Federal  law establishes consequences for foreign nationals who overstay their  authorized periods of admission. DHS  has implemented or taken actions to implement some of these  recommendations; however, DHS has not addressed others. DHS Continually Reviews Records of Potential Overstays, but a Significant Number of Unmatched Arrival Records Remain

		DHS Reviewed a Backlog of 1.6 Million Records of Potential Overstays in 2011

DHS reviewed a backlog of records of potential overstays that we   DHS uses ADIS to match departure  previously identified in April 2011.records to arrival records and subsequently close records for individuals  with matching arrival and departure records because either (1) the  individual departed prior to the end of his or her authorized period of  admission and is therefore not an overstay, or (2) the individual departed  after the end of his or her authorized period of admission and is therefore  an out-of-country overstay. In  April 2011, we reported that, as of January 2011, ADIS contained a  backlog of 1.6 million unmatched arrival records that DHS had not  reviewed through automated or manual processes. Second, DHS reviewed the remaining  757,000 records against national security and law enforcement databases  to identify potential national security or public safety threats. DHS Has More than 1 Million Unmatched Arrival Records That Do Not Meet Enforcement Priorities

Since DHS conducted its review of the previous backlog in 2011,  additional unmatched arrival records have accrued, and as of June 2013,  DHS has more than 1 million unmatched arrival records in ADIS (that is,  arrival records for which ADIS does not have a record of departure or  status change), which do not meet ICE’s enforcement priorities. DHS Has Actions Completed and Under Way to Improve Data to Identify Potential Overstays, but the Effect of These Improvements Is Not Yet Known

		DHS Has Begun Collecting Additional Data and Improved Sharing of Data among Its Databases to Help Identify Potential Overstays

Since April 2011, DHS has taken various actions to improve its data on  potential overstays. Since that time, DHS has taken action to  strengthen its processes for reviewing records to identify potential  overstays, including (1) streamlining connections among DHS databases  used to identify potential overstays and (2) collecting information from the  Canadian government about those exiting the United States and entering  Canada through northern land ports of entry. DHS Continues to Face Limitations in Reporting Reliable Overstay Rates and Has Not Assessed and Documented Improvements in Reliability

Since 1994, neither DHS nor its predecessor has regularly reported  annual overstay rates to Congress because of concerns about the  reliability of the department’s overstay data. In April 2011, we  reported that DHS officials stated that the department had not reported  overstay estimates because it had not had sufficient confidence in the  quality of its overstay data. These limitations in  overstay data may affect DHS’s ability to report reliable overstay  estimates unless resolved. However, development and implementation of a biometric exit capability  has been a long-standing challenge for DHS. As a  result, as of April 2013, according to DHS officials, the department’s  planning efforts focus on developing a biometric exit capability for  airports, with the potential for a similar solution to be implemented at  seaports, and DHS’s planning documents, as of June 2013, do not  address plans for a biometric exit capability at land ports of entry. May 2012 DHS reported  internally on the  results of S&T’s  analysis and made  recommendations to  support the planning  and development of a  biometric air exit  capability. February 2005 GAO issued a report  entitled Homeland  Security: Some  Progress Made, but  Many Challenges  Remain on U.S. Although DHS’s May 2012 report stated that DHS would take steps to  address the report’s recommendations by May 2014, DHS officials told us  that the department’s current goal is to develop information about options  for biometric air exit and to report to Congress in time for the fiscal year  2016 budget cycle regarding (1) the additional benefits that a biometric air  exit system provides beyond an enhanced biographic exit system and   (2) costs associated with biometric air exit. According to A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge,  which provides standards for project managers, specific goals and  objectives should be conceptualized, defined, and documented in the  planning process, along with the appropriate steps, time frames, and  milestones needed to achieve those results. In fall 2012, DHS  developed a high-level plan for its biometric air exit efforts, which it  updated in May 2013, but this plan does not clearly identify the tasks  needed to develop and implement an evaluation framework. DHS plans to provide Congress with an  assessment of the benefits and costs of various options for pursuing a  biometric exit system at airports, but without robust planning that includes  time frames and milestones to develop and implement an evaluation  framework for this assessment, DHS lacks reasonable assurance that it  will be able to provide this assessment to Congress for the fiscal year  2016 budget cycle as planned. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help improve confidence in the quality of overstay data that DHS plans  to report in December 2013 in accordance with statutory reporting  requirements, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security  direct relevant DHS components to assess and document the extent to  which the reliability of the data used to develop any overstay estimates  has improved and any remaining limitations in how the data can be used.
Why GAO Did This Study

Each year, millions of visitors come to the United States legally on a temporary basis either with or without a visa. Overstays are individuals who were admitted legally on a temporary basis but then overstayed their authorized periods of admission. DHS has primary responsibility for identifying and taking enforcement action to address overstays. In April 2011, GAO reported on DHS's actions to identify and address overstays and made recommendations to strengthen these processes. DHS concurred and has taken or is taking steps to address them. DHS has also reported taking further actions to address overstays.
GAO was asked to review DHS's progress since April 2011. This report addresses (1) DHS's efforts to review its records to identify potential overstays, (2) the extent to which DHS's changes in its systems or processes have improved data on potential overstays and DHS's ability to report overstay rates, and (3) the extent to which DHS has made progress toward establishing a biometric exit system. GAO analyzed DHS overstay data and documents-- such as those related to the overstay identification processes and biometric exit plans--and interviewed relevant DHS officials.

What GAO Found

Since April 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has taken action to address a backlog of potential overstay records that GAO previously identified. Specifically, DHS reviewed such records to identify national security and public safety threats, but unmatched arrival records--those without corresponding departure records--remain in DHS's system. GAO had previously reported that, as of January 2011, DHS had a backlog of 1.6 million unmatched arrival records that had not been reviewed through automated or manual processes. DHS tracks arrivals and departures and closes records for individuals with matching arrival and departure records. Unmatched arrival records indicate that the individual is a potential overstay. In 2011, DHS reviewed this backlog of 1.6 million records, closed about 863,000 records, and removed them from the backlog. As new unmatched arrival records have accrued, DHS has continued to review all of these new records for national security and public safety concerns. As of June 2013, DHS's unmatched arrival records totaled more than 1 million.
DHS has actions completed and under way to improve data on potential overstays and report overstay rates, but the effect of these improvements is not yet known. Further, DHS continues to face challenges in reporting reliable overstay rates. DHS has streamlined connections among databases used to identify potential overstays. However, these improvements do not address some underlying data quality issues, such as missing land departure data. Federal law requires DHS to report overstay estimates, but DHS or its predecessor has not regularly done so since 1994. In April 2011, GAO reported that DHS officials said that they have not reported overstay rates because DHS has not had sufficient confidence in the quality of its overstay data. In February 2013, the Secretary of Homeland Security testified that DHS plans to report overstay rates by December 2013. However, DHS has not assessed or documented improvements in the reliability of data used to develop overstay estimates, in accordance with federal internal control standards. Without such a documented assessment to ensure the reliability of these data, decision makers would not have the information needed to use these data for policy-making purposes.
Developing and implementing a biometric exit capability to collect biometric data, such as fingerprints, which is required by federal law, has been a long-standing challenge for DHS. In May 2012, DHS internally reported recommendations to support the planning for a biometric exit capability at airports--DHS's priority for biometric exit capabilities--that could also be implemented at seaports in the future; however, as of June 2013, DHS's planning did not address a biometric exit capability at land ports of entry. DHS officials stated that the department's goal is to develop information and report to Congress about the benefits and costs of biometric air exit options before the fiscal year 2016 budget cycle. Standard practices for project management state that time frames should be documented as part of the planning process; however, DHS has a high-level plan for a biometric air exit capability, and it does not clearly define the steps, time frames, and milestones needed to develop and implement an evaluation framework, as recommended in DHS's May 2012 report. Without robust planning that includes time frames and milestones, DHS does not have reasonable assurance that it will meet its time frame for developing and implementing an evaluation framework.