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. Once the  purpose of the parole is fulfilled, the alien is to leave the United States. 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. Sixty-four percent  of the requests for humanitarian parole were for two reasons—family  reunification (49 percent) and medical emergency (15 percent). 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 crime—both of which  are generally disqualifying factors, absent what the USCIS Web site on  humanitarian parole describes as “a very compelling emergency.” 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. The needed medical treatment was available outside the United  States. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (USCIS)  Humanitarian Assistance Branch’s (HAB) policies and procedures for  adjudicating applications for humanitarian parole. Data Analysis

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

What GAO Found

The 8,748 humanitarian parole applications that HAB adjudicated from October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, displayed various characteristics--54 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 rate--higher 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 "tie-breaking" recommendation. A final decision is then made by the HAB Branch Chief or a designee, but if the Branch Chief decides to override the adjudicators' recommendations, the case is first discussed with higher-level officials. A computerized data system also records key information in every case. While HAB's 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 reconsideration--HAB 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, USCIS's 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.