
29 April 2004
State Department Finds Security Risk in Diversity Visa Law
Recommends Congress ban applicants from terrorism-sponsoring nations
The inspector general of the U.S. Department of State has found
that a program designed to welcome immigrants might open the door
to criminals, terrorists or agents of hostile governments. Deputy
Inspector General Anne W. Patterson urged the Congress April 29
to make the necessary changes in the law to close that door.
The inspector general's inquiry revealed security vulnerabilities
in the Diversity Visa Program. This program is designed to encourage
emigration to the United States from nations that are not well
represented in this country, offering citizens of those nations
the opportunity to obtain an immigrant's visa through selection
by lottery. Citizens from nations that are designated as state
sponsors of terrorism by the U.S. State Department are eligible
to participate in this program even though they are severely restricted
from obtaining visitors' visas. Patterson urged the Congress to
close that opportunity to potentially hostile immigrants.
"(A)liens fleeing oppression in countries such as Cuba, Libya,
Syria, and Iran would be ineligible to apply for a visa via the
Diversity Visa Program if our recommendation were implemented," said
Patterson. She said the Department of State has expressed some
concerns about that policy being imposed permanently on people
attempting to flee oppressive governments.
The inspector general's inquiry also found that thousands of applicants
each year attempt to submit multiple entries in order to better
their chances. She recommended that the Congress act to bar all
further entries submitted by an applicant who attempts that ploy.
The inquiry also uncovered fraudulent schemes devised in U.S. consulates
in which some employees attempted to manipulate lottery applications
for profit.
Patterson acknowledged that the State Department has instituted
new procedures and advanced technological application processing
techniques since some of these problems were initially detected,
and those changes may have diminished the occurrence of some of
these problems. She said the inspector general will continue to
investigate.
Hearing testimony from all witnesses is available at http://www.house.gov/judiciary/immigration.htm
Following is the text of Patterson's text as prepared for delivery:
(begin text)
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS
TESTIMONY OF
ANNE W. PATTERSON,
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
AND BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS
APRIL 29, 2004
Chairman Hostettler, Representative Jackson-Lee, and Members of
the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Office of Inspector
General's (OIG) work concerning the Department's Diversity Visa
Program. I would like to discuss with you the findings and recommendations
of our report last fall and the Department's progress in responding
to our recommendations. I would also note that OIG has a good working
relationship with the Department and is conducting ongoing work
concerning consular operations to strengthen consular programs
and identify methods to reduce fraud in visa and passport programs.
The Department has taken some steps toward addressing OIG's recommendations.
However, legislative changes may be needed to effectively address
current Diversity Visa Program vulnerabilities, including barring
applicants from states sponsoring terrorism, barring applicants
with multiple filings, and ensuring that the program is self-financing.
Background
In FY 1995, Congress established a Diversity Visa Program that
authorized up to 50,000 immigrant visas annually to persons from
countries that were underrepresented among the 400,000 to 500,000
immigrants coming to the United States each year. Most immigration
to the United States is based upon family relationships or employment.
Diversity visa applicants, however, can qualify on the basis of
education and/or work experience. Applicants need only to demonstrate
that they have the equivalent of a U.S. high school education or
two years of work experience in an occupation that requires at
least two years of training or experience. If ultimately selected
as lottery winners, like other immigrant applicants, they are subject
to all of the grounds upon which a visa can be denied, including
medical condition and criminal behavior.
Originally, the Diversity Visa Program was one of many immigrant
visa functions assigned to the National Visa Center at Portsmouth,
New Hampshire. In September 2000, diversity visa processing was
moved to a newly remodeled site at Williamsburg, Kentucky, the
Kentucky Consular Center (KCC). Unlike earlier lottery programs,
KCC processes lottery applications in the United States, thereby
relieving overseas missions of many clerical and file storage responsibilities.
Kentucky Consular Center employees receive and process lottery
entries, select winners, process winners' visa applications, and
schedule applicant interviews at missions abroad. Consular officers
at those missions issue or deny the applications.
Recent Developments in the Diversity Visa Program
Last week, I toured the Kentucky Consular Center. I was impressed
with the center's ability to eliminate duplicate entries based
on addresses and names electronically, including the use of facial
recognition technology. I am sure that the Bureau of Consular Affairs
would welcome members of your staff to visit the center to see
this technology first hand. The technology can do the many procedures
that simply were not possible when seven million or fifteen million
envelopes came in by hand. Until this year, the diversity visa
lottery was paper-based, which the Department characterized as
labor intensive, inefficient, and costly. However, this year the
Department implemented an entirely electronic registration system
called E-DV for the DV-2005 lottery, which received nearly six
million entries via the Internet during the two-month registration
period. I should note also that our review took place prior to
E-DV's initiation, which occurred between November 1 and December
30, 2003. Therefore, OIG plans to reexamine its previous findings
in the context of this new technology. OIG will do this along with
other ongoing consular program reviews and will continue to recommend
ways to strengthen these programs.
OIG's ongoing consular work has identified fraud that includes
the Diversity Visa Program, although, these incidents seem to be
tied to applicant pools that pre-date the E-DV program registration.
At one post, we discovered that some applicants submitted duplicate
applications using similar photos that were undetected by the facial
recognition technology. At another post, we discovered a common
scheme used by some Foreign Service national employees, who offer
to buy winning lottery applications, taking advantage of the fact
that many people cannot afford the full costs associated with the
visa process. In these cases, FSNs offered to purchase winning
applications for up to $4,000. Once in possession of the winning
applications, FSNs would switch the photographs with imposters,
who paid several times over the original purchase price. In some
cases, FSNs switch entire application packages.
At this point in the E-DV program, lottery winners are just beginning
to be notified to start the visa application process. Using facial
and name recognition technology and data mining techniques, each
winner will be checked against the database of all other applicants
to identify duplicate entries, which will result in disqualification.
The Department believes once E-DV is further implemented, these
types of fraud will be less likely to occur. Our future work will
assess whether these vulnerabilities have been fully addressed.
Findings and Recommendations
In terms of our original diversity visa review, we note that section
306 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act of 2002
(Pub. L 107-173) generally prohibits issuance of nonimmigrant visas
to aliens from state sponsors of terrorism unless the Secretary
of State judges that they do not pose a risk to the national security
of the United States. There are no parallel restrictions for immigrant
visas, including the Diversity Visa Program. Because of this, and
because of the program's vulnerability to fraud and its ease of
application, OIG believes that this program contains significant
vulnerabilities to national security as hostile intelligence officers,
criminals, and terrorists attempt to use it to enter the United
States as permanent residents. As a result of this finding, OIG
recommended that the Department propose changes to the Immigration
and Nationality Act to bar from the Diversity Visa application
process applicants from nations that sponsor terrorism.
The Department agrees with OIG in principal regarding this recommendation,
but has expressed concerns over the subsequent effect of permanently
barring aliens who are fleeing the oppressive regimes of states
that sponsor terrorism. For example, aliens fleeing oppression
in countries such as Cuba, Libya, Syria, and Iran would be ineligible
to apply for a visa via the Diversity Visa Program if our recommendation
were implemented.
It is also true that consular procedures and heightened awareness
will provide greater safeguards against terrorists entering through
the diversity visa process. Consular officers interview all diversity
visa winners and check police and medical records once applicants
begin the actual visa application process. By October of this year,
all immigrant and non-immigrant visa applicants will have their
index fingers digitally scanned. This system is already in place
at 17 of the Department's immigrant visa sections and over 100
non-immigrant sections. In fact, all posts will have this capability
by the end of October. This means that fingerprints can be run
through U.S. databases of criminals and terrorists in about 15
minutes. It also means that if an applicant applies for a non-immigrant
visa as Mr. Smith and later applies for a diversity visa under
a different name, the fingerprint system will identify him as a
fraudulent applicant. The electronic registration system should
reduce fraud and reduce the burden on our consular officers. It
is also worth observing that in Bangladesh, consular officers rejected
85 percent of the 2002 diversity visa winners using the visa application
process, indicating that the consular office at that post has been
very alert to the propensity for fraud.
OIG's report pointed out widespread abuse in the Diversity Visa
Program. Despite the strictures against duplicate submissions,
the Kentucky Consular Center detects thousands of duplicates each
year. Currently, the penalty for submitting detected duplicate
entries is disqualification for the year that the duplicate submission
was detected. Identity fraud, meanwhile, is endemic, and fraudulent
documents are commonplace. Many countries exercise poor control
over their vital records and identity documents, exacerbating the
potential for program abuse. In some countries, control is so poor
that consular officers must assume that all travel, identity, and
civil documents are unreliable. As a result, OIG recommended that
the Department propose changing the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA) to bar permanently from future diversity lottery programs
all adult applicants who are identified as multiple filers.
The Department told OIG that it agrees with this recommendation
and is currently reviewing the legal ramifications of our recommendation.
Current provisions of INA 212(a)(6)(C) only renders persons as
ineligible for a visa on the basis of fraud or willful material
misrepresentations. In the case of diversity visa applicants, it
is unclear whether submitting multiple lottery entries constitutes
material misrepresentation. The Department has additional concerns
over permanently eliminating applicants unfairly and permanently
if, for example, applicants have no knowledge or involvement with
the submission of multiple lottery entries. While OIG welcomes
the Department's agreement on this issue, perhaps clarifying legislation
would provide a means to permanently eliminate multiple filers
from the program.
Several offices and officers in CA's Directorate of Visa Services
(CA/VO) manage and oversee parts of the Diversity Visa Program
and OIG believes that management needs to be tightened. Missions
do not have current written guidance on what is, country by country,
the equivalent of a U.S. high school education. Many missions do
not have the personnel or language resources to determine which
applicants qualify through training or work experience. CA/VO prepares
an annual statistical report for the Congress on diversity visa
issuances, but does not include much trend analysis for the Kentucky
Consular Center, overseas missions, or senior CA management. OIG
recommended that the Department issue standards for determining
whether foreign high school educations are comparable to U.S. high
school educations. OIG believes the Department should also prepare
an annual report on regional and worldwide diversity visa trends
and program issues.
Responding to this recommendation, the Department recently purchased
a newly published reference book that translates and standardizes
foreign educational credentials for use in validating educational
requirements of applicants and is planning to distribute a copy
to all diversity visa posts. The Department is preparing a report
on trends and issues for the recently completed DV-2003 program.
OIG considers this as a first step toward establishing guidance
for this program. In terms of our recommendation that the Department
prepare an annual report, we understand that the Department is
summarizing the demographic data trends and identifying program
issues revealed through its diversity visa database. We look forward
to receiving this data and observing what it shows in terms of
fraud indicators and other program trends.
Unlike other visa applications, the current diversity visa processing
fee is collected only from applicants selected as winners. Millions
of applicants, therefore, pay nothing to participate, and the U.S.
government pays all costs not covered by the diversity visa fee.
For fiscal 2002, the Department estimated that program costs not
covered by the fee exceeded $840,000. Since program shortfalls
persist, OIG recommended that the Department seek authority to
collect processing fees from all persons who apply for the diversity
visa program. In addition, OIG determined that no current diversity
visa fees are allotted to fraud prevention. Antifraud activities
at post are generally dominated by nonimmigrant visa fraud cases.
Many embassies and consulates with significant diversity visa issues,
therefore, do not routinely refer problem cases to their antifraud
units, and some missions have no antifraud units. As a result,
OIG recommended that the Department determine whether antifraud
field investigations are useful in diversity visa cases and how
the diversity visa fee could be appropriately devoted to antifraud
work at overseas missions.
The Department charges nothing for entry into the program and
has determined that charging a small fee for the paper-based registration
system is impractical. Although OIG agrees that an application
fee for paper-based applications may not be feasible, the new electronic
system may open the door for charging a fee that will cover program
costs and the associated administrative costs. According to a sample
taken from one region of applicants, about 50 percent of applicants
apply from the United States and 70 percent of applicants already
use a facilitator to assist with registration. Many of these facilitators
can be found on the Internet and charge fees for services. Using
an electronic payment system, applicants could pay a small fee
for diversity visa registration, enabling the U.S. government to
recoup costs and fund more fraud prevention officers overseas,
especially in countries with critical fraud problems. Such an approach
might also reduce multiple entries since applications would no
longer be free. Further, OIG determined that the Department could
do a better job of identifying all costs associated with the Diversity
Visa Program from overseas posts. Currently, that information is
not fully reported. Further, section 636 of Public Law 104-208
provides for charging a fee associated with the Diversity Visa
Program, which currently is charged only to program winners. Perhaps
clarifying legislation would allow the Department to expand fee
collection to include all program applicants and fund anti-fraud
investigators.
When OIG began its review of the Diversity Visa Program, there
was no antifraud officer position at the Kentucky Consular Center.
OIG has been advised that a position now is approved for that facility
and an officer soon will be in place to coordinate antifraud issues
and policies. When I visited the center last week, the Department
affirmed that they were in the process of bringing an antifraud
officer on board. At the time of our review, only the center's
director was an experienced consular officer. OIG also recommended
workload studies to determine whether a full-time visa officer
position and a language-designated telephone inquiry position should
be established at the Kentucky Consular Center.
With regard to OIG's recommendation to establish a language-designated
telephone inquiry position, the Department determined that, since
no predominating language exists among diversity visa applicants
other than English, the Department is considering the idea of switching
foreign language inquiries to the National Visa Center, where employees
speak 40 different languages. OIG endorses this idea since it appears
to be feasible.
Conclusions
To sum up, Mr. Chairman, the Department and the Bureau of Consular
Affairs have made progress in reducing fraud and vulnerabilities
by implementing the facial recognition system for diversity visa
applicants. Certainly, our contacts with the Bureau of Consular
Affairs and consular officers overseas indicated a widespread
understanding of the shortcomings of the program. In OIG, we
believe that applicants from state sponsors of terrorism should
be excluded, that multiple applicants should be penalized, and
that the program should charge application fees that would enable
the Department to recoup its costs for hiring more people and
would reduce the number of multiple applicants. My experienced
consular inspectors have also suggested a possible improvement,
excluding from the program countries with extremely high levels
of fraud. Most of these recommended changes will require legislation.
We plan to review this program in the next few months in light
of the changes in technology and the widespread public and congressional
interest. We will continue to work with the Department and with
the Congress to recommend solutions to these issues.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am happy to answer your questions and
those of other subcommittee members at the appropriate time.
(end text)
|