United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Committee on

the Judiciary, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday

May 1, 1997

NATURALIZATION OF

ALIENS

INS Internal Controls

Statement of Richard M. Stana

Acting Associate Director, Administration of Justice Issues

General Government Division

GAO/T-GGD-97-98

Summary 

Naturalization of Aliens: INS Internal

Controls

Aliens who apply to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to

become naturalized citizens have to meet certain requirements, such as

being of good moral character (e.g., not being convicted of certain

felonies). To determine whether aliens applying for citizenship have been

convicted of a crime that would preclude them from being naturalized, INS

submits the aliens’ fingerprints to the FBI, which is to determine if the

person with those fingerprints has a criminal history record on file.

Between September 1995 and September 1996, some aliens with certain

disqualifying criminal felony convictions were improperly naturalized

probably because INS adjudicators were not made aware of the results of

the FBI check of the aliens’ criminal history records. In addition, both the

Department of Justice’s Inspector General and GAO have identified

problems with the fingerprinting component of the process. For example,

individuals intent on hiding their criminal records could have had

someone else complete the INS fingerprint card and then submit the prints

as their own.

In November 1996 the INS Commissioner announced changes designed to

enhance the naturalization process in several key areas. To try to deal with

the problem of adjudicators making decisions without having a definitive

response from the FBI on the completed criminal history checks, the

Commissioner ordered that no aliens were to be approved for

naturalization until INS positively knew that they had no disqualifying

felony convictions. In addition, the Commissioner ordered that no

naturalization cases were to be scheduled for hearings or oath ceremonies

until all changes were “in place and working.” Previously, INS had issued

regulations establishing internal controls to help ensure that people

applying for naturalization were using their own fingerprints. However, an

April 17, 1997, report by Peat Marwick showed that INS has not ensured

that its field units were carrying out the Commissioner’s instructions.

GAO believes that its work on the fingerprinting aspects of the process and

other aspects of INS management, and the Peat Marwick report, raise

questions about the extent to which INS can today assure itself and the

Congress that it is granting citizenship to only those applicants who

deserve it.

Page 1 GAO/T-GGD-97-98
Statement 

Naturalization of Aliens: INS Internal

Controls

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Immigration and

Naturalization Service’s (INS) process for naturalizing aliens, including its

fingerprinting procedures. My statement will outline the problems that we

and others have identified with these processes and the changes INS has

made, including the internal controls INS has designed in its revised

processes.

To prepare this statement, we reviewed (1) INS regulations and internal

instructions regarding the naturalization and fingerprint processes; (2) the

February 1994 report issued by the Justice Department’s Inspector

General (IG) and our December 1994 report on the fingerprint process; and

(3) the April 17, 1997, report by Peat Marwick on INS’ implementation of

changes to its naturalization process. We discussed a draft of this

statement with INS officials and incorporated their comments where

appropriate.

Background Aliens who apply to INS to become naturalized citizens have to meet

certain requirements, such as residing in the United States for at least 5

years as legal permanent residents, demonstrating a knowledge of the

English language and American civics, and being of good moral character

(e.g., not being convicted of certain felonies). To demonstrate adequate

knowledge of English and civics, aliens are tested by either INS or testing

entities approved by INS. To determine whether aliens applying for

citizenship have been convicted of a crime that would preclude them from

being naturalized, INS submits the aliens’ fingerprints to the FBI, which is to

determine if the person with those fingerprints has a criminal history

record on file.1

 Depending on the severity and timing of their felony

convictions, aliens with criminal history records may be denied

citizenship.

Aliens applying for naturalization are to be scheduled for hearings after

they submit their applications. According to INS, the current policy is that

the hearing dates are not to be set until a definitive response has been

received from the FBI on completed criminal history checks.

1

INS charges a fee to process aliens’ applications. Included in the fee is a charge by the FBI for

checking its records for a possible criminal history of the alien.

Page 2 GAO/T-GGD-97-98
Statement 

Naturalization of Aliens: INS Internal

Controls

Problems With the

Naturalization

Process

Between September 1995 and September 1996, INS received about

1.3 million naturalization applications; almost 1.05 million aliens were

naturalized. During that period, INS initiated a number of changes to its

procedures in an effort to streamline the process and reduce growing

backlogs. While these changes greatly increased the volume of

applications processed and approved, some aliens with certain

disqualifying criminal felony convictions were improperly naturalized

probably because INS adjudicators were not made aware of the results of

the aliens’ criminal history records.2

In addition, other problems associated with the naturalization process

have been identified. Media reports in mid-1996 alleged that private

companies on which INS relied to test applicants’ knowledge of English

and civics had been submitting fraudulent results; in congressional

testimony last September, INS acknowledged that it had a problem.3

Problems With the

Fingerprint Process

Prior Justice IG and GAO audit reports have identified problems in the

naturalization process that relate to obtaining and checking fingerprints.

In February 1994 the IG reported that (1) individuals intent on hiding their

criminal records could have someone else complete the INS fingerprint

card and then submit the prints as their own, (2) INS examiners had

inappropriately approved some applications after assuming that applicants

had no criminal history because no criminal history records were included

in the aliens’ files when the examiners adjudicated the cases, and (3) INS

frequently did not submit new sets of fingerprints to the FBI when the

original sets of prints were rejected by the FBI as illegible.4

In our December 1994 report,5 we described how INS was planning to

correct the problems reported by the IG. We noted, however, that INS had

not been monitoring its offices’ progress in correcting the problems. We

also pointed out that INS’ assumption that no record of a criminal history in

an applicant’s file meant that the person had no record could prove to be

incorrect because the results of criminal history reports might have been

2

Justice has an ongoing study to determine the extent to which aliens were improperly naturalized.

3

Statement of T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Executive Associate Commissioner for Programs, before the

House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Subcommittee on National Security,

International Affairs and Criminal Justice; September 10, 1996.

4

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, Alien Fingerprint Requirements in the

Immigration and Naturalization Service (Feb. 16, 1994).

5

INS FINGERPRINTING OF ALIENS: Efforts to Ensure Authenticity of Aliens’ Fingerprints (GGD-95-40,

Dec. 22, 1994).

Page 3 GAO/T-GGD-97-98
Statement 

Naturalization of Aliens: INS Internal

Controls

delayed or not filed in a timely manner. We found that under INS’

procedures at the time of our review, examiners could not determine

whether FBI fingerprint checks had been completed because, at INS’

request, the FBI returned a report only if a criminal history record was

found. According to INS district officials, without a control to ensure that

the FBI had completed a fingerprint check, some aliens with disqualifying

felony convictions had their naturalization applications inappropriately

approved.

Accordingly, we recommended that INS obtain the results from the FBI of

all its record and fingerprint checks, including those for aliens who do not

have criminal history records. Because INS had told its district offices to

correct problems identified by the IG but had not monitored the district

offices’ efforts to follow those instructions, we also recommended that INS

monitor the district offices’ progress to comply with INS directives. At that

time, INS agreed to implement both of our recommendations.

Changes to the

Naturalization

Process

In a November 29, 1996, memorandum, the INS Commissioner announced

changes designed to enhance the naturalization process in several key

areas. To try to ensure that the problems discussed previously had been

corrected, the Commissioner ordered that no naturalization cases were to

be scheduled for hearings or oath ceremonies until all changes were “in

place and working.” To try to deal with the problem of adjudicators

making decisions without having a definitive response from the FBI on the

completed criminal history checks, the Commissioner ordered that no

aliens were to be approved for naturalization until INS positively knew that

they had no disqualifying felony convictions. In addition, the

Commissioner’s memorandum ordered the following controls:

• Adjudicators were to complete a work processing sheet for all

naturalization applications to record the specific steps taken during the

naturalization process (e.g., that the adjudicator determined that the alien

met the English requirement).

• Supervisors were to conduct enhanced supervisory reviews for such

situations as applicants with criminal histories or complex cases involving

other statutory determinations.

• Quality assurance reviews were to be conducted monthly until a

permanent quality assurance program was developed and validated by the

Office of Programs. The interim program was to involve, among other

things, a review of the procedures and eligibility determinations of a

number of randomly selected cases at every INS site processing

Page 4 GAO/T-GGD-97-98
Statement 

Naturalization of Aliens: INS Internal

Controls

naturalization applications. A headquarters team was to visit each of the

five major naturalization sites (Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Miami,

and San Francisco, which processed about 75 percent of all pending

naturalization cases) and other offices as deemed necessary to review the

quality assurance program and completion of the checklists.6

In September 1996 INS established controls regarding the process for

testing applicants’ knowledge of English and civics. The national

organizations INS relies on to conduct the testing were ordered to

strengthen their monitoring and quality control plans, submit monthly

reports to INS, and conduct at least one annual inspection visit to each

testing site. Further, INS hired a contract inspection service to conduct

about 80 site inspections during 1996.

Finally, Justice contracted with Peat Marwick to review the

implementation of the November 1996 changes to the naturalization

process and with Coopers and Lybrand to propose an overall redesign of

the naturalization program.

Changes to the Fingerprint

Process

On June 4, 1996, INS issued regulations regarding who could take

fingerprints of applicants for immigration benefits. Basically, INS

implemented a system that relies on a combination of its own offices and

“designated fingerprint services”—law enforcement agencies and private

fingerprint entities that INS would certify as being acceptable.7

 Beginning

March 1, 1997, INS was to accept fingerprint cards prepared only by

designated services.8

The regulations establish the conditions under which the private entities

are to be certified. For example, each employee who would be allowed to

take fingerprints had to be trained in fingerprinting procedures by INS or

the FBI. In addition, these employees were to undergo an identification and

criminal history check. The regulations also provide instructions on how

to verify the identity of the person being fingerprinted.

6

Subsequently, according to INS officials, the Peat Marwick review was substituted for the INS

headquarters team review.

7

On July 14, 1994, the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed that INS implement a fingerprint

collection system which permits only trained INS employees, recognized law enforcement agencies, or

INS-certified outside entities to take fingerprints.

8

The June 1996 regulations called for INS to begin accepting fingerprints from only designated facilities

as of January 1, 1997. According to INS officials, the effective date was slipped to March 1.

Page 5 GAO/T-GGD-97-98
Statement 

Naturalization of Aliens: INS Internal

Controls

Also, INS set up several internal controls to help ensure that fingerprints

are properly taken:

• Employees of the outside organizations must receive the training from INS

or the FBI to properly take aliens’ fingerprints.

• Monitoring is to be done by INS district and regional directors and by the

national contractor INS hired to provide monitoring support.

• People who take aliens’ fingerprints are to check their identity by

comparing the information on the aliens’ fingerprint card with the aliens’

passport, a driver’s license or state-issued photo identification, or some

other INS-acceptable document.

Peat Marwick’s

Report

On April 17, 1997, Peat Marwick issued its report on its interim survey of

selected INS offices’9

 implementation of the changes ordered by the

Commissioner last November. Among its findings were:

• There was continued lack of quality control in the completion of the

fingerprint cards. Peat Marwick reported that INS was experiencing a

growing backlog of cases that were classified “not found” as a result of the

failure of the matching effort between INS and FBI.

• The use of the designated fingerprint services had done little to increase

the accuracy of the data on the fingerprint cards.

• Despite the requirement that adjudicators were not to schedule a

naturalization case for a hearing until they received a definitive response

from the FBI regarding the criminal history record search, Peat Marwick

was often unable to verify that this control was being followed by the

adjudicators.

In addition, Peat Marwick identified two other findings dealing with the

dissemination of the November 1996 procedures and staff training. First,

Peat Marwick discovered three different versions of the procedures had

been distributed throughout INS.

10 It pointed out that generally staff at the

first-line supervisor level and below were not informed of the reasons for

the changes. Second, with respect to training, Peat Marwick reported that

9

According to the Peat Marwick report, between February 19 and March 26, 1997, it visited 4 INS

service centers, and 20 sites which represent about 85 percent of INS’ naturalization processing

capacity. It assessed the (1) dissemination of the Commissioner’s November 29 memorandum

throughout the organization, (2) quantity and quality of training conducted to facilitate understanding

of the memorandum, and (3) degree to which the policies and procedures had been implemented.

10One version was a copy of the memorandum signed by the Commissioner, another was an unsigned

electronic version of the memorandum with different attachments, and the third was an early version

drafted for the Deputy Commissioner’s signature.

Page 6 GAO/T-GGD-97-98
Statement 

Naturalization of Aliens: INS Internal

Controls

there were no curriculum or policies established regarding the recording

of attendance for accountability purposes. According to the report, this

was a major contributing factor in INS’ inability to implement fully the

November 1996 procedures.

As a result of Peat Marwick’s report, INS announced that it would be

making improvements in three general areas to ensure that each district is

effectively implementing the November 1996 procedures: (1) strengthening

communication, coordination, and oversight; (2) improving training of all

staff involved in implementing the new procedures; and (3) improving

fingerprint processes. According to INS, a full-scale, 60-day audit is being

planned.

Observations The Peat Marwick report shows that INS has not ensured that its field units

were carrying out the Commissioner’s instructions. It also highlighted the

need for INS to do a better job of monitoring its field offices to ensure that

they are properly and completely meeting the Commissioner’s

expectations.

We have not examined the extent to which INS has carried out its plans to

monitor the performance of the outside organizations involved in the

naturalization process. However, our past work on the fingerprinting

aspects of the process and other aspects of INS management, and the

recent Peat Marwick report, raise questions about the extent to which INS

can today assure itself and the Congress that it is granting citizenship to

only those applicants who deserve it.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased

to answer any questions.

(183613) Page 7 GAO/T-GGD-97-98
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100