42 A-3 and G-5 Visa Holders Have Alleged Abuse Since 2000; Total Number of Alleged Incidents Is Likely Higher

We identified 42 individual A-3 and G-5 visa holders who have alleged  abuse by foreign diplomats with some level of immunity in the United  States from 2000 through June 2008. However, the total number of alleged  incidents is likely to be higher for four reasons: household workers’ fear of  contacting law enforcement authorities, NGOs’ protection of victim  confidentiality, limited information on some allegations handled by the  U.S. government, and federal departments’ difficulties in tracking  household worker abuse allegations and investigations involving foreign  diplomats. State has several offices that receive allegations of abuse by foreign  diplomats, but no single office maintains information on all allegations. Three Factors Complicate Investigations of Abuse by Foreign Diplomats

The U.S. government’s process of investigating foreign diplomats for  alleged abuse is complicated by three factors—(1) constraints posed by  immunity, (2) household workers’ heightened vulnerabilities due to their  employers’ status, and (3) the length of time it takes for Justice to obtain  State’s opinion on the use of specific investigative techniques in trafficking  investigations. This fear can inhibit  household workers from cooperating with investigations, further limiting  the investigators’ options for collecting evidence. Although certain techniques, such as  searching the residence of a diplomat who has full immunity and  inviolability without the diplomat’s consent, are clearly prohibited, other  techniques may touch the diplomat’s “sphere of privacy.” According to  State officials, the permissibility of these techniques under international  law is less clear. According to a Justice  official, obtaining some of this information can be difficult and time- consuming. State may need to consider  reciprocity, such as how use of a specific technique might affect treatment  of U.S. diplomats abroad. Officials from both agencies told us they  are considering developing an interagency process that would outline time  frames for discussing the use of investigative techniques, but they have,  thus far, not taken any formal actions toward creating one. Weaknesses Exist in Implementation and Oversight of A-3 and G-5 Visa Policies and Procedures

At the four consular posts we visited, we found weaknesses in State’s  process for ensuring that its policies for issuing A-3 and G-5 visas are  implemented correctly and consistently, and some consular officers were  unfamiliar with or unclear about aspects of guidance relating to these  visas. Although State headquarters issues A-3 and G-5 policies and  procedures, it relies on individual posts to ensure they are implemented  correctly and consistently and has not instituted a process to spot-check  compliance. Informing A-3 and G-5 Visa Applicants of Their Rights

State’s guidance also includes provisions encouraging consular officers to  help educate A-3 and G-5 visa applicants about their rights under U.S.  laws, but some officers we spoke with were unaware of these provisions. The provisions also might result in refusal of an A-3 or G-5 visa if  a particular diplomat is linked to a pattern of employee disappearance,  abuse allegations, or other irregularities. A State official told us the  department is drafting possible language for these additional provisions to  the Foreign Affairs Manual, but officials have not reached internal  agreement on final language and have no timetable for doing so. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to (1) seek to determine how many A-3 and G-5 visa  holders have alleged abuse by foreign diplomats with immunity since 2000,  (2) review the U.S. government’s process for investigating abuse  allegations involving foreign diplomats with immunity, and (3) describe  and assess how State ensures correct and consistent implementation of       A-3 and G-5 visa polices and procedures. To review the U.S. government’s process for investigating abuse  allegations involving foreign diplomats with immunity, we reviewed State  documents including the Foreign Affairs Manual, cables sent to consular  officers on A-3 and G-5 visas, “Diplomatic and Consular Immunity  Guidance for Law Enforcement and Judicial Authorities,” diplomatic notes  to Chiefs of Diplomatic Missions in the United States regarding conduct of  diplomatic agents in the United States, USUN’s diplomatic notes to  Permanent Missions and Permanent Observer Offices, and State’s 2007  document to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations entitled “State’s  Initiatives to Promote Fair Treatment of Domestic Workers by Diplomatic  Personnel.” We also interviewed officials from State’s Office of the Chief  of Protocol, Office of the Legal Adviser, Diplomatic Security Service,  USUN, and Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons.
Why GAO Did This Study

In 2007, the Department of State (State) reported that some foreign diplomats may be abusing the household workers they brought to the United States on A-3 or G-5 visas. GAO was asked to (1) determine the number of A-3 or G-5 visa holders who have alleged abuse by foreign diplomats with immunity since 2000, (2) review the U.S. government's process for investigating these allegations, and (3) assess how State ensures that its policies for issuing A-3 and G-5 visas are implemented correctly and consistently. GAO analyzed documents, interviewed officials, and conducted fieldwork at four consular posts that issue large numbers of A-3 or G-5 visas.

What GAO Found

GAO identified 42 household workers with A-3 or G-5 visas who alleged that they were abused by foreign diplomats with immunity from 2000 through 2008, but the total number is likely higher. The total number of alleged incidents since 2000 is likely higher for four reasons: household workers' fear of contacting law enforcement, nongovernmental organizations' protection of victim confidentiality, limited information on some cases handled by the U.S. government, and federal agencies' challenges identifying cases. For example, State has several offices that receive allegations of abuse by foreign diplomats, but no single office maintains information on all allegations. The U.S. government's process for investigating alleged abuse of household workers by foreign diplomats is complicated by three factors. First, immunity can pose constraints for law enforcement in collecting evidence. Second, the status of foreign diplomats can heighten their workers' sense of vulnerability, causing the workers to fear cooperating with investigators. Third, the length of time it takes to obtain a legal opinion from State on the permissibility of using certain investigative techniques can hamper investigations. According to State, although some techniques are clearly prohibited by international law (such as searching certain diplomats' residences), the permissibility of others under international law is less clear. In advising on the use of investigative techniques, State considers legal and policy issues, such as reciprocity--assessing how U.S. diplomats abroad might be affected by actions taken toward a foreign diplomat on U.S. soil. State may ask Justice to provide information to help determine the permissibility of certain techniques, but the process of obtaining this information can be difficult and time consuming for Justice. Although both State and Justice have discussed creating a process to avoid delays, no formal actions have, thus far, been taken to establish one. Weaknesses exist in State's process for ensuring correct and consistent implementation of policies and procedures for issuing A-3 and G-5 visas. GAO's review of employment contracts submitted at four consular posts by A-3 and G-5 visa applicants showed that they often did not include State's required components, such as a guarantee of the minimum or prevailing wage. GAO also found that officers at the four posts were unclear about or unfamiliar with certain aspects of State's guidance. Few of the officers were aware that they should inform A-3 and G-5 visa applicants of their rights under U.S. law during their interview. Some officers at the four posts also were uncertain about the reasons for refusing A-3 or G-5 visas. State is considering adding provisions to its guidance that would more clearly stipulate reasons for refusing these visas, such as if an A-3 or G-5 applicant seeks to work for a foreign diplomat who is linked to a pattern of employee disappearance, abuse allegations, or other irregularities. However, State has not reached internal agreement on these provisions and has set no timetable for doing so. State headquarters officials said they rely on individual posts to monitor implementation of A-3 and G-5 visa policies and procedures and do not routinely assess posts' compliance