Visa Revocation Policies and Procedures

Our analysis indicates that the U.S. government has no specific written  policy on the use of visa revocations as an antiterrorism tool and no written  procedures to guide State in notifying the relevant agencies of visa  revocations on terrorism grounds. State and INS have written procedures  that guide some types of visa revocations; however, neither they nor the  FBI have written internal procedures for notifying their appropriate  personnel to take specific actions on visas revoked by the State  Department. State and INS officials articulated their agencies’ policies on how  revocations help their agencies prevent suspected terrorists from entering  the United States. The department  reviews this information to determine if a suspected terrorist has a U.S.  visa. In our review  of the 240 visa revocations, we found that (a) notification of revocations  did not always reach the appropriate unit within INS and the FBI; (b) State  did not consistently post lookouts on the individuals; (c) 30 individuals  whose visas were revoked on terrorism grounds entered the United States  either before or after the revocation and may still remain in the country;  and (d) INS and the FBI were not consistently taking action to investigate;  locate; or, where appropriate, clear, prosecute, or remove any of the people  who had entered the country before or after their visas were revoked. Recommendations for Executive Action

To strengthen the visa revocation process as an antiterrorism tool, we  recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with  the Secretary of State and the Attorney General:  develop specific policies and procedures for the interagency visa  revocation process to ensure that notification of visa revocations for  suspected terrorists and relevant supporting information is transmitted  from State to immigration and law enforcement agencies, and their  respective inspection and investigation units, in a timely manner;   develop a specific policy on actions that immigration and law  enforcement agencies should take to investigate and locate individuals  whose visas have been revoked for terrorism concerns and who remain  in the United States after revocation; and   determine if persons with visas revoked on terrorism grounds are in the  United States and, if so, whether they pose a security threat. To assess the policies and procedures governing  the visa revocation process, we interviewed officials from State, the  Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Federal Bureau of  Investigation (FBI) and reviewed relevant documents. 1. 2. We agree that these individuals may not be terrorists.
Why GAO Did This Study

The National Strategy for Homeland Security calls for preventing the entry of foreign terrorists into our country and using all legal means to identify; halt; and, where appropriate, prosecute or bring immigration or other civil charges against terrorists in the United States. GAO reported in October 2002 that the Department of State had revoked visas of certain persons after it learned they might be suspected terrorists, raising concerns that some of these individuals may have entered the United States before or after State's action. Congressional requesters asked GAO to (1) identify the policies and procedures of State, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that govern their respective visa revocation actions and (2) determine the effectiveness of the process.

What GAO Found

The U.S. government has no specific written policy on the use of visa revocations as an antiterrorism tool and no written procedures to guide State in notifying the relevant agencies of visa revocations on terrorism grounds. Further, State, INS, and the FBI do not have written internal procedures for notifying their appropriate personnel to take specific actions on visas revoked by the State Department. State and INS officials said they use the revocation process to prevent suspected terrorists from entering the country, but none of the agencies has a policy that covers investigating, locating, and taking action when a visa holder has already entered. This lack of formal written policies and procedures has contributed to systemic weaknesses in the visa revocation process that increase the possibility of a suspected terrorist entering or remaining in the United States. In our review of 240 visa revocations, we found that appropriate units within INS and the FBI did not always receive notifications of all the revocations; names were not consistently posted to the agencies' watch lists of suspected terrorists; 30 individuals whose visas were revoked on terrorism grounds had entered the United States either before or after revocation and may still remain; and INS and the FBI were not routinely taking actions to investigate, locate, or resolve the cases of individuals who remained in the United States after their visas were revoked.