	Background

		I-129F Petition and K Visa Adjudication Processes

Within DHS, USCIS is responsible for adjudicating immigration benefit  applications, including I-129Fs filed by U.S. citizens to bring a foreign  national fiancé(e) to the United States through a K-1 visa. IMBRA Disclosure and Reporting Requirements

Both USCIS and State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs play key roles in  providing information about petitioners to beneficiaries. DOJ is  responsible for pursuing civil and criminal penalties under IMBRA and,  pursuant to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013,  was required to report to Congress on, among other things, the policies  and procedures for consulting with DHS and State in investigating and  prosecuting IMBRA violations by petitioners and IMBs. DHS, State, and DOJ Have Processes to Ensure IMBRA Compliance, but DHS and State Could Better Implement Disclosure Requirements

		USCIS Has Processes to Collect Petitioner Information, but the I-129F Petition Has Errors

USCIS has implemented processes to collect information from petitioners;  however, USCIS is in the process of revising the current version of the I- 129F petition to address errors or limitations that may limit or otherwise  affect the accuracy of petitioners’ disclosure to USCIS of all information  required by IMBRA. USCIS is to subsequently provide this information to  State, whose consular officers are to share this information with  beneficiaries during the K visa interview. In particular, the language on  the I-129F petition states that the filing limits apply to petitioners who  have filed three or more I-129F petitions, or who have filed three or more  I-129F petitions and the first I-129F petition was approved within the last  2 years, whereas the instruction accompanying the I-129F petition aligns  more closely with IMBRA and provides that a waiver is required if a prior  I-129F petition had been approved in the past 2 years. Relevant guidance to consular officers, found in State’s FAM,  outlines procedures consular officers are to follow, including requirements  for documenting that beneficiaries have received the required  information. State requires consular officers  to document within its IVO database whether they made all of these  disclosures to the beneficiary during the visa interview. In the cases for which consular  officers provided partial notations, we found that the notes varied from  “IMBRA given” to “domestic violence brochure given.”
Moreover, in 63 of the 147 cases where State’s data indicated that  consular officers had interviewed beneficiaries (but for which there was  no corresponding USCIS record of the beneficiary requesting a change to  Lawful Permanent Resident status) we found in 28 (or about 44 percent)  of these 63 cases that consular officers did not document that the IMBRA  pamphlet was received, read, and understood by beneficiaries. We reviewed a draft of that cable in October 2014, and it includes, among  other things, a reminder for officers to document in IVO that the IMBRA  pamphlet was received, read, and understood for all K visa applicants. Incorporating the FAM’s IMBRA-related  documentation requirements into State’s training courses for consular  officers could help State better ensure that consular officers are aware of  the requirements so that they can be better positioned to more  consistently document the disclosure of IMBRA information during  interviews with K visa applicants. In October 2014, DOJ issued an  IMBRA bulletin to assist stakeholders, such as state and local law  enforcement entities and women’s and immigrants’ rights organizations,  in identifying and reporting IMBRA violations to DOJ for prosecution. USCIS Does Not Collect and Maintain All Data in a Manner Consistent with IMBRA, and Additional Training Could Help to Ensure IMBRA Data Are Accurate and Reliable

		USCIS Does Not Collect and Maintain All Data Consistent with IMBRA

IMBRA mandates that DHS collect and maintain data necessary for us to  review IMBRA’s impact on the process for granting K nonimmigrant  visas. The remaining six elements were either not  collected and maintained electronically or the electronic data collected are  not reliable. Rather, USCIS collects and  maintains information on whether a waiver is required (rather than  submitted), and the reasons for their decisions are handwritten by the  officer on the hard copy of the petition and thus were not readily available  for purposes of our review. We  recommended, among other things, that USCIS ensure its program  schedules are developed in accordance with GAO’s best practices  guidance. Additional Training on IMBRA Requirements Could Help Ensure Consistent Adjudication and Reliable Data

USCIS officers have not consistently adjudicated I-129F petitions or  entered complete and accurate data into CLAIMS 3. Specifically, our analysis indicates that USCIS’s  data are not reliable for determining (1) the number of I-129F petitions  filed by persons who have previously filed I-129F petitions (or multiple  filers), or (2) the number of IMBRA waivers required. Data on IMBRA waivers. Taking steps  to ensure that all data to be collected in accordance with IMBRA are  included with the release of the electronic I-129F petition, and providing  additional training, could help USCIS better ensure that IMBRA  requirements are properly implemented and that data on petitions are  collected and maintained consistent with USCIS procedures. To ensure that fiancé(e)s and spouses applying for K visas receive and  understand the information to be provided to them under IMBRA and that  consular officers adhere to documentation guidance in the FAM, we  recommend that the Secretary of State incorporate the FAM’s IMBRA- related documentation requirements into the Foreign Service Institute’s  training curriculum for entry-level and midlevel consular officers. With regard to our third  recommendation to DHS that USCIS provide additional training to officers  who adjudicate I-129F petitions on the IMBRA-related requirements in the  adjudication process, DHS concurred and stated that USCIS has  developed a training presentation for officers on IMBRA-related  requirements and that all officers adjudicating the I-129F will be required  to complete the course by the end of January 2015.
Why GAO Did This Study

Enacted in January 2006, IMBRA was passed by Congress to address reports of domestic violence and abuse of foreign beneficiaries married or engaged to U.S. citizens who have petitioned for them to enter the United States on a K visa. As amended, IMBRA requires that the federal government collect and provide to beneficiaries information about petitioners' prior K visa petitions and criminal histories. USCIS is responsible for collecting this information and adjudicating petitions, State is responsible for disclosing information to beneficiaries, and DOJ is authorized to enforce IMBRA. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 mandates that GAO report on IMBRA implementation.
This report examines the extent to which (1) DHS, State, and DOJ have implemented processes to ensure compliance with IMBRA, and (2) DHS collects and maintains reliable data to manage the K visa process. GAO analyzed IMBRA, USCIS, and State policies, procedures, and guidance, and K visa petition data from March 2012 through March 2014. GAO also interviewed USCIS, State, and DOJ officials regarding their agencies' implementation of IMBRA.

What GAO Found

The Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Justice (DOJ), and State (State) have processes to help ensure compliance with the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA), as amended, but State could better document information on IMBRA disclosures. Specifically, consistent with IMBRA, DHS's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) collects information from petitioners—U.S. citizens who apply to bring noncitizen fiancé(e)s, spouses, and their children (beneficiaries) into the country—through I-129F petitions for K visas. DOJ is responsible for pursuing federal civil and criminal penalties for IMBRA violations. State has guidance on processes for providing IMBRA information to beneficiaries (referred to as disclosures), such as a pamphlet outlining for beneficiaries the K visa process and legal rights and resources available to immigrant crime victims. Specifically, State's guidance requires consular officers to document within case notes in State's database whether they made all of the IMBRA-required disclosures to the beneficiary during the visa interview. However, GAO's review of a sample of K visa applications showed that in about 52 percent of interview case notes (76 of 147), consular officers did not document that they had provided beneficiaries the IMBRA pamphlet as required by State's guidance. In October 2014, State drafted a guidance cable for consular officers on IMBRA implementation, including a reminder to follow guidance regarding IMBRA documentation. State's consular officer training courses, however, do not cover IMBRA-related documentation procedures outlined in its guidance. Incorporating IMBRA-related documentation requirements into training courses could help State better ensure that consular officers are aware of the requirements for documenting IMBRA disclosures.
Consistent with IMBRA, USCIS is to collect and maintain data on, among other things, eight elements in the K visa process for GAO reporting purposes; however, six of the eight elements are either not reliable or are not collected or maintained in a reportable (i.e., electronic) format. Thus, these elements were not readily available for GAO's review. For example, USCIS is to collect and maintain data on I-129F petitions where the petitioner had one or more criminal convictions. This information is maintained in hard copy in the petition file and thus was not readily available for GAO's review. USCIS has begun planning to electronically capture I-129F petition data under the agency's overarching transformation to an electronic immigration benefits system. However, this transformation has faced significant delays, and as of September 2014, the electronic I-129F petition design requirements have not been finalized. Consistent with federal internal control standards, ensuring that all of the IMBRA-related requirements will be captured with the release of the I-129F electronic petition would better position USCIS to collect and maintain complete data on petitioners for reporting purposes and management oversight. Further, USCIS officers have not consistently adjudicated I-129F petitions or recorded complete and accurate data. Specifically, GAO found that USCIS's data are not reliable for determining the number of I-129F petitions filed by persons who have previously filed I-129F petitions for a fiancé(e) or spouse or that required IMBRA waivers because of, among other things, officer error in recording data on petitions. Additional training for officers could help USCIS better ensure its officers are aware of IMBRA requirements to assist them in maintaining petitions data consistent with IMBRA.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that State provide training to consular officers on IMBRA documentation requirements. GAO also recommends, among other things, that USCIS ensure that all IMBRA-related data will be captured with the planned electronic release of the I-129F petition and that its officers receive additional training on IMBRA requirements. State and DHS concurred with our recommendations.