In fiscal year 2011, more than 2.1 million  nonimmigrant visa applicants worldwide were denied visas for entry into  the United States. Obtaining an immigrant visa is one part of a four part process for aliens  outside of the United States to become a permanent resident of the  United States. Certain Countries and Visa Categories Experience High Levels of Fraud, but Trends Evolve over Time

Certain countries, such as Brazil, China, the Dominican Republic, India,  and Mexico, had high numbers of suspected fraud cases in fiscal year  2010, and certain visa categories, such as work visas, student visas, and  diversity visas, had high levels of fraud. Almost 60 percent of confirmed  fraud cases (9,200 out of 16,000) were referred to Fraud Prevention Units  in Brazil, China, Dominican Republic, India, and Mexico in fiscal year  2010. According to State officials, some visitor visa applicants provide  fraudulent statements or documents, such as a false bank statement, to  demonstrate strong ties with their home country and therefore overcome  the presumption that they intend to use their temporary visitor visa to  illegally immigrate to the United States. State Has a Variety of Tools and Resources to Combat Fraud, but Does Not Have a Policy for Systematically Utilizing Domestic Anti-Fraud Resources

Consular officers rely on State’s advanced information technology, fraud  reports, and domestic and overseas fraud prevention resources to  improve their ability to detect and deter fraud. Any post may request KCC  assistance in conducting research and analysis on visa applications,  either on an ad-hoc basis for individual cases, or on a pilot basis for  larger-scale projects. Overseas Anti-Fraud Staffing Levels and Workload Vary by Post

Anti-fraud staffing levels in Fraud Prevention Units vary widely across  overseas posts, causing disproportionate workloads. For example, a Fraud  Prevention Manager in a high-fraud post that we visited told us that the  post would like additional KCC prescreening of certain visa categories,  but was unaware of how to request KCC assistance. Although State Offers a Variety of Anti- Fraud Training Courses, Fraud Prevention Managers Are Not Required to Take Them

Although State offers anti-fraud courses in a classroom setting and  online, State does not require Fraud Prevention Managers to take them. For example, four of the five Fraud Prevention Managers we  met with had not been trained in MATRIX. Additionally, between October 2009 and July 2012, entry-level officers  made up approximately 22 percent (489 of 2,252) of the total number of  students who registered for Detecting Imposters (PC128) and 21 percent  (486 of 2,246) of the total number of students who registered for  Detecting Fraudulent Documents (PC544). Entry-level officers  are required to take only limited fraud prevention training that does not  include new anti-fraud technologies. However, State does not have a policy that specifies how to  systematically utilize the center’s resources, based on post workload and  fraud trends. Recommendations

To further improve the visa fraud prevention process, we recommend that  the Secretary of State take the following two actions:  (1) Formulate a policy to systematically utilize anti-fraud resources  available at the Kentucky Consular Center, based on post workload and  fraud trends, as determined by the department; and  (2) Establish standardized training requirements for Fraud Prevention  Managers, to include training in advanced anti-fraud technologies, taking  advantage of distance learning technologies, and establishing methods to  track the extent to which requirements are met. State concurred with our recommendations. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

This report examines (1) countries and visa categories subject to the  most visa fraud; (2) technologies and resources to combat fraud; and (3)  training requirements of State officials responsible for fraud prevention. To assess State’s use of technologies and resources to combat fraud, we  met with State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs Office of Consular Systems  and Technology to review State’s major data systems as well as the latest  technological tools available to consular officers and Fraud Prevention  Managers.
Why GAO Did This Study

Foreign nationals may apply for entry into the United States under dozens of different visa categories, depending on circumstances. States Bureaus of Consular Affairs and Diplomatic Security share responsibility for the prevention of visa fraud, which is a serious problem that threatens the integrity of the process. Some documents through illegal means, such as using counterfeit identity documents or making false claims to an adjudicating officer. Visa fraud may facilitate illegal activities in the United States, including crimes of violence, human trafficking, and terrorism. This report examines (1) countries and visa categories that are subject to the most fraud; (2) State's use of technologies and resources to combat fraud; and (3) training requirements of State officials responsible for fraud prevention. GAO examined State's reports and data on fraud trends and statistics, examined resources and technologies to counter fraud, and observed visa operations and fraud prevention efforts overseas and domestically.

What GAO Found

Certain countries and visa categories are subject to higher levels of fraud. In fiscal year 2010, almost 60 percent of confirmed fraud cases (9,200 out of 16,000) involved applicants from Brazil, China, Dominican Republic, India, and Mexico. Department of State (State) officials told GAO that fraud most commonly involves applicants for temporary visits to the United States who submit false documentation to overcome the presumption that they intend to illegally immigrate. Fraud is also perpetrated for immigrant visas and nonimmigrant visa categories such as temporary worker visas and student visas. In response to State efforts to combat visa fraud, unscrupulous visa applicants adapt their strategies, and as a result, fraud trends evolve over time.
State has a variety of technological tools and resources to assist consular officers in combating fraud, but does not have a policy for their systematic use. For example, State recently implemented fraud prevention technologies such as a fraud case management system that establishes connections among multiple visa applications, calling attention to potentially fraudulent activity. Overseas posts have Fraud Prevention Units that consist of a Fraud Prevention Manager (FPM) and locally employed staff who analyze individual fraud cases. In 2011, the ratio of Fraud Prevention Unit staff to fraud cases varied widely across overseas posts, causing disproportionate workloads. The Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) is a domestic resource available to posts that verifies information on certain visa applications. However, KCC services are only provided on an ad-hoc basis, and State does not have a policy for posts to systematically utilize its resources. For example, an FPM at a high fraud post told GAO that the post would like to utilize KCC anti-fraud services for screening certain visa categories, but did not know how to request KCC assistance.
Although State offers anti-fraud training courses at the Foreign Service Institute and online, it does not require FPMs to take them and does not track FPMs enrollment. Consular officers receive limited fraud training as part of the initial consular course, and FPMs are not required to take advanced fraud training in new technologies. In addition, GAO found that 81 percent of FPM positions were filled by entry-level officers and 84 percent of FPM positions were designated as either part-time or rotational. Between October 2009 and July 2012, entry-level officers made up about 21 percent of the total students who registered for a course on detecting fraudulent documents, and State could not guarantee that FPMs were among them. Four out of the five FPMs with whom GAO spoke had not been trained in State's new fraud case management system.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that State (1) formulate a policy to systematically utilize anti-fraud resources available at KCC, based on post workload and fraud trends, as determined by the Department and (2) establish requirements for FPM training in advanced anti-fraud technologies, taking advantage of distance learning technologies, and establishing methods to track the extent to which requirements are met. State concurred with these recommendations.