff assist in processing this time-sensitive and critical workload. 

GAO Recommendation 2: Develop a formal training program curriculum on 
adjudication of humanitarian parole cases for new and detailed staff. 

USCIS intends to implement a formal Humanitarian Parole (HP) training 
program during Fiscal Year 2008. Such a program would offer a 
streamlined, consistent, orientation process for all staff members, 
permanent or detailed, who will be responsible for processing HP 
requests. 

Recommendation 3: Revise USCIS' website instructions for humanitarian 
parole to help ensure that applicants understand the need to first 
exhaust all other immigration avenues and the criteria HAB uses to 
adjudicate humanitarian parole applications. 

While USCIS agrees that various modifications can be made to the USCIS 
website to provide additional clarity and further guidance to the 
public, USCIS is also mindful that HP, as defined by statute, involves 
the application of discretion and a careful assessment of unique case 
circumstances. In light of this adjudicatory foundation, the criterion 
typically applied in HP adjudications is not static in nature, and the 
case-by-case review process challenges the development of any bright-
line adjudicative criteria. Nonetheless, to ensure that the public has 
sufficient information on the HP Program, USCIS will undertake a 
thorough review of its website and make the appropriate modifications, 
including but not limited to the development of a Frequently Asked 
Questions section (complete with corresponding answers). USCIS intends 
to implement these modifications during Fiscal Year 2008. 

Thanks you again for the opportunity to comment on this draft report 
and we look forward to working with you on future homeland security 
issues. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Steven J. Pecinovsky: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Richard M. Stana (202) 512-8777 or [email protected]: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact listed above, Michael P. Dino, Assistant 
Director; David P. Alexander; Richard J. Ascarate; Frances Cook; 
Michelle Cooper; Shawn Mongin; Mark Ramage; Jerome T. Sandau; John G. 
Smale, Jr.; Jonathan R. Tumin; and Derek Updegraff made key 
contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] 8 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1182(a)(7). Under the Visa Waiver Program, foreign 
nationals from 27 countries may visit the United States for tourism or 
business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. In 
addition, citizens of Canada and Bermuda visiting temporarily are not 
required to have a visa. 

[2] In December 2007, we were told by HAB officials that the name of 
what had been the Parole and Humanitarian Assistance Branch had been 
shortened to HAB. 

[3] See appendix I for additional information on this sample and for a 
more detailed description of the content analysis methodology. 

[4] GAO: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/ 
AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). These standards, 
issued pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Managers' Financial 
Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), provide the overall framework for 
establishing and maintaining internal control in the federal 
government. 

[5] GAO: Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G 
(Washington, D.C.: August 2001). 

[6] All percentage estimates based on the content analysis sample have 
95 percent confidence intervals of within plus or minus 8 percentage 
points of the estimate itself. See appendix I for additional 
information on the content analysis sample. 

[7] 8 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1182(d)(5). In addition to foreign nationals applying to 
HAB for parole, other individuals can be granted parole. For example, 
the Secretary of DHS can parole those arriving at a U.S. port of entry 
(a government-designated location where goods and persons are inspected 
to determine whether they can be lawfully admitted into the country). 
The Report to Congress: Use of the Attorney General's Parole Authority 
under the Immigration and Naturalization Act Fiscal Years 1998-1999 
specifies several categories of parole: advance parole, port of entry 
parole, deferred inspection parole, overseas parole, public interest 
parole, and--the subject of this report--humanitarian parole. 

[8] However, in certain cases, humanitarian parole may be used to allow 
juveniles to live with family members in the United States beyond the 1-
year limitation until their applications for immigrant visas are 
processed. 

[9] Anyone may file on behalf of another person, provided the potential 
beneficiary is outside the United States. Application forms and 
instructions can be found on the USCIS Web site. 

[10] According to HAB officials, an adjudicator is an HAB staff member 
trained in immigration law who reviews the application and recommends 
whether to grant or deny the humanitarian parole request. 

[11] This figure does not include three adjudicators who made a total 
of six recommendations from fiscal year 2002 through June 30, 2007. Two 
of the three adjudicators made a single recommendation each and one 
adjudicator made four recommendations. 

[12] Pub. L. No. 105-277, tit. IX, 112 Stat. 2681-538. HRIFA permits 
certain Haitians living in the United States and their dependents to 
apply for lawful permanent resident status without having to apply for 
an immigrant visa at a United States consulate abroad. Eligibility is 
generally limited to Haitians who were present in the United States by 
December 31, 1995. 

[13] The 2,957 figure does not include six additional recommendations 
by three adjudicators made since fiscal year 2002. Two of the three 
adjudicators made a single recommendation each, and one adjudicator 
made four recommendations. 

[14] See GAO: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

[15] According to HAB officials, demonstrating exhaustion of other 
available avenues of relief generally requires applying for and being 
denied a visa, but a denied visa application is not always necessary, 
especially in time-sensitive cases where visa issuance is not a 
practical option, such as to attend a funeral. 

[End of section] 

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. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts 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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail 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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

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

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***