United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

BORDER SECURITY

Reassessment of Consular 

Resource Requirements 

Could Help Address Visa 

Delays 

Statement of Jess T. Ford Director 

International Affairs and Trade 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Tuesday, April 4, 2006 

GAO-06-542T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

April 4, 2006

BORDER SECURITY

Reassessment of Consular Resource 

Requirements Could Help Address Visa 

Delays 

Highlights of GAO-06-542T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

In deciding to approve or deny a 

visa application, the Department of 

State’s (State) consular officers are 

on the front line of defense in 

protecting the United States against

those who seek to harm U.S. 

interests. To increase border 

security following the September 

11 attacks, Congress, State, and the 

Department of Homeland Security

initiated a series of changes to

border security policies and 

procedures. These changes have

added to the complexity of 

consular workload. But consular

officers must balance this security 

responsibility against the need to 

facilitate legitimate travel. In 

recent years, GAO has issued a 

series of reports on the visa 

process. This statement discusses 

(1) wait times for visas, (2) factors 

that affect wait times, and (3) 

GAO’s recent work on consular 

staffing. 

What GAO Recommends

We recommended in October 2002 

and again in September 2005 that 

State reassess its consular staffing

requirements. In commenting on a 

draft of our September 2005 report, 

State disagreed with our 

recommendation that it prepare a 

plan to address consular 

requirements. In light of the

increased workload due to

additional border security 

requirements and ongoing staffing

shortages and processing delays at

some posts, we continue to urge 

State to fully assess its resource 

needs to ensure it has the right 

people at key posts. 

As a result of changes since September 11, 2001, aimed at strengthening visa

policies and procedures, applicants have faced extensive wait times for visas 

at some posts. According to consular officials, posts that consistently have 

wait times of 30 days or longer for interview appointments may have a 

resource problem. During a recent 6-month period, 97 of State’s 211 visaissuing posts reported maximum wait times of 30 or more days in at least 

one month; at 20 posts, the reported wait times were in excess of 30 days for 

this entire 6-month period. Further, in February 2006, 9 posts reported wait 

times in excess of 90 days. 

Several factors have contributed to these delays at some consular posts. For 

example, Congress, State, and the Department of Homeland Security have 

initiated new policies and procedures since the September 11 attacks to 

strengthen the security of the visa process; however, these new 

requirements have increased consular workload and exacerbated delays. 

Additionally, some applicants have faced additional delays because of 

special security checks for national security concerns. Other factors, such 

as resurgence in visa demand and ongoing embassy facility limitations, could 

continue to affect wait times. 

We recently reported that State had not conducted a worldwide, 

comprehensive assessment of staffing requirements for visa operations. 

While State has increased hiring of consular officers, there is a need for such 

an assessment to ensure that State has sufficient staff at key consular posts, 

particularly in light of the visa processing delays at some posts. 

Consular Posts with Maximum Reported Wait Times for Temporary Business and Tourism 

Visa Interview Appointments in Excess of 90 Days, February 2006 

Post Maximum Wait Time in Days 

Chennai, India 168 

Ciudad Juarez, Mexico 92 

Havana, Cuba 129 

Mexico City, Mexico 134 

Mumbai, India 154 

New Delhi, India 91 

Paris, France 116 

Port Au Prince, Haiti 167 

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 140 

Source: Department of State 

Note: These data are based on reports from overseas consular posts to the Consular Affairs Bureau 

in Washington, D.C. According to consular officials, in cases where posts report wait time data 

more than once in a given month, State's data are the maximum wait time reported that month. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-542T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Jess Ford at 

(202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov.
April 4, 2006

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here to discuss GAO’s observations on delays in the 

nonimmigrant visa process.1

 In deciding to approve or deny a visa 

application, the Department of State’s (State) consular officers at 211 visaissuing posts overseas are on the front line of defense in protecting the 

United States against potential terrorists and others whose entry would 

likely be harmful to U.S. national interests. But consular officers must 

balance this security responsibility against the need to facilitate legitimate 

travel. Congress, State, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

have initiated a series of changes since the September 11 attacks to 

enhance border security policies and procedures. These changes have 

added to the complexity of consular officers’ workload. They have also, in

turn, contributed to the delays facing foreign citizens at some posts who 

are seeking visas for travel to the United States. For example, in February 

2004, we reported that applicants had faced delays when scheduling 

appointments for visa interviews at consular posts in China and India.2

Although wait times in China have improved in recent months, applicants 

in India continue to face long delays. Moreover, worldwide, nine posts 

reported maximum wait times of 90 or more days in February 2006. In light

of the increased workload per visa applicant due to additional border 

security requirements, we recommended in October 2002 and again in 

September 20053

 that State reassess its staffing requirements. 

Today I will discuss (1) wait times facing visa applicants, (2) factors that 

affect wait times, and (3) our recent work on consular staffing concerns. 

My statement covers a series of reports that we have issued regarding the

visa process and related areas. Over the course of our work for these 

reports, we have reviewed relevant legislation and agency documents, 

interviewed State’s consular and human resource officials in Washington, 

 1

The United States also grants visas to people who intend to immigrate to the United States. 

In this testimony, the term “visa” refers to nonimmigrant visas only. Persons who may

require nonimmigrant visas include temporary business travelers and tourists. 

2

See GAO, Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate 

Visas for Science Students and Scholars, GAO-04-371 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2004). 

3

See GAO, Border Security: Strengthened Visa Process Would Benefit From

Improvements in Staffing and Information Sharing, GAO-05-859 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 

13, 2005), and GAO, Border Security: Visa Process Should Be Strengthened as an

Antiterrorism Tool, GAO-03-132NI (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2002).

Page 1 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays
and observed visa operations and interviewed consular officials at more 

than 20 consular posts. In addition, in 2005, we interviewed consular staff 

at 25 overseas posts regarding issues such as visa policies and procedures, 

staffing, and training. Our work was conducted in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards (see appendix I for a 

list of GAO reports). 

Since September 11, 2001, applicants have faced extensive wait times for 

visas at some posts. According to consular officials, posts that consistently 

have wait times for visa interview appointments of 30 days or longer may

have a resource or management problem. State’s data show that between

September 2005 and February 2006, 97 posts reported maximum wait 

times of 30 or more days in at least one month; at 20 posts, the reported 

wait times were in excess of 30 days for this entire 6-month period.4

Further, in February 2006, nine posts reported wait times in excess of 90 

days. In Chennai, India, applicants applying for visas faced an average 

reported wait time of 126 days over this 6-month period. 

Summary 

Several factors have contributed to delays for visa interview appointments 

at some consular posts. For example, new policies and procedures 

implemented since the September 11 attacks have strengthened the 

security of the visa process; however, these new requirements have 

increased consular workload and exacerbated delays. For example, 

consular officers are now required to interview virtually all visa applicants. 

Additionally, some applicants have faced additional delays because of 

special security checks. Other factors, such as resurgence in visa demand, 

and ongoing consular facility limitations, could continue to affect wait 

times. 

In September 2005, we reported that State had not conducted a worldwide, 

comprehensive assessment of staffing requirements for visa operations. In

commenting on a draft of that report, State argued that it had a staffing 

plan. While State has increased hiring of consular officers, we continue to

see a need for such an assessment to ensure that State has sufficient staff 

with the necessary skills at key consular posts, particularly in light of the 

visa processing delays at some posts. 

 4

According to consular officials, in cases where posts report wait time data more than once 

in a given month, State’s data are the maximum wait time reported that month. 

Page 2 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays
The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, is the primary 

body of law governing immigration and visa operations.5

 The Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 generally grants DHS exclusive authority to issue 

regulations on, administer, and enforce the Immigration and Nationality 

Act and all other immigration and nationality laws relating to the functions 

of U.S. consular officers in connection with the granting or denial of visas.6

As we reported in July 2005, the act also authorizes DHS to, among other 

things, assign employees to any consular post to review individual visa 

applications and provide expert advice and training to consular officers 

regarding specific security threats related to the visa process.7

 A 

subsequent September 2003 Memorandum of Understanding between 

State and DHS further outlines the responsibilities of each agency with 

respect to visa issuance. DHS is responsible for establishing visa policy, 

reviewing implementation of the policy, and providing additional 

direction. State manages the visa process, as well as the consular corps 

and its functions at 211 visa-issuing posts overseas. 

Background 

The process for determining who will be issued or refused a visa contains 

several steps, including documentation reviews, in-person interviews, 

collection of biometrics8

 (fingerprints), and cross-referencing an 

applicant’s name against the Consular Lookout and Support System—

State’s name-check database that posts use to access critical information 

for visa adjudication. In some cases, a consular officer may determine the

need for a Security Advisory Opinion, which is a response from 

Washington on whether to issue a visa to the applicant. Depending on a

post’s applicant pool and the number of visa applications that a post 

receives, each stage of the visa process varies in length. 

 5

P.L. 82-414, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. 

6

State retains authority in certain circumstances, as outlined in the act. See P.L. 107-296. 

7

The act also requires that DHS on-site personnel in Saudi Arabia review all visa 

applications prior to adjudication by consular officers. P.L. 107-296, Sec. 428(e) and Sec. 

428(i). See GAO, Border Security: Actions Needed to Strengthen Management of 

Department of Homeland Security’s Visa Security Program, GAO-05-801 (Washington,

D.C.: July 29, 2005). 

8

Biometrics is a wide range of technologies that can be used to verify a person’s identity by

measuring and analyzing that person’s physiological characteristics. For the purposes of 

this testimony, “biometric identifiers” refers to fingerprints. See GAO, Technology

Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security, GAO-03-174 (Washington, D.C.: Nov.

14, 2002). 

Page 3 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays
According to consular officials, posts that consistently have wait times for 

visa interview appointments of 30 days or longer may have a resource or 

management problem. To monitor posts’ workload, State requires that 

posts report, on a weekly basis, the wait times for applicant interviews.9

 As 

of March 2006, State’s data showed that between September 2005 and 

February 2006, 97 posts reported maximum wait times of 30 or more days 

in at least one month; at 20 posts, the reported wait times were in excess 

of 30 days for the entire 6-month period. Moreover, in February 2006, nine

posts reported wait times in excess of 90 days (see table 1). 

Applicants May Face 

Extensive Wait Times 

for Visa Interviews 

Table 1: Consular Posts with Maximum Reported Wait Times for Temporary 

Business and Tourism Visa Interview Appointments in Excess of 90 Days, February 

2006 

Post Maximum Wait Time in Days

Chennai, India 168

Ciudad Juarez, Mexico 92

Havana, Cuba 129

Mexico City, Mexico 134

Mumbai, India 154

New Delhi, India 91

Paris, France 116

Port Au Prince, Haiti 167

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 140

Source: Department of State. 

According to the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, 

managing consular workload is a major issue for the department, 

particularly at posts in India and China where volume is expected to 

continue to increase. In February 2004,10 we reported that officials at some 

 9

Posts are asked to provide the appointment wait time applicable to the majority of 

applicants applying for a given category of visas on a given day, and not an average wait 

time. In September 2005, our analysis of State’s data on reported wait times revealed 

significant numbers of posts that did not report on a weekly basis during the 6-month 

period we reviewed. Therefore, the data were not sufficiently reliable to fully determine

how many posts had wait times in excess of 30 days. We recommended that State ensure 

that consular chiefs update interview wait time data on a weekly basis. For the purposes of 

this statement, the data are sufficiently reliable to broadly indicate that delays for visa 

appointments are an ongoing concern. 

10GAO-04-371. 

Page 4 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays
of the posts we visited in India and China indicated they did not have 

enough space and staffing resources to handle interview demands and the 

new visa requirements. According to consular officers, during the 2003 

summer months, the wait for visa interviews was as long as 12 weeks in 

Chennai, India. In China, applicants at one post were facing waits of about

5 to 6 weeks during our September 2003 visit due to an imbalance between 

demand for visas and the number of consular officers available to 

interview applicants and staff to answer phones. Although these posts 

have undertaken initiatives to shorten the wait times, such as using 

temporary duty help and instituting longer interviewing hours, delays for 

visa interviews remain an ongoing concern. For example, the U.S. embassy 

in New Delhi instituted a new appointment system in October 2005, which 

resulted in immediate, additional interviewing capacity at post, according 

to consular officials. However, reported wait times in New Delhi had risen 

above 90 days by February 2006 (see table 2). 

Table 2: Maximum Reported Wait Time in Days for Temporary Business and Tourism Visa Interview Appointments at Posts in 

India, September 2005 through February 2006 

Post September October November December January February

India

Calcutta 111 96 101 94 94 86 

Chennai (Madras) 168 121 122 84 123 136 

Mumbai (Bombay) 79 Not reported 70 127 134 154 

New Delhi 140 9 24 40 74 91 

Source: Department of State. 

At posts in China, Consular Affairs indicated that improvements in 

facilities and staff increases have helped to lessen wait times for 

interviews. However, consular officials have acknowledged that demand 

for visas at posts in China is likely to rise and continue to affect wait times 

in the future. Table 3 shows recent wait times for visa appointments in 

China. 

Page 5 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays
Table 3: Maximum Reported Wait Time in Days for Temporary Business and Tourism Visa Interview Appointments at Posts in 

China, September 2005 through February 2006 

Post September October November December January February

China 

Beijing 36 21 25 34 26 18

Guangzhou 49 30 17 18 Not reported 1

Shanghai 58 28 30 36 33 19

Shenyang 35 12 2 7 6 8

Source: Department of State. 

Although we have not attempted to measure the impact of the time it takes 

to adjudicate a visa, we reported in February 2004 that consular officials

and representatives of several higher education, scientific, and 

governmental organizations reported that visa delays could be detrimental 

to the scientific interests of the United States. Although these officials and

representatives provided numerous individual examples of the 

consequences of visa delays, they were unable to measure the total impact 

of such lengthy waits. For example, in September 2003, Department of 

Energy officials in Moscow explained that former Soviet Union scientists 

have found it extremely difficult to travel to the United States to 

participate in U.S. government-sponsored conferences and exchanges that 

are critical to nonproliferation efforts. Business groups have also 

expressed concern about the impact of visa delays. For example, officials 

from the American Chamber of Commerce and other industry executives

have testified numerous times in recent years about the problem of 

delayed entry for foreign nationals traveling to the United States for 

legitimate business purposes. In addition, on June 2, 2004, a coalition of 

eight industry associations published a study estimating that U.S. 

companies suffered losses totaling $30 billion from July 2002 to March 

2004 due to delays and denials in the processing of business visas.11

Beijing’s Deputy Chief of Mission and consular officials at the embassy 

and consulates in China also stated that visa delays could have a negative 

impact on student and scholar exchanges. 

Officials, Groups Have Noted 

Impact of Visa Delays on U.S. 

Scientific and Business 

Interests 

 11The Santangelo Group, Do Visa Delays Hurt U.S. Business? (Washington, D.C.: June 2,

2004). 

Page 6 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays
Visa delays are a longstanding problem. However, since September 2001, 

several factors have exacerbated wait times for visas. First, changes to 

visa policies and procedures have resulted in additional workload for 

consular officers. Second, while not reaching pre-2001 levels, visa 

application volume has increased in recent years. Third, many posts face 

facility constraints, which limit the extent to which posts can increase visa

processing. Finally, staffing shortfalls also affect the length of time that 

applicants must wait for a visa. 

Several Factors 

Contribute to Wait 

Times for Visas 

Visa Policy and Procedural 

Changes Have Increased 

Consular Workload 

Since the September 11 attacks, Congress, State, and DHS have initiated a 

series of changes to policies and procedures designed to enhance border 

security. These changes have added to the complexity of consular officers’ 

workload and, in turn, exacerbated State’s resource constraints. These 

changes include the following: 

• Consular officers must interview virtually all visa applicants; prior to 

August 2003, they could routinely waive interviews. 

• Since October 2004, consular officers are required to scan foreign 

nationals’ right and left index fingers and clear the fingerprints through the 

DHS Automated Biometric Identification System before an applicant can 

receive a visa.

12

• Some responsibilities previously delegated to Foreign Service nationals13

and consular associates14 have been transferred to consular officers. For 

example, consular associates are no longer authorized to adjudicate visas. 

 12The Automated Biometric Identification System is a DHS database that includes some 5

million people who may be ineligible to receive a visa. For example, the Automated 

Biometric Identification System data includes, among other records, FBI information on all 

known and suspected terrorists, selected wanted persons, and previous criminal histories 

for individuals from high-risk countries. See GAO, Border Security: State Department 

Rollout of Biometric Visas on Schedule, but Guidance Is Lagging, GAO-04-1001 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2004). 

13Foreign Service national employees are non-U.S. citizens employed at a U.S. Foreign

Service post by a U.S. government agency.

14Consular associates are U.S. citizens and relatives of U.S. government direct-hire 

employees overseas who, following successful completion of the required Basic Consular 

Course, are hired by the Consular Section at their post. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, State 

began a 3-year transition to remove adjudication functions from consular associates and 

provide additional consular officers. 

Page 7 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays
• As previously mentioned, some applicants have faced additional delays 

due to various special security checks, or Security Advisory Opinions. For 

example, foreign science students and scholars, who may pose a threat to

our national security by illegally transferring sensitive technology, may be

subject to security checks known as Visas Mantis. In the spring of 2003, it

took an average of 67 days for Visas Mantis checks to be processed and for 

State to notify consular posts of the results. Since then, State and other 

agencies have taken actions which have reduced delays to about 15 days 

for these checks.15

In addition, on July 13, 2005, the Secretary of Homeland Security 

announced that the U.S. government had adopted a 10-print standard for 

biometric collection for visas. In January 2006, the director of the U.S. 

Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program16 testified that 

moving to a 10-fingerscan standard from a 2-print standard would allow 

the United States to be able to identify visa applicants and visitors with 

even greater accuracy. In February 2006, State reported that it plans to 

complete pilot testing and procurement of the 10-print equipment to 

ensure that all visa-issuing posts have collection capability by the end of 

fiscal year 2007. Requiring applicants to submit 10-prints could add more 

time to the applicant’s interview and potentially delay visa processing. 

To help mitigate the adverse impact of these policy and procedural 

changes on wait times, State has taken actions to help maintain the right 

balance between promoting security and facilitating travel. For example, 

while we have not assessed the impact of these actions, all overseas posts 

have established procedures to expedite the processing of business visas 

and are working closely with local American Chambers of Commerce in 

more than 100 countries to expedite the visa process for bona fide 

business travelers. In July 2005, State also established a Business Visa 

Center to facilitate visa application procedures for U.S. businesses in 

conjunction with upcoming travel or events. Regarding foreign students, in 

 15GAO, Border Security: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered Burden on

Foreign Science Students and Scholars, but Further Refinements Needed, GAO-05-198 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2005). 

16US-VISIT is a government wide program to collect, maintain, and share information on 

foreign nationals and better control and monitor the entry, visa status, and exit of visitors. 

Under the program, most foreign visitors are required to submit to fingerprint scans of their 

right and left index finger and have a digital photograph taken upon arrival at U.S. ports of

entry. As a complement to US-VISIT, State implemented the Biometric Visa Program at all 

visa-issuing overseas consulates on October 26, 2004. See Section 303 of the Enhanced

Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, P.L. 107-173. 

Page 8 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays
February 2006, State announced that it has extended the length of time 

foreign students may be issued student visas, which will allow some 

students to apply up to 120 days before their academic program start date 

(as compared to 90 days under previous regulations).17 According to State,

U.S. embassies and consulates also have established special, expedited 

visa interviews for prospective foreign students. 

While not returning to levels prior to the September 11 attacks, visa 

issuance rates increased in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, according to State’s 

data (see fig. 1). Should application volume continue to increase, State has 

acknowledged that additional management actions will be necessary to 

ensure that visa applications are processed in a timely manner. 

Figure 1: Worldwide Visa Issuance Volume, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2005 

Note: According to State, the data for fiscal year 2005 are preliminary as of November 23, 2005, and 

are subject to change. 

Increasing Visa Demand 

Strains Consular 

Resources 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

200

2004

2005

3

199

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

3

1992

Visas issued in millions

Fiscal year

Source: Department of State.

September 11, 2001

 17These changes apply only to initial-entry students. 

Page 9 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays
In the future, we believe that increased global trade and economic growth 

will likely result in increased demand for visas, particularly in certain 

countries. 

Embassy facilities at some posts limit the number of visa applications that 

are processed each day and make it difficult to keep up with visa demand. 

In our September 2005 report, we noted that many visa chiefs we 

interviewed reported problems with their facilities. For example, at 14 of 

the 25 posts covered in our survey, consular officials rated their 

workspace as below average, and 40 percent reported that applicants’ 

waiting rooms were below average. In addition, due to overcrowded 

waiting rooms at four of the eight posts we visited, we observed visa 

applicants waiting for their interviews outside or in adjacent hallways. 

Moreover, a limited number of security guards and screening devices, as 

well as limited physical space, often create bottlenecks at the facilities’ 

security checkpoints. In March 2006, we observed visa facilities in Paris, 

France, and noted that there are insufficient adjudicating windows to meet 

visa demand. A senior consular official acknowledged that many consular 

facilities are located in run-down buildings with insufficient adjudicating 

windows and waiting rooms. In fiscal year 2003, Congress directed the 

Overseas Building Operations Bureau to begin a 3-year Consular 

Workspace Improvement Initiative to improve the overall working 

environment for consular officers.18 In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, State 

obligated $10.2 million to 79 workspace improvement projects at 68 posts. 

However, according to a senior consular official, these funds are being 

used to provide temporary solutions at posts that may require a new 

embassy as part of State’s multibillion-dollar embassy construction 

program. It may take years before some posts’ facilities needs are fully 

addressed. 

To have sufficient resources to manage the demand for visas and minimize 

the time applicants must wait, State may need to consider establishing 

new visa-issuing posts. Indeed, in its 2005 inspection of the Embassy in 

New Delhi, for example, the Office of the Inspector General stated that 

State should establish a permanent consulate in Hyderabad, India, by no

later than 2008 in light of the need for expanded visa processing facilities 

due to increased application volume. In March 2006, the President 

Facilities Constraints Limit 

State’s Options for 

Addressing Visa Delays 

 18See House Conference Report 108-10, attached to P.L. 108-7, Consolidated Appropriations 

Resolution, 2003. 

Page 10 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays
announced that the United States would open a new consulate; however, it

is unclear when this may happen. 

In September 2005, we reported that State faced staffing shortfalls in 

consular positions—a key factor affecting the effectiveness of the visa 

process and the length of time applicants must wait for visas. As of April 

30, 2005, we found that 26 percent of midlevel consular positions were 

either vacant or filled by an entry-level officer.19 In addition, almost threequarters of the vacant positions were at the FS-03 level—midlevel officers 

who generally supervise entry-level staff. Consular officials attribute this 

shortfall to low hiring levels prior to the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative20

and the necessary expansion of entry-level positions to accommodate 

increasing workload requirements after September 11, 2001. We believe 

experienced supervision at visa-issuing posts is important to avoiding visa 

delays. For example, experienced officers may provide guidance to entrylevel officers on ways to expedite visa processing, including advising staff 

on when special security checks are required. 

During our February 2005 visits to Riyadh and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and 

Cairo, Egypt, we observed that the consular sections were staffed with 

entry-level officers on their first assignment with no permanent midlevel 

visa chief to provide supervision and guidance. Although these posts had 

other mid- or seniorlevel consular officers, their availability on visa issues 

was limited because of their additional responsibilities. For example, the 

head of the visa section in Jeddah was responsible for managing the entire 

section, as well as services for American citizens due to a midlevel 

vacancy in that position. At the time of our visit, the Riyadh Embassy did 

not have a midlevel visa chief. Similarly, in Cairo, there was no permanent 

midlevel supervisor between the winter of 2004 and the summer of 2005,

and Consular Affairs used five temporary staff on a rotating basis during 

Staffing Shortfalls Impact 

the Effectiveness of Visa 

Operations 

 19Foreign Service officers are assigned a grade, which ranges from FS-06 to FS-01, 

corresponding from entry-level to midlevel, respectively. According to State, officers at 

grades 6 through 4 are classified as junior officers; 3 through 1 are midlevel officers. In 

addition, members of the senior Foreign Service are senior officers. In this testimony, we 

refer to them as entry-level, midlevel, and senior-level officers. 

20In fiscal year 2002, State launched the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative—a 3-year effort to 

ensure global diplomatic readiness—through which State reported that it hired 834 Foreign 

Service officers. In addition, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 

authorized the hiring of an additional 150 consular officers per year for fiscal years 2006 

through 2009. See P.L. 108-458 § 7203. 

Page 11 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays
this period to serve in this capacity. Entry-level officers we spoke with 

stated that due to the constant turnover, the temporary supervisors were

unable to assist them adequately. At the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, entrylevel officers expressed concern about the lack of a midlevel supervisor. 

More recently, during a February 2006 visits to posts in Nigeria and China,

we found similar consular vacancies. For example, first tour, entry-level 

officers in Chengdu and Shenyang, China, are filling midlevel consular 

positions. 

We have reported on numerous occasions that factors such as staffing 

shortages have contributed to long wait times for visas at some posts. 

Since 2002, State has received funding to address these shortfalls. Through 

the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative and other sources, State increased the 

number of Foreign Service officer consular positions by 364, from 1,037 in

fiscal year 2002 to 1,401 in fiscal year 2005. However, while we have not 

studied this issue, the disparity in wait times among posts may indicate the 

need to reallocate positions to address the growing consular demand and

long wait times at some posts. 

In the event of staffing shortfalls, State has mechanisms for requesting 

increased staff resources. For example, if the Consular Affairs Bureau 

identifies a need for additional staff in headquarters or overseas, it may 

request that the Human Resources Bureau establish new positions. In 

addition, posts can also describe their needs for additional positions 

through their consular package—a report submitted annually to the 

Consular Affairs Bureau that details workload statistics and staffing 

requirements, among other things. For example, in December 2004, during 

the course of our work, the consular section in Riyadh reported to 

Washington that there was an immediate need to create a midlevel visa 

chief position at post, and consular officials worked with human resource 

officials to create this position, which, according to State officials, would 

be filled by summer 2005. 

Page 12 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays
State’s current assignment process does not guarantee that all authorized 

positions will be filled, particularly at hardship posts. Historically, State 

has rarely directed its employees to serve in locations for which they have

not bid on a position, including hardship posts or locations of strategic 

importance to the United States, due to concerns that such staff may be 

more apt to have poor morale or be less productive.21 Due to State’s 

decision to not force assignments, along with the limited amount of 

midlevel officers available to apply for them,22 important positions may 

remain vacant. 

According to a deputy assistant secretary for human resources, Consular 

Affairs can prioritize those positions that require immediate staffing to 

ensure that officers are assigned to fill critical staffing gaps. For example, 

Consular Affairs could choose not to advertise certain positions of lesser 

priority during an annual assignment cycle. However, senior Consular 

Affairs officials acknowledged that they rarely do this. According to these 

officials, Consular Affairs does not have direct control over the filling of all 

consular positions and can often face resistance from regional bureaus 

and chiefs of mission overseas who do not want vacancies at their posts. 

Thus, as we have previously reported, certain high-priority positions may 

not be filled if Foreign Service officers do not bid on them. 

In commenting on a draft of our September 2005 report, State disagreed 

with our recommendation that it prepare a comprehensive plan to address 

vulnerabilities in consular staffing. State argued that it already had such a 

plan. Moreover, State claimed that it appreciates that priority positions 

must be filled worldwide based on the relative strategic importance of 

posts and positions. While State argued that every visa consular officer is 

serving a strategic function, the department identified one post, Embassy 

Baghdad, as a clear example of a priority post. Further, State 

acknowledged that it has fewer midlevel consular officers than it needs. 

State Has Not 

Assessed Overall 

Consular Resource 

Needs 

 21State defines hardship posts as those locations where the U.S. government provides 

differential pay incentives—an additional 5 percent to 25 percent of base salary depending 

on the severity or difficulty of the conditions—to encourage employees to bid on

assignments to these posts and to compensate them for the hardships they encounter. See

GAO, State Department: Staffing Shortfalls and Ineffective Assignment System 

Compromise Diplomatic Readiness at Hardship Posts, GAO-02-626 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 18, 2002). 

22The assignment process begins when Foreign Service employees who are eligible to be

transferred from their current assignment each year receive a list of instructions and

upcoming vacancies for which they may compete. Staff then must submit a list of those 

positions for which they want to be considered. 

Page 13 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays
We continue to believe it is incumbent on the department to conduct a 

worldwide analysis to identify high-priority posts and positions, such as 

supervisory consular positions in posts with high-risk applicant pools or 

those with high workloads and long wait times for applicant interviews. 

Although State noted that it anticipated addressing this shortage of 

midlevel consular officers, it did not indicate when that gap would be 

filled. 

On January 18, 2006, the Secretary of State announced the department’s 

plan to restructure overseas and domestic staffing. This plan aims to shift 

U.S. diplomatic personnel from European posts and headquarters offices 

to posts in Africa, South Asia, the Middle East, and elsewhere. While we 

have not conducted a comprehensive review of this initiative, only 

midlevel political, economic, and public diplomacy officers, and not 

consular officers, would comprise the initial realignment of 100 positions, 

according to State officials. 

In February 2006, consular officials told us that, since our report, they 

concluded a review of consular position grades to ensure that they reflect 

the work requirements for each consular position. Based on this analysis, 

consular officials recommended that 47 positions be upgraded—from an 

entry- to midlevel position, for example—to reconcile the management 

structures of posts that have undergone rapid growth. However, State’s 

bidding and assignment process does not guarantee that the positions of 

highest priority will always be filled with qualified officers. Therefore, a 

further assessment is needed to ensure that State has determined its 

staffing requirements and placed the right people in the right posts with 

the necessary skill levels. 

The visa process presents a balance between facilitating legitimate travel 

and identifying those who might harm the United States. State, in 

coordination with other agencies, has made substantial improvements to 

the visa process to strengthen it as a national security tool. However, given

the large responsibility placed on consular officers, particularly entry-level

officers, it is critical to provide consular posts with the resources 

necessary for them to be effective. Indeed, extensive delays for visa 

interview appointments point to the need for State to perform a rigorous 

assessment of staffing requirements to achieve its goal of having the right 

people with the right skills in the right places. 

Conclusions 

Page 14 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to 

answer any questions you or Members of the Committee may have. 

For questions regarding this testimony, please call Jess T. Ford, 

(202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to 

this statement include John Brummet, Assistant Director, and Kathryn 

Bernet, Eugene Beye, Joseph Carney, and Jane Kim. 

Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 15 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays
Page 16 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays

Appendix I: Related GAO Products 

Border Security: Strengthened Visa Process Would Benefit From 

Improvements in Staffing and Information Sharing. GAO-05-859. 

September 13, 2005. 

Border Security: Actions Needed to Strengthen Management of 

Department of Homeland Security’s Visa Security Program. GAO-05-801. 

July 29, 2005.

Border Security: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered 

Burden on Foreign Science Students and Scholars, but Further 

Refinements Needed. GAO-05-198. February 18, 2005. 

Border Security: State Department Rollout of Biometric Visas on 

Schedule, but Guidance Is Lagging. GAO-04-1001. September 9, 2004. 

Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Eliminate Weaknesses in 

the Visa Revocation Process. GAO-04-795. July 13, 2004. 

Visa Operations at U.S. Posts in Canada. GAO-04-708R. May 18, 2004. 

Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to 

Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and Scholars. GAO-04-371. 

February 25, 2004. 

State Department: Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies Overseas Being 

Met but Gaps Remain in Hard-to-Learn Languages. GAO-04-139. 

November 19, 2003. 

Border Security: New Policies and Procedures Are Needed to Fill Gaps in 

the Visa Revocation Process. GAO-03-798. June 18, 2003. 

Border Security: Implications of Eliminating the Visa Waiver Program. 

GAO-03-38. November 22, 2002. 

Technology Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security. GAO-03-

174. November 15, 2002.

Border Security: Visa Process Should Be Strengthened as an

Antiterrorism Tool. GAO-03-132NI. October 21, 2002. 

State Department: Staffing Shortfalls and Ineffective Assignment System 

Compromise Diplomatic Readiness at Hardship Posts. GAO-02-626. 

June 18, 2002. 
State Department: Tourist Visa Processing Backlogs Persist and U.S. 

Consulates. GAO/NSIAD-98-69. March 13, 1998. 

State Department: Backlogs of Tourist Visas at U.S. Consulates. 

GAO/NSIAD-92-185. April 30, 1992. 

Page 17 GAO-06-542T Visa Processing Delays (320415) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER