Naturalization of Aliens: INS Internal Controls (Testimony, 05/01/97,
GAO/T-GGD-97-98).
GAO discussed the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) process
for naturalizing aliens, including its fingerprinting procedures.
GAO noted that: (1) aliens who apply to the INS to become naturalized
citizens have to meet certain requirements, such as being of good moral
character (e.g., not being convicted of certain felonies); (2) to
determine whether aliens applying for citizenship have been convicted of
a crime that would preclude them from being naturalized, INS submits the
aliens' fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which
is to determine if the person with those fingerprints has a criminal
history record on file; (3) between September 1995 and September 1996,
some aliens with certain disqualifying criminal felony convictions were
improperly naturalized probably because INS adjudicators were not made
aware of the results of the FBI check of the aliens' criminal history
records; (4) in addition, both the Department of Justice's Inspector
General and GAO have identified problems with the fingerprinting
component of the process; (5) in November 1996 the INS Commissioner
announced changes designed to enhance the naturalization process in
several key areas; (6) to try to deal with the problem of adjudicators
making decisions without having a definitive response from the FBI on
the completed criminal history checks, the Commissioner ordered that no
aliens were to be approved for naturalization until INS positively knew
that they had no disqualifying felony convictions; (7) in addition, the
Commissioner ordered that no naturalization cases were to be scheduled
for hearings or oath ceremonies until all changes were "in place and
working"; (8) previously, INS had issued regulations establishing
internal controls to help ensure that people applying for naturalization
were using their own fingerprints; (9) however, an April 17, 1997,
report by Peat Marwick showed that INS has not ensured that its field
units were carrying out the Commissioner's instructions; and (10) GAO
believes that its work on the fingerprinting process and other aspects
of INS management, and the Peat Marwick report, raise questions about
the extent to which INS can today assure itself and the Congress that it
is granting citizenship to only those applicants who deserve it.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: T-GGD-97-98
TITLE: Naturalization of Aliens: INS Internal Controls
DATE: 05/01/97
SUBJECT: Internal controls
Naturalization
Convictions
Citizenship
Immigration or emigration
Aliens
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
Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate
For Release on Delivery
Expected at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday
May 1, 1997
NATURALIZATION OF ALIENS - INS
INTERNAL CONTROLS
Statement of Richard M. Stana
Acting Associate Director, Administration of Justice Issues
General Government Division
GAO/T-GGD-97-98
GAO/GGD-97-98T
(183613)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
INS - x
FBI - x
IG - x
NATURALIZATION OF ALIENS: INS
INTERNAL CONTROLS
====================================================== Chapter Summary
Aliens who apply to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
to become naturalized citizens have to meet certain requirements,
such as being of good moral character (e.g., not being convicted of
certain felonies). To determine whether aliens applying for
citizenship have been convicted of a crime that would preclude them
from being naturalized, INS submits the aliens' fingerprints to the
FBI, which is to determine if the person with those fingerprints has
a criminal history record on file.
Between September 1995 and September 1996, some aliens with certain
disqualifying criminal felony convictions were improperly naturalized
probably because INS adjudicators were not made aware of the results
of the FBI check of the aliens' criminal history records. In
addition, both the Department of Justice's Inspector General and GAO
have identified problems with the fingerprinting component of the
process. For example, individuals intent on hiding their criminal
records could have had someone else complete the INS fingerprint card
and then submit the prints as their own.
In November 1996 the INS Commissioner announced changes designed to
enhance the naturalization process in several key areas. To try to
deal with the problem of adjudicators making decisions without having
a definitive response from the FBI on the completed criminal history
checks, the Commissioner ordered that no aliens were to be approved
for naturalization until INS positively knew that they had no
disqualifying felony convictions. In addition, the Commissioner
ordered that no naturalization cases were to be scheduled for
hearings or oath ceremonies until all changes were "in place and
working." Previously, INS had issued regulations establishing
internal controls to help ensure that people applying for
naturalization were using their own fingerprints. However, an April
17, 1997, report by Peat Marwick showed that INS has not ensured that
its field units were carrying out the Commissioner's instructions.
GAO believes that its work on the fingerprinting aspects of the
process and other aspects of INS management, and the Peat Marwick
report, raise questions about the extent to which INS can today
assure itself and the Congress that it is granting citizenship to
only those applicants who deserve it.
NATURALIZATION OF ALIENS: INS
INTERNAL CONTROLS
==================================================== Chapter Statement
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Immigration and
Naturalization Service's (INS) process for naturalizing aliens,
including its fingerprinting procedures. My statement will outline
the problems that we and others have identified with these processes
and the changes INS has made, including the internal controls INS has
designed in its revised processes.
To prepare this statement, we reviewed (1) INS regulations and
internal instructions regarding the naturalization and fingerprint
processes; (2) the February 1994 report issued by the Justice
Department's Inspector General (IG) and our December 1994 report on
the fingerprint process; and (3) the April 17, 1997, report by Peat
Marwick on INS' implementation of changes to its naturalization
process. We discussed a draft of this statement with INS officials
and incorporated their comments where appropriate.
BACKGROUND
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter Statement:1
Aliens who apply to INS to become naturalized citizens have to meet
certain requirements, such as residing in the United States for at
least 5 years as legal permanent residents, demonstrating a knowledge
of the English language and American civics, and being of good moral
character (e.g., not being convicted of certain felonies). To
demonstrate adequate knowledge of English and civics, aliens are
tested by either INS or testing entities approved by INS. To
determine whether aliens applying for citizenship have been convicted
of a crime that would preclude them from being naturalized, INS
submits the aliens' fingerprints to the FBI, which is to determine if
the person with those fingerprints has a criminal history record on
file.\1 Depending on the severity and timing of their felony
convictions, aliens with criminal history records may be denied
citizenship.
Aliens applying for naturalization are to be scheduled for hearings
after they submit their applications. According to INS, the current
policy is that the hearing dates are not to be set until a definitive
response has been received from the FBI on completed criminal history
checks.
--------------------
\1 INS charges a fee to process aliens' applications. Included in
the fee is a charge by the FBI for checking its records for a
possible criminal history of the alien.
PROBLEMS WITH THE
NATURALIZATION PROCESS
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter Statement:2
Between September 1995 and September 1996, INS received about 1.3
million naturalization applications; almost 1.05 million aliens were
naturalized. During that period, INS initiated a number of changes
to its procedures in an effort to streamline the process and reduce
growing backlogs. While these changes greatly increased the volume
of applications processed and approved, some aliens with certain
disqualifying criminal felony convictions were improperly naturalized
probably because INS adjudicators were not made aware of the results
of the aliens' criminal history records.\2
In addition, other problems associated with the naturalization
process have been identified. Media reports in mid-1996 alleged that
private companies on which INS relied to test applicants' knowledge
of English and civics had been submitting fraudulent results; in
congressional testimony last September, INS acknowledged that it had
a problem.\3
--------------------
\2 Justice has an ongoing study to determine the extent to which
aliens were improperly naturalized.
\3 Statement of T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Executive Associate
Commissioner for Programs, before the House Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight, Subcommittee on National Security,
International Affairs and Criminal Justice; September 10, 1996.
PROBLEMS WITH THE
FINGERPRINT PROCESS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:2.1
Prior Justice IG and GAO audit reports have identified problems in
the naturalization process that relate to obtaining and checking
fingerprints. In February 1994 the IG reported that (1) individuals
intent on hiding their criminal records could have someone else
complete the INS fingerprint card and then submit the prints as their
own, (2) INS examiners had inappropriately approved some applications
after assuming that applicants had no criminal history because no
criminal history records were included in the aliens' files when the
examiners adjudicated the cases, and (3) INS frequently did not
submit new sets of fingerprints to the FBI when the original sets of
prints were rejected by the FBI as illegible.\4
In our December 1994 report,\5 we described how INS was planning to
correct the problems reported by the IG. We noted, however, that INS
had not been monitoring its offices' progress in correcting the
problems. We also pointed out that INS' assumption that no record of
a criminal history in an applicant's file meant that the person had
no record could prove to be incorrect because the results of criminal
history reports might have been delayed or not filed in a timely
manner. We found that under INS' procedures at the time of our
review, examiners could not determine whether FBI fingerprint checks
had been completed because, at INS' request, the FBI returned a
report only if a criminal history record was found. According to INS
district officials, without a control to ensure that the FBI had
completed a fingerprint check, some aliens with disqualifying felony
convictions had their naturalization applications inappropriately
approved.
Accordingly, we recommended that INS obtain the results from the FBI
of all its record and fingerprint checks, including those for aliens
who do not have criminal history records. Because INS had told its
district offices to correct problems identified by the IG but had not
monitored the district offices' efforts to follow those instructions,
we also recommended that INS monitor the district offices' progress
to comply with INS directives. At that time, INS agreed to implement
both of our recommendations.
--------------------
\4 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, Alien
Fingerprint Requirements in the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (Feb. 16, 1994).
\5 INS FINGERPRINTING OF ALIENS: Efforts to Ensure Authenticity of
Aliens' Fingerprints (GGD-95-40, Dec. 22, 1994).
CHANGES TO THE NATURALIZATION
PROCESS
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter Statement:3
In a November 29, 1996, memorandum, the INS Commissioner announced
changes designed to enhance the naturalization process in several key
areas. To try to ensure that the problems discussed previously had
been corrected, the Commissioner ordered that no naturalization cases
were to be scheduled for hearings or oath ceremonies until all
changes were "in place and working." To try to deal with the problem
of adjudicators making decisions without having a definitive response
from the FBI on the completed criminal history checks, the
Commissioner ordered that no aliens were to be approved for
naturalization until INS positively knew that they had no
disqualifying felony convictions. In addition, the Commissioner's
memorandum ordered the following controls:
-- Adjudicators were to complete a work processing sheet for all
naturalization applications to record the specific steps taken
during the naturalization process (e.g., that the adjudicator
determined that the alien met the English requirement).
-- Supervisors were to conduct enhanced supervisory reviews for
such situations as applicants with criminal histories or complex
cases involving other statutory determinations.
-- Quality assurance reviews were to be conducted monthly until a
permanent quality assurance program was developed and validated
by the Office of Programs. The interim program was to involve,
among other things, a review of the procedures and eligibility
determinations of a number of randomly selected cases at every
INS site processing naturalization applications. A headquarters
team was to visit each of the five major naturalization sites
(Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Miami, and San Francisco, which
processed about 75 percent of all pending naturalization cases)
and other offices as deemed necessary to review the quality
assurance program and completion of the checklists.\6
In September 1996 INS established controls regarding the process for
testing applicants' knowledge of English and civics. The national
organizations INS relies on to conduct the testing were ordered to
strengthen their monitoring and quality control plans, submit monthly
reports to INS, and conduct at least one annual inspection visit to
each testing site. Further, INS hired a contract inspection service
to conduct about 80 site inspections during 1996.
Finally, Justice contracted with Peat Marwick to review the
implementation of the November 1996 changes to the naturalization
process and with Coopers and Lybrand to propose an overall redesign
of the naturalization program.
--------------------
\6 Subsequently, according to INS officials, the Peat Marwick review
was substituted for the INS headquarters team review.
CHANGES TO THE FINGERPRINT
PROCESS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:3.1
On June 4, 1996, INS issued regulations regarding who could take
fingerprints of applicants for immigration benefits. Basically, INS
implemented a system that relies on a combination of its own offices
and "designated fingerprint services"--law enforcement agencies and
private fingerprint entities that INS would certify as being
acceptable.\7 Beginning March 1, 1997, INS was to accept fingerprint
cards prepared only by designated services.\8
The regulations establish the conditions under which the private
entities are to be certified. For example, each employee who would
be allowed to take fingerprints had to be trained in fingerprinting
procedures by INS or the FBI. In addition, these employees were to
undergo an identification and criminal history check. The
regulations also provide instructions on how to verify the identity
of the person being fingerprinted.
Also, INS set up several internal controls to help ensure that
fingerprints are properly taken:
-- Employees of the outside organizations must receive the training
from INS or the FBI to properly take aliens' fingerprints.
-- Monitoring is to be done by INS district and regional directors
and by the national contractor INS hired to provide monitoring
support.
-- People who take aliens' fingerprints are to check their identity
by comparing the information on the aliens' fingerprint card
with the aliens' passport, a driver's license or state-issued
photo identification, or some other INS-acceptable document.
--------------------
\7 On July 14, 1994, the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed
that INS implement a fingerprint collection system which permits only
trained INS employees, recognized law enforcement agencies, or
INS-certified outside entities to take fingerprints.
\8 The June 1996 regulations called for INS to begin accepting
fingerprints from only designated facilities as of January 1, 1997.
According to INS officials, the effective date was slipped to March
1.
PEAT MARWICK'S REPORT
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter Statement:4
On April 17, 1997, Peat Marwick issued its report on its interim
survey of selected INS offices'\9 implementation of the changes
ordered by the Commissioner last November. Among its findings were:
-- There was continued lack of quality control in the completion of
the fingerprint cards. Peat Marwick reported that INS was
experiencing a growing backlog of cases that were classified
"not found" as a result of the failure of the matching effort
between INS and FBI.
-- The use of the designated fingerprint services had done little
to increase the accuracy of the data on the fingerprint cards.
-- Despite the requirement that adjudicators were not to schedule a
naturalization case for a hearing until they received a
definitive response from the FBI regarding the criminal history
record search, Peat Marwick was often unable to verify that this
control was being followed by the adjudicators.
In addition, Peat Marwick identified two other findings dealing with
the dissemination of the November 1996 procedures and staff training.
First, Peat Marwick discovered three different versions of the
procedures had been distributed throughout INS.\10 It pointed out
that generally staff at the first-line supervisor level and below
were not informed of the reasons for the changes. Second, with
respect to training, Peat Marwick reported that there were no
curriculum or policies established regarding the recording of
attendance for accountability purposes. According to the report,
this was a major contributing factor in INS' inability to implement
fully the November 1996 procedures.
As a result of Peat Marwick's report, INS announced that it would be
making improvements in three general areas to ensure that each
district is effectively implementing the November 1996 procedures:
(1) strengthening communication, coordination, and oversight; (2)
improving training of all staff involved in implementing the new
procedures; and (3) improving fingerprint processes. According to
INS, a full-scale, 60-day audit is being planned.
--------------------
\9 According to the Peat Marwick report, between February 19 and
March 26, 1997, it visited 4 INS service centers, and 20 sites which
represent about 85 percent of INS' naturalization processing
capacity. It assessed the (1) dissemination of the Commissioner's
November 29 memorandum throughout the organization, (2) quantity and
quality of training conducted to facilitate understanding of the
memorandum, and (3) degree to which the policies and procedures had
been implemented.
\10 One version was a copy of the memorandum signed by the
Commissioner, another was an unsigned electronic version of the
memorandum with different attachments, and the third was an early
version drafted for the Deputy Commissioner's signature.
OBSERVATIONS
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter Statement:5
The Peat Marwick report shows that INS has not ensured that its field
units were carrying out the Commissioner's instructions. It also
highlighted the need for INS to do a better job of monitoring its
field offices to ensure that they are properly and completely meeting
the Commissioner's expectations.
We have not examined the extent to which INS has carried out its
plans to monitor the performance of the outside organizations
involved in the naturalization process. However, our past work on
the fingerprinting aspects of the process and other aspects of INS
management, and the recent Peat Marwick report, raise questions about
the extent to which INS can today assure itself and the Congress that
it is granting citizenship to only those applicants who deserve it.
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:5.1
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions.
*** End of document. ***