DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Office of Inspector General 

Implementation of the United States Visitor

and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 

Program at Land Border Ports of Entry

February 2005 

Office of Inspections, Evaluations, & Special Reviews 

OIG-05-11 

Offi ce of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established 

by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment to the Inspector 

General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and special reports prepared by 

the OIG as part of its DHS oversight responsibilities to promote economy, effectiveness, and 

efficiency within the department. 

This report assesses the status of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 

Technology (US-VISIT) program and highlights potential areas that could inhibit the program’s 

effectiveness. It is based on interviews with employees and officials of relevant agencies and 

institutions, direct observations, and a review of applicable documents. 

I express my appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. 

Richard L. Skinner 

Acting Inspector General 

Contents

 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 3

 Results in Brief .............................................................................................................................. 3

 Background .................................................................................................................................... 5

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology............................................................................................... 10

 Findings... ................................................................................................................................... 11

Status of US-VISIT Planning and Implementation at Land POEs ..................................... 11

 Challenges That Inhibit US-VISIT Effectiveness .................................................................15

Appendices 

Appendix A: Deployment at the Highest Volume Land Ports of Entry .................................. 23

Appendix B: Management Comments...................................................................................... 25

Appendix C: OIG Evaluation of Management Comments ...................................................... 30

Appendix D: Major Contributors to This Report ..................................................................... 33

Appendix E: Report Distribution............................................................................................. 34

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 1 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry
Contents

Abbreviations 

ADIS Arrival Departure Information System 

APIS Advance Passenger Information System 

BCC Border Crossing Card 

BSS Biometric Support System 

BTS Border and Transportation Security 

BVS Biometric Verifi cation System 

CBP Customs and Border Protection 

CCD Consolidated Consular Database 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DMIA Data Management Improvement Act of 2000 

DOJ Department of Justice 

DOS Department of State 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Global Information System 

IAFIS Integrated Automated Fingerprint Information System 

IBIS Interagency Border Inspection System 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization 

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

IDENT Automated Biometric Identifi cation System 

IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 

of 1996 

IPT Integrated Project Team 

NAILS National Automated Immigration Lookout System 

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

NCIC National Crime Information Center 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

POE Port of Entry 

RFID Radio Frequency Identifi cation 

SENTRI Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection 

SEVIS Student and Exchange Visitor Information System 

USCIS United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 

US-VISIT United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 

Technology

VWP Visa Waiver Program

Page 2 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
OIG

Department of Homeland Security 

Offi ce of Inspector General 

Introduction 

We reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts to implement 

the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) 

program at the 50 highest volume land ports of entry (POEs) by December 31, 

2004. We examined DHS’ planning efforts in the context of whether DHS would 

meet legislative mandates for deploying US-VISIT to land POEs. 

The US-VISIT program collects biographic and biometric information concerning 

foreign nationals traveling to the United States through designated POEs. 

Information collected is used by DHS to determine whether visitors should be 

prohibited from entering the United States; apprehended or detained for law 

enforcement action; allowed to receive, extend, or otherwise change immigration 

status; or provided special protection or attention. The US-VISIT program will 

establish the capability and capacity to electronically record the entry and exit of 

such visitors by reconciling entry and exit records so that determinations may be 

made whether visitors overstay the period of their admission to the United States. 

Results in Brief 

The US-VISIT program implemented on December 31, 2004, will initially enroll 

just a fraction, approximately 2.7%, of the foreign visitors entering the United 

States at land POEs. Additionally, the specifications for the automated exit 

component at land POEs remain undefined and, therefore, an exit component for 

travelers required to enroll in US-VISIT is not yet available. 

We are not making recommendations in this report because the US-VISIT 

program is evolving rapidly. Therefore, the value of any recommendation to 

enhance implementation or operations likely would be short lived or premature. 

However, we have highlighted several areas that could inhibit the program’s 

overall effectiveness if not addressed. 

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 3 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
We are concerned about the large number of travelers who are exempt from 

enrollment in US-VISIT. This includes Mexican Border Crossing Card (BCC) 

holders. BCC holders, who accounted for approximately 43.8% of foreign 

national land border crossings in fiscal year (FY) 2002, are exempt from 

enrollment if they enter under BCC provisions. Furthermore, visa exempt 

Canadians, who accounted for approximately 22% of foreign national land border 

crossings in FY 2002, are excluded from enrollment. Visa exempt Canadians may 

be admitted to the United States with limited information to verify their identities. 

In addition, foreign nationals from Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries 

accounted for approximately 0.8% of the foreign national land border crossings 

in FY 2002.1 While we support the enrollment of VWP countries in US-VISIT 

and believe this practice enhances the integrity of the immigration process, as 

VWP countries become compliant with International Civil Aviation Organization 

(ICAO) standards,2

 the technology embedded in passports will be different from 

technology employed by US-VISIT. Until the two technologies for verifying a 

traveler’s identity and admissibility are integrated, VWP countries should remain 

enrolled in US-VISIT.3 

Finally, the time consuming process that the Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) officers must use to query multiple database systems to verify travelers’ 

identities and identify potential criminals and terrorists is particularly problematic 

at land POEs because of the limited time available to conduct the queries. As 

a result, travelers at land POEs are not inspected as intensively as those at air 

and sea POEs. The integration of the multiple database systems is needed to 

enable CBP officers at land POEs to validate the identity of visitors requesting 

admission. 

1 The VWP permits foreign nationals from designated countries to apply for admission to the United States for a maximum of 

90 days as visitors for business or pleasure without first obtaining a non-immigrant visa. Participating countries are Andorra, 

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, 

Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, 

Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. 

2 The ICAO coordinates the development of a code of international aviation law and functions to facilitate the adoption of 

common documents and to promote their general acceptance. 

3

 In our report, An Evaluation of the Security Implications of the Visa Waiver Program, OIG-04-26, we discuss the national 

security implications of the VWP. VWP travelers do not apply for a visa before traveling to the United States and thereby 

avoid the rigorous visa application process conducted by the Department of State consular officers. Therefore, when VWP 

travelers arrive in the United States, CBP officers have very little information about the travelers to verify identifi es and 

to make admissibility decisions. The VWP program presents a potential national security concern because terrorists and 

criminals may use passports from VWP countries to avoid the visa application process. Further, the significance of this 

national security problem is increased because of the large number of lost and stolen VWP passports potentially available to 

terrorists and criminals. This report is also available on our website at http://www.dhs.gov.oig. 

Page 4 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
We are cautiously optimistic that the deliberate approach to implementing USVISIT and the extensive coordination with other governmental entities, interested 

groups, and the program’s prime integrator, will eventually achieve the program’s 

goals and the legislative mandates. However, defining and achieving the long 

term, comprehensive vision for an automated, integrated entry exit program will 

require a massive coordinated effort and will not be realized for at least five to ten 

years. 

Background 

Legislative Requirements 

Legislative efforts to create an entry exit control system to record and match 

arrival and departure records for foreign nationals traveling to the United States 

began in 1996. Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 

Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)4

 required that the departure of every 

foreign national from the United States be recorded and then matched to the 

individual’s arrival record. In 2000, the Immigration and Naturalization Service 

Data Management Improvement Act (DMIA)5

 amended the IIRIRA and provided 

multiple implementation deadlines. The DMIA required an electronic system 

that would provide access to and integrate available foreign national arrival and 

departure data, match arrival records to departure records, allow online search 

procedures to identify foreign nationals who have overstayed their authorized 

period of admission, and use available data to produce a report of arriving and 

departing foreign nationals. DMIA required the implementation of the integrated 

entry exit system at airports and seaports by December 31, 2003; at the 50 highest 

volume land POEs by December 31, 2004; and at remaining POEs by December 

31, 2005.6 

4

 P.L. 104-208. 

5

 P.L. 106-215. 

6 The DIMA legislation (P.L. 106-215, section 2(c)(1)) states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the 

Attorney General or the Secretary of State to impose any new documentary or data collection requirements on any person 

in order to satisfy the requirements of this section...” US-VISIT program officials interpreted this section to mean that 

travelers who were not previously required to present identity or citizenship documents, or be enrolled in a U.S. traveler 

entry procedure when they entered the United States, would not be required to be part of US-VISIT enrollment procedures 

by these deadlines. Therefore, most Mexican and Canadian travelers were not included in the US-VISIT implementation that 

occurred at the land POEs in December 2004. Originally, this exclusion also included VWP travelers. However, in response 

to a security vulnerability we identified in our report, An Evaluation of the Security Implications of the Visa Waiver Program, 

OIG-04-26, April 2004, DHS decided to enroll VWP travelers in US-VISIT beginning in September 2004. This report is also 

available on our website at http://www.dhs.gov.oig. 

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 5 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Also in 2000, the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act7

 added a requirement for 

airports and seaports to have an automated entry exit control system in place for 

arrivals and departures of foreign nationals from VWP countries. The sense of 

Congress, as expressed in the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing 

Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 

(USA PATRIOT Act), is that the United States have an integrated entry exit 

system fully implemented “with all deliberate speed and as expeditiously as 

practicable.”8 

Finally, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 

(Border Security Act)9

 required the establishment of a database containing arrival 

and departure information from machine-readable visas, passports, and other entry 

documents, and that security databases relevant to making admissibility decisions 

be interoperable. 

US-VISIT Program Organization 

In July 2003, the Secretary of DHS created the US-VISIT Program Offi ce 

(Program Office) within the Border and Transportation Security (BTS) 

directorate. The Program Office was positioned organizationally at a level 

comparable to BTS’ Bureaus of CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE). The Program Office is responsible for designing and implementing the 

automated, electronic entry exit control system as required by Congress. The 

purpose of US-VISIT is to identify visitors who may pose a threat to the security 

of the United States, who may have violated the terms of their admission to the 

United States, or who may be wanted for the commission of a crime in the United 

States or elsewhere, while simultaneously facilitating legitimate travel and trade. 

US-VISIT Enrollment Process 

US-VISIT collects and retains biographic, travel, and biometric information, such 

as photographs and fingerprints, of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United 

States. Information collected is checked against lookout databases to ensure 

that known or suspected terrorists, criminals, and previous U.S. immigration 

law violators are not admitted. The capability to link biometric information 

with travel documents will greatly reduce the possibility that visitors could 

7

 P.L. 106-396. 

8

 P.L. 107-56. 

9

 P.L. 107-173. 

Page 6 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
misrepresent their identities or later assume another identity to gain admission 

into the United States. 

The US-VISIT enrollment process involves the electronic scanning of the foreign 

national’s left and right index fingers and the taking of a digital photograph. 

Program officials said the biometric enhancements to the entry procedures add 

minimal time to the inspection process – an average of 15 to 23 seconds in most 

cases. 

Initial US-VISIT Implementation 

DHS implemented the first phase of the US-VISIT program, referred to as 

“Increment 1,” after publishing an interim rule in the Federal Register on January 

5, 2004.10 This interim rule required foreign nationals with non-immigrant visas 

seeking admission to the United States to provide fingerprints, photographs, or 

other biometric identifiers upon arrival in or departure from the United States at 

air and sea POEs. 

On January 5, 2004, DHS began enrolling foreign nationals in US-VISIT at 

115 air and 14 sea POEs. In addition, two exit pilot tests were deployed, one 

at the Baltimore Washington International Airport and another at the Miami 

International Cruise Line Terminal. The exit information is collected through the 

use of self-serve “kiosks” that are located within the terminals at each location. 

In August and September 2004, US-VISIT deployed the exit pilot test program 

to an additional eleven airports and two seaports. Beginning on September 30, 

2004, foreign nationals from VWP countries, initially exempt from US-VISIT 

enrollment, were required to enroll at air and sea POEs. 

As of January 24, 2005, DHS has processed 18,069,639 visitors in US-VISIT. 

The biometric identification capability of US-VISIT has resulted in 2,290 matches 

or “hits” with law enforcement databases. The hits include 1,046 criminals and 

1,244 immigration violators.11 

Differences Between Land POE Inspections and Air and Sea POE 

Inspections 

Program officials said there is a marked difference in inspections conducted at 

airports and seaports compared to inspections conducted at land POEs. The 

10 69 FR 468.

11 Data provided by the US-VISIT Program Office, January 26, 2005.

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 7 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
majority of foreign national visitors seeking admission at sea and air POEs 

receive a more comprehensive examination because of their varied status, 

divergent points of origin, unfamiliarity with admissibility requirements and 

regulations, and the potential security risks to the United States.12 

Before airplanes or ships arrive at U.S. POEs, carriers are required to transmit 

passenger and crew manifest data to CBP. This data includes the last name, fi rst 

name initial, date of birth, and passport number of each passenger. Prior to the 

arrival of the planes or ships in the United States, DHS analysts have time to 

check this data against identity and lookout information. The analysts conduct 

queries of multiple databases, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 

National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Interagency Border Inspection 

System (IBIS), the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), 

and the Consolidated Consular Database (CCD). If the database queries indicate 

criminal or terrorist associations, or other information that may disqualify a 

passenger from admission, the passenger is referred to secondary inspections13 for 

more thorough examination. Unless otherwise exempt, non-immigrant passengers 

are issued Forms I-94 or I-94W Arrival/Departure Record14 and enrolled in USVISIT during the primary inspections process at airports and seaports. 

By way of contrast, at land POEs, CBP officers do not receive any advance 

traveler information and do not have the same opportunity to analyze advance 

manifest or other data prior to the travelers’ arrival at the POEs’ primary 

inspections area. During the primary inspections process at land POEs, travelers 

remain in their vehicles while CBP officers visually inspect travel documents. 

The only automated database check that is conducted is by digital license plate 

readers located in the vehicle lanes in primary inspections. As the vehicle passes 

by the license plate readers, the scanners read the vehicle’s license plate and query 

the vehicle’s license plate number in IBIS.15 Although the results are available 

12 Most visitors arriving in the United States via land POEs are citizens of Mexico or Canada. Visitors arriving at air POEs 

may arrive from embarkation ports almost anywhere in the world and may be citizens of any country including countries that 

sponsor or harbor terrorist activities. Therefore, the potential that a terrorist or criminal would attempt to enter the United 

States through an air POE is much greater and thus CBP officers must give these visitors greater scrutiny. 13 The secondary inspections area of a land POE is an area traditionally away from primary inspections lanes where CBP 

officers perform more intensive questioning of the traveler, verify admissibility documents by querying various databases, 

and inspect the vehicle if appropriate. 

14 Foreign nationals traveling on non-immigrant visas are issued Form I-94 and foreign nationals traveling from VWP 

countries are issued Form I-94W. Forms 1-94 and I-94W show the date of arrival, port of entry, and date the authorized 

period of admission expires. 

15 IBIS is a shared database of lookout and enforcement data contributed from many federal agencies, including the 

Departments of State and Agriculture. The system objectives are to identify and intercept persons attempting illegal 

entry into the United States and to facilitate lawful travelers and enhance border enforcement. Immigration lookout 

Page 8 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
within seconds to the CBP officer for review, the value of the information is 

limited. The results will provide law enforcement and border crossing related 

information about only the vehicle, which may or may not pertain to the vehicle’s 

occupants. The database search may not help to verify the travelers’ identities or 

identify possible terrorist or criminal associations. 

At land POEs, most secondary inspections referrals are for routine matters 

necessary to process immigrant and non-immigrant documents, such as Form I94 or I-94W issuance, and not because of law enforcement concerns. Travelers 

referred to secondary inspections must park their vehicles and enter the secondary 

inspections area for processing. Travelers required to enroll in US-VISIT will be 

referred to secondary inspections for processing. 

Generally, Forms I-94 issued at land POEs are issued for unlimited multiple 

entries until specified expiration dates or a specific number of entries has 

occurred. When issued Forms I-94, travelers will enroll in US-VISIT. However, 

travelers will not be required to enroll in US-VISIT on subsequent visits using the 

multiple entry Forms I-94. Travelers admitted under VWP provisions are issued 

Forms I-94W. In FY 2003, approximately 3.2 million I-94 Arrival/Departure 

Records were issued at all land border ports. 

FY 2003 Form I-94 Issuance at All Land Border POEs16 

Northern Southern Total 

I-94 282,325 2,631,778 2,914,103 

I-94W 233,251 12,589 245,840 

Total 515,576 2,644,367 3,159,943 

Assuming that FY 2003 travel patterns remain unchanged, this data refl ects the 

approximate number of travelers who will be processed through US-VISIT upon 

entry at land POEs. 

information is provided through the National Automated Immigration Lookout database and downloaded to IBIS nightly. 

IBIS also provides access to the NCIC and allows users to interface with all 50 states via the National Law Enforcement 

Telecommunications Systems. 

16 Data provided by the US-VISIT Program Office, Increment 2B Concept of Operations, page 7, May 28, 2004. Note: This 

data represents the number of Forms I-94 issued, not the total number of crossings (multiple entries on a Form I-94) in FY 

2003. 

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 9 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

We reviewed efforts undertaken by the Program Office to develop, deploy, and 

implement US-VISIT at the 50 highest volume land POEs by December 31, 

2004. The objective of the review was to determine whether the Program Offi ce’s 

planning process for the implementation of US-VISIT at land POEs addresses 

all of the legislative requirements for an entry exit system. Specifi cally, we 

examined the progress made by the Program Office to develop implementation 

plans, modify existing facilities, conduct or plan pilot testing of systems and 

new technology, integrate database systems, achieve program goals, and meet 

mandated timelines. 

We analyzed documents provided by the US-VISIT Program Office including the 

Increment 2B Concept of Operations, Cost Benefi t Analysis, and Expenditure, 

Communication, and Risk Management plans. We also reviewed relevant Federal 

Register notices, reports from the Government Accountability Offi ce, internet 

websites, and news articles. 

We interviewed Program Offi ce officials and staff responsible for implementing 

US-VISIT at the 50 land ports and met with officials from the Government 

Accountability Office. We conducted telephone interviews with several 

interested groups including the Center for Immigration Studies and the American 

Immigration Lawyers Association. We met with representatives from the 

United States Chamber of Commerce and attended a conference on May 12, 

2004, “Securing The Future of Travel And Tourism,” sponsored by the United 

States Chamber of Commerce. We also attended a demonstration of the USVISIT enrollment process and conducted a site visit at Baltimore Washington 

International Airport to observe the actual enrollment of foreign nationals in USVISIT upon entry to the United States. 

The review was conducted under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 

1978, as amended, and according to the Quality Standards for Inspections issued 

by the President’s Council on Integrity and Effi ciency. 

Page 10 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Findings 

Status of US-VISIT Planning and Implementation at Land POEs 

Initially, the Program Office focused its efforts on deploying US-VISIT 

capabilities, developing policy, and establishing procedures at air and sea POEs. 

Air and sea POEs offer an array of logistical and control features, such as 

scheduled arrival and departure times, accommodations for delayed travel, and 

advance passenger information, which are all conducive to facilitating a visitor 

entry exit system. Small increases in passenger processing time are more readily 

managed at such POEs than at land POEs. 

Implementing US-VISIT at land POEs is more complex and challenging. Land 

POEs must be able to accommodate larger and constant volumes of foreign 

nationals. At land POEs, small increases in processing times translate more 

quickly into travel delays that impede border crossing, which can have deleterious 

economic costs and effects for both border nations. For example, in another 

report,17 we examined the impact of a 20 second increase in inspections time for 

3.5 million vehicles. We calculated that it would take the approximate equivalent 

of 2.22 additional calendar years to inspect these additional vehicles. Although 

other variables could affect the equation, the increase of 2.22 years in inspections 

time could translate into significant resource implications for CBP, as well as 

significant increases in waiting time for travelers. 

Planning 

To facilitate planning and implementation efforts, the Program Offi ce established 

the Integrated Project Team (IPT). The IPT consists of members from the 

different areas within the Program Office, such as Mission Operations, Facilities, 

Information Technology, and Outreach, as well as representatives from the 

Department of State (DOS), Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of 

Transportation, Transportation Security Administration, CBP, ICE, and United 

States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Weekly IPT meetings provide 

members an opportunity to discuss and address issues and risks regarding the 

implementation of US-VISIT at the 50 highest volume land ports. 

17 A Review of the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection Program, OIG-04-14, June 2004. The report is 

also available on our website at http://www.dhs.gov.oig. 

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 11 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
US-VISIT program officials said the 50 land POEs process approximately 92% 

of the foreign national visitors who enter and exit the United States through land 

ports. In addition, US-VISIT included two smaller land ports located near the 

50 land ports in the initial deployment.18 These additional satellite POEs were 

selected to prevent travelers from bypassing US-VISIT enrollment requirements 

at the larger POEs. 

Looking beyond the initial deployment at the 50 land POEs, the Program Offi ce 

has conducted detailed “Space Utilization Surveys” of all 165 land POEs; this 

effort started in September 2003. By conducting the surveys at all land POEs 

now, program officials believe that they saved time and resources because 

planning and preparation can begin now to address potential deployment 

difficulties at remaining land POEs, some of which may need signifi cant 

modifi cations. 

DHS sought to assess how deployment of US-VISIT would affect wait 

times, infrastructure, staffing, and environmental concerns. To address these 

considerations, the Program Office conducted an analysis of each land port that 

included aerial Global Information System (GIS) photographs, algorithmic traffi c 

modeling for increased wait times and emissions impact, facilities modifi cation, 

and risk management and mitigation measures. 

Program officials said that much of the physical modification for vehicle and 

pedestrian secondary inspections areas would be limited to changing the height, 

width, and length of counters to accommodate the CBP officer, the visitor, and 

the equipment supporting US-VISIT. Program officials also believe that the 

modifications necessary at one port could be replicated at many other ports. 

In November 2004, the Program Office began the deployment of US-VISIT at 

the land ports of Douglas, Arizona; Laredo, Texas; and Port Huron – Blue Water 

Bridge, Michigan. Deployment to the remaining highest volume land POEs was 

completed on December 31, 2004. The initial application for entry enables the 

electronic recording of arrival data, e.g., biographic and class of admission, for 

foreign nationals who are issued Form I-94 and Form I-94W, electronic recording 

of two fingerprints and a photograph, electronic printing Form I-94 and Form I94W, and permitting arrival data to be shared with other authorized users of the 

system. 

18 Appendix A lists the ports included in the deployment of Increment 2B. 

Page 12 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
In addition, foreign national visitors participating in trusted traveler programs, 

such as the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI)19 

and NEXUS,20 will not be required to enroll in US-VISIT if they use the 

designated program inspection lanes to enter the United States. 

Deployment 

The Program Office planned the deployment of US-VISIT using four increments. 

Program officials believed this approach was the best way to meet program goals 

and legislative mandates while mitigating risk. The first three increments are 

interim or temporary solutions. They include interconnecting and upgrading 

existing system capabilities and deploying these capabilities to air, sea, and land 

ports. US-VISIT traveler information collected at one POE would be accessible 

at all POEs. Increment 4 is a still undefined long term, comprehensive goal 

that will encompass the totality of electronically tracking pre-entry, entry, status 

management, and exit of all classes of foreign national visitors seeking initial or 

continued admission to the United States. 

On January 5, 2004, Increment 1 was completed with the deployment of USVISIT to 115 air and 14 sea POEs. Increment 1 includes electronically collecting 

and matching biographic and biometric information at all major air and some sea 

POEs for certain categories of foreign national visitors with non-immigrant visas, 

checking admissibility against lookout databases using biographic and biometric 

data, and establishing exit pilots. Two exit pilot tests were deployed to record 

visitor exit information electronically through the use of self-serve “kiosks” 

located within the terminals at each location. In August and September 2004, USVISIT deployed the exit pilot test program to an additional eleven airports and 

two seaports. 

Increment 2 is divided into three parts – 2A, 2B, and 2C. Increment 2A includes 

the issuance of tamper-resistant, machine-readable, biometric passports by the 

United States and all VWP countries, and the deployment of the capability to 

read biometric travel documents at all U.S. air, sea, and land POEs. The Program 

19 The SENTRI program permits pre-enrolled low risk travelers to enter the United States by personal vehicle or in designated 

pedestrian lanes from Mexico with minimal inspections by CBP officers. See our previous review of this program, cited at 

footnote 17. 

20 NEXUS is a CBP northern border program that streamlines border inspections for pre-approved low risk travelers by using 

a joint enrollment process and one card for expedited entry to both Canada and the United States. 

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 13 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Office planned the implementation of Increment 2A by October 26, 2004.21 

However, biometric readers that will read ICAO standard passports have not 

been deployed to U.S. POEs. In addition, due to technical challenges facing 

VWP countries in issuing their nationals machine-readable, biometric passports 

in compliance with standards established by ICAO, DHS requested an extension 

of the October 26, 2004, deadline. DHS officials said a two-year extension was 

necessary to create a realistic chance of successfully meeting the deadline. In 

late July 2004, Congress passed legislation extending the deadline to October 26, 

2005; the President signed this bill into law on August 9, 2004.22 

The Program Office said that for the most part, technical problems surrounding 

the biometric passports have been solved and passport production has begun 

in some nations. However, many countries, including the United States, are 

encountering problems related to contracting, budget, and acquisition cycles. The 

focus is now on resolving problems related to the production of biometric readers 

and the integration of these readers into the inspections process. 

In December 2004, the deployment of Increment 2B expanded the current 

Increment 1 capabilities for electronically recording entry to the secondary 

inspections areas at the 50 highest volume land POEs. Originally, Increment 

2B was also intended to record exits. However, plans to use radio frequency 

identification (RFID) technology to record exits electronically are not complete. 

Therefore, the Program Office created Increment 2C, which will include the 

capability to record exits electronically using RFID technology. The Program 

Office plans to start testing this technology by July 31, 2005. 

By December 31, 2005, Increment 3 will expand US-VISIT to all remaining air, 

sea, and land ports. Increment 4 is in the process of being defined. It will be the 

long-term, comprehensive goal of the program, which will consist of multiple 

releases to increase program capability and operation. Capabilities will include 

pre-entry, entry, status management, exit, and analysis processes23 associated with 

the program to achieve the “virtual border” solution. 

21 In addition, the Border Security Act of 2002, mandates that any passport issued on or after October 26, 2004, must be an 

ICAO compliant travel document that uses biometrics, if the bearer applies for admission into the United States under the 

VWP. 

22 P.L. 108-299. 

23 In its final form, US-VISIT program officials envision an integrated system that will cover the interactions of foreign 

nationals with United States officials prior to their entry, when they enter, while they are in the United States, and when they 

exit. Analysis will determine whether foreign nationals comply with their terms of admission and will monitor the system. 

Page 14 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Challenges That Inhibit US-VISIT Effectiveness 

Enrollment of the Land Border Crossing Population 

Enrollment is a critical component of the US-VISIT program. US-VISIT 

enrollments will include only foreign nationals currently required to obtain a 

Form I-94 or I-94W, unless the foreign national is in a US-VISIT exempted group. 

Many foreign national visitors are exempt from US-VISIT based on longstanding 

protocols, reciprocal agreements, and treaties with other countries.24 

Of the 358.3 million total travelers entering at all land ports in FY 2002, 

approximately 1.8 million (0.5%) are non-immigrant foreign nationals from 

VWP countries, and approximately 4.5 million (1.3%) are non-immigrant visa 

holders. Those two categories represent the 6.3 million (1.8%) travelers from the 

total population of border crossers who will be required to enroll in US-VISIT at 

land POEs. When United States citizens are subtracted from the border crossing 

population and those required to enroll are compared with only the foreign 

national population, still only approximately 2.7% would be required to enroll in 

US-VISIT. 

24 Foreign visitors in visa classes that are not subject to US-VISIT are foreign nationals admitted on A-1 (Ambassador, public 

minister, career, diplomatic or consular officer, and members of immediate family), A-2 (Other foreign government offi cial 

or employee, and members of immediate family), C-3 (Foreign government officials and their family members in transit), 

G-1 (Principal resident representative of recognized foreign member government to international organization, and members 

of immediate family), G-2 (Other representative of recognized foreign member government to international organization, 

and members of immediate family), G-3 (Representative of non-recognized or nonmember government to international 

organization, and members of immediate family), G-4 (International organization officer or employee, and members of 

immediate family), NATO-1, NATO-2, NATO-3, NATO-4, NATO-5, or NATO-6 visas, unless the Secretary of DOS and the 

Secretary of DHS jointly determine that a class of such foreign nationals should be subject to the requirement; children under 

the age of 14; persons over the age of 79; classes of foreign nationals that the Secretaries of DHS and DOS jointly determine 

shall be exempt; and an individual foreign national whom the Secretary of DHS, the Secretary of DOS, or the Director of 

Central Intelligence determines shall be exempt. 

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 15 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Total United States Citizen and Foreign National Travelers 

Crossing at United States Land POEs in FY 200225 

TYPE OF TRAVELERS LAND 

(millions) 

Percentage of Total 

Land Crossings 

United States Citizens 120.7 33.7 

BCC (Mexicans) 104.1 29.0 

Legal Permanent Residents 75.0 20.9 

Visa Exempt (Canadians) 52.2 14.6 

Foreign Nationals with Visa 4.5 1.3 

Foreign Nationals (VWP) 1.8 0.5 

TOTAL 358.3 100% 

Program officials said the limited classes of visitors currently required to enroll 

would not significantly affect the primary inspections process at land POEs. In 

addition, implementing Increment 2B at land POEs is expected to have minimal 

effect on the overall inspection times for visitors in secondary inspections areas 

because those required to enroll are already referred from primary inspections 

lanes to secondary inspections areas for issuance of a Form I-94 or I-94W Arrival/ 

Departure Record. Program officials anticipate that biometric enhancements to 

entry procedures at land borders will mirror what has been experienced at air and 

sea POEs. They predict that implementation of Increment 2B will add minimal 

time to the inspection process – an average of 15 to 23 seconds in most cases. 

The Border Crossing Card 

BCC holders accounted for approximately 43.8% of foreign national land border 

crossings in FY 2002. DHS estimates that approximately 6.8 million Mexican 

nationals use the BCC to make approximately 104 million border crossings per 

year. Prior to being issued a BCC, several background checks are conducted on 

Mexican travelers.26 

A BCC can be used as either a BCC or a B1/B2 visa.27 When used as a BCC, a 

Mexican citizen may enter the United States for up to 72 hours and must stay 

within 25 miles of the border. A visitor intending to stay for longer than 72 hours 

or travel more than 25 miles from the border must declare this intention and apply 

25 Data provided by US-VISIT Program Office, FY 2004 Expenditure Plan, page 5, November 2003.

26 The BCC is a travel document issued by DOS through its consular offi ces in Mexico. 27 A B1 visa allows a non-immigrant to enter the United States temporarily for business. A B2 visa allows a non-immigrant to 

enter temporarily for pleasure (tourism).

Page 16 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
for admission under B1/B2 visa provisions. In this case, the foreign national is 

referred to the secondary inspections area to obtain appropriate entry documents, 

such as a Form I-94. BCC holders are not required to enroll in US-VISIT unless 

they enter under the B1/B2 visa provisions. 

All land POEs on the Mexican border have electronic card readers for scanning 

information contained within the BCC; however, at most of the POEs, the card 

readers are located in secondary inspections areas. Therefore, BCC holders 

entering through primary inspections under provisions of the BCC are unlikely 

to have their BCCs scanned. Instead, CBP primary inspections offi cers visually 

inspect BCCs before allowing visitors to enter the United States. As a result, 

the entry of BCC holders is not electronically recorded and their identity is not 

verified. In addition, with no exit component in place at land POEs, CBP offi cers 

have no practical means to determine when BCC holders have overstayed their 

authorized period of admission to the United States. 

The absence of routine BCC scanning and the lack of exit tracking could provide 

a disincentive for BCC holders to declare their intent to travel more than 25 miles 

beyond the border or to stay in the United States longer than 72 hours. Travelers 

entering under the B1/B2 provisions must go to the secondary inspections area, 

leave their vehicles, wait in line to obtain Forms I-94, pay a fee, and enroll in 

US-VISIT. Travelers could avoid these processes by simply entering as a BCC 

holder, and they could do so with little fear of being detected because the BCCs 

are not scanned and entries are not recorded, making it nearly impossible to 

determine whether travelers violated the terms of the BCC. 

On August 10, 2004, DHS increased the period of time a Mexican foreign national 

can stay in the United States as a tourist or on business using the BCC. Now, 

BCC holders are required to enter under B1/B2 provisions only if they intend 

to stay longer than 30 days or travel more than 25 miles from the border. This 

change means that even fewer BCC holders will be required to enroll in the USVISIT program. This change in policy may be an attempt to address longstanding 

complaints that there has not been parity in U.S. immigration policy treatment 

of Mexican and Canadian visitors. However, this extension and subsequent 

exclusion of more BCC holders from US-VISIT enrollment moves away from 

achieving DHS’ goal of enrolling all foreign nationals entering and departing the 

United States. 

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 17 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Exclusion of Visa Exempt Canadians 

Visa exempt Canadians accounted for approximately 22% of foreign national land 

border crossings in FY 2002. In most cases, Canadian citizens are allowed to 

enter the United States without a visa or passport. Canadian “landed immigrants,” 

similar to legal permanent residents in the United States, are also visa exempt 

if they originally came from a VWP country. Visa exempt Canadians are not 

required to enroll. 

Canadians entering the United States have few travel restrictions and may stay 

for up to six months. When crossing the border, a Canadian driver’s license is 

an acceptable form of identification to gain admission to the United States. We 

believe this is a potential vulnerability to the integrity of the immigration process 

because CBP officers cannot readily verify data on Canadian driver’s licenses to 

confirm the identity of the individual who presents one. Because this group of 

travelers is not enrolled in US-VISIT, this vulnerability will continue. 

From January 2004 to late August 2004, 13 Canadian citizens were intercepted, 

at either United States airports or at United States pre-clearance facilities at 

Canadian airports, prior to entering the United States. Eight of the thirteen 

were suspected of terrorist activities. The interceptions were possible because 

inspectors were able to search databases or use advance passenger data to check 

against identity and lookout databases.28 Because land POE inspectors do not 

have the same opportunity to check passenger manifests or advance arrival data 

against identity and lookout databases, and because visa exempt Canadians are 

not enrolled in US-VISIT, the likelihood of intercepting those same Canadian 

citizens at land POEs is small. 

DHS officials plan to enroll in US-VISIT only Canadians who are required to 

obtain visas. The recently enacted Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 

Act of 200429 requires that, by January 1, 2008, all travelers must provide 

evidence to establish identity and citizenship when entering the United States. 

Specifically, it requires that DHS develop and implement, as expeditiously as 

possible, a plan that requires a passport or other document, or combination of 

documents that sufficiently denotes the identity and citizenship for all travelers 

entering the United States. This includes not only those categories of individuals 

for whom documentation requirements had been previously waived but also U.S. 

28 DHS BTS Daily Operations Reports, January 3, 2004, to August 23, 2004. 

29 P.L. 108-458. 

Page 18 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
citizens. We encourage DHS to expedite this requirement well before the deadline 

to improve the integrity of our immigration process. 

Discontinuing Visa Waiver Program Enrollment 

On April 2, 2004, DHS announced that foreign nationals from VWP countries 

would be required to enroll in US-VISIT, and on August 31, 2004, DHS published 

an interim rule in the Federal Register requiring enrollment for VWP countries. 

Enrollment at air and sea POEs began on September 30, 2004, and at the 50 

land ports on December 31, 2004.30 DHS said enrolling VWP foreign nationals 

in US-VISIT would improve public safety, national security, and the integrity 

of the immigration process because the United States does not have suffi cient 

information to verify the identity of VWP travelers prior to their arrival at the 

POE. 

Foreign nationals from VWP countries accounted for approximately 0.8% 

of foreign national land border crossings in FY 2002. Requiring US-VISIT 

enrollment of foreign nationals from designated VWP countries may be only a 

temporary solution because a deadline, established by the Border Security Act 

of 2002, would not be met. This law mandated that, by October 26, 2004, VWP 

countries have a program in place to issue tamper-resistant, machine readable, 

biometric passports that comply with biometric and document identifying 

standards established by the ICAO. In May 2003, the ICAO established facial 

recognition technology as the passport biometric standard, not fi ngerprints. 

Although VWP counties are committed to making this change, many encountered 

problems in introducing embedded biometrics into their passports. In August 

2004, the deadline was extended until October 26, 2005. 

As VWP countries become compliant with the Border Security Act and standards 

established by the ICAO, facial recognition technology embedded in passports 

will be different from the digital fingerprint technology employed by US-VISIT. 

The decision to include enrollment of VWP countries in the US-VISIT program 

is prudent, mutually beneficial to VWP countries and the United States as a 

guard against identity theft, and would foster significant enhancements to the 

integrity of the immigration process. Until the two technologies for verifying 

a traveler’s identity and admissibility are integrated, we believe VWP countries 

30 In another report, An Evaluation of the Security Implications of the Visa Waiver Program, OIG-04-26, April 2004, we 

identifi ed significant organizational issues where BTS needed to strengthen and improve the management of the VWP. We 

recommended that US-VISIT biometric processing be extended to VWP travelers; DHS adopted this program change on 

September 30, 2004. This report is also available on our website at http://www.dhs.gov.oig. 

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 19 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
should continue to be required to enroll in US-VISIT, irrespective of the date they 

achieve compliance with the Border Security Act. According to Program Offi ce 

officials, they plan to continue enrolling and processing VWP travelers through 

US-VISIT, even after the ICAO compliant biometric passports, and the readers to 

use them, are in place. 

Lack of Exit Component at Land POEs 

A US-VISIT exit component is not in place at land POEs. Without the exit 

component, US-VISIT cannot match entry and departure records and cannot 

identify those non-immigrants who may have overstayed the terms of their visas. 

Accordingly, the system deployed on December 31, 2004, was not the automated, 

integrated entry exit system specified by the DMIA legislation. 

DMIA defines the “integrated entry and exit data system” as an electronic system 

that provides access to, and integrates, alien arrival and departure data; uses 

available data to produce reports on arriving and departing aliens; matches an 

alien’s available arrival data with the alien’s available departure data; and assists 

with identifying, through online search procedures, lawfully admitted nonimmigrants who may have remained in the United States beyond the authorized 

period of admission.31 However, plans to record exits electronically have not 

been completed. By July 31, 2005, the Program Office plans to start testing RFID 

technology, and the testing phase is expected to continue through the spring of 

2006. 

System Integration 

US-VISIT program officials envision an integrated system that will cover the 

interactions of foreign nationals with United States officials prior to their entry, 

when they enter, while they are in the United States, and when they exit. The 

integration of the various systems that will be needed to fully support USVISIT will be a complicated and expensive effort. Not only must the Program 

Office merge multiple DHS systems, such as the United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) case management systems and the upcoming 

integration with the USCIS Biometric Support System (BSS), to support USVISIT requirements, but it must also integrate systems from other agencies such 

as DOJ and DOS. Our report is focused on the role of US-VISIT at the land 

31 P.L. 106-215. 

Page 20 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
POEs but we recognize that, ultimately, US-VISIT could encompass much more 

than land border security operations. 

The US-VISIT system is supported by multiple information technology systems 

and some of these systems rely on information obtained by other federal agencies 

as well as commercial airlines and sea carriers. These systems include TIPOFF 

(a terrorist lookout database), NCIC, the Arrival Departure Information System 

(ADIS), the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS), IBIS, the Automated 

Biometric Identification System (IDENT), the Biometric Verifi cation System 

(BVS), CCD, the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Information System (IAFIS), 

the National Automated Immigration Lookout System (NAILS), and SEVIS. 

While some of these systems are able to interface with each other, they currently 

are not integrated within the US-VISIT system. Many are systems that employ 

old technology and cannot easily share information with other systems. Also, 

many of these systems are maintained by different agencies and support functions 

specific to those agencies, which may not be compatible with the needs of USVISIT. 

Currently, CBP officers must perform queries of multiple systems when trying 

to establish an individual’s identity and determine admissibility. Integrating 

the multiple systems to compile a complete traveler identity profile based on 

biographic and biometric information without requiring queries of multiple 

systems by CBP officers will be a major challenge to achieving an automated, 

integrated entry exit system. Achieving system integration becomes particularly 

important at land POEs due to limited inspection time and the absence of advance 

passenger information. This integration must occur in order to provide CBP 

officers at land POEs with timely, complete, and accurate information to establish 

travelers’ identities and admissibility and to identify potential national security 

risks. The full integration of all of these systems with US-VISIT has been 

deferred until Increment 4 is defi ned. 

Achieving a Comprehensive Solution 

The full implementation of US-VISIT, as currently envisioned, will be a complex, 

technologically challenging and risky, and expensive project. DHS envisions that 

the US-VISIT program will take five to ten years to implement a comprehensive 

solution of integrated systems, processes, and data for electronically tracking 

the pre-entry, entry, status management, and exit of all classes of foreign 

national visitors seeking admission or continued admission to the United States. 

Working in conjunction with the prime integrator, other governmental entities, 

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 21 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
and interested groups, the comprehensive program is intended to be a complete 

solution to managing our borders. It will improve business processes across the 

federal government by employing better collection, dissemination, management, 

and analysis of information and data obtained. 

To support US-VISIT in meeting its challenge, the Program Office awarded the 

prime integrator contract to Accenture LLP on June 1, 2004. The prime integrator 

will provide design, integration, and implementation of existing and new systems 

to achieve a comprehensive entry exit system to secure the nation’s borders while 

facilitating legitimate travel. The initial five-year contract, with one-year options 

for extension of another five years, is worth a minimum of $10 million and a 

maximum of $10 billion.32 

Information and data acquired and generated by the US-VISIT program should 

prove increasingly useful. The information could be used to analyze resource and 

staffing needs; traffic, travel, and visitor patterns; and risks and threats. Analysis 

would allow the Program Office to adjust operations on a nationwide basis or to 

respond to the needs of specifi c ports. 

Information could be used to assist with risk assessments that span the virtual 

border and support strategic planning for an integrated border management 

system. Tracking immigration benefits and supporting information, identifying 

visitors who have overstayed the terms of admission, and reporting such 

information will make it possible to take appropriate and timely action. 

Electronic recording of entry and exit records would be matched and visa 

compliance would be determined and maintained along with travel history. 

The long-term, comprehensive goal for the US-VISIT program will require 

implementing standard business processes that work in concert with technology 

and information systems at all land, sea, and air POEs. Choosing the appropriate 

application of technology and business process reengineering to address the 

problems associated with limited space, infrastructure, and facilities will be a 

formidable challenge. When the program is fully operational, it will contribute 

substantially to overall border management goals and provide the United States 

with a more expeditious and secure entry-exit process. 

32 Program offi ce officials said that the prime integrator would not play a role in the implementation of US-VISIT at the 50 

highest volume land POEs by December 31, 2004, and therefore, we did not meet with Accenture LLP as part of this review. 

Page 22 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Appendix A 

Deployment of the Highest Volume Land Ports of Entry 

RANK LAND PORT OF ENTRY STATE 

1 San Ysidro- San Diego CA 

2 Laredo-Lincoln –Juarez TX 

3 Calexico CA 

4 Hidalgo TX 

5 Paso Del Norte - El Paso TX 

6 Otay Mesa – San Diego CA 

7 Laredo AF – Convent Street TX 

8 Lewiston-Queenston Bridge 

Whirlpool Rapids NY 

9 Rainbow Bridge - Niagara Falls NY 

10 San Luis AZ 

11 Nogales East AZ 

12 Bridge of the Americas (BOTA) El Paso TX 

13 Ysleta - El Paso TX 

14 Douglas AZ 

15 Gateway – Brownsville TX 

16 Calexico East -Imperial Valley CA 

17 Detroit Ambassador Bridge MI 

18 Peace Bridge – Buffalo NY 

19 Detroit Tunnel MI 

20 Pharr TX 

21 Del Rio TX 

22 B&M – Brownsville TX 

23 Eagle Pass II TX 

24 Port Huron - Blue Water Bridge MI 

25 Los Tomates – Brownsville TX 

26 Progreso TX 

27 Eagle Pass TX 

28 Sault Ste. Marie MI 

29 Marisposa - Nogales West AZ 

30 Andrade CA 

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 23 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Appendix A 

Deployment of the Highest Volume Land Ports of Entry 

31 Roma TX 

32 Pacific Highway – Blaine WA 

33 Peace Arch – Blaine WA 

34 Champlain NY 

35 Los Indios TX 

36 Tecate CA 

37 Rio Grande City TX 

38 Massena NY 

39 Calais - Ferry Point ME 

40 Alexandria Bay – Thousand Island NY 

41 International Falls MN 

42 Presidio TX 

43 Sumas WA 

44 Laredo – Columbia TX 

45 Lukeville AZ 

46 Derby Line VT 

47 Point Roberts WA 

48 Fabens TX 

49 World Trade Bridge – Laredo IV TX 

50 Santa Teresa NM 

Page 24 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Appendix B 

Management Comments 

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 25 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry
Appendix B 

Management Comments 

Page 26 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Appendix B 

Management Comments 

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 27 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry
Appendix B 

Management Comments 

Page 28 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Appendix B 

Management Comments 

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 29 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry
Appendix C 

OIG Evaluation of Management Comments 

We evaluated the US-VISIT Program Office’s written comments and have made 

changes to the report where we deemed appropriate. Below are a summary of the 

Program Office’s written responses to the report and our analysis of the responses. 

In response to the report, the Program Office noted the accomplishments and 

success it has demonstrated in enhancing the security of U.S. citizens and 

visitors, facilitating legitimate travel and trade, enhancing the integrity of the U.S. 

immigration system, and protecting the privacy of our visitors. At inspections 

areas, CBP Officers search biographical and biometric databases of known 

criminals and terrorists. Implementation of US-VISIT at the 50 highest volume 

land POEs has gone smoothly and appears to have reduced wait times for those 

required to enroll. Pilot exit testing programs are ongoing at four airports and one 

seaport. A Privacy Impact Assessment has been published applying aspects of 

the Privacy Act to non-immigrants. The Program Office also noted that they have 

met the minimum statutory requirements for an entry exit system specifi ed by 

legislation. 

We recognize the efforts and progress made by the Program Office to fulfi ll 

its mission and meet the goals of the US-VISIT program. However, as the 

development and implementation of the comprehensive vision for US-VISIT 

progresses, the Program Office faces many challenges. We have discussed some 

of these challenges in the report, including the lack of an exit component at land 

POEs. While the minimum statutory requirements may have been met for USVISIT implementation at land POEs, only the bare minimum has been achieved. 

Matching entries with departures at land POEs, through the use of RFID or 

other technology, continues to be a necessary enhancement to the integrity of the 

immigration system. 

US-VISIT Response: The Program Office responded to our statement, in the 

Deployment section that, “Biometric readers have been deployed to all U.S. 

POEs.” Biometric readers that will read ICAO standard passports have not 

been deployed to U.S. POEs. For the most part, technical problems around the 

biometric passports themselves have been solved and passport production has 

begun in some nations. However, many countries, including the United States, 

are encountering problems related to contracting, budget, and acquisition cycles. 

The focus is now on resolving problems related to the production of biometric 

readers and the integration of these readers into the inspections process. To date, 

the readers that have been tested in the simulated POE environment do not yet 

meet the operational requirements of U.S. inspection systems. 

Page 30 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Appendix C 

OIG Evaluation of Management Comments 

OIG Evaluation: We made changes in the report to reflect that biometric readers 

that will read ICAO standard passports have not been deployed to U.S. POEs and 

that for the most part, technical problems surrounding the biometric passports 

have been solved. 

US-VISIT Response: In the Exclusion of Visa Exempt Canadians section, 

the comment was made in reference to our statement that “DHS offi cials told 

us they do not plan to enroll Canadians in US-VISIT.” DMIA requires the 

electronic collection of entry data on aliens who are currently documented at 

entry. Only aliens who currently receive Forms 1-94 have their entry and exit 

recorded; therefore, this population continues to be sent to secondary inspection, 

as appropriate, where their entry is electronically recorded and their fi ngerscans 

collected for enrollment and watchlist verification. Canadians who present visas, 

and who therefore receive Forms I-94 at entry, are enrolled in US-VISIT in air, 

land, and sea environments. 

OIG Evaluation: We made changes in the report to reflect that DHS offi cials 

plan to enroll in US-VISIT only Canadians who are required to obtain visas. 

US-VISIT Response: In reference to our statement, in the Discontinuing Visa 

Waiver Program Enrollment section, that “We believe VWP countries should 

continue to be required to enroll in US-VISIT, irrespective of the date they 

achieve compliance with the Border Security Act,” the Program Office agrees. 

In addition, the Program Office plans to continue enrolling and processing VWP 

travelers through US-VISIT, even after the ICAO compliant biometric passports, 

and the readers to use them, are in place. 

OIG Evaluation: We have made changes in the report to reflect the statement 

that Program Offi ce officials plan to continue enrolling VWP travelers in USVISIT. 

US-VISIT Response: In reference to our statement, in the Lack of Exit 

Component at Land POEs section, that “A US-VISIT exit component is not in 

place at land POEs,” the Program Office is exploring the use of radio frequency 

identification (RFID) technology as a tool that will better enable the program to 

fulfill its goals. Testing will begin at the ports of Nogales East and Nogales West 

in Arizona; Alexandria Bay in New York; and Pacific Highway and Peace Arch 

in Washington by July 31, 2005 and is expected to continue through the spring of 

2006. 

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 31 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Appendix C 

OIG Evaluation of Management Comments 

OIG Evaluation: We made changes in the report to reflect Program Offi ce plans 

to start testing RFID technology by July 31, 2005, and that the testing phase is 

expected to continue through the spring of 2006. 

US-VISIT Response: They questioned our statement, in the same section, 

that “Accordingly, the system deployed on December 31, 2004, was not the 

automated, integrated entry exit system specified by the DMIA legislation.” 

The Program Office responded that the legislation does not require DHS or the 

Department of State to collect data on any population where entry information 

is not already being collected. With regard to departure data, DMIA requires 

the entry-exit system to match the “alien’s available arrival data with the alien’s 

available departure data.” 

DHS contends it has met the minimum statutory requirements for creating 

an entry exit system. In addition, although DHS has met the DMIA statutory 

requirement regarding land borders, it recognizes the need to do more to secure 

our borders and fully intends to leverage new technology to capture information 

about arrivals and departures at land borders in the future. 

OIG Evaluation: While the minimum statutory requirements may have been 

met for US-VISIT implementation at land POEs, we believe the spirit of the 

law intended to have an automated, integrated exit component at land POEs. 

Matching entry records with departure records at land POEs, through the use of 

the RFID technology currently being developed and tested or other technology, 

will increase security and enhance the integrity of the immigration system. 

US-VISIT Response: In the System Integration section, the Program Offi ce 

wants the USCIS case management systems along with the upcoming integration 

with the USCIS BSS cited in addition to the other systems listed. 

OIG Evaluation: We made changes in the report to reflect these systems. 

US-VISIT Response: Appendix A should be modified to remove the word 

“proposed” and the POEs of Stanton Street Bridge, Texas, and Milltown, Maine, 

as these POEs were not included in the December 2004 deployment. 

OIG Evaluation: We removed the word “proposed” and the two POEs from 

Appendix A in the report. 

Page 32 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Appendix D 

Major Contributors to This Report 

David M. Hiles, Chief Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, Offi ce of 

Inspections, Evaluations, and Special Reviews 

Marcia Moxey Hodges, Chief Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, 

Office of Inspections, Evaluations, and Special Reviews 

Jennifer A. Lindsey, Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, Offi ce of 

Inspections, Evaluations, and Special Reviews 

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 33 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Appendix E 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

The Honorable Michael Chertoff 

Secretary 

Admiral James Loy 

Deputy Secretary 

The Honorable Asa Hutchinson 

Under Secretary 

Border and Transportation Security 

The Honorable Robert C. Bonner 

Commissioner 

Customs and Border Protection 

Mr. Jim Williams 

Director 

US-VISIT Program Offi ce 

Mr. Duncan Campbell 

Chief of Staff 

Mr. Brian Besanceney 

Acting Assistant Secretary 

Public Affairs 

Mr. Joe D. Whitley 

General Counsel 

Mr. Jack L. Johnson, Jr. 

Chief Security Officer 

Mr. Steven J. Pecinovsky 

DHS OIG Liaison 

Ms. M. Evelyn Lim 

BTS Audit Liaison 

Border and Transportation Security 

Page 34 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Appendix E 

Report Distribution 

Mr. Thomas Harner 

US-VISIT Liaison 

US-VISIT Program Offi ce 

Ms. Cecelia Neglia 

CBP Audit Liaison 

Customs and Border Protection 

Office of Management and Budget 

Ms. Katherine Fox 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

Office of Management and Budget 

Mr. Jim Holm 

Program Examiner 

Office of Management and Budget 

Congress 

Select Committee on Homeland Security 

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Government Reform 

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary 

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation 

United States Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Page 35 Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 
Appendix E 

Report Distribution 

Committee on Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Page 36 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry 

Additional Information and Copies 

To obtain additional copies of this report, call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

at (202) 254-4100, fax your request to (202) 254-4285, or visit the OIG web site at 

www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG Hotline 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal 

or noncriminal misconduct relative to department programs or operations, call the 

OIG Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; write to DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 

2600, Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 

410, Washington, DC 20528, or email DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov. The OIG seeks to 

protect the identity of each writer and caller.