Naturalized Aliens: Efforts to Determine If INS Improperly Naturalized
Some Aliens (Letter Report, 03/23/98, GAO/GGD-98-62).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reported on the Immigration and
Naturalization Service's (INS) review of its case files of aliens who
were naturalized between August 31, 1995 and September 30, 1996, and who
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had identified as having
criminal history records, focusing on the: (1) results of the INS and
Executive Office for Immigration Review's (EOIR) case reviews; and (2)
approach used by KPMG Peat Marwick LLP to monitor INS' efforts to
identify improperly naturalized aliens.

GAO noted that: (1) after receiving criminal history records from the
FBI, INS reviewed to case files of 16,858 aliens with records that
included a felony arrest or conviction of a serious crime who were
naturalized between August 31, 1995, and September 30, 1996; (2) INS
reviewed these criminal history records and its case files in an attempt
to judge if these aliens should have been naturalized; (3) in its review
of these 16,858 case files, INS designated each case as either proper,
requires further action, or presumptively ineligible; (4) INS designated
10,535 cases as proper, 5,954 cases as requires further action, and 369
cases as presumptively ineligible; (5) to provide quality assurance that
INS' decisions during the review were unbiased, EOIR reviewed a
statistically valid sample of 557 alien cases from the universe of
16,858 aliens; (6) EOIR and INS reached the same decisions in 439 (or 79
percent) of the 557 cases; (7) although there was a 21-percent
disagreement rate between the INS and EOIR reviewers, GAO could not
conclude that a statistically significant difference existed between the
INS and EOIR decisions; (8) INS is reviewing for potential revocation
the 6,323 cases that its adjudicators judged as requiring further action
or presumptively ineligible; (9) although INS initially did not plan to
review the 72 cases that EOIR's review indicated may also have involved
improper naturalization decisions, an attorney involved in reviewing the
6,323 cases said that these 72 cases are being reviewed with the other
cases; (10) in carrying out its monitoring responsibilities, KPMG used
accepted social science standards; (11) the KPMG report: (a) established
procedures to ensure the appropriate collection and review of FBI
criminal history records and the review of related alien case files; (b)
promoted consistency in the judgments of INS adjudicators by providing
training and having the adjudicators use a standardized worksheet, and
(c) identified recurring adjudicator errors so that corrective action
could be taken; and (12) KPMG's report also: (a) disclosed limitations
in the study procedures followed; and (b) discussed conditions that may
have affected the accuracy and completeness of INS' review.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-98-62
     TITLE:  Naturalized Aliens: Efforts to Determine If INS Improperly 
             Naturalized Some Aliens
      DATE:  03/23/98
   SUBJECT:  Legal records
             Agency proceedings
             Immigration information systems
             Immigrants
             Eligibility determinations
             Aliens
             Naturalization
             Law enforcement information systems
             Citizenship
             Crimes or offenses

             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Subcommittee on National Security, International
Affairs, and Criminal Justice, Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, House of Representatives

March 1998

NATURALIZED ALIENS - EFFORTS TO
DETERMINE IF INS IMPROPERLY
NATURALIZED SOME ALIENS

GAO/GGD-98-62

Naturalized Aliens

(183610)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  EOIR - Executive Office for Immigration Review
  FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
  INS - Immigration and Naturalization Service
  JMD - Justice Management Division
  KPMG - KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-276192

March 23, 1998

The Honorable J.  Dennis Hastert
Chairman
The Honorable Thomas M.  Barrett
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on National Security,
 International Affairs, and
 Criminal Justice
Committee on Government Reform
 and Oversight
House of Representatives

Concerns have been raised about the possibility that the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) may have improperly naturalized
aliens with criminal histories (e.g., arrests or convictions).  To
judge if this had occurred, INS reviewed its case files of aliens who
were naturalized between August 31, 1995, and September 30, 1996, and
who the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had identified as
having criminal history records.  The Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR)\1 staff were to provide quality assurance
that INS' judgments were unbiased by reviewing a sample of the cases
reviewed by INS.  Also, the Department of Justice's Justice
Management Division (JMD) contracted with KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
(KPMG) to monitor and validate INS' review. 

In response to your request and as agreed with your offices, the
objectives of this report are to (1) compare the results of the INS
and EOIR case reviews and (2) assess KPMG's approach to monitor INS'
efforts to identify improperly naturalized aliens.  To achieve our
objectives, we (1) discussed INS' review of aliens who may have been
improperly naturalized during this period with INS, JMD, EOIR,and
KPMG officials in Washington, D.C., and with INS and KPMG officials
in INS' Lincoln Service Center in Nebraska\2 and (2) reviewed INS and
KPMG records and reports regarding the review, including KMPG's
report to JMD.\3 In March 1997, we visited the Lincoln Service Center
to observe the review process.  At the time of our visit, EOIR staff
were not present.  However, we subsequently discussed with all of the
participating EOIR staff members the process that they followed in
their review of the INS alien case files.\4

To assess KPMG's approach, we determined if KPMG used accepted social
science standards, which include (1) the use of unbiased selection
procedures, reliability checks and assessments (e.g., training and
rules for documenting the results), and procedures to ensure the
quality of the data used; (2) full disclosure of study procedures and
limitations; and (3) appropriate generalization on the basis of the
data gathered and analyzed. 

We conducted our review from February 1997 to January 1998 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  We
requested comments on a draft of this report from the Attorney
General and KPMG.  Their oral comments are discussed in the Agency
Comments section of this report. 


--------------------
\1 EOIR is within the Department of Justice and is responsible for
the immigration hearing and appeals processes.  The immigration judge
function and the Board of Immigration Appeals are included within
EOIR. 

\2 The INS review was done mainly at the Lincoln Service Center in
Nebraska.  It was concluded in Charleston, South Carolina. 

\3 Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
Criminal History Case File Review, Final Report, KPMG, December 19,
1997. 

\4 Five of the six EOIR staff members were immigration judges or
members of the Board of Immigration Appeals.  We interviewed five of
the six participating EOIR staff by telephone and interviewed the
other participant in person. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

INS processed approximately 1.3 million citizenship applications
between August 31, 1995, and September 30, 1996; 1,049,867 of the
applicants were naturalized.  During this period, INS initiated a
number of efforts, under a program called "Citizenship USA," to
accelerate and streamline its process for naturalizing citizens.  In
its December report, KPMG stated that while INS' efforts greatly
increased the volume of applicants who were processed and approved,
the potential for error also increased during this period.\5 In an
effort to determine if past naturalization efforts were adjudicated
correctly, INS reviewed selected naturalization cases approved
between August 31, 1995, and September 30, 1996.  EOIR was to provide
quality assurance assistance for INS' review.  KPMG, under contract
with JMD, monitored and validated INS' review. 

A primary naturalization criterion is that applicants must be able to
establish good moral character to become naturalized citizens.\6

Under certain circumstances, applicants who fail to reveal their
criminal histories or who have been convicted of certain crimes, such
as crimes involving moral turpitude (e.g., certain felonies and
certain misdemeanors), cannot, by statute, establish good moral
character.\7 To judge if any citizenship applicants have failed to
establish good moral character, INS, with assistance from the FBI,
was to identify those applicants who have criminal histories. 

Previously, to identify these applicants, INS required that aliens
submit fingerprint cards with their applications for naturalization. 
Each fingerprint card was to include a complete set of fingerprints
and other identifying information, such as the alien's name and date
of birth.  INS was to send each fingerprint card to the FBI for it to
determine if an alien had a criminal history record on file.  Part of
the naturalization process was to include an interview between an INS
adjudicator and the applicant.  The interview, which is done under
oath, was to include a discussion about any criminal history of the
applicant--that is, arrests or convictions--which should be available
at the time of the interview. 


--------------------
\5 Over the past several years, Justice's Office of Inspector General
and we have reported on problems related to INS' adjudication of
aliens who apply for naturalization.  See the reports entitled Alien
Fingerprint Requirements in the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, U.S.  Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General
(Feb.  16, 1994); INS Fingerprinting of Aliens:  Efforts to Ensure
Authenticity of Aliens' Fingerprints (GAO/GGD-95-40, Dec.  22, 1994);
Naturalization of Aliens:  Assessment of the Extent to Which Aliens
Were Improperly Naturalized (GAO/T-GGD-97-52, Mar.  5, 1997);
Naturalization of Aliens:  INS Internal Controls (GAO/T-GGD-97-57,
Apr.  30, 1997); and Naturalization of Aliens:  INS Internal Controls
(GAO/T-GGD-97-98, May 1, 1997). 

\6 In addition to being of good moral character, an applicant
generally must demonstrate knowledge of English and civics and must
have resided in the United States for at least 5 years as a legal
permanent resident. 

\7 A criminal history may include felony, misdemeanor, and INS
administrative arrests that are solely related to violations of
immigration laws and are solely enforced by INS (e.g., aliens who
illegally work in the United States). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

After receiving criminal history records from the FBI, INS reviewed
the case files of 16,858 aliens with records that included a felony
arrest or conviction of a serious crime who were naturalized between
August 31, 1995, and September 30, 1996.  INS reviewed these criminal
history records and its case files in an attempt to judge if these
aliens should have been naturalized. 

In its review of these 16,858 case files, INS designated each case as
either "proper," "requires further action," or "presumptively
ineligible." INS designated 10,535 cases as proper, 5,954 cases as
requires further action, and 369 cases as presumptively ineligible. 
According to INS officials, a case was designated as proper if the
data in the case file supported the initial decision to naturalize
the individual.  A case was designated as requires further action if
the data in the case file were insufficient to support a proper
decision yet did not appear to indicate that the individual was
barred from being naturalized.  For example, some case files did not
contain data about the dispositions of arrests that may have affected
the individuals' eligibility for naturalization.  Cases involving a
failure to disclose an individual's criminal history also were
classified as requires further action.  These classifications were
made because the determination of whether the failure to reveal the
criminal history affected the individual's eligibility for
naturalization required a legal determination that went beyond the
scope of the INS review.  A case was designated as presumptively
ineligible if the data in the case file or the criminal history
appeared to indicate that the alien should have been barred from
being naturalized. 

To provide quality assurance that INS' decisions during the review
were unbiased, EOIR reviewed a statistically valid sample of 557
alien case files from the universe of 16,858 aliens.  EOIR and INS
reached the same decisions in 439 (or 79 percent) of the 557 cases. 
For 6 of the 118 cases in which their decisions differed, INS judged
that the aliens were presumptively ineligible but EOIR judged that
the naturalizations were proper in 1 case and further action was
required in the other 5 cases.  For 40 of the 118 cases, INS judged
that further action was required but EOIR judged that the
naturalizations were proper in 36 cases and the aliens were
presumptively ineligible in 4 cases.  For the remaining 72 cases, INS
judged that the naturalizations were proper but EOIR judged that
either further action was required or the aliens were presumptively
ineligible. 

Although there was a 21-percent disagreement rate between the INS and
EOIR reviewers, we could not conclude that a statistically
significant difference existed between the INS and EOIR decisions. 
Also, the INS and EOIR reviews produced generally similar conclusions
about the percentage of naturalization decisions that had been made
properly, 65 percent and 58 percent, respectively. 

INS is reviewing for potential revocation the 6,323 cases that its
adjudicators judged as requiring further action or presumptively
ineligible.  However, INS initially did not plan to review the 72
cases that EOIR's review indicated may also have involved improper
naturalization decisions.  According to one of the attorneys involved
in reviewing the 6,323 cases for potential revocation, INS was not
aware of the 72 cases identified by EOIR.  On the basis of
discussions with us, he said that these 72 cases are being reviewed
with the other 6,323 cases. 

In carrying out its monitoring responsibilities, KPMG used accepted
social science standards.  For example, it (1) established procedures
to ensure the appropriate collection and review of FBI criminal
history records and the review of related alien case files, (2)
promoted consistency in the judgments of INS adjudicators by
providing training and having the adjudicators use a standardized
worksheet, and (3) identified recurring adjudicator errors so that
corrective action could be taken.  Also, KPMG's report (1) disclosed
limitations in the study procedures followed (e.g., the report said
that a contributing factor to differences between the EOIR and INS
judgments was the need to interpret case file documentation regarding
the applicants' acknowledgment of prior criminal histories) and (2)
discussed conditions that may have affected the accuracy and
completeness of INS' review (e.g., the primary source of
naturalization information came from an INS system that often had
been found to be inaccurate). 


   REVIEW PROCESS INS USED TO
   JUDGE IF ALIENS WERE
   ADJUDICATED CORRECTLY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

To judge if naturalization cases that were processed between August
31, 1995, and September 30, 1996, were adjudicated correctly and if
the naturalization process had adequate controls, INS reviewed
selected cases to judge, on the basis of the information in the
files, if the naturalized citizens were of good moral character. 
INS, with the FBI's assistance, identified 80,856 criminal histories
for applicants believed to be naturalized during this period with
records that included felonies, misdemeanors, or INS administrative
arrests or convictions.\8 An aspect of this review was to identify
aliens who may not have revealed their arrests or convictions. 

After reviewing criminal histories provided by the FBI, INS
identified 17,257 applicants who were naturalized between August 31,
1995, and September 30, 1996, with criminal history records of
arrests for felonies or other potentially disqualifying crimes.  To
conduct the review, INS requested the 17,257 case files from its
field offices.  Only 16,858 of the requested case files were reviewed
because INS field units could not locate 399 case files. 
Accordingly, INS reviewed 16,858 criminal histories and corresponding
case files in an attempt to judge if these aliens should have been
naturalized. 

Under KPMG's monitoring, INS activities included (1) collecting the
appropriate criminal history records from the FBI, (2) sorting and
categorizing these records,\9 (3) matching (and filing) these records
with the appropriate INS case file for the naturalized alien, (4)
assigning case files to review adjudicators, and (5) ensuring that
the case files were consistently reviewed and contained a
standardized worksheet summarizing the results of the adjudicator's
review.\10 Using a standardized worksheet, INS adjudicators reviewed
the case files of these aliens and made independent judgments about
the initial adjudication decisions.  KPMG monitored the review
adjudicators' work. 

In addition to the 399 alien case files that INS could not locate,
another estimated 300 criminal history records were not available for
review and therefore were not included with the 80,856 criminal
histories.  The 300 criminal history records apparently had been in
transit between the FBI and INS and were received too late to be
included in the INS review.  KPMG reported that INS' preliminary
assessment of the approximately 300 alien criminal history records
was that most of these aliens had only old administrative arrests or
were never naturalized.  Furthermore, INS concluded that even if the
case files for these aliens had been received in time for the review,
very few of them would have been included in the INS review. 


--------------------
\8 To identify the universe of naturalized cases, INS identified all
aliens who were naturalized between August 3, 1995, and September 30,
1996.  INS then requested that the FBI provide the agency with the
criminal history records, if any, for all of those naturalized
citizens. 

\9 The FBI's search for criminal history records resulted in four
categories of aliens:  (1) aliens for whom FBI criminal history
records were identified (and were the focus of INS' review); (2)
aliens for whom no criminal history records were identified after
completing records checks; (3) aliens for whom full records checks
were not done because the fingerprints were unclassifiable (e.g.,
some of the fingerprints on the card were illegible); and (4) aliens
for whom the FBI could not determine if FBI fingerprint checks were
ever conducted. 

\10 Adjudicators were to review only cases that were adjudicated
outside of their home districts. 


   KPMG EFFORTS TO ENSURE
   CONSISTENT DECISIONS AMONG INS
   REVIEW ADJUDICATORS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

To help ensure consistency among the INS review adjudicators in their
decisionmaking, KPMG took a number of actions.  These actions
included the following: 

  -- teaching the adjudicators how to complete the standardized
     worksheets in a consistent manner,

  -- checking the case files and standardized worksheets after the
     adjudicators' reviews were completed,

  -- requiring a total review of all daily work from any adjudicators
     for whom significant errors in completing the standardized
     worksheets were found,

  -- requiring senior adjudicators to verify a sample of other
     adjudicators' work each day, and

  -- identifying adjudicators' recurring errors and providing
     additional guidance to those adjudicators to avoid the
     recurrence of the errors. 

In addition to the above actions, KPMG activities included (1)
examining and categorizing each criminal history record and verifying
that the record was part of the review, (2) safeguarding and securing
files, and (3) promoting consistency of review adjudicator decisions
by having discussions with the adjudicators when KPMG felt these
discussions were needed. 


   RESULTS OF INS' REVIEW
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

The INS adjudicators reviewed the case files of the 16,858
naturalized aliens with criminal history records that included
records of arrests for felonies or other potentially disqualifying
crimes to judge if the initial adjudications were proper.  The review
results were based only on the data in the case files at the time of
the adjudicators' reviews.  In some cases, data may have been removed
from or added to the INS case files after the initial decisions were
made and before the files were reviewed.  Also, although the
adjudicators who made the initial decisions to approve the aliens'
naturalization applications had the benefit of discussing the
naturalization applications with the aliens, the review adjudicators
did not meet with the applicants. 

As shown in table 1, in its review of these 16,858 case files, INS
designated each case as either "proper," "requires further action,"
or "presumptively ineligible." According to INS officials, a case was
designated as proper if the data in the case file supported the
initial decision to naturalize the individual.  A case was designated
as requires further action if the data in the case file were
insufficient to support a proper decision yet did not appear to
indicate that the individual was barred from being naturalized.  For
example, some case files did not contain data about the dispositions
of arrests that may have affected the individuals' eligibility for
naturalization.  Cases involving a failure to disclose an
individual's criminal history were also classified as requires
further action because the determination of whether the failure to
reveal the criminal history affected the individual's eligibility for
naturalization required a legal determination that went beyond the
scope of the INS review.  A case was designated as presumptively
ineligible if the data in the case file or the criminal history
appeared to indicate that the alien should have been barred from
being naturalized. 



                                Table 1
                
                 Results of INS Adjudicators' Review of
                            Alien Case Files

                                                         Percentage of
Review results                     Number of cases               cases
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Proper                                      10,535                62\a
Requires further action                      5,954                  35
Presumptively ineligible                       369                   2
======================================================================
Total                                       16,858               100\b
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a KPMG rounded 62.49 percent to 63 percent. 

\b Total does not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source:  KPMG report. 

INS is reviewing, for potential revocation, the 369 cases of those
aliens who were judged to be presumptively ineligible as well as the
5,954 cases requiring further action. 


   EOIR EFFORTS TO PROVIDE QUALITY
   ASSURANCE TO THE INS REVIEW
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

EOIR independently reviewed case files of previously naturalized
aliens to provide quality assurance that INS' decisions during the
review were unbiased.  EOIR reviewed a statistically valid sample of
557 alien case files from the universe of 16,858 cases involving
aliens who had criminal history records.  EOIR's review was done
separately from the INS adjudicators' review. 

In conducting the review, EOIR teams of two staff each reviewed the
alien case files at the Lincoln Service Center.  The initial EOIR
team received an orientation regarding the mechanics of properly
completing the standardized worksheet.  The lead EOIR staff member
returned to the service center to provide the orientation to each
subsequent team. 

The EOIR reviewers and the INS review adjudicators had the same
decisions in 439 of the 557 cases (or 79 percent).  Specifically,
EOIR and INS independently judged that 288 cases were proper, 147
cases required further action, and 4 cases were presumptively
ineligible (see table 2). 



                                     Table 2
                     
                       Comparison of INS and EOIR Decisions

                                    EOIR decision
                     --------------------------------------------
Decis
ion                                      Requires   Presumptively
type   INS decision        Proper  further action      ineligible    Differences
-----  ------------  ------------  --------------  --------------  -------------
Prope           360           288              68               4             72
 r
Requi           187            36             147               4             40
 res
 furt
 her
 acti
 on
Presu            10             1               5               4              6
 mpti
 vely
 inel
 igib
 le
================================================================================
Total           557           325             220              12            118
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  The numbers shown in the table reflect the case files
reviewed. 

Source:  KPMG report. 

The results for the 118 cases in which INS and EOIR reached different
decisions were as follows: 

  -- in 6 cases, INS judged that the aliens were presumptively
     ineligible, while EOIR judged that in 1 of these cases the
     initial adjudication decision was proper and in the other 5
     cases further action was required by INS field units;

  -- in 40 cases, INS judged that further action was required by its
     field units, while EOIR judged that in 36 of these cases the
     initial adjudication decisions were proper and in the other 4
     cases the aliens were presumptively ineligible; and

  -- in 72 cases, INS judged that the initial adjudication decisions
     were proper, while EOIR judged that in 68 of these cases further
     action was required by INS field units and in the other 4 cases
     the aliens were presumptively ineligible. 

Regarding the differences between the INS and EOIR decisions, KPMG
reported that much of the naturalization process and the review of
case file information required the reviewers to make subjective
analyses.  Therefore, according to KPMG, it was highly improbable
that the reviewers would reach full agreement on all of the cases. 
KPMG stated that the major contributing factor to differences in INS'
and EOIR's judgments was the interpretation of case file
documentation regarding the applicants' acknowledgment of prior
criminal histories.  KPMG added that, in many cases, EOIR and INS
reviewers had to make subjective decisions as to whether sufficient
case file documentation existed to justify their decisions.  KPMG
concluded that a 79-percent agreement rate between EOIR and INS
reviewers was the most that could be reasonably expected when
considering that the two groups worked independently, had varied
backgrounds, and had to make many subjective analyses.  KPMG provided
no basis or analysis in its December report to support its conclusion
that a 79-percent agreement rate was reasonable. 


      OUR ANALYSIS OF THE INS AND
      EOIR REVIEW RESULTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

We recognize the subjective nature of the reviews by the INS and EOIR
reviewers (i.e., the reviewers had to interpret the data in the case
files).  We agree with the need to separate the two groups of
reviewers to help enhance EOIR's quality assurance role.  However,
consistent with accepted social science standards regarding training,
it would have been helpful in reviewing and interpreting the results
of their reviews if the two groups had received similar training. 
For example, before reviewing the case files, the INS review
adjudicators received training on the standardized worksheet that
they were to complete and received a training manual to help them
complete the standardized worksheet.  On the standardized worksheet,
adjudicators were required to summarize the data in the aliens' case
files (e.g., arrest and conviction information) and evaluate the
naturalization decision to be made regarding the alien--that is,
proper, presumptively ineligible, or further action is required.  The
initial EOIR team was provided with an orientation and the lead EOIR
staff member was responsible for providing the orientation to the
other teams.  However, the EOIR staff did not receive the same
training provided to the INS review adjudicators even though they had
to review the same files and complete the same standardized
worksheet.  Thus, the lack of such training may have contributed to
some of the disagreement on the case files. 

For the 21 percent of the cases where INS and EOIR reviewers
disagreed, the results were divided regarding which reviewer was more
likely to judge that a particular naturalization was proper.  For
example, in 68 cases that INS judged were proper, EOIR judged that
further action was required; in 36 other cases, EOIR judged them to
be proper, but INS judged that further action was required.  Although
in these examples more of the INS judgments were in agreement with
the initial adjudication, we could not conclude that a statistically
significant difference existed between the INS and EOIR decisions. 
The agencies' overall judgments produced generally similar
conclusions about the percentage of the naturalization decisions that
had been made properly.  For example, INS and EOIR judged that 65
percent (360 divided by 557) and 58 percent (325 divided by 557) of
the cases were proper, respectively, and both INS and EOIR judged
that 2 percent (10 divided by 557 and 12 divided by 557,
respectively) of the cases were presumptively ineligible. 

As previously discussed, INS is reviewing the 6,323 cases--that is,
the 5,954 cases that INS judged as requiring further action and the
369 cases that INS judged the aliens to be presumptively
ineligible--for potential revocation.  However, INS initially did not
plan any additional action regarding the 72 cases in which EOIR
disagreed with INS' judgment that the initial INS adjudicators'
decisions were proper, which left unresolved questions about the
soundness of INS' decisions in these cases.  According to the INS
attorney involved with the review of the 6,323 cases for potential
revocation, INS did not know about the 72 cases.  After we questioned
what was being done with these cases, the attorney said that the 72
cases would be included with the 6,323 cases being reviewed. 
According to KPMG, JMD requested a list of the 72 cases, which KPMG
provided on January 23, 1998.  According to INS, it has located the
72 case files to be reviewed for potential revocation. 


   LIMITING CONDITIONS OF THE INS
   REVIEW
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

In its December report, KPMG identified a number of conditions that
may have had an effect on the accuracy and completeness of INS'
review of its initial naturalization decisions.  KPMG could not
quantify the degree to which these conditions may have affected the
ultimate decisions that the INS review adjudicators reached.  These
limiting factors included the following: 

  -- The primary source of naturalization information came from an
     INS data system (Central Index System) that often has been found
     to be inaccurate. 

  -- The differences in the INS and FBI information systems made it
     difficult to compare the INS records of naturalized citizens
     with the FBI criminal history records on aliens. 

  -- INS was unable to locate 399 case files at the time of its
     review. 

  -- The case file documentation varied significantly among INS
     offices; therefore, the case file documentation cannot be relied
     upon to definitively determine if the naturalization occurred. 

  -- The INS review adjudicators' decisions may not be the same as
     the decisions they might have made in their home units for
     various reasons, such as multiple state penal codes with which
     the review adjudicators had little experience and criminal
     history records that had unclear descriptions of arrests and
     very often did not record the ultimate disposition of arrests. 

In our opinion, another limiting condition of the adjudicators'
review was their need to totally rely on the information in the case
files.  Information may have been added to or removed from the case
files after the initial adjudication was made and before KPMG took
control of the files. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

INS reviewed the case files of 16,858 aliens with criminal history
records who had been naturalized between August 31, 1995, and
September 30, 1996.  Subject to the limitations KPMG and we
identified, INS judged that the case files of 6,323 aliens did not
have sufficient information to determine if naturalization was proper
or contained information that the aliens may have been improperly
naturalized.  INS is reviewing these cases for potential revocation. 

To provide quality assurance that INS' decisions during the review
were unbiased, EOIR reviewed a statistically valid sample of 557
alien case files from the universe of 16,858 aliens.  Our analysis
showed that EOIR's and INS' overall judgments produced generally
similar conclusions about the results--that is, the proportion of
naturalization cases found to be proper, to require further action,
and to be presumptively ineligible. 

However, for 72 of the cases that INS review adjudicators had judged
were properly naturalized, EOIR staff judged that further action was
required to decide whether the initial adjudications were proper or
the aliens were presumptively ineligible.  At the time of our review,
INS initially was not planning any further action to judge if the
naturalization decisions for the 72 cases were appropriate, thus
leaving unresolved questions about the soundness of INS' decisions in
these cases.  After we discussed the 72 cases with an INS attorney
involved with reviewing the cases for potential revocation, he said
that these cases are being reviewed with the other 6,323 cases. 

The overall approach KPMG employed to monitor INS' judgments followed
accepted social science standards.  The standards KPMG used included
(1) establishing procedures to ensure the appropriate collection and
review of FBI criminal history records and the review of related
alien case files, (2) promoting consistency in the judgments of INS
adjudicators by providing training and using a standardized
worksheet, and (3) identifying recurring adjudicator errors so that
corrective action could be taken.  In addition, KPMG's report
disclosed limitations in the study procedures followed and discussed
conditions that may have affected the accuracy and completeness of
INS' review. 

KPMG concluded that the 79-percent agreement rate between INS and
EOIR reviewers was the most that could be expected.  Although KPMG
did not disclose its basis for this conclusion, it seems reasonable
to us that providing the EOIR staff with training similar to that
provided to INS' review adjudicators might have helped to reduce any
differences in how the two groups reached their decisions. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

On February 19, 1998, we met with officials from JMD, INS, EOIR, and
KPMG who represented those organizations responsible for the data
discussed in our report and provided the views of those
organizations.  The officials represented the Director of the
Management and Planning Staff, JMD; the Director, EOIR; the
Commissioner, INS; and the Principal, KPMG.  These officials agreed
with our draft report, including its conclusions, and provided
clarifying suggestions, which we included in this final report where
appropriate. 

Our draft report contained a recommendation that the Commissioner of
INS ensure that its Office of General Counsel follow through with its
plans to analyze the 72 cases along with the other 6,323 cases that
INS is reviewing for potential revocation.  During our discussion
with the officials, they said that INS is now taking action to review
these 72 case files.  Accordingly, we deleted the recommendation from
this report. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

We are providing copies of this report to the Attorney General; the
Commissioner, INS; the Director, EOIR; the Director, Management and
Planning Staff, JMD; the Director, Office of Management and Budget;
KPMG; and other interested parties.  Copies will also be made
available to others upon request. 

Major contributors to this report were James M.  Blume, Assistant
Director; Barry Jay Seltser, Assistant Director; James M.  Fields,
Senior Social Science Analyst; Ann H.  Finley, Senior Attorney;
Michael H.  Little, Communications Analyst; and Charlotte A.  Moore,
Communications Analyst.  If you need any additional information or
have any questions, please contact me on (202) 512-8777. 

Norman J.  Rabkin
Director, Administration
 of Justice Issues

*** End of document. ***