U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness
Classification Appeals and FLSA Programs

Philadelphia Oversight Division
600 Arch Street, Room 3400
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1596


Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code


	Appellant:		[appellants name]
				[appellants name]

	Agency classification:	Criminal Investigator
				GS-1811-12

	Organization:		Investigations Branch
				[name] District
				[name] Regional Office
				Immigration and Naturalization Service
				U.S. Department of Justice
				[location]
		
	OPM decision:		Criminal Investigator
				GS-1811-12

	OPM decision number:	C-1811-12-16


/s/ Robert D. Hendler
_____________________________
Robert D. Hendler
Classification Appeals Officer

2/8/02
_____________________________
Date



As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations, this decision constitutes a certificate that is
mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll,
disbursing, and accounting officials of the government. The
agency is responsible for reviewing its classification decisions
for identical, similar, or related positions to ensure
consistency with this decision. There is no right of further
appeal. This decision is subject to discretionary review only
under conditions and time limits specified in the Introduction to
the Position Classification Standards (PCS's), appendix 4,
section G (address provided in appendix 4, section H).

Decision sent to:

[appellants' name and addresses]

[attorney's name and address]

Ms. Carol Hall
Assistant Commissioner for
 Office of Human Resources and Development
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Department of Justice
800 K Street, NW, Room 5000
Washington, DC 20536












Introduction

On May 10, 2001, the Philadelphia Oversight Division of the U.S.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) accepted a classification
appeal from [attorney's name] on behalf of [appellants' names]
who occupy identical additional positions. The position is
currently classified as Criminal Investigator, GS-1811-12. They
believe the position should be classified as Criminal
Investigator, GS-1811-13. The appellants work in the
Investigations Branch, [name] District, [name] Regional Office,
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), U.S. Department of
Justice, [location]. We have accepted and decided this appeal
under section 5112(b) of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).
We received the initial appeal administrative report on June 13,
2001, and supplementary case information from the appellants on
August 20, 2001. Our factfinding was delayed due to the events
of September 11, 2001.

General issues

In his correspondence, the appellants' representative points to
their performance appraisals, training certificates, and awards
that cite the importance of their work in support of their
appeal. He states that the agency failed to analyze substantive
information when it evaluated the appellants' work. The
representative says that the agency's analysis contains numerous
factual inaccuracies and erroneous characterizations, fails to
note the significance of information provided during its fact-
finding process, and fails to consider the appellants' workload.
Both the appellants and sources supportive of their appeal stress
their large number of arrests and awards for their work.

OPM is required by law to classify positions on the basis of
their duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements by
comparison to the criteria specified in the appropriate PCS or
guide (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112). The law does not
authorize use of other methods or factors of evaluation. We will
consider the appellants' training and education only to the
extent that the knowledge obtained is required and applied in
performing their assigned duties. The performance management and
awards programs cover the quality of performance. These issues
are not covered by or germane to the classification appeal
process. Our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions
regarding the classification of the position in question.

Position information

The appellants initiate, conduct, control and/or coordinate
criminal investigations under a variety of immigration laws and
program initiatives, e.g., the Immigration Reform Act of 1986,
Narcotic Traffickers Deportation Act of 1986, and the Immigration
Marriage Fraud Amendments Act of 1986. Investigations are aimed
at limiting the access of illegal or unqualified aliens to jobs
and benefits, and apprehending and removing criminal aliens from
the country. The appellants participate in agency and
interagency initiatives and investigations geared toward large-
scale criminal organizations and activities, e.g., drug smuggling
and distribution; and large-scale marriage, document and other
immigration fraud by individuals and groups. The appellants
perform these functions as members of the Violent Gangs Task
Force (VGTF), composed of representatives of several Federal,
State and local law enforcement agencies. They report to a
Supervisory Criminal Investigator, but work closely with the
Organized Crime and Terrorism Unit (OCTU), U.S. Attorney's Office
for the [name] District of [location] ([acronym]).

We conducted a telephone audit with the appellants on August 27,
2001, and a telephone interview with their current immediate
supervisor, [name], and former immediate supervisor, [name], on
November 16. On October 31 we conducted a telephone interview
with [name], Deputy Chief, OCTU, [acronym], as requested by the
appellants. We conducted telephone interviews with two Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Supervisory Special Agents
knowledgeable of the appellants' case work; [name] on November 29
and [name] on December 7. We conducted telephone interviews with
[name], INS Regional VGTF Coordinator, on December 29, and
[name], Assistant Regional Director of Investigations, on January
10, 2002. We conducted telephone interviews with [name], INS
National VGTF Coordinator on January 17 and February 1, and with
[name], National Anti-Smuggling Coordinator, on January 25.

To reach a conclusion, we reviewed the audit findings and all
information of record furnished by the appellants and their
agency, including their official position description (PD) of
record (#[number]) and program directives and documents provided
at our request. On June 4, 2001, the appellant's supervisor
certified the accuracy of the PD, but stated that the appellants
routinely exceed the duties and responsibilities described in the
PD. In his letter of May 25, 2001, the appellants'
representative stated that the PD was accurate, but that the
duties assigned routinely exceed the responsibilities indicated
in their PD. Our audit and additional fact-finding confirmed
that the PD of record contains the major duties and
responsibilities of the appellants' position and we incorporate
it by reference into this decision.

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency has allocated the position to the Criminal
Investigating Series, GS-1811, and the appellants do not
disagree. We concur with the allocation. Accordingly, the
appellants' position is allocated properly as Criminal
Investigator, GS-1811. The Grade-Level Guides for Classifying
Investigator Positions, GS-1810/1811 (Guide) is used to evaluate
the grade level worth of GS-1811 positions.

Grade determination

The Guide uses two factors to distinguish between grade levels:
Complexity of Assignments and Level of Responsibility. The Guide
provides for the classification of positions based on assignments
that are typical and representative of the cases for which the
investigator has primary responsibility over a period of time,
i.e., only the case agent position may be credited with
performing the full grade level of the cases.

The Guide recognizes that besides work individually assigned to
investigators, at any grade level, from time to time, they work
on particular investigative tasks associated with cases assigned
to other investigators. Similarly, from time to time,
investigators may lead or coordinate the work of other
investigators who are temporarily assigned to work on cases for
which they have primary responsibility. Typical coordinative
work occurs when additional staff is needed to maintain
surveillance in several places on a 24-hour basis, or when a
large number of separate leads must be tracked down in a short
amount of time; or when an investigation is centered in one
geographic area but involves issues that require inquiries in
other geographic areas. These temporary conditions are a normal
part of completing investigative assignments and have no
particular impact with respect to determining the grade level
worth of an investigator's position. There is no particular
relationship between the grade level of the investigator who has
primary responsibility for a case and the grade levels of the
positions of the other investigators who are temporarily called
upon to help with particular investigative tasks. Thus, the
grade level worth of coordinative responsibilities is wholly
dependent upon the grade level worth of the cases for which they
are performed.

As part of their appeal, the appellants submitted affidavits
describing several investigations. [name] was conducted from
March 1994 through July 1998, [name] from March 1995 through June
1999, and [name] from December 1996 through April 1999.
Established OPM guidance requires that a representative work
cycle be determined to establish what work is characteristic of a
position for classification evaluation. OPM has found that
sometimes, e.g., long-term criminal investigations, work cycles
beyond one year, are appropriate. The "cycle of work"
representative of the position can vary from agency to agency, or
even within a given agency. The representative period for
determining the nature of duties and responsibilities for
classification purposes is not fixed because some cases are
protracted, sometimes requiring more than a year, and many of
these require substantially full-time effort. As a result, it is
not uncommon for one or two cases to occupy virtually all of an
investigator's work time for several months, a year, or even
more. A work cycle ending almost two years before this case was
accepted for adjudication cannot be considered the appellants'
current duties and responsibilities. The earlier investigations
provide useful historical background. However, our adjudication
must focus on the more recent work performed by the appellants
provided at our request constituting the current work cycle
within the meaning of the classification process; i.e., within
the past two to three years given the extended period of time
over which complex criminal investigations frequently evolve.
Following are synopses of the appellants' description of their
most complex current representative cases.

[name]

This case grew out of [name] that focused on a scheme to smuggle
illegal aliens from China to the United States using a fishing
vessel. One hundred and five aliens were held captive in the
United States until friends or relatives paid money to the
smugglers. The investigation revealed that the defendant,
[name], sponsored the boat and stood to collect the bulk of the
profits. The appellants described [name] as head of one of the
most lucrative and sophisticated smuggling organizations in the
world and the financier behind numerous boat loads of Chinese
nationals smuggled into the United States. [name] and members of
her organization are directly involved in narcotics trafficking
and are closely connected to numerous drug traffickers around the
world. The appellants used a variety of techniques to lure
[name] to Hong Kong and other countries with which the United
States has extradition treaties. They worked with Hong Kong and
other United States agencies leading to [name]'s arrest in Hong
Kong in April 2000.

The appellants continue to work with the U.S. Attorney's Office
to dismantle [name]'s organization. They said that it has well-
defined horizontally structured leadership. The absence of a
permanent vertical structure makes it inherently resilient and
complicates attempts to identify key individuals. The appellants
said that the organization uses stolen or forged documents and
bribes government officials, enabling members to create and
change identities to travel abroad and forge links with
counterparts in other countries and foster ties with potential
allies. They state that in many cases members themselves do not
know the true identity of the individuals with whom they deal on
a daily basis. The organization relies on family ties and close
personal relationships. It is difficult to penetrate due to
distrust of outsiders, mistrust of police, fear of deportation,
and fear of the organization's retaliation against family
members. They describe using an informant who is unaware that
the appellants know that the informant is a high-ranking member
of the [name] organization.

The appellants said that many of the [name] organization's key
members are narcotics traffickers and are members of or are
connected to Chinese triads and other organized crime groups.
Business people in legitimate Chinese associations assist the
organization by controlling or financing some individuals.
Members of these groups have provided funds for heroin deals and
have allowed association facilities to be used to house illegal
immigrants and store weapons. The organization subcontracts some
aspects of its alien smuggling operations to members of other
ethnic groups, e.g., transportation and acquiring fraudulent
documents. The appellants stated that the organization is
closely associated with or directly involved with members of a
Taiwan-based heroin and alien trafficking organization with
military and political connections in Taiwan and the United
States, a Mexico-based alien smuggling organization, and a
Thailand-based heroin and alien smuggling organization. The
organization has similar relations with a drug and alien
smuggling organization based in Belize with a network stretching
from Hong Kong to [location], a drug and alien smuggling
organization based in Bolivia and Peru, and an alien smuggling
organization based in Guatemala. Aliens are recruited to carry
drugs by reducing or waiving their transit fees, and contracts
with vessel captains often include provisions for the captain's
family if the captain is incarcerated.

The appellants stated that [name] and her organization fund
numerous projects in China's Fujian Province so those local
officials do not challenge alien smuggling activities. The
organization uses a network of immigration and other Government
officials in the United States and other countries, making the
investigation of these officials sensitive and difficult. The
appellants described [name]'s partner as under investigation by
numerous agencies, and suspected of having intimate relationships
with law enforcement officials. The organization uses
sophisticated technical equipment and uses security
countermeasures against law enforcement operations.

During the [name] investigation, the appellants found that an
individual whose identity was stolen was being investigated by
another INS office for large-scale alien smuggling, creating
jurisdictional problems and expanding the scope of the [name]
investigation. The appellants found that [name] has become a
major supplier of fraudulent documents that they believe has
serious national and international security implications. [name]
uses fictitious companies as fronts to launder money, and
operates a large illegal wire transfer business making it
difficult to trace funds. The organization uses the Chinese
underground banking system to launder money.

[name]

The case grew out of [name]'s investigation into the criminal
activities of the [name] gang. They are involved in extortion,
fraud, alien smuggling, loan sharking, alien smuggling, drug
trafficking, kidnapping, money laundering, prostitution, home
invasion robberies, and murder for hire. Organization members
have opened and operate legitimate businesses, and the
organization is involved in partnerships with numerous
restaurants, restaurant supply companies, and construction
companies. [name] led to the successful prosecution of over 100
members and the identification and indictment of its leader,
[name], who fled to China after a corrupt interpreter advised
[name] of the Government's evidence. [name] has sent
representatives to the United States and recruited new members to
maintain his interest and control. [name] continues to receive a
percentage of the proceeds using such methods as currency
smuggling, conversion of assets, and the Chinese underground
banking system.

The appellants estimated that the organization has over 150
members. They stated that although the various crimes fall under
the traditional jurisdiction of other agencies, the U.S.
Attorney's Office requested that the appellants serve as case
agents. They have secured a provisional arrest warrant and are
attempting to lure [name] to a country with which the United
States has an extradition treaty. The appellants said that they
are working with Chinese officials on [name]'s extradition, the
first time that the Chinese Government has pursued the
extradition/expulsion of an individual from China to the United
States.

The appellants stated that the organization is attempting to
monopolize the transportation of ethnic Chinese between
[location], [location] and other areas of the United States. The
organization opened a transportation business and attempted to
force existing businesses to close. The appellants convinced an
existing business owner to cooperate and received approval for
undercover operations and consensual monitoring. In November
2000, they directed a confidential source to meet with
organization members in [location] and learned of the
organization's extorting businesses in both [location] and
[location]. One business owner was cooperating with the FBI in
[location], while another business owner was cooperating with the
[location] and [location] police departments. The appellants
planned and executed efforts from these and three other law
enforcement agencies that led to the arrest of five organization
members who will be prosecuted by [acronym].

[name]

The case grew out of death threats received by one appellant in
October 2000 that were traced to a telephone of an individual
([name]) in Philadelphia whom the appellants did not know. When
interviewed, [name] claimed that he had obtained a cellular phone
for a friend, [name]. A week after the initial meeting, [name]
advised the appellants that [name] had requested they open a
joint safe deposit box. [name] permitted the appellants to
search the box where they found documents that were original,
altered, genuine and/or counterfeit. [name] identified a
photograph of [name] that appeared on numerous pieces of
identification with fictitious names from various entities.
[name] was arrested in December 2000 and pled guilty to
interfering/intimidating a Federal Agent. Through directly
verifiable evidence, the appellants linked [name] to the
extortionists and the three victimized companies in [name].

Documents from the safe deposit box identified several Vietnamese
individuals and businesses previously unknown to law enforcement
that may be involved in criminal activities. Under the guise of
investigating [name], several individuals agreed to cooperate,
but are unaware that they are also under investigation. The
appellants are investigating an allegation that one of the
companies is attempting to monopolize the transportation of
ethnic Vietnamese from [location], [location], [location], and
[state] to the [location] casinos with estimated annual profits
of $6 million. [name] ([name]) may have a financial interest in
the company. [name]'s potential role also is under investigation,
including his alleged family connection to a defendant arrested
in connection with [name].

The evidence uncovered links [name] to a previously undetected
alien smuggling ring operating in [location], [location],
[location], Belize and Hong Kong, and shows that it is a major
supplier of fraudulent documents obtained through contacts with
corrupt officials. The organization has ties to black market
gambling rings engaged in extortion and robbery in [location],
[location], [location] and [location]. A close family unit that
controls the organization also operates legitimate businesses.
Seventeen of its principals are under investigation. Several are
cooperating with the appellants but are unaware that they are
also under investigation. The investigation disclosed that high-
ranking members of this ring were involved in another case in
which the appellants had been asked to assist the Hong Kong
Police Department in conducting interviews of a family filing
charges against an INS employee in Hong Kong.

[name]/[name]

Both investigations target the [name] gang, identified since the
1980's by the National Drug Intelligence Center, as a nationally
significant criminal organization. The gang is associated with
the [name] triad and the [name] Association, registered as a
nonprofit corporation in New York since 1923. The gang split
into Cantonese and Fukinese factions after a dispute between two
of its leaders. [acronym] and the [name] District of [state]
([acronym]) each agreed to prosecute one faction of the gang.
[name] falls under [acronym] and [name] under [acronym].

The [name] case, which remained active beyond April 1999, was
initiated when a member of the rival faction killed a gang member
in a dispute over collection of protection money. In
retaliation, two members of the Cantonese faction were implicated
in the killing and arrested by the [name] Police Department
([acronym]). A business owner contacted the appellants claiming
they were being extorted for the funeral expenses of the
deceased. The appellants' undercover operation led to the arrest
of three people for extortion who also were witnesses to the
local murder prosecution. The appellants subsequently discovered
that the three witnesses had lied about the murder on orders of
the gang leader to weaken the control of the other faction.
Investigating the homicide, the appellants were able to arrest
three gang members, including the shooter, for murder in aid of
racketeering violations; all three pled guilty. Additional
investigations have resulted in the indictment of more than 30
gang members for racketeering violations and prosecution of more
than 60 for their criminal participation in the organization.

In [name], the appellants' investigation led to the indictment
and arrest of three gang members for the murder of a rival gang
member in [location], [state] because of a dispute over the
operation of a brothel in [name], [state]. The appellants
developed lead information from a cooperating defendant that led
to a guilty plea from two defendants on charges of participating
in a kidnapping during which a murder took place. A third
individual remains a fugitive and is believed to be in China.
The investigation required coordination with the [name] PD,
[acronym], [name] State Police and the [location] INS and FBI
field offices.

[name]

This is an investigation of criminal activities associated with
the [name] American Association. Members who operate legitimate
businesses contract with the [name] and other criminal
organizations to collect debts, rob competitors, and threaten
rivals. In turn, these criminal organizations use their
relationship with the Association to legitimize their criminal
activities in the community. One cooperating witness described
being pistol whipped and shot when he resisted during a robbery
at a gambling parlor. Another cooperating witness was threatened
at gun point and ordered by the [name] to pay $3,800 for problems
he had caused by going to the police after the robbery.

The appellants obtained a court order to tap and trace, and
emergency permission to conduct consensual monitoring and
undercover operations. Using more than 15 law enforcement
personnel, the appellants arrested two suspects and recovered the
gun used to shoot the first witness. The second witness was
placed in protective custody after he and his family were
threatened with harm if he did not drop the charges. The
appellants are also investigating allegations that several
attorneys receive illegal kickbacks from the criminal
organization for representing the organization's members.

[name]

The appellants are investigating a murder committed by a faction
of the [name] that is being prosecuted by the OCTU [acronym] as a
racketeering enterprise. The investigation indicates that a high
ranking member of the [name] American Association invited an
immigrant smuggler ("snakehead") to dinner to help the [name]
force him to disclose the location of aliens he had smuggled into
the United States. The [name] then kidnapped approximately 30
aliens. All were beaten and one died. One principal, arrested
by the appellants, pled guilty. Twelve others have been indicted
for their participation, and the investigation continues.

[name]

Based on intelligence information, the appellants began
investigating a reported trend of Chinese immigrant smuggling
into the United States via Guatemala. The Chief of the
[location] District Attorney's Asian Gang Unit requested
assistance in a kidnapping investigation. Conducting interviews,
the appellants learned that the victim was a passenger on a boat
that had landed in Guatemala with more than 200 Chinese
nationals.

Using telephone records; INS files; and rental car, hotel, and
credit card receipts, the appellants tracked the victims' journey
and identified many of the individuals responsible. Evidence
indicates that immigrant smuggling was part of a larger and more
diverse criminal enterprise. The appellants stated that the
Chief, OCTU, [acronym] asked the appellants to lead an
investigation to be prosecuted by his unit. They are uncovering
evidence that implicates law enforcement officials in China,
Guatemala, Mexico and El Salvador, and obtaining assistance may
be "an arduous task." The organization's contacts facilitate and
provide security during the smuggling operations in these
countries, and organization members purchase passports and other
identity documents from many of the governments. After receiving
a tip from an informant, the appellants recently coordinated with
INS officials in Mexico to arrest a fugitive organization member
and have him expelled to the United States.

The appellants are investigating several subjects who remain in
Guatemala. The smuggling scheme involves auctioning aliens whose
families are unable to pay the smuggling debt. The
organization's brokers in Canada and the United States frequently
purchase the victims at discount rates, and sell them to
restaurant owners, garment factories and construction firms where
they are forced to work to pay off the debt. Females frequently
are sold into prostitution.

They received information that a law firm with offices in
[location] and [location] has bailed out numerous illegal aliens
arrested and detained by the INS, and preliminary information
shows possible criminal involvement by three law firm members and
a bail bond firm. Once an alien is released, the attorney or a
member of the firm transports the alien to members of the
criminal organization. The alien is held until the smuggling
debt is paid, and the firm receives compensation from the
criminal organization.

Complexity of Assignments

This factor measures the scope, complexity and sensitivity of
investigative assignments in terms of six elements. The
classification standard notes that for this factor to be
evaluated at a particular grade level, most or all of the six
elements must be at that particular grade level. We will apply
the standards for each element to the current cases submitted by
the appellants as part of their appeal.

Element 1 - This element is concerned with the level of
difficulty involved in resolving conflicting facts or evidence.

At the GS-12 grade level, cases typically involve several
principals for whom suspicion is initially aroused by
circumstantial evidence, e.g., word of mouth, tips, observations,
rather than by directly verifiable evidence, e.g., paid bills,
passports, licenses, testimony. Evidence is fragmentary or cold.
Improper development of the case could cause significant
repercussions, e.g., cause public embarrassment for the agency
involved or the principals under investigation.

In contrast, GS-13 grade level cases are of extreme complexity
and scope. For example, the assignments involve investigations
of legal or illegal organizations that are very complex in
structure with a large number of primary and secondary
activities, e.g., several principals of organized crime or
subversive groups that are officially recognized in law
enforcement as national threats to the peace and stability of the
nation. Investigations are of major interregional dimensions or
are nationwide in origin or coverage with occasional
international implications. There are typically actual or
potential threats or challenges to major segments of the national
welfare or security, e.g., threats to the fabric of society
caused by the previously described large scale drug or other
illegal items distribution conspiracies; and the potential threat
of large scale terrorist or other multi-cell integrated
organizations. The results, effects, or consequences of the
investigation, to a major degree, constitute deterrents to crimes
or violations, and may often influence changes in laws or future
court actions.

The GS-13 investigator typically must piece together evidence
that comes from other investigators stationed throughout several
States or the nation. From this evidence, the investigator must
recognize the suspect's pattern of operation to anticipate or
even influence events as they unfold by instructing separate
investigators or units of investigators working on segments of
the case. This complicates the case because the investigator
must at the same time avoid entrapment of the suspects, who are
prominent and numerous and engage in more complex and serious
activities. Similarly, the GS-13 investigator must be more aware
of the implications of precedent court decisions over a broader
area, i.e., in more judicial and law enforcement jurisdictions.

The appellants describe the criminal enterprises that they
investigate as organized horizontally, with a large number of
primary and secondary activities based on their links to a
variety of legitimate retail and wholesale businesses, and
immigrant associations and societies. The cases have
international implications since immigrant smuggling activity is
a typical activity of the violent gangs that they investigate and
is directly linked to the violent crimes that they investigate,
e.g., holding illegal aliens until their smuggling costs have
been paid. The appellants describe the work as nationwide
because raids have been conducted and arrests made outside the
[location] metropolitan area. They cite the [name] gang as being
recognized as a nationally significant criminal organization.
The appellants' initial appeal rationale cites the large number
of suspects indicted as a result of their investigations as
evidence of case complexity.

The appellants' investigations present the full range of GS-12
grade level characteristics. Their investigations focus on
violent Chinese gangs that are engaged in a variety of illegal
activities. Typical of that level, they work from fragmentary
and other limited evidence to locate leads and sources necessary
to develop their cases. While the gangs and their associates
threaten the social fabric of a portion of the metropolitan
Chinese immigrant community, their activities are not so complex
and pervasive that they constitute a threat to the peace or
stability of the nation as described at the GS-13 grade level.
As horizontal connected organizations, they use cooperative
relationships with similarly organized criminal enterprises to
achieve operating synergy. For example, immigrant smuggling
transportation enterprise is available for use by parallel
organizations that specialize in document forgery. The
preponderance of the appellants' activities stops street level
crimes. Working with victims and/or their relatives, they
identify and arrest the perpetrators of these predicate acts. As
they described in their supplementary case information, arresting
these people disrupts gang operations until other principals
establish new horizontal relationships. While their case write-
ups describe suspected gang relationships with Chinese business
and fraternal organizations, the record does not show that these
organizations are integrated parts of the large and complex
criminal enterprises found at the GS-13 grade level. The
information provided shows that members of the legitimate
organizations use gang services for their own purposes.

While the Chinese gangs use violence, graft and corruption to
protect and further their interests, the FBI has primary Federal
responsibility for racketeer influenced and corrupt organization
violations. The appellant's routinely work parallel
investigations with that agency. Although VGTF members are used
to investigate immigrant smuggling, primary responsibility for
those investigations fall under the jurisdiction of other INS
components. Thus, the appellants are not case agents as defined
in the Guide for these shared investigations. For example, while
the appellants were able to establish sufficient predicate acts
to indict [name] and secure her arrest in Hong Kong, the case
file shows that other agencies and INS components were engaged in
long-term investigations of this internationally recognized
"snakehead" who was engaged in large scale immigrant smuggling.
Notwithstanding this success, the appellants cannot be credited
as if they managed and controlled the long-term investigation of
her criminal enterprise. While their investigations frequently
result in arrests outside the [location] metropolitan area, they
do not exercise case agent control over their counterparts.
These cooperating agents and law enforcement agencies primarily
assist in such case activities as surveillance and arrests. They
do not conduct significant investigative activity under the
appellants' control as part of a major investigation with GS-13
grade level characteristics. The number of people indicted or
arrested does not automatically affect case complexity as stated
in the appellants' rationale. For example, criminal enterprises
that use large numbers of people to conduct their activities are
not automatically sophisticated in organizational or financial
structure. This element is credited at the GS-12 grade level.

Element 2 - This element is concerned with the difficulty and
complexity imposed by the subjects of the investigation.

At the GS-12 grade level, difficulties or complexities imposed by
the prominence or characteristics of the subjects investigated
include: (1) a suspected or known racketeer, gambler, smuggler,
etc., who is known through their associates, behavior or
background as a prominent figure in organized crime or
subversion; (2) the principal or financial backer in an
organization consisting of separate manufacturers, distributors,
and transporters of illegal goods, drugs, alcohol, counterfeit
money, fraudulent documents, explosives or weapons (normally the
separate parties do not know each other or the overall backer);
(3) a figure with financial interests overlapping several
activities both legal and illegal, e.g., funds from a legal
concern are diverted and used to finance illegal activity; and/or
(4) the head of an organization involved in legitimate business
who is suspected of fraudulent use of invoices, operating
fraudulent marriage rings, etc., which are carried out under the
cover of the legitimate organization, and the suspected violation
requires assistance from several accomplices, e.g., attorneys or
accountants who are themselves in positions of public trust.

In contrast, at the GS-13 grade level, subjects are involved in
the range and variety of such interrelated activities as: (1) a
suspected foreign agent who, with several associates, is planning
acts extremely harmful to national security, e.g., theft of
national defense documents for benefit of a foreign government,
or compromise of persons who have access to highly classified
information concerning national defense; and/or (2) the
organization under investigation has an extremely complex
structure with diversified interests, e.g., the manufacture,
distribution and sale of legal or illegal goods in a national
market involving a complex network of widespread distribution and
sales outlets.

The horizontal and cooperative structure of these criminal
organizations and their clients meets the GS-12 grade level. For
example, [name] and [name] are known as prominent figures in
Chinese organized crime. They and their affiliates engage in a
wide range of illegal activities in which the separate parties do
not necessarily know each other or the overall backer. These
criminal enterprises have financial interests overlapping several
activities both legal and illegal, where funds from legal
businesses are diverted and used to finance illegal activity and
accomplices in positions of public trust. The subjects that the
appellants investigate engage in a wide range of illegal
activities, but not of the scope, on the scale, or in the context
at the GS-13 grade level. While their investigations involve
such issues as bribery of public officials, immigrant smuggling,
kidnapping, hostage taking, harboring aliens, extortion, money
laundering, drug trafficking, and murder for hire, they do not
equate to the range of interrelated activities characteristic of
the GS-13 grade level as described previously. Gang
relationships with other criminal enterprises and Chinese
business and fraternal organizations are not equivalent to the
complex, integrated structures found at the GS-13 grade level and
do not reflect the pervasive and extensive reach of those
organizations. This element is credited at the GS-12 grade
level.

Element 3 - This element is concerned with the nature of
separate investigative matters that grow from the original
assignment.

At the GS-12 grade level, a substantial number of separate
investigative matters typically grow from the original
assignment. For example, an investigation beginning with the
pusher or passer of stolen or illegal goods, e.g., drugs,
counterfeit money, or fraudulent documents, is expanded by
piecing together bits of evidence from interviews, surveillance,
documentary examinations, informants, etc., proceeds through the
intermediate distributor, and eventually involves the
manufacturer, backer, organizer, importer, etc.

In contrast, at the GS-13 grade level, suspected violators are
highly organized crime groups whose criminal activities are
interwoven with legitimate business activities. For example,
seemingly legitimate construction firms may have ostensibly legal
contracts with States, and there is suspicion of bribery of State
officials or fraud. The investigator develops leads from known
criminal activities; finds that these leads cross to legitimate
businesses; and suspicion is finally cast on seemingly respected
legitimate political, business or professional leaders. Cases at
the GS-13 grade level also often unfold to involve large-scale
raids and seizures throughout several states, which normally
require the GS-13 investigator to lead and coordinate several
units of investigators from his or her own and other agencies in
tracing leads and gathering information.

As at the GS-12 grade level, a substantial number of separate
investigative matters typically grow from the appellants'
original investigations. For example, the appellants'
investigations expand by piecing together bits of evidence from
interviews, surveillance, documentary examinations, informants,
cooperating witnesses, etc., to the organizers of the criminal
enterprise. However, unlike the subjects typical of GS-13 grade
level investigations, the suspected violators are not highly
organized crime groups as discussed previously. While the
subjects are aware of and cooperate with each others' activities,
they remain by and large independent organizations and operators.
Like the GS-12 grade level, separate investigations that grow
from accumulated evidence link [name], and other principals to
criminal elements and activities outside their own organization
and control. Raids are conducted in other jurisdictions, e.g.,
the [name]'s transportation business scheme that reached into
[location] resulted in the arrest of five members. However, the
appellants' investigations do not routinely involve large-scale
raids and seizures throughout several states that require the
appellants to lead and coordinate several units of investigators
from INS and other agencies in tracing leads and gathering
information. Instead, the appellants coordinate their activities
with other law enforcement agencies as discussed previously.
This element is credited at the GS-12 grade level.

Element 4 - This element is concerned with the difficulty
involved in establishing the relationship of facts or evidence.

At the GS-12 grade level, investigations involve subjects who are
suspected of major and complex criminal activity who are
separated from the overt violation by an intermediary or
organization, requiring the use of such techniques as
surveillance, radio communication, toll-call checks, and
scientific identification and matching of various specimens to
establish a direct link between the suspect and other violators.
At this grade level, the developing of defensible testimony is
dependent upon such techniques as pitting one violator, criminal
or witness against another, extensively checking the word of one
against another, and the exercising of great care in establishing
facts and evidence because of the prominence of the subject or
the importance of the case.

In contrast, at the GS-13 grade level, the interrelationship
between fact and evidence is extremely difficult to establish.
For example, subjects use fictitious names or are otherwise
clearly separated from each other and from the illegal activities
under investigation. They deal exclusively through subsidiaries
and holding companies that engage in diversified mixtures of
legal and illegal activities throughout wide sections of the
country, e.g., businesses throughout wide sections of the country
run by organized crime families with subsidiaries engaged in a
mixture of legal and illegal activities (e.g., legitimate
enterprises that are multi-site in scope that obtain business
through fraud or bribery). The work of other investigators or
teams of investigators coordinated at the GS-13 grade level
involve segments of cases that fully equate to cases themselves
that are evaluable at the GS-12 grade level.

As at the GS-12 grade level, the appellants' most prominent
subjects are suspected of major and complex criminal activities,
but are separated from the overt violations by organizations and
associates. While they fund and reap the benefits of the illegal
activities, they do not run the day-to-day operations. The
investigations require the use of such techniques as
surveillance, pen registers, monitored calls, bank and other
business records to establish a direct link between the suspects
and other violators. Typical of this grade level, the appellants
use violators, criminals and witnesses against one another,
extensively checking the word of one against another, and
exercise great care in establishing facts and evidence because of
the importance of the case. For example, the appellants surfaced
fictitious companies in the [name] case that were used as fronts
to launder illegal profits, and fraudulent murder evidence in the
[name] case. While the subjects use a variety of business
fronts, they are not equivalent to subsidiaries and holding
companies described at the GS-13 grade level. Because the FBI
and other cooperating agencies lead their own portions of these
investigations, the appellants are precluded from functioning in
a GS-13 grade level coordinative capacity. The appellants'
cases, as a whole, meet the GS-12 grade level. However, unlike
the GS-13 grade level, each case segment that they coordinate
does not meet the GS-12 grade level. This element is credited at
the GS-12 grade level.

Element 5 - This element concerns the degree of sensitivity
that the assigned cases involve.

At the GS-12 grade level, cases involve subjects so prominent
that after the first witness is interviewed, word of the
interview precedes the investigator so that subsequent witnesses
are evasive because of reluctance to or fear of becoming involved
in giving information which witnesses view as exploding into an
important Federal case. The subject and their peers are very
often the subject of major news media and, therefore, any
investigation is likely to result in publicity and to some degree
cast suspicion on the reputation of the subject, prejudice the
investigator's case in court, or implicate subsequent
administrative decisions.

In contrast, at the GS-13 grade level investigations: (1)
receive sustained and widespread coverage in the major news media
because of the prominence of the suspects or victims of the crime
or threat if the investigation became public knowledge
prematurely which could, for example, severely hamper the speed
of the investigator's progress and endanger lives of victims,
e.g., investigation of a major member of an organized crime
family that must be tightly controlled to prevent the elimination
of witnesses, the protection of victims willing to testify, etc.;
(2) have suspects whose financial involvements extending to
enterprises that have a significant impact on the national
economy, e.g., the transportation or banking industry; and/or (3)
have suspects who are principals in financial or other
enterprises that reach into State and Federal affairs, e.g.,
through attempted bribery, fraud, collusion or extortion of
public officials.

As at the GS-11 grade level, most of the appellants' cases have
the potential for local publicity and could cast suspicion on
otherwise respected individuals. The record shows that only
[name] has received the media attention found at the GS-12 grade
level. Typical of the GS-11 grade level, investigative success
depends on not disclosing the facts of the investigation which
might shut off the possibility of leads necessary to prove the
case. However, the appellants' work in developing witnesses
involves difficulties consistent with the GS-12 grade level.
Witnesses often are illegal aliens, are trying to protect
relatives who are illegal aliens, or are fearful of cooperating
because of potential gang revenge and their fear of Government
officials. While witnesses may be reluctant to testify, the
appellants' cases to do not reflect the level of risk found at
the GS-13 grade level. Their suspects do not have financial
involvements extending to enterprises that have a significant
impact on the national economy typical at that grade level. The
more serious official bribery and corruption issues described in
the appellants' case summaries entail the sensitivity and
handling requirements found at the GS-12 grade level. However,
they do not represent the widespread, serious corruption of
public officials envisioned at the GS-13 grade level, where
multiple levels of government are compromised through attempted
bribery, fraud, collusion or extortion. Based on the preceding
analysis, this element meets the threshold for crediting at the
GS-12 grade level.

Element 6 - This element is concerned with the jurisdictional
problems involved in case assignments.

At the GS-12 grade level, jurisdictional problems involve
subjects engaged in activities that are the concern of several
local, county, State and Federal agencies, e.g., drug use,
traffic and smuggling; forgery; and alleged subversion. The
cases involve a web of relationships that require a more
extensive knowledge of the laws, rules and policies of these
various jurisdictions because the investigator often plans and
times raids and surveillance that involve use of local law
enforcement agencies.

In contrast, at the GS-13 grade level, cases involve extremely
difficult planning and coordination problems because of extensive
jurisdictional problems. For example, evidence may warn the
investigator that their contacts in other jurisdictions are
themselves involved in wide-scale criminal conspiracies, which
require the investigator to use such suspects in double or triple
capacities, e.g., in getting and exchanging information without
permitting such suspects to realize how they are being used.
Undercover and surveillance work involves serving as a key person
or coordinator in assignments with complex, dangerous or delicate
elements, e.g., penetration of closely knit groups on assignments
of GS-13 grade level complexity, where discovery on assignment
would not only result in great injury or death to the
investigator, but would cut off information linking the evidence
together and thus jeopardize or destroy a critical case that the
Federal government had been developing for months or years,
involving a network of local State, and other Federal agents and
informers.

As at the GS-12 grade level, the appellants' jurisdictional
problems involve subjects engaged in activities that are the
concern of several local, county, State and Federal agencies,
i.e., violent and related crimes of interest to the FBI, State
and local law enforcement agencies, and foreign countries where
the underlying criminal activities originate. As described in
the case summaries, the appellants' cases routinely involve a web
of relationships that require a more extensive knowledge of the
laws, rules and policies of these various jurisdictions because
the investigator often plans and times raids, conducts
surveillance and conducts undercover operations using local
and/or State law enforcement agencies. The appellants allude to
the presence of wide-scale criminal conspiracies in other
jurisdictions, e.g., in the People's Republic of China, Belize,
and Malaysia, and describe getting information from cooperating
witnesses who are suspects themselves without permitting such
suspects to realize how they are being used. However, they do
not have the direct and material impact on the appellants' work
to prevent the violation of United States law as intended at the
GS-13 grade level, e.g., using corrupt foreign officials allied
with a major drug cartel in a double or triple capacity, or when
local or State law enforcement agencies partnering in the
investigation are themselves linked to wide-scale criminal
conspiracies. Because the appellants' cases do not meet GS-13
grade level complexity, their surveillance work fails to meet
that level as described in the Guide.

With all six elements credited at the GS-12 grade level, this
factor is credited at the GS-12 grade level.

Level of Responsibility

This factor measures the kind and extent of supervision given to
investigators and the degree of resourcefulness required in
finding and verifying information pertinent to the cases
assigned.

At the GS-12 grade level, investigators receive or generate their
own assignments. They receive few instructions on the technical
aspects of the work, but are given mostly policy guidance, e.g.,
information on understandings of jurisdictional problems being
worked out among agencies, or the fact that this is one of the
first of a particular type of case since a new court decision, or
authorization to follow a case into another district or region,
if necessary. The GS-12 investigator is responsible for planning
cases independently, and working out arrangements with other
jurisdictions except in policy areas. For example, in setting up
a joint raid involving Federal and local law enforcement, the
investigator is responsible for planning and timing, but must
work through superiors when coordinating the commitment of
resources and staff.

In contrast, at the GS-13 grade level, investigators receive
assignments through program discussions, such as conferences or
written directives that outline broad objectives, e.g., to stop
smuggling of a particular commodity at a given port. The GS-13
investigator outlines the objectives and boundaries of the
assignment, plans the resources needed, and includes plans for
assuring coordination with other jurisdictions. Instructions are
more generalized than at the GS-12 grade level, and review of
work is typically in the form of discussions at certain critical
points, e.g., suggestions on the commitment of resources in other
domestic or foreign offices that are normally approved.
Recommendations for extension, modification, or adoption of new
lines of inquiry are normally accepted, although the sensitivity
and importance of the cases must be cleared by the very highest
individuals in the agency. GS-13 investigators devise methods,
techniques and approaches to problems that often set patterns for
subsequent investigations in similar areas and are often adopted
for use by investigators at lower grades. GS-13 investigators
are responsible for devising breakthroughs in investigative
approaches, techniques, and policies. Investigations are planned
and executed for the greatest possible deterrent impact. An
extremely high degree of initiative and originality is required
at the GS-13 grade level because of the various locations
throughout a wide area under investigation, and suspected
violators typically retain the best legal or accounting advice
available; and investigations often establish important
precedents, e.g., the first case of a particular type
investigated under a new provision of law, the outcome of which
may affect pending cases or influence the decision on such cases
in the future.

Since the appellants' assignments fall short of the GS-13 grade
level under Complexity of Assignments, credit under this factor
is constrained. Typical of the GS-12 grade level, the appellants
generate their own assignments, e.g., leads from informants and
interviews of people referred to them from their community
network. They receive guidance on any policy changes and
authorization for actions requiring higher level approval, e.g.,
wire taps, consensual monitoring. As at the GS-12 grade level,
their superiors are involved in coordinating the commitment of
resources and staff for surveillance, raids and similar
operations. The appellants' participation in extraditing [name]
and expelling [name] represent involvement in a foreign policy
process; this is not equivalent to developing breakthroughs in
investigative approaches, techniques and policies, or the
pursuing the first case of its kind under a new legal provision
found at the GS-13 grade level. While the appellants operate
independently, they do not exercise the higher level of
responsibility associated with GS-13 grade level work.

The appellants state that they are the case agents who have sole
responsibility for [name] and other ongoing investigations.
Regional program records list [name] as a joint FBI, INS and
[acronym] case; a lead agency is not listed. [name] lists
participation by the FBI and [acronym]. INS policy on anti-
smuggling cases provides for national designation as the
responsible District and agents when a case requires extensive
inter-regional coordination. National program records do not
list any of the appellants' current cases as having that
designation. National VGTF program records show the appellants
received approval for consensual monitoring on [name]. Regional
program records show approval for consensual monitoring for
[name]. Program records do not list the other cases described in
the appellants' supplementary information as designated VGTF 511
criminal organization investigations. Although 511 case
designations may pertain to work at multiple grade levels, the
appellants' locally controlled cases fail to reflect high level
clearance requirements and interest typical of GS-13 grade level
work. Accordingly, this factor is credited at the GS-12 grade
level.

Decision

The position is properly classified as Criminal Investigator, GS-
1811-12.