United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

U.S. ASYLUM 

SYSTEM 

Agencies Have Taken 

Actions to Help 

Ensure Quality in the 

Asylum Adjudication 

Process, but 

Challenges Remain 

September 2008 

 

On October 2, 2008, the PDF file was revised to correct 

figures 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14, which initially had incorrect 

information or did not correspond with the appropriate figure 

title. 

GAO-08-935 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2008

U.S. ASYLUM SYSTEM

Agencies Have Taken Actions to Help Ensure Quality 

in the Asylum Adjudication Process, but Challenges

Remain 

Highlights of GAO-08-935, a report to 

congressional requesters 

Each year, tens of thousands of

noncitizens apply in the United

States for asylum, which provides 

refuge to those who have been 

persecuted or fear persecution. 

Asylum officers (AO) in the

Department of Homeland

Security’s (DHS) U.S. Citizenship

and Immigration Services (USCIS),

and immigration judges (IJ) in the 

Department of Justice’s (DOJ) 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review (EOIR) assess applicants’ 

credibility and eligibility. GAO was 

asked to evaluate aspects of the 

asylum system. This report 

addresses the extent to which 

quality assurance mechanisms have

been designed to ensure 

adjudications’ integrity, how key 

factors affect AOs’ adjudications,

and what key factors affect IJs’ 

adjudications. To conduct this 

work, GAO reviewed agency

documents, policies, and 

procedures; surveyed all AOs, 

supervisory AOs, and IJs; and 

visited three of the eight Asylum 

Offices. These offices varied in size

and percentage of cases granted 

asylum. Results of these visits 

provided additional information 

but were not projectable. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Asylum 

Division, among other things, 

solicit information from officers on 

their training needs, develop a plan 

to implement local quality reviews 

in all offices, and determine how 

much time is needed to adjudicate

a case in a manner consistent with 

procedures and training. DHS and 

USCIS concurred with GAO’s 

recommendations. 

USCIS and EOIR have designed quality assurance mechanisms to help ensure

the integrity of asylum adjudications, but some can be improved. While 75 

percent of AO survey respondents reported that basic training prepared them 

at least moderately well to adjudicate cases, they also reported that despite 

weekly training, they needed additional training to help them detect fraud, 

conduct security checks, and assess the credibility of asylum seekers. The 

Asylum Division does not consistently solicit AOs’ and supervisory AOs’ input 

on a range of their training needs. Without this, the Asylum Division lacks key 

information for making training decisions. The Asylum Division has designed

a quality review framework to ensure the quality and consistency of asylum 

decisions. Although supervisors review all cases and headquarters reviews 

certain cases, other local quality assurance reviews rarely took place in three 

of the eight Asylum Offices primarily due to competing priorities. By fully 

implementing its quality review framework, the Asylum Division would better 

identify deficiencies, examine their root causes, and take action. The majority

of IJ survey respondents reported that training enhanced their ability to 

adjudicate asylum cases, although the majority also reported having additional 

training needs. EOIR expanded its training program in 2006, particularly for 

newly hired IJs, and annually solicits IJs’ views on their training needs. 

Asylum officers reported challenges in identifying fraud and assessing

applicants' credibility, as well as time constraints, as key factors affecting 

their adjudications. The majority of AO survey respondents reported it 

moderately or very difficult to identify various types of fraud, despite 

mechanisms designed to help identify fraud and assess credibility. Further, 

assistance from other federal entities to AOs in assessing the authenticity of 

asylum claims has been hindered in part by resource limitations and 

competing priorities. With respect to time constraints, 65 percent of AOs and 

73 percent of supervisory AOs reported that AOs have insufficient time to 

thoroughly adjudicate cases—that is, in a manner consistent with procedures 

and training—while management’s views were mixed. The Asylum Division 

set a productivity standard equating to 4 hours per case in 1999 without 

empirical data. Without empirical data on the time it takes to thoroughly 

adjudicate a case, the Asylum Division is not best positioned to know if its 

productivity standard reflects the time AOs need for thorough adjudications. 

Verifying fraud, assessing credibility, and time constraints are also key factors 

affecting IJs’ adjudications. IJ survey respondents cited verifying fraud (88 

percent) and assessing credibility (81 percent) as a moderately or very 

challenging aspect of asylum adjudications. Responding to 2006 Attorney 

General reforms, EOIR implemented a program to which IJs can refer 

instances of suspected fraud and receive information to aid in fraud detection. 

Eighty-two percent of IJs reported time limitations as moderately or very 

challenging aspects of their adjudications. EOIR has detailed IJs to courts 

with high caseloads and plans to hire additional staff, but it is too soon to 

know the extent to which additional staff will alleviate IJs’ time challenges. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-935. 

For more information, contact Richard M. 

Stana at (202) 512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 9

The Asylum Division and EOIR Have Designed Quality Assurance 

Mechanisms to Help Ensure the Integrity of Asylum 

Adjudications, but Some Can Be Improved 19 

Challenges in Assessing the Authenticity of Claims and Time 

Constraints Are Key Factors Affecting Asylum Officers’ 

Adjudications 39

Key Factors Affecting Immigration Judge Adjudications Are Similar 

to Those Identified by Asylum Officers 64 

Conclusions 73

Recommendations for Executive Action 74 

Agency Comments 74 

Appendix I Survey of Asylum Officers 76 

Appendix II Survey of Supervisory Asylum Officers 105 

Appendix III Survey of Immigration Judges 123 

Appendix IV Survey and Site-Visit Methodology 141 

Appendix V Asylum Adjudication Process 147 

Appendix VI Asylum Division and EOIR Caseload and Staffing 

Information 149 

Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 153 

Page i GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Tables 

Table 1: Asylum Officers Reporting When in Their Career as an 

Asylum Officer It Would Be, or Would Have Been, 

Moderately or Very Useful to Observe Skilled Interviewers 27 

Table 2: Asylum Officer and Supervisory Asylum Officer Survey 

Respondents’ Views on the Time Asylum Officers Need to 

Complete an Asylum Case 58 

Table 3: Authorized and Available Staffing Levels for Asylum 

Officers, Fiscal Years 2002–2007 150 

Table 4: Authorized and Onboard Staffing Levels for Immigration 

Judges, Fiscal Years 2002–2007 152 

Figures 

Figure 1: Steps in the DHS Asylum Process 12 

Figure 2: Steps in the DOJ Asylum Process 17 

Figure 3: Topics Asylum Officer and Supervisory Asylum Officer 

Survey Respondents Most Frequently Identified as Areas 

in Which Asylum Officers Moderately or Greatly Needed 

Additional Training 22 

Figure 4: Immigration Judge Survey Respondents’ Views on Topics 

for Which They Reported a Moderate or Great Need for 

Additional Training 36 

Figure 5: Types of Fraud That Asylum Officer Survey Respondents 

Reported as Moderately or Very Difficult to Identify 41 

Figure 6: Percentage of Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Who 

Reported Significant Challenges to Assessing Credibility 

in about Half or More of the Asylum Cases They 

Adjudicated over the Past Year 42 

Figure 7: Security Checks Asylum Officer Survey Respondents 

Viewed as Moderately or Very Useful in Providing 

Information on Individuals Who Pose a Risk to National 

Security or Public Safety 48 

Figure 8: Security Checks Asylum Officer Survey Respondents 

Viewed as Moderately or Very Useful in Providing 

Information on an Applicant’s Eligibility for Asylum 49 

Figure 9: Percentage of Immigration Judge Survey Respondents 

Who Reported Aspects of Adjudicating Asylum Cases to 

Be Moderately or Very Challenging 64 

Page ii GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Figure 10: Types of Suspected Fraud That Immigration Judge 

Survey Respondents Reported as Moderately or Very 

Difficult to Identify 65 

Figure 11: Types of Suspected Fraud That Immigration Judge 

Survey Respondents Reported as Presenting a Challenge 

in Some or All of the Cases They Adjudicated over the 

Past Year 66 

Figure 12: Percentage of Immigration Judge Survey Respondents 

Who Reported Impediments to Assessing Credibility in 

about Half or More of the Asylum Cases They Adjudicated 

over the Past Year 68 

Figure 13: Asylum Division Caseload and Completions for Fiscal 

Years 2002–2007 149 

Figure 14: EOIR Caseload and Completions for Fiscal Years 2002–

2007 151

Page iii GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Abbreviations 

AO asylum officer 

AOBTC Asylum Officer Basic Training Course 

BIA Board of Immigration Appeals 

CCD Consular Consolidated Database 

DACS Deportable Alien Control System 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOJ Department of Justice 

EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Review 

FDL Forensic Document Laboratory 

FDNS Office of Fraud Detection and National Security

FDNS-IO Office of Fraud Detection and National Security

immigration officer 

FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

FMFIA Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982

FPC Fraud Prevention Coordinator 

IBIS Interagency Border Inspection System 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

IJ immigration judge 

NACARA Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act 

NAIJ National Association of Immigration Judges 

QA/T Quality Assurance and Training Coordinator 

RAPS Refugees, Asylum, and Parole System 

State Department of State 

USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

US-VISIT U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 

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. 

Page iv GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

September 25, 2008 

The Honorable Steve King 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 

 and International Law

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 

House of Representatives

Each year, tens of thousands of individuals representing over 100 

nationalities apply for asylum in the United States. U.S. immigration law 

provides that noncitizens who are in this country—regardless of whether 

they entered legally or illegally—may be granted humanitarian protection

in the form of asylum if they demonstrate that they cannot return to their 

home country because they have a well-founded fear of persecution.1

Federal adjudicators—asylum officers in the U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) within the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) and immigration judges in the Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (EOIR) within the Department of Justice (DOJ)—

assess whether asylum applicants’ claims are legitimate and meet the 

eligibility criteria for asylum. 

Asylum decisions can carry serious consequences. Granting asylum to an 

applicant with a genuine claim provides protection from being returned to 

a country where the individual’s freedom or life could be threatened. On 

the other hand, granting asylum to an individual with a fraudulent claim 

jeopardizes the integrity of the asylum system by enabling the individual to 

remain in the United States, apply for certain benefits such as a Social 

Security card, and pursue a path to citizenship. In the worst case scenario, 

 1

The laws governing asylum protection were first established in statute with the passage of

the Refugee Act of 1980 (Pub. L. No. 96-212, § 201, 94 Stat. 102, 102-06 (1980) (codified at 8

U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1157-1159)). The Refugee Act provided, for the first time, a U.S. 

refugee policy that stated that persecuted aliens who are present in the United States and 

who meet the definition of a refugee can apply for asylum protection in the United States. 

The legal standard for a refugee and asylee are the same, but noncitizens must apply for 

refugee status from outside the United States, and for asylum status from within the United 

States. The final regulations for implementing the Refugee Act of 1980 were issued in 1990.

Page 1 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
this could pose a threat to our national security or public safety. The 1993

bombing of the World Trade Center, the 1993 killings of CIA employees, 

and a plot to bomb New York landmarks were all undertaken by 

individuals who had applied for asylum. Although none of these 

individuals was granted asylum, the attacks of September 11, 2001, have 

heightened fears that terrorists might enter the United States with false 

documents, file fraudulent asylum claims, and become embedded in the 

U.S. population. 

The very nature of the asylum system puts adjudicators in the position of 

trying to make quality decisions with imperfect information. Asylum law 

states that testimonial information alone can be sufficient for asylum 

applicants to meet the burden of proof for establishing asylum eligibility, 

in part because applicants may not be able to present documents if they 

fled their country of persecution without them, came from countries 

where documentary evidence was not available, or fled with fraudulent 

documents to hide their true identity. As such, adjudicators must make 

decisions at times without documentation to support or refute an 

applicant’s claim. Furthermore, economic incentives for a better life in the 

United States can make it attractive for aliens to fraudulently apply for 

asylum status and, according to some academic journals and policy 

reports, fraudulent asylum claims are easy to make and difficult to detect. 

Together, these factors create a challenging environment in which 

adjudicators must attempt to reach the best decisions they can. 

You requested that we review aspects of the asylum system. This report 

addresses the following questions: 

• To what extent have quality assurance mechanisms been designed within

the U.S. asylum system to ensure the integrity of the adjudication process? 

• How do key factors affect asylum officers’ adjudication of asylum cases? 

• What key factors affect immigration judges’ adjudication of asylum cases? 

To address the first two questions, we reviewed applicable laws, 

regulations, and agency documents, including asylum adjudication policies 

and procedures, asylum officer training materials, and fraud referral data.

We compared USCIS and EOIR quality-assurance mechanisms with 

Page 2 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
criteria in GAO Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.2

We also reviewed governmental and nongovernmental reports and 

academic journals on asylum issues. In addition, we surveyed all 256 

asylum officers and all 56 supervisory asylum officers who were on board

as of September 30, 2006, to obtain their views on quality assurance 

mechanisms and factors that affect asylum officers’ ability to adjudicate 

asylum cases. We obtained a 74 percent and 77 percent response rate, 

respectively, from the asylum officers and supervisors.3

 (See app. I and 

app. II, respectively, for the surveys we sent to asylum officers and 

supervisory asylum officers and their aggregate responses.) To gain a 

better understanding of asylum adjudications, we visited three USCIS 

Asylum Offices—Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. The views 

we obtained at these three offices may not be generalized to all eight 

Asylum Offices. However, because we selected these offices based on 

their diversity in size (based on the number of asylum officers and cases 

adjudicated), variation in the percentage of cases granted asylum, and 

disparate geographic location, they provided us with an overview and 

perspective of the asylum process as well as potential challenges facing

asylum officers. At these offices, we conducted semistructured interviews

with Asylum Office Directors and Deputy Directors, quality assurance and 

training coordinators, Fraud Detection and National Security immigration 

officers, and selected asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers; and

observed interviews that asylum officers conducted with asylum 

applicants. In addition, we interviewed the asylum officer representative

to the American Federation of Government Employees. We also 

interviewed the Directors of the other five Asylum Offices as well as 

headquarters officials from USCIS’s Asylum Division and Office of Fraud 

Detection and National Security. To further our understanding of federal

efforts to address fraud in the asylum system, we attended the Asylum 

 2

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). These standards, issued pursuant to the requirements

of the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), provide the overall 

framework for establishing and maintaining internal control in the federal government.

Also pursuant to FMFIA, the Office of Management and Budget issued Circular A-123,

revised December 21, 2004, to provide the specific requirements for assessing the reporting 

on internal controls. Internal control standards and the definition of internal control in 

Circular A-123 are based on GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government. 

3

Of the 189 asylum officers who responded to the survey, 171 said that, over the past year, 

they had adjudicated at least some asylum cases, which is the focus of our review. 

Similarly, of the 43 supervisory asylum officers who responded to the survey, 40 said that 

they had reviewed at least some asylum decisions over the past year. 

Page 3 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Division’s December 2007 Fraud Prevention Conference. Finally, we 

interviewed DHS officials in the U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement’s (ICE) Forensic Document Laboratory regarding document 

verification and Identity and Benefit Fraud Branch regarding asylum 

investigations. We interviewed officials in the Department of State (State) 

regarding their role in providing information that may help adjudicators 

distinguish between genuine and fraudulent asylum claims. 

To address the third question and further examine the first question in the

context of the immigration courts, we surveyed all 207 immigration judges

who were on board as of September 30, 2006, and obtained a 77 percent 

response rate.

4 (See app. III for the survey we sent to immigration judges 

and their aggregate responses.) We reviewed EOIR documents and 

reports, including Statistical Yearbooks and the Immigration Judge 

Benchbook. We reviewed the Attorney General’s 2006 reforms directed to

the immigration courts and information from EOIR regarding its 

implementation of the reforms. We also interviewed EOIR headquarters 

officials. To further our understanding of factors affecting immigration 

judges’ asylum adjudications, we interviewed representatives of the 

National Association of Immigration Judges. We also observed court 

proceedings at the Los Angeles immigration court, which included 

hearings on asylum cases, to enhance our understanding of the role of 

immigration judges. To obtain an additional perspective on factors that 

affect asylum adjudicators—both asylum officers and immigration 

judges—we interviewed ICE Assistant Chief Counsels (also known as ICE 

trial attorneys) associated with immigration courts in Los Angeles and San 

Francisco, California, and New York City, New York. 

To provide additional information, we also reviewed Asylum Division as 

well as immigration judge caseload data for fiscal years 2002 through 2007.

To assess the reliability of these data, we reviewed existing information 

about the data systems, analyzed the data for obvious errors in accuracy 

or completeness, and compared the data to other published reports. We 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for presenting overall

trends in caseload. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2005 through 

September 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government 

 4

Of the 160 immigration judges who responded to the survey, 159 said that they had heard 

at least some asylum cases over the past year. 

Page 4 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix IV 

contains more details about our survey and site-visit methodology. 

To help ensure the integrity of asylum adjudications, the Asylum Division 

has designed training programs and quality reviews and EOIR has 

designed training programs, but some of these mechanisms can be 

improved. USCIS’s Asylum Division provides centralized training to 

asylum officers and supervisors and directs local Asylum Offices to 

provide weekly decentralized training. Seventy-five percent of the 171 

asylum officers who responded to our survey and 14 of the 26 supervisors 

who had attended supervisory training at the time of our survey reported 

that the centralized training they received prepared them moderately or 

very well for their roles in adjudicating asylum cases. Nevertheless, most 

asylum officer and supervisor respondents also reported areas in which 

asylum officers needed better or additional training to improve their 

ability to adjudicate cases such as in fraud detection and interviewing and 

assessing credibility. In addition, 88 percent of the asylum officers 

reported that observing skilled interviewers would help improve asylum 

officers’ interviewing skills, yet 53 percent said they had not had this 

opportunity. Asylum officers not only thought it would be moderately or 

very useful during their first year as an asylum officer (98 percent of those 

who said it would be useful to observe skilled interviewers held this view), 

but 71 percent who reported the experience would be useful said it would 

be moderately or very useful during their second year on the job, and 39 

percent reported it would be moderately or very useful between their 3rd 

and 5th years. Standards for internal control in the federal government 

state that federal agencies should ensure that management provides 

needed training to staff. Providing additional opportunities to observe 

skilled interviewers could improve asylum officers’ ability to elicit 

information during the applicant interview to help distinguish between a 

genuine and fraudulent claim. The Asylum Division also does not have a 

framework for soliciting asylum officers’ and supervisory asylum officers’ 

views on their training needs in a structured and consistent manner, which 

would help guide headquarters and local decisions about what training to

provide and whether it is needed in all offices. Surveying agency 

Results in Brief 

Page 5 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
employees about their training needs and systematically considering them 

is a best human-capital practice among effective organizations.5

 Internal

control standards also require that federal agencies design controls to 

assure that ongoing monitoring occurs in the course of normal agency

operations. According to the Asylum Division, a “particularly high level” of 

quality is demanded in asylum decisions to protect the integrity of the legal 

immigration process and to avoid potentially serious consequences that 

could result if an applicant is wrongfully returned to his or her home 

country or an applicant who poses a threat to the United States is 

permitted to stay. As such, it has designed a quality review framework to 

ensure the quality and consistency of asylum decisions that includes 

supervisory review, local quality assurance personnel review, and 

headquarters quality review. However, although local quality assurance 

personnel routinely conducted reviews of a sample of asylum officers’ 

decisions in five of the eight Asylum Offices, they did not routinely do so 

in the remaining three. In two of these offices, competing work demands 

impeded conducting these quality reviews of asylum officers’ decisions, 

while in the third office the quality assurance position was vacant. In 

addition, although the position description for quality assurance personnel 

included responsibilities for observing and evaluating interviews the 

asylum officers conduct, local quality assurance personnel in the three 

offices we visited told us they did not do this, or did this rarely, because of 

other work demands. By more fully implementing its quality review 

framework, the Asylum Division would be in a better position to identify 

deficiencies, examine the root causes of deficiencies, and take corrective 

action, such as addressing deficiencies through training. Although the 

majority of immigration judges who responded to our survey reported that 

EOIR’s training and professional development opportunities enhanced 

their ability to adjudicate asylum cases, the majority also reported needing 

more training in several areas, including identifying fraud. In response to 

Attorney General reforms, EOIR expanded its training program in 2006 to 

provide additional training, primarily for new immigration judges to, 

among other things, increase the time immigration judges spend observing

veteran immigration judges from 1 week to 4 weeks. In addition, EOIR 

solicits input from immigration judges on their training needs on an annual 

basis. Unlike asylum officers’ decisions, immigration judges’ decisions are 

not reviewed by a supervisor. Rather, EOIR has an appeals board that 

reviews immigration judges’ decisions if they are appealed. 

 5

GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development

Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004).

Page 6 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Challenges in assessing the authenticity of claims—that is, identifying 

fraud and assessing applicants’ credibility—and time constraints are key 

factors affecting asylum officers’ asylum adjudications. Many asylum 

officers reported difficulties carrying out their fraud-related 

responsibilities. For example, 73 percent of asylum officer survey 

respondents reported it moderately or very difficult to identify document

fraud. In addition, the majority of asylum officers reported significant 

challenges to assessing credibility in about half or more of the cases they 

adjudicated in the past year. For example, 73 percent reported that 

insufficient time to prepare and conduct research prior to the interview 

presented such a challenge. Asylum officers reported facing these 

challenges despite mechanisms USCIS designed to help asylum officers 

identify fraud and assess applicants’ credibility, such as identity and 

security check requirements and fraud prevention teams in Asylum 

Offices. Federal entities outside USCIS’s Asylum Division and Office of 

Fraud Detection and National Security also have a role in combating fraud 

and confirming the validity of claims, such as authenticating documents or 

providing overseas information about an applicant. However, the Forensic

Document Laboratory, overseas offices within State and USCIS, and ICE 

investigations have been hindered in providing assistance to asylum 

officers due in part to these organizations lacking resources and having 

competing priorities, according to officials from these agencies. Sixty-five

percent of asylum officers and 73 percent of supervisors who responded to 

our survey indicated that the time asylum officers have available is 

insufficient to conduct adjudications that are thorough—that is, in a 

manner consistent with procedures and training—given the productivity 

standard they are to meet as part of their performance work plan. In 

contrast, views among Asylum Division headquarters officials and Asylum 

Office Directors were mixed regarding whether asylum officers have 

sufficient time to complete a case. Furthermore, adjudication

requirements, such as added identity and security checks, have increased,

while the productivity standard has remained unchanged since the Asylum

Division established it in 1999 without empirical data. We have reported 

that time studies are generally beneficial in that they provide quantitative

information that can be used to create objective and defensible measures 

of workload.6

 Having empirical data on which to base the asylum officers’ 

productivity standard would put the Asylum Division in a better position 

 6

GAO, Federal Bankruptcy Judges: Weighted Case Filings as a Measure of Judges’ CaseRelated Workload, GAO-03-789T (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2003). 

Page 7 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
to know whether asylum officers have the time needed to conduct 

thorough asylum adjudications. 

Challenges related to fraud, assessing applicants’ credibility, and time 

constraints are also key factors that affect immigration judges’ asylum 

adjudications. Eighty-eight percent of immigration judge survey 

respondents cited verifying fraud as a moderately or very challenging 

aspect of adjudicating asylum cases and 81 percent reported assessing 

credibility as moderately or very challenging. In response to Attorney 

General reforms, EOIR implemented a program in 2006 to which 

immigration judges can refer instances of suspected fraud and receive

materials to aid in screening for fraud. Eighty-two percent of immigration 

judges also reported time limitations as moderately or very challenging 

aspects of their asylum adjudications and 77 percent reported that 

managing their caseload was moderately or very challenging. The growth 

in the number of immigration judges has not kept pace with the growth in 

their overall caseload and case completions, which may contribute to the 

challenge. From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the number of immigration 

judges increased by less than 1 percent, while the average caseload per 

immigration judge rose by 13 percent, and case completions rose 20 

percent. To help courts address growing caseloads, EOIR has taken steps 

including detailing immigration judges to courts with high caseloads and 

plans to hire additional staff, including immigration judges, to help 

immigration judges better manage their caseload. However, it is too soon 

to know the extent to which hiring additional staff will alleviate 

immigration judges’ time challenges. 

To improve the integrity of the asylum adjudication process, we 

recommend that the Asylum Division explore ways to provide additional 

opportunities for asylum officers to observe skilled interviewers, develop 

a framework for soliciting and acting on asylum officers’ and supervisory 

asylum officers’ views of their training needs in a structured and 

consistent manner, develop a plan to more fully implement its quality 

review framework, and empirically determine how long it takes to 

thoroughly adjudicate cases and revise the productivity standard, if 

warranted. 

DHS and USCIS concurred with our recommendations. 

Page 8 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Asylum, a form of humanitarian protection, is an immigration benefit that

enables certain noncitizens to remain in the United States and apply for 

lawful permanent residence.7 Asylum provides refuge for certain 

individuals who have been persecuted in the past or fear persecution on 

the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion.

8

Congress and the executive branch have acted to strengthen the U.S. 

asylum system against the possibility of asylum fraud and limit its 

vulnerability to terrorists using it as a vehicle for remaining in the United 

States. For example, in the mid-1990s, the Asylum Division implemented 

major reforms which, among other things, decoupled employment 

authorization from asylum requests to discourage applicants with 

fraudulent asylum claims from applying for asylum solely to obtain a work 

authorization, and established a goal of completing asylum adjudications 

within 180 days.

9

 To account for such circumstances, the Asylum Division 

established a national goal to complete 75 percent of the cases that are 

interviewed at local Asylum Offices and referred to the immigration courts 

within 60 days of the application date;10 EOIR established a goal that 90

percent of all asylum cases be completed within 180 days from the 

application date. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 

Background 

 7

Asylees can apply for lawful permanent residency 1 year after being granted asylum. 

8

Certain categories of noncitizens are statutorily ineligible for asylum even if they can 

demonstrate past persecution or a fear of persecution. The following individuals are 

ineligible to apply for asylum: (1) those who have been in the United States more than 1 

year without filing for asylum, unless they can demonstrate changed or extraordinary 

circumstances; (2) those previously denied asylum unless they can show changed 

circumstances; and (3) those who may be removed to a third country where they would 

have access to fair asylum procedures. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2). The following are ineligible 

for a grant of asylum: (1) persecutors of others and certain criminals; (2) those who are 

described in the terrorist grounds of inadmissibility or are reasonably regarded as a danger

to the security of the United States; and (3) individuals who were firmly resettled in a third 

country prior to coming to the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A). 

9

Asylum applicants, unless otherwise eligible, may not apply for employment authorization 

documents until they are granted asylum or their asylum application has been pending

more than 150 days. Applicants are not eligible for employment authorization documents

until they have been granted asylum or their asylum application has been pending for more 

than 180 days. 

10The Asylum Division can take 180 days to process cases that are not referred to the

immigration courts. According to the Acting Deputy Chief of the Asylum Division, cases

that typically do not meet the Asylum Division’s 75 percent goal are cases that require

review by headquarters or local fraud personnel or cases that require coordination with

other federal agencies. 

Page 9 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Responsibility Act of 1996 generally codified some of these reforms into 

law and required administrative adjudication of asylum applications, not 

including administrative appeals, within 180 days, absent exceptional 

circumstances.11 It also incorporated certain security provisions, including 

a requirement that the identity of all asylum applicants be checked against 

certain records or databases maintained by the federal government to 

determine if an applicant is ineligible to apply for or be granted asylum.

More recently, the REAL ID Act of 2005 codified existing DOJ precedent 

that (1) the burden is on the applicant to establish past persecution or a 

well-founded fear of persecution and (2) asylum adjudicators have the

discretion to require documentary support for asylum claims.

12

Specifically, if an adjudicator determines that the applicant should provide 

evidence to corroborate otherwise credible testimony, such evidence is to

be provided unless the applicant does not have and cannot reasonably 

obtain the evidence. The act also laid out the criteria to be considered in 

making a credibility determination, stating that adjudicators must consider 

the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors. An adjudicator 

may base a credibility determination on inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or 

falsehoods without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or 

falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, as long as it is relevant 

to the evaluation in light of the totality of the circumstances. It also 

clarified the wording of the terrorist-related grounds of ineligibility for a 

grant. 

Responsibility for the U.S. Asylum System is shared between USCIS in 

DHS and EOIR in DOJ, with asylum officers and immigration judges 

adjudicating asylum cases as well as other types of cases. In addition to 

asylum cases, the Asylum Division’s and EOIR’s caseloads also include 

certain applications for relief under section 203 of the Nicaraguan 

Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA)

13 and credible and 

reasonable fear cases. NACARA cases involve certain individuals from 

Guatemala and El Salvador and former Soviet Bloc countries who can 

have their removal cancelled. Credible fear cases involve individuals 

subject to expedited removal who express an intention to apply for asylum

 11Pub. L. No. 104-208, div. C, § 604(a), 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-690 to 94. 

12Pub. L. No. 109-13, div. B, § 101(a)(3), 119 Stat. 302, 303. 

13Pub. L. No. 105-100, tit. II, § 203, 111 Stat. 2160, 2196-99 (1997). 

Page 10 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
or state that they have a fear of persecution or torture. Reasonable fear 

cases involve individuals subject to administrative removal or reinstated 

orders of removal who have expressed a fear of persecution or torture if 

removed. In addition to these cases, immigration judges also hear other 

types of immigration cases. 

The Asylum Division and its eight Asylum Offices—Arlington, Chicago, 

Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Newark, and San Francisco—

reside within USCIS. Asylum officers are assigned to these eight offices 

and periodically travel to other locations to conduct interviews when 

applicants live outside the general geographic area of these offices. In 

fiscal year 2008, the Asylum Division received about $61 million all from 

USCIS fee-based funding, although no fee is charged to apply for asylum.

14

Within EOIR, immigration judges are positioned organizationally under the 

Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, which is responsible for 54 

administrative immigration courts.

15 The Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA) also resides within EOIR and is responsible for hearing appeals of 

immigration judges’ asylum decisions, among other kinds of appeals. In 

fiscal year 2008, EOIR received about $238 million to fund all of its 

activities. 

DHS’s asylum adjudication process involves affirmative asylum claims—

that is, claims that are made at the initiative of the alien who is in the 

country either legally or illegally and filed directly with USCIS. The 

affirmative asylum process is nonadversarial in that no government official

argues in opposition to the asylum applicant, and the asylum officer is to 

be a neutral decision maker. Figure 1 provides an overview of the steps 

typically involved in DHS’s asylum process. For more detailed information 

on the asylum process, see appendix V. 

DHS Has a Nonadversarial 

Adjudication Process 

 14The Asylum Division does not receive any direct appropriations for adjudication of

asylum applications. Rather, USCIS collects and uses fees from the filing of other 

immigration benefit applications to cover adjudication costs, including those associated 

with asylum and refugee applicants. 

15The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge is to provide overall program direction, 

articulate policies and procedures, and establish priorities for immigration judges in the 

immigration courts across the country. 

Page 11 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Figure 1: Steps in the DHS Asylum Process 

Source: GAO analysis of USCIS data; Art Explosion.

Applicant receives interview notice within 

21 days of filing application

Asylum officer adjudicates asylum case 

including interview

Asylum officer submits written decision to 

supervisory asylum officer for review

If decision is to 

grant asylum: 

If the decision is to 

not grant asylum:

Yes

Yes

No

No

Alien files

asylum

application

Applicant is sent 

a notice to 

appear for 

fingerprinting

• check for duplicate 

filings

• match or create new 

file

• enter information into 

the Refugees, 

Asylum, and Parole 

System (which 

automatically 

initiates certain 

background, identity, 

and security checks)

Service Center 

personnel, among 

other things

DHS Service

Center

(within 21 days)

DHS

Asylum Office

(within 60 days)

Affirmative claims

Applicant is issued a

Notice to Appear 

before an 

immigration judge

Application

Does the supervisory

asylum officer sign off on

the decision?

Applicant

generally picks up

decision 14 days after

the interview 

Is the 

applicant

in the U.S. 

legally?

• reviews applicant file, which includes

asylum application, written statement, 

and any supporting documents

• ensures background, identity, and 

security check are conducted

• conducts country condition research 

• conducts nonadversarial in-depth 

interview with applicant

• determines if the applicant is credible 

and eligible for asylum

• verifies and updates information in the 

Refugees, Asylum, and Parole System

• ensures appropriate documentation is

prepared and placed in file 

• prepares written decision, including legal 

analysis

Asylum officer typically

Applicant is issued 

a Notice of Intent

to Deny 

Asylum

granted

Notice

to 

Appear

Mail

Page 12 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
The Asylum Division’s Affirmative Asylum Procedures Manual and basic 

training materials for asylum officers identify the various tasks asylum 

officers are to perform in adjudicating an asylum case. Asylum officers are 

required to conduct an asylum interview, prior to which they must, among 

other things, review the applicant’s file and check databases to (1) 

determine who is included on the application, (2) determine when the 

applicant claims to have entered the United States and when he or she 

filed the asylum application,

16 (3) become familiar with the applicant’s 

background and claim, and (4) identify issues to cover during the 

interview. In addition, if the asylum officer is unfamiliar with country 

conditions relevant to the applicant’s claim, the officer should research 

conditions in that country. During the interview, in addition to hearing the 

applicant’s testimony, the asylum officer must also explain the process, 

verify basic and biographical information provided on his or her 

application, and place the applicant, the applicant’s interpreter, and the 

interpreter monitor under oath. After the interview, the asylum officer 

must update the Refugees, Asylum, and Parole System (RAPS); write a 

decision that includes a legal analysis and in most cases citations to 

country conditions; and prepare a decision letter. In making a decision, an

asylum officer must make a determination of the credibility of the 

applicant and consider if any false submission of information is relevant to

the claim. On average, asylum officers have about 4 hours to complete 

these tasks for each case. The 4-hour average is based on the productivity 

standard that requires management to assign asylum officers work 

equivalent to 18 asylum cases in a 2-week period and allows for 4 hours of 

training each week. In addition, the Asylum Division generally requires 

that asylum officers submit their written decisions to their supervisor 

within 4 days of conducting an applicant interview. 

Affirmative asylum applicants are almost never detained while their 

asylum application is pending. Applicants are free to live in the United 

States pending the completion of their asylum processing. DHS’s 

 16The asylum officer must determine whether the applicant met the requirement to file the 

asylum application within 1 year of his or her last arrival into the United States and, if not, 

whether an exception to that filing requirement applies. 

Page 13 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
affirmative asylum process can result in asylum officers making one of the 

following decisions regarding the applicant and qualifying dependents:

17 

Grant of asylum. The asylum officer grants asylum when he or she 

determines that the applicant is eligible for asylum. The asylees can 

remain in the United States indefinitely unless their asylum is 

terminated.18 Asylees are eligible for certain benefits, such as an

Employment Authorization Document, an unrestricted Social Security 

card, and medical and employment assistance.

19 Within 2 years of being

granted asylum, asylees can petition for a spouse or child who was not 

included in the original grant of asylum to also obtain asylum. In 

addition, they may also apply for lawful permanent residency 1 year 

after being granted asylum and, ultimately, United States citizenship. 

Recommended approval of asylum. The asylum officer issues a 

recommended approval of asylum when he or she determines that the 

applicant is eligible for asylum, but USCIS has not received the results 

of a mandatory FBI name check. The decision to change a 

recommended approval to an asylum grant is contingent on a favorable 

result from background, identity, and security checks (referred to 

throughout this report as identity and security checks). An applicant 

who receives a recommended approval may apply for an Employment 

Authorization Document, but not for other benefits. 

 17The applicant may include as dependents on the asylum application his or her spouse and 

unmarried children under the age of 21 who are present in the United States. Decisions 

apply to the applicant and the applicant’s dependents if included on the applicant’s asylum 

application and the applicant established a qualifying relationship to them by a 

preponderance of evidence. 

18The Asylum Office initiates a proceeding to terminate asylum status when evidence 

indicates that one or more grounds for termination of asylum status may apply. Grounds 

for termination include cases in which there is a showing of fraud in the alien’s application 

such that the applicant was not eligible for asylum at the time it was granted. Depending on 

when the applicant filed for asylum, other grounds for termination may apply. For

applications filed on or after April 1, 1997, asylum may be terminated when conditions 

described in section 208(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act exist, which include, 

for example, the alien no longer meets the definition of a refugee due to a fundamental 

change in circumstances or the alien is a persecutor, danger to the security of the United

States, inadmissible under terrorist grounds, or firmly resettled in another country; or the

alien was convicted of a particularly serious crime or there are serious reasons to believe 

the alien committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States. An immigration 

judge or the BIA may reopen a case for the purpose of terminating a grant of asylum by the 

immigration judge or the BIA upon a motion from DHS.

19The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement 

administers medical and employment assistance programs for refugees and asylees. 

Page 14 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Referral to immigration court. The asylum officer makes a referral to 

the immigration court when the applicant is in the United States 

illegally and the officer determines that the applicant is ineligible for 

asylum. The asylum officer prepares a Notice to Appear before an 

immigration judge. A referral is not a denial of asylum; rather the 

applicant and any of the applicant’s dependents also in the United 

States illegally are placed in removal proceedings where an 

immigration judge reviews the asylum case de novo.20

Denial of asylum. The asylum officer denies asylum when the 

applicant is in the United States legally and the officer determines that 

the applicant is ineligible for asylum. The asylum officer prepares a 

Notice of Intent to Deny, and the applicant is given 16 days to rebut the 

finding. If the applicant submits a rebuttal, the asylum officer reviews 

it and then approves or denies the claim. If the applicant does not 

rebut the finding or the rebuttal fails to overcome the grounds for 

denial, the applicant is denied asylum but may stay in the United States 

as long as the applicant remains in legal status.

Not all cases result in an asylum decision. For example, USCIS 

administratively closes a case if the applicant withdraws his or her asylum 

application. From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the asylum grant rate for 

affirmative asylum applications ranged from 30 percent to 36 percent for 

asylum cases that resulted in a decision.

21

From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the Asylum Division received about 

400,000 new or re-opened asylum, NACARA, and credible and reasonable 

fear cases and completed approximately 750,000 cases.22 During this same 

period, authorized staffing levels for asylum officers ranged from a high of 

332 officers in 2004 to a low of 291 officers in 2007. See appendix VI for 

more information on the Asylum Division’s caseload and staffing levels. 

 20A de novo review means that the immigration judge is to evaluate the applicant’s claim 

anew, as the determination the asylum officer made in referring the case to immigration 

court is not binding on the immigration judge. 

21The grant rate is calculated as the percentage of cases that resulted in a grant divided by 

the total number of cases that resulted in a decision (a grant, denial, or referral to an

immigration court in a case in which the applicant was interviewed). 

22According to the Asylum Division, it completed a large number of cases during this time 

period as a result of its plan to eliminate its backlog. By fiscal year 2007, the Asylum 

Division’s caseload was approximately the same size as the number of cases completed. 

Page 15 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
DOJ Has an Adversarial 

Adjudication Process

In contrast to DHS’s process, DOJ’s asylum adjudication process is 

adversarial in that individuals appear in removal proceedings before EOIR 

immigration judges to defend themselves against removal from the United 

States. Immigration judges hear both affirmative asylum claims that have

been referred to them by an asylum officer as well as defensive asylum 

claims. A defensive claim is made by an alien who first requests asylum 

while in removal proceedings. An alien making a defensive claim may have

been placed in removal proceedings after having been stopped at the 

border without proper documentation, identified as present in the United 

States illegally, or identified as deportable on one or more grounds, such 

as certain kinds of criminal convictions. Applicants who filed for asylum 

affirmatively with USCIS, but were referred to an immigration court and 

placed in removal proceedings, continue to be considered “affirmative” 

asylum applicants. Affirmative and defensive claims follow the same 

procedures in removal proceedings. 

During immigration court proceedings, immigration judges hear witness 

testimony and cross-examinations and review evidence. ICE Assistant 

Chief Counsels, also known as ICE trial attorneys, represent DHS in these 

proceedings. ICE trial attorneys are also responsible for ensuring identity 

and security checks are completed. An applicant in immigration 

proceedings may be represented by an attorney of his or her choosing at 

no cost to the government. Figure 2 provides an overview of the steps 

typically involved in EOIR’s asylum process. For more detailed 

information on the asylum process, see appendix V. 

Page 16 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Figure 2: Steps in the DOJ Asylum Process 

Alien 

requests 

asylum as 

defense 

against 

removal

Source: GAO analysis of USCIS data; Art Explosion.

Alien files an 

asylum 

application 

with USCIS and 

is referred to 

an immigration 

court and 

issued a Notice 

to Appear

Alien first 

submits an 

asylum claim 

before an 

immigration 

judge after 

being issued 

a Notice to 

Appear

Defensive 

claims

Affirmative 

claims

Individual merits

hearing is scheduled 

Initial hearing is

scheduled at an 

immigration court 

Alien is placed 

in removal 

proceedings

Alien is issued a 

Notice to Appear 

by DHS

Immigration judge

hears case and makes an 

asylum decision

DOJ Executive Office

for Immigration Review

(within 180 days)

Notice

to 

Appear

Asylum 

granted

Asylum 

denied

DHS can appeal 

decision to the BIA

Applicant can appeal 

decision to the BIA

Page 17 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
EOIR’s asylum adjudication process can result in immigration judges 

making one of the following decisions regarding the applicant and 

qualifying dependents: 

Grant of asylum. The immigration judge grants asylum when he or she 

determines that the applicant is eligible for asylum. The asylees can 

remain in the United States indefinitely, unless DOJ terminates asylum.

A grant of asylum from an immigration judge confers the same benefits 

on an asylee as a grant of asylum from an asylum officer, which are 

discussed earlier in this report. 

Denial of asylum. The immigration judge denies asylum when he or 

she determines that the applicant is ineligible for asylum and may 

order the applicant to be removed from the United States unless the 

immigration judge grants the applicant another form of relief from 

removal.

23

EOIR may also close a case without making a decision for such reasons as 

a request to move a case from one court to another or the applicant 

withdrawing or abandoning his or her application for asylum. From fiscal 

years 2002 through 2005, the asylum grant rate in the immigration courts 

remained fairly consistent at around 37 percent, and increased to 45 

percent in 2006 and 46 percent in 2007.

24

From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the immigration courts received

about 1.9 million newly filed or reopened immigration cases, and 

completed about the same number of cases. During this same time, the 

number of authorized immigration judges increased from 216 in fiscal year 

2002 to 251 in fiscal year 2007. See appendix VI for more detailed 

information on EOIR’s caseload and staffing. 

 23For example, ineligible asylum applicants may qualify for withholding or deferral of

removal if the immigration judge determines that it is more likely than not that the

applicant would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal. However, this 

form of relief does not allow the applicant to apply for lawful permanent residency. 

24The grant rate is calculated as the percentage of cases that resulted in a grant out of the 

total number of cases that resulted in a decision of a grant or denial. 

Page 18 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
To help ensure quality in adjudications, the Asylum Division has designed 

training programs and quality reviews and EOIR has designed training 

programs, but some can be improved. The Asylum Division has designed a 

framework for training asylum officers and their supervisors. However, 

despite general satisfaction with the initial training that officers receive, 

many asylum officers and supervisors agreed that asylum officers needed 

additional training in a number of areas—such as identifying fraud, 

conducting identity and security checks, and assessing credibility—to 

improve their ability to carry out their responsibilities. Also, 88 percent of 

asylum officers expressed the view that observing skilled interviewers 

would help improve their interviewing skills, yet 53 percent of asylum 

officers reported they had not had the opportunity to do so. Furthermore, 

the Asylum Division does not have a framework in place to solicit asylum 

officers’ or supervisors’ views on training needs in a structured and 

consistent manner. The Asylum Division has designed a framework for 

quality reviews, including those conducted by supervisors and other local 

and headquarters personnel. Although supervisors review all asylum 

officer decisions and headquarters personnel review certain cases, other 

quality reviews had not occurred in three of the eight Asylum Offices. With 

respect to EOIR, although the majority of immigration judges reported the 

training they received enhanced their ability to adjudicate asylum cases, 

the majority reported needing additional training in several areas, 

including identifying fraud. EOIR expanded its training program primarily 

for new immigration judges in 2006 and annually solicits input from 

immigration judges on their training needs. According to EOIR, BIA 

reviews of appealed cases provide another means of quality assurance. 

The Asylum Division 

and EOIR Have 

Designed Quality 

Assurance 

Mechanisms to Help 

Ensure the Integrity 

of Asylum 

Adjudications, but 

Some Can Be

Improved 

Asylum Officers and 

Supervisors Receive 

Training, but Most 

Reported Having 

Additional Training Needs

The Asylum Division provides training to asylum officers and supervisory 

asylum officers (i.e., centralized training) and directs local Asylum Offices 

to provide weekly training (i.e., decentralized training), but most asylum 

officers and supervisors who responded to our survey reported that better 

or more training was needed, particularly in the area of fraud, to improve 

asylum officers’ ability to adjudicate asylum cases. The mix of centralized

and decentralized training that officers receive reflects elements of a 

strategic approach to training that we have described in previous work.

25

Centralized training consists of a 5-week Asylum Officer Basic Training 

Course (AOBTC) that addresses most facets of the asylum adjudication 

process and is usually offered about twice each year at the Federal Law 

 25GAO-04-546G. 

Page 19 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) to recently hired asylum officers. 

To adjudicate asylum claims, asylum officers must either complete this 

training program or be certified at their respective Asylum Office.

26 In 

addition, a 5-week basic training course on immigration law for USCIS 

adjudications officers and asylum officers is generally provided at FLETC 

or another USCIS facility within an asylum officer’s first year. The Asylum 

Division also periodically offers a 2-week supervisory training program in 

Washington, D.C., for supervisory asylum officers and Asylum Office 

Directors and Deputy Directors that concentrates primarily on advanced 

asylum law issues and the review of asylum officer decisions. Additionally, 

USCIS said that the Asylum Division created a new management 

position—a Chief of Training—to take actions to improve the training of 

asylum officers. The first Chief of Training came on board on August 31, 

2008. 

Most asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers who responded to 

our survey reported that the centralized training they received generally

prepared them for their roles. Specifically, 75 percent of asylum officers 

reported that AOBTC prepared them moderately or very well to adjudicate 

asylum cases, a positive view of AOBTC that held regardless of their 

length of experience as asylum officers. However, more than 75 percent of 

asylum officers also believed that AOBTC needed improvement to better

prepare them to identify possible fraud and conduct identity and security

checks. Among the 26 supervisory asylum officers who had attended the 

supervisory training program prior to completing our survey, 14 said that, 

overall, the training prepared them moderately or very well to review 

asylum officer decisions.

27 Nevertheless, 13 of those who had attended the 

training reported that the supervisory training program needed to be 

improved to help them better provide feedback on asylum officer written 

decisions, while 12 reported improvements were needed to help them 

better understand and contribute to the Asylum Division’s efforts to 

 26To be certified, an asylum officer must demonstrate a fundamental understanding and

knowledge of the principals of asylum adjudications. Certification includes, but is not 

limited to, reading all the AOBTC lesson plans, conducting interviews while being 

observed, and writing adjudication assessments. Certification is not a substitute for 

AOBTC, but may be used prepare asylum officers to conduct adjudications on a short-term 

basis while awaiting a scheduled AOBTC. 

27When we conducted our survey of supervisory asylum officers during March through May 

2007, 26 supervisors said they had attended the Supervisory Asylum Officer’s Training 

Course, and 14 said they had not. According to Asylum Division officials, 13 supervisory

asylum officers attended this training course when it was offered in August 2007, and they 

anticipated offering the course again in the first half of fiscal year 2009. 

Page 20 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
combat asylum fraud and 12 reported improvements were needed to help

them better analyze credibility. 

In addition to the centralized training programs, the Asylum Division 

requires that asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers participate in

ongoing decentralized training at local Asylum Offices, where local Quality 

Assurance and Training Coordinators (QA/T) are responsible for 

developing training to meet the needs of each office. Asylum Offices are to

allocate 4 hours each week for formal or informal training to asylum 

officers and their supervisors. The training can range from classroom 

instruction by the local QA/T to individual study time that officers can use 

for such learning activities as staying current with case law, researching 

conditions around the world affecting asylees and refugees, and reading 

new procedures issued by headquarters. Although QA/Ts, in consultation

with local office management, have significant discretion in deciding what

training to provide, officials from the Training, Research, and Quality 

Branch said they review each office’s quarterly training reports to 

ascertain what training has been provided and is planned. In addition, the 

Asylum Division provides training materials to all the offices to ensure a 

national, consistent training approach when warranted. For example, after 

the REAL ID Act was passed, the Asylum Division distributed explanatory 

PowerPoint presentations and descriptions of the statutory changes. 

Notwithstanding the training asylum officers and supervisors receive, 

most identified areas in which they said they needed additional training on

fraud-related topics as well as other areas. As figure 3 shows, at least 75

percent of asylum officers or 75 percent of supervisory asylum officers 

who responded to our survey identified 15 specific topics (from about 25 

training topics about which we inquired) as areas in which asylum officers 

needed more training to improve their ability to adjudicate asylum claims. 

Furthermore, supervisory asylum officers consistently viewed asylum 

officers’ need for additional training as greater than asylum officers’ 

perceptions of their own needs. We do not know why, in some instances, 

there were sizable differences between asylum officers’ and supervisors’ 

views of asylum officers’ training needs. However, supervisors have a 

broader perspective since multiple asylum officers report to them. 

The training topics identified were in areas related to fraud, identity and

security checks, interviewing and assessing credibility, relevant statutes, 

time management, and the Asylum Virtual Library—the Asylum Division’s 

online library. 

Page 21 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Figure 3: Topics Asylum Officer and Supervisory Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Most Frequently Identified as Areas in 

Which Asylum Officers Moderately or Greatly Needed Additional Training

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Using the Asylum 

Virtual Library

Time management

U.S. asylum law

Applying the REAL ID Act

Eliciting

sufficient information 

during interviewsa

Overall interviewing

skills

Assessing credibility

Conducting identity and 

security checks

Interpreting results of identity 

and security checks

Identifying interpreter fraud

Identifying attorney fraud

Identifying preparer fraud

Identifying fraud in the claim

Current trends in fraud

Identifying fraudulent 

 documents

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

Asylum officers

Supervisory asylum officers

Percentage of survey respondents

Training topics

75 percent

Notes: Asylum officer respondents: n=171. 

Supervisory asylum officer respondents: n=40. 

There was some item-nonresponse variation across the survey items.

The training topics included in this chart are those respondents most frequently identified—that is, at 

least 75 percent of asylum officers or 75 percent of supervisory asylum officers identified these topics 

as areas in which asylum officers moderately or greatly needed more training. We asked asylum 

officers about 25 training topics and asked supervisory asylum officers about those same 25 topics 

plus 2 additional ones. (See survey questions in app. I and app. II for the full list of training topics.) 

a

We asked only supervisory asylum officers about this topic. 

Page 22 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Fraud-detection training. USCIS’s Strategic Plan calls for training 

adjudications staff, which includes asylum officers, to proactively identify

fraud when considering applications for immigration benefits. However, 

77 percent of asylum officers who responded to our survey reported that 

AOBTC’s training needed to be improved with respect to identifying 

possible fraud. Asylum Division officials told us that despite a number of 

improvements, they also saw fraud-detection training as one of the areas 

that requires further refinement in the AOBTC curriculum but had not 

updated AOBTC’s written lesson plan on fraud since 2002 because (1) 

USCIS’s fraud-prevention program had been evolving since its creation of 

its Office of Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) in 2004 and 

placement of FDNS immigration officers (FDNS-IO) at Asylum Offices and 

(2) revising other lesson plans, such as those related to national security 

issues, had taken priority. However, they explained that despite not having

updated the written lesson plan, fraud-prevention training at AOBTC had 

undergone significant changes since 2002 and continues to undergo 

change. For example, since 2002, the Asylum Division added training 

sessions at AOBTC on the role of FDNS-IOs in Asylum Offices, a workshop 

on how to make fraud referrals, a “hands on” session on identifying 

features of fraudulent documents, and a fraud-prevention computer lab 

session emphasizing the electronic resources available to asylum officers. 

According to Asylum Division officials, since 2006, AOBTC has dedicated 6 

or more hours to fraud-detection training. Although the Asylum Division 

has made changes to improve fraud-detection training at AOBTC, our 2007

survey found that 70 percent (19 of 27) of new asylum officer respondents 

(who would have attended AOBTC since 2006) reported that fraud 

detection-training at AOBTC needed to be improved to better prepare 

them to identify fraud. Those with longer tenure (who would have 

attended AOBTC prior to 2006) also held this view. Eighty-one percent (79 

of 98) of respondents who attended AOBTC and had been asylum officers 

for at least 1 year but less than 10 years, and 94 percent (30 of 32) of those

who attended AOBTC and had been asylum officers for 10 years or more, 

reported that AOBTC fraud-detection training needed improvement. 

Asylum officers’ views that more fraud-related training was needed to 

improve their ability to adjudicate asylum claims extended beyond the 

AOBTC curriculum to the ongoing training sessions that take place at their 

respective Asylum Offices. Overall, at least 75 percent of both asylum 

officer and supervisory asylum officer survey respondents reported that 

asylum officers needed additional training on identifying fraudulent 

documents, current trends in fraud, and identifying fraud in the claim. In 

addition, the majority of asylum officers and supervisors reported, overall,

that asylum officers also needed additional training on identifying preparer 

Page 23 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
fraud (i.e., fraud perpetrated by an individual who prepared the applicant’s 

application), attorney fraud (i.e., fraud perpetrated by an attorney 

representing the applicant), and interpreter fraud (i.e., fraud perpetrated 

by an individual who translates during the applicant’s interview). These 

results were generally consistent across Asylum Offices—that is, at least 

half of the supervisors in all eight Asylum Offices reported that asylum 

officers needed additional training in these fraud-related topics, and the 

majority of asylum officers reported this need in seven of the eight offices. 

According to Asylum Division officials, since 2006, the Asylum Division 

has required that each Asylum Office have at least two of their staff 

trained by ICE’s Forensic Document Laboratory (FDL). These staff attend

a 3-day training that focuses on methods for detecting fraudulent features

in documents as well as security features in genuine documents. Staff who 

have completed this training are responsible for training other asylum 

officers and serving as in-house resources on document issues. According 

to Asylum Division officials, as of June 2008, the Asylum Division had 34 

staff who received this FDL training.

Identity and security checks. Checking asylum applicants’ identity 

against appropriate records and databases is required by asylum law and 

Asylum Division procedures and is a tool to help determine whether 

certain applicants may be ineligible for asylum protection. The results of 

required checks may uncover, for example, that an applicant may be 

barred due to national security concerns. Despite their importance to the 

integrity of the asylum process, 63 percent of asylum officers and 85 

percent of supervisory asylum officers (34 of 40)28 who responded to our 

survey reported that asylum officers moderately or greatly needed 

additional training on conducting identity and security checks. 

AOBTC provides a general exposure to the topic of databases and identity

and security checks, and, according to 76 percent of asylum officer 

respondents, this was an area that needed to be improved at AOBTC to 

better prepare them to make asylum decisions. The latest AOBTC 

 28Percentages for data from relatively small populations, such as supervisory asylum 

officers, may convey a level of precision that can be misleading because they can change

greatly with minor changes in the data. Therefore, throughout this report, we generally 

identify the number in addition to the percentage of supervisory asylum officers who 

responded to a question in a particular way. 

Page 24 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Validation Study,29 which was completed in 2003, noted that completing 

identity and security checks was among the critical tasks asylum officers 

perform and recommended that asylum officers receive basic orientation 

to this task at AOBTC, followed by on-the-job training at their local 

Asylum Office. Officials from the Asylum Division’s Training, Research, 

and Quality Branch explained that new asylum officers should receive 

local training on databases because the databases asylum officers are 

required to check are not all accessible at AOBTC. Further, the expertise 

for teaching how to conduct and interpret the results of identity and 

security checks resides among staff at local Asylum Offices. 

Most asylum officers who responded to our survey reported that they 

understood the information in the databases they check, yet the majority 

of asylum officer and supervisor respondents said that asylum officers still 

needed more training on identity and security checks. Eighty-eight percent 

of asylum officer respondents reported that they moderately or greatly 

understood the type of information contained in the various databases or

systems they check as well as the results they receive. Nevertheless, 68 

percent of asylum officers thought additional training was moderately or 

greatly needed at their local offices on interpreting the results of identity 

and security checks—a view held by 88 percent of supervisors (35 of 40). 

Sixty-three percent of asylum officer respondents thought more training 

was moderately or greatly needed locally on conducting these checks—a 

view held by 85 percent of supervisors (34 of 40). This view was fairly 

consistent across all eight Asylum Offices—that is, at least half of the 

supervisors reported this training need for asylum officers in all eight 

Asylum Offices, while the majority of asylum officers reported this need in

seven of the eight offices. In providing survey comments, one asylum 

officer expressed the opinion that training is needed on how to read the 

results from all the identity and security checks because, although officers 

do these checks as required, they do not know what to do if they get a hit 

that indicates that the applicant may be a national security or public safety

threat. In an effort to keep asylum officers informed of policies and 

procedures for conducting checks, the Asylum Division issued an Identity

 29As part of this training validation (required by the Uniform Guidelines on Employee 

Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. pt. 1607), a Critical Task Selection Board, generally 

comprised of subject matter experts, a union representative, headquarters staff, and 

training academy personnel, selects critical tasks for the asylum officer position and 

recommends a training location for these tasks. The Asylum Division plans to initiate the

next validation study in fiscal year 2009. 

Page 25 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
and Security Checks Procedures Manual in 2005 and has updated it three

times between March 2007 and May 2008. 

Interviewing and assessing credibility. Assessing credibility involves a 

determination of whether all of the evidence indicates that the applicant’s 

testimony is credible. An asylum officer may find the applicant to be 

credible if he or she determines, upon considering the totality of the 

circumstances and all relevant factors, that an applicant’s testimony is 

consistent, detailed, and plausible. The ability to elicit information through 

applicant interviews is a critical component of an asylum officer’s ability 

to distinguish between genuine and fraudulent claims. Internal control 

standards for the federal government state that agencies should, among 

other things, ensure that management identifies skills personnel need to 

perform jobs and provide the needed training to staff.

30

Responses from asylum officers and supervisors to several survey 

questions pointed to the need for additional training or learning

opportunities to improve asylum officers’ interviewing skills, including 

assessing credibility. Sixty-four percent of asylum officers who responded 

to our survey reported a moderate or great need for more training on 

assessing credibility. To a much greater extent, supervisors, who are 

required to observe one interview each month conducted by each asylum 

officer they supervise, thought that asylum officers needed more 

interview-related training. Furthermore, 95 percent of supervisor 

respondents (38 of 40) reported that asylum officers moderately or greatly 

needed additional training in assessing credibility—more than in any of 

the 27 training areas about which we inquired—to improve their ability to 

adjudicate asylum claims. Eighty-eight percent of supervisors (35 of 40) 

reported that asylum officers needed more training in overall interviewing 

skills and 83 percent of supervisors (33 of 40) thought asylum officers 

needed more training on eliciting sufficient information during interviews. 

According to a supervisory asylum officer with local anti-fraud 

responsibilities, interviewing is the only realistic basis for fraud deterrence 

and new officers should be informed from the start that if they cannot

develop sophisticated fraud-sensitive interviewing skills, they will not be 

able to make meaningful adjudications. 

According to 88 percent of asylum officers who responded to our survey, 

having the opportunity to observe interviews conducted by skilled 

 30GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

Page 26 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
interviewers would be a moderate to very useful way to improve officers’ 

interviewing skills, yet 53 percent reported not having had the opportunity

to do so. Of those asylum officers who said observing skilled interviewers 

would be useful, 98 percent reported this would be moderately or very 

useful during their first year on the job and many thought this would be of 

value beyond their first year, as shown in table 1. Standards for internal 

control in the federal government state that federal agencies should ensure 

that management provides needed training to staff. Providing additional 

opportunities to observe skilled interviewers would help asylum officers 

refine their interview techniques to elicit information to use in assessing 

credibility, determining eligibility, and distinguishing between genuine and 

fraudulent claims. 

Table 1: Asylum Officers Reporting When in Their Career as an Asylum Officer It 

Would Be, or Would Have Been, Moderately or Very Useful to Observe Skilled 

Interviewers

Stage in asylum officer career 

Percentage of asylum

officers reporting

moderately or very useful

During 1st year 98 

During 2nd year 71 

Between 3rd and 5th year 39 

After 5th year 32 

When returning to affirmative asylum adjudications 

after other assignments or rotations 54 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

Relevant statutes (the REAL ID Act and U.S. asylum law). Given 

that writing a legal analysis is part of every asylum decision they make, 

asylum officers must know how to read and interpret precedent decisions 

and stay current with case law. The REAL ID Act of 2005 made changes 

that apply to asylum adjudications of applications filed on or after May 11, 

2005. In addition to developing AOBTC lesson plans, the Asylum Division 

developed training materials on the REAL ID Act and required that all 

Asylum Offices provide local training no later than May 30, 2006. 

Nevertheless, when we conducted our surveys in March through May 2007, 

68 percent of asylum officers and 90 percent of supervisory asylum 

officers (36 of 40) who responded reported that asylum officers had a 

moderate or great need for additional training on how to apply the REAL 

ID Act in adjudicating asylum decisions. Further, 44 percent of asylum 

officers and 78 percent of supervisory asylum officers (31 of 40) who 

responded to our survey indicated that asylum officers had a moderate or 

Page 27 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
great need for additional training on U.S. asylum law, in general—for 

example, on case law and statutory and regulatory changes. 

Time management. Fifty-seven percent of asylum officer respondents 

and 85 percent of supervisory asylum officer respondents (34 of 40) 

reported that asylum officers had a moderate or great need for additional 

training on time management. An Asylum Office Deputy Director 

explained that without good time management skills, asylum officers can 

easily fall behind on their workload and it can be impossible to catch up. 

Later in this report we will discuss, in depth, how time constraints 

challenge asylum officers and how this affects their adjudications. 

Using the Asylum Virtual Library. The Asylum Virtual Library is an 

online collection of documents produced and collected by the Asylum 

Division and Asylum Offices. Documents in the online library are 

organized into folders and include case law, country-conditions 

information, decision-writing templates, forms, policies and procedures, 

statistics, and training materials. Asylum Office personnel can find 

information by browsing through the folders or by conducting searches. 

Forty-four percent of asylum officers and 75 percent of supervisors (30 of 

40) who responded to our survey reported that asylum officers had a 

moderate or great need for additional training on using the Asylum Virtual 

Library.

31

Asylum Division Does Not 

Solicit Officers’ Views on 

Training in a Structured 

and Consistent Manner

Although our surveys of asylum officers and supervisors revealed some 

widely held views about asylum officers’ and supervisors’ training needs, 

the Asylum Division does not have a framework in place for soliciting 

asylum officers’ and supervisors’ views on their training needs in a 

structured and consistent manner. Obtaining information in this manner 

would improve headquarters’ and Asylum Offices’ knowledge of asylum 

officers’ and supervisory asylum officers’ ongoing training needs and the 

ability to use training to meet those needs. We have previously reported 

that a best human-capital practice among effective organizations is to 

survey or interview agency employees to obtain their views on training 

programs that might be needed and systematically consider and act on 

employees’ suggestions for improving or developing training, when 

 31According to Asylum Division officials, headquarters personnel traveled to every Asylum 

Office to conduct training on the Asylum Virtual Library in May and June 2008. 

Page 28 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
appropriate.32 The Asylum Division requests general written feedback from 

new asylum officers on the training they received at AOBTC.33 In addition, 

all eight Asylum Office Directors stated that their offices had used ad hoc 

methods to obtain input from officers on unmet training needs, such as 

asking for feedback at training sessions or periodically e-mailing officers 

for training suggestions. However, these methods varied among offices 

and were not done in a consistent manner using a structured approach to 

collect the information. 

Nevertheless, 63 percent of the asylum officers who responded to our 

survey said their Asylum Office had not solicited their views on what 

training should be offered locally. Responses varied by Asylum Office. In 

four of the eight offices, between half and three-fourths of the asylum 

officers said their views had been solicited; but in the remaining four 

offices, no more than 15 percent said their views had been solicited. 

Training, Research, and Quality Branch officials said that, at the national

level, they rely on Asylum Office Directors for feedback on whether they 

are meeting officers’ needs and also request information on asylum officer 

training needs and activities during monthly conference calls with local 

QA/Ts. 

The Asylum Division 

Designed a Framework for 

Quality Reviews, but Local 

Quality Assurance Reviews 

Do Not Always Occur

The Asylum Division has designed a three-tiered framework for 

conducting quality reviews in Asylum Offices and headquarters to help 

ensure the quality and consistency of asylum decisions, but local quality 

assurance reviews—one of the three tiers—do not always occur. 

According to the Asylum Division, a “particularly high level” of quality is

demanded in asylum decisions to protect the integrity of the legal 

immigration process and to avoid potentially serious consequences that 

could result if an applicant is harmed after being wrongfully returned to 

his or her home country or if an applicant who poses a threat to the United

States is wrongfully permitted to stay. As such, it has designed a quality 

review framework that includes supervisory review, local QA/T review, 

and headquarters quality review. Together, these reviews are intended, 

among other things, to help ensure quality and consistency as well as 

identify deficiencies that might be addressed through training. This 

framework is in keeping with internal control standards for the federal

 32GAO-04-546G. 

33The Asylum Division asks six open-ended questions about AOBTC such as “What did you 

like most about the training?” and “What would you change about the training?”

Page 29 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
government, which state that agencies should assure that ongoing 

monitoring occurs in the course of normal operations.

34

Supervisory review. The Asylum Division requires a supervisory asylum 

officer to sign off on every asylum decision to indicate that it is supported 

by law and that procedures are properly followed.35 Supervisory review is 

intended to assure quality and provide consistency in decision making—

not to ensure the supervisor agrees with the specific decision the asylum 

officer reached. Asylum Office Directors generally agreed that the 100 

percent supervisory review requirement was important for reasons that 

included the complexity of asylum adjudications. One Asylum Office 

Director characterized the requirement as the key to the Asylum Division’s 

success. The majority of the 171 asylum officers and 40 supervisory 

asylum officers who responded to our survey considered these reviews as 

moderately or very effective in ensuring compliance with procedures (72 

percent and 90 percent, respectively) and improving the quality of 

decisions (53 percent and 83 percent, respectively). Further, 37 percent of 

asylum officers and 73 percent of supervisors reported that the 

supervisory review promoted consistency in decision making.

36

Local quality-assurance review. The Asylum Division created the QA/T 

position in each Asylum Office to, among other things, review a sample of 

asylum decisions for quality and consistency and observe asylum officer 

interviews to assess interview techniques. According to the Chief of the 

Training, Research, and Quality Branch, QA/T reviews are similar to 

supervisory reviews in that both assess the legal sufficiency of decisions.

In addition, QA/Ts are in a position to take a broader view by looking for 

consistency across each Asylum Office and identifying office training 

needs that may surface from their quality reviews. The 1997 QA/T position 

description outlined quality assurance review responsibilities in addition 

to training responsibilities as including (1) reviewing a representative 

sample of written decisions for quality, consistency, and timeliness with an 

emphasis on identifying patterns of inconsistency, faulty legal analysis, 

trends, misuse of country-conditions information, or procedural or 

 34GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

35Supervisory asylum officers’ performance work plans also require that they observe the 

equivalent of one interview each month conducted by each asylum officer they supervise. 

36We recognize that not all asylum officers are in a position to assess whether supervisory 

review promoted consistency because, for example, a newer asylum officer may have 

worked for only one supervisor. 

Page 30 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
technical errors; (2) reviewing sensitive cases before they are forwarded 

to Asylum Division headquarters for review (see the following section on 

headquarters quality review for more on these sensitive cases); and (3) 

observing interviews conducted by asylum officers to identify strengths 

and weaknesses in interviewing techniques. It further stated that QA/T 

responsibilities included developing weekly training sessions that address, 

among other things, the interviewing and adjudication deficiencies noted 

during quality assurance reviews. Thus, by having responsibility for 

reviewing asylum officers’ decisions and observing interviews, as well as 

providing training, it was intended that the QA/T would be in a position to

ensure any observed deficiencies could be addressed through training and 

brought to local management’s attention. 

In 1998, the Asylum Division also communicated that quality assurance 

responsibilities should occupy the greatest portion of a QA/Ts’ time, in 

contrast to the time they are to spend on their other responsibilities, 

including training. It further communicated that a proper role for the QA/T 

is to help the Asylum Office Director monitor the quality assurance of each

supervisory asylum officer. According to the Chief of the Training, 

Research, and Quality Branch, QA/Ts are to look for ways to improve the 

quality of each office’s adjudications and identify training needs. 

Furthermore, the Chief stated that each office is to develop its own QA/T 

performance work plan and decide how many cases a QA/T should review 

for quality, including how to select cases for review. 

As a result of the discretion given to Asylum Offices, expectations for 

QA/T reviews of a sample of decisions varied among Asylum Offices. QA/T 

performance work plans either included the expectation that QA/Ts 

evaluate the quality and consistency of written decisions, or note 

procedural or technical errors and deficiencies.

37 QA/T reviews of a sample 

of decisions were routinely conducted in five of the eight offices, 

according to Asylum Office Directors and QA/Ts. For example, we were 

told that in one office, QA/Ts randomly reviewed 2 to 3 decisions each 

week; in another office, the QA/T randomly reviewed 12 cases each week; 

and in a third office, the QA/T reviewed all decisions that had been 

reviewed by a supervisor on 1 day every 2 weeks, focusing on a particular 

aspect of the decision. According to two QA/Ts, the deficiencies they most 

frequently identified involved asylum officers’ credibility assessments. For 

 37In three of the Asylum Offices, QA/T work plans also specified the number of cases that 

were to be reviewed. 

Page 31 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
example, one explained that asylum officers were not being sufficiently 

rigorous in pursuing applicants’ credibility. Although both QA/Ts said their 

reviews usually revealed minor deficiencies, one noted that egregious 

problems did occasionally surface, such as a decision that is not consistent

with the latest case law. In three offices QA/T reviews were not being done 

routinely. In two of these offices, competing work demands reportedly 

precluded QA/Ts from performing quality reviews or limited their 

frequency. For example, in one office, the QA/T was expected to evaluate 

an average of five or more decisions each week for quality and consistency 

to receive the highest rating in the related performance element. However, 

the Director of that office indicated the QA/T had been unable to meet that

expectation because of the time demands of other responsibilities 

involving reviewing sensitive cases and training-related tasks. The Asylum

Office Director of the third office told us in August 2007 of plans for that 

office to establish a process for the QA/T to randomly review two to four

decisions each week. Although this Director informed us in August 2008 

that the QA/T had begun conducting these reviews, the Director stated the 

position had become vacant during the past year and thus local quality 

assurance reviews were not taking place. In addition, in six of the eight

offices, including two that we visited, performance work plans included 

local expectations that QA/Ts observe and evaluate asylum officer 

interviews.

38 However, in all three offices we visited, the QA/Ts told us 

they did not observe or evaluate asylum officer interviews, or did so only 

on occasion, because of other work demands. Therefore, the Asylum 

Division’s quality review framework was not being fully implemented in all 

the offices. Implementing the quality review framework would better 

position the Asylum Division to examine the root causes of deficiencies 

and take corrective action, such as addressing deficiencies through 

training. 

A recent study of asylum adjudications by Georgetown University 

researchers39 found that there was considerable variability among 

individual adjudicators in Asylum Offices as well as in the immigration 

 38In three of the Asylum Offices, QA/T work plans specified the number of interviews to be

observed. 

39Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew I. Schoenholtz, and Philip G. Schrag, “Refugee Roulette: 

Disparities in Asylum Adjudication,” Stanford Law Review, vol. 60, no. 2 (2007), 295–412.

Page 32 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
courts and the U.S. Courts of Appeals.

40 Asylum Office Directors generally 

agreed that grant rates can legitimately vary among officers in one office

as well as across offices. Nevertheless, four either expressed concern 

about inconsistencies that result from differences among some asylum 

officers or supervisory asylum officers in their office or said that 

headquarters should be doing more to improve the consistency of asylum 

decisions or review the quality of work. According to the Asylum

Division’s Deputy Chief, headquarters does not monitor asylum officers’ 

grant rates or decision patterns, which would provide some information 

regarding consistency in asylum decisions, in part because it does not 

want to suggest that there is a particular grant rate that is correct or 

desirable. Further, we asked six Asylum Office Directors if they monitored 

the grant rates of asylum officers in their offices and five said they did not. 

The Asylum Division is considering developing a training course for QA/Ts

and creating a new senior asylum officer position that, among other things,

would have the authority to assess the consistency of supervisory 

decisions. 

Headquarters quality review. To help ensure consistency in novel or 

complex areas of the law, the Asylum Division reviews all asylum cases 

categorized as “sensitive” before an asylum decision is issued. Local 

Asylum Offices are required to submit certain categories, established by 

headquarters, of sensitive cases to the Asylum Division’s Training, 

Research, and Quality Branch in headquarters for quality review. Sensitive 

cases include, for example, those involving issues related to national 

security, applicants involved in persecutor or human rights violations, 

diplomats or other high-level government or military officials or family 

members, and principal applicants who are under 18 years of age. 

In fiscal year 2007, Asylum Offices sent the Asylum Division 384 of these 

sensitive asylum cases for review, of which 28 percent were designated as 

national security cases. National security cases include cases in which the 

applicant may be a persecutor, terrorist, or risk to the security of the 

 40In addition, we have examined the outcomes of immigration court decisions in asylum 

cases. Our analysis of more than 12 years of EOIR data showed that even after we 

statistically controlled for the effects of a number of factors associated with asylum 

outcomes (e.g., applicant’s nationality, time period of asylum decision, representation, and 

immigration judges’ gender and experience), there were substantial differences across both

immigration courts and immigration judges in the likelihood of asylum applicants being 

granted asylum. (GAO, U.S. Asylum System: Significant Variation Existed in Asylum

Outcomes across Immigration Courts and Judges, GAO-08-940, (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 25, 2008).) 

Page 33 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
United States. In the previous fiscal year, Asylum Offices sent 263 such

cases to the Asylum Division for review, of which 41 percent were 

considered national security cases. Asylum Division data indicate that, in

fiscal year 2007, headquarters concurred with 86 percent of the decisions

asylum officers made and, in fiscal year 2006, it concurred with 83 percent 

of asylum officers’ decisions. The data further indicate that when the 

Asylum Division did not concur, it generally required that the applicant be

interviewed again or the written decision be modified, and that the 

decision then be resubmitted to headquarters for further review. 

Majority of Immigration 

Judges Reported Needing 

Additional Training; EOIR 

Expanded Training for 

New Immigration Judges 

and Solicited Input on 

Training Needs 

Although the majority of immigration judges reported that EOIR’s training 

for newly hired immigration judges and annual training enhanced their 

ability to adjudicate asylum cases, the majority reported needing 

additional training in several areas, including identifying fraud. EOIR 

expanded its training program primarily for new immigration judges in 

2006 and annually solicits input from immigration judges on their training

needs. 

Since 1997, EOIR has sent newly hired immigration judges to a week-long

training at the National Judicial College, which includes courses on 

immigration court procedures, immigration law, ethics, caseload 

management, and stress management. The training is delivered in a 

workshop format and incorporates lecture instruction, small-group 

exercises, and court-hearing demonstrations. Of the 67 immigration judges

who came on board since 1997 and responded to our question about this 

training, 66 percent reported that the National Judicial College moderately 

or greatly enhanced their ability to adjudicate asylum cases.

In addition to the new immigration judge training program, EOIR also 

holds an annual conference for all immigration judges. This conference is

generally a week-long training that includes lectures and presentations. 

During the 2007 conference, topics covered included immigration law and

procedure, ethics, religious freedom, disparities in asylum adjudications 

and forensic analysis. Eighty percent of immigration judges who 

responded to our survey reported that attending the annual conference in

person either moderately or greatly enhanced their ability to adjudicate 

asylum cases. Although immigration judges generally attend this 

conference in person, the in-person conference was canceled in fiscal 

years 2003 through 2005 and again in 2008 because of budget constraints. 

In its place, a virtual conference was held in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, 

and included recorded presentations in place of the in-person conference. 

EOIR officials told us that because of budget constraints, a virtual 

Page 34 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
conference was also offered in August 2008. The virtual conference 

included interactive computer-based training addressing asylum issues 

before the courts and a multimedia presentation that emphasizes the 

importance and effect of immigration judge asylum decisions. Fifteen 

percent of immigration judges reported that a virtual conference 

moderately or greatly enhanced their ability to adjudicate asylum cases.

Although the majority of immigration judges who responded to our survey 

reported that EOIR’s new hire training and in-person annual conference 

enhanced their ability to adjudicate asylum cases, as shown in figure 4, the

majority of immigration judges also reported needing additional training in

certain areas. Seventy-six percent reported moderately or greatly needing 

additional continuing education on asylum issues, 74 percent reported that

additional training on identifying fraud was moderately or greatly needed,

59 percent reported additional training on assessing credibility was 

moderately or greatly needed, and 55 percent reported that additional 

training on U.S. asylum law was moderately or greatly needed to enhance 

their ability to adjudicate asylum cases. National Association of 

Immigration Judges (NAIJ) representatives we interviewed, who also 

serve as immigration judges, stated that immigration judges could benefit 

if time were allotted each week for self-study and they received more 

training on assessing credibility. 

Page 35 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Figure 4: Immigration Judge Survey Respondents’ Views on Topics for Which They 

Reported a Moderate or Great Need for Additional Training

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

1-year rule

Rendering a written

decision

Sensitivity and

cultural awareness

Time management

Rendering oral decisions

U.S. asylum law 

Assessing credibility

Identifying fraud

Continuing education

on asylum issues

Training topics

Percentage of immigration judges

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

76

74

59

55

31

30

27

23

17

Note: n=159. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the survey items. 

Beyond these specific training topics, immigration judges who responded 

to our survey also identified the need for other professional development 

opportunities to enhance their ability to adjudicate asylum cases. For 

example, 75 percent of immigration judges reported that informal 

meetings with other immigration judges were moderately or greatly 

needed. NAIJ representatives stated that EOIR’s training program lacks 

opportunities for immigration judges to meet and communicate with other 

immigration judges in their same circuit and that a circuit-specific regional 

conference, offered quarterly, would address this need. Other forms of 

training that many immigration judge survey respondents thought were 

moderately or greatly needed included opportunities to be detailed to the 

BIA (62 percent) and attending intergovernmental agency conferences (55 

Page 36 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
percent). With respect to opportunities for immigration judges to be 

detailed to the BIA, according to EOIR, two immigration judges were 

serving on the BIA as of August 2007.

41

EOIR implemented several changes to its training program in response to 

reforms directed by the Attorney General in 200642 and in alignment with 

EOIR’s 2005–2010 Strategic Plan to prioritize training for EOIR 

adjudicators, which was issued in 2004. In September 2006, EOIR 

expanded its training for newly hired immigration judges by requiring an

additional week of courses. It also extended the time newly hired 

immigration judges observed hearings from 1 week to 4 weeks. These 

changes were implemented after most of the immigration judges in our 

survey population would have received new hire training.43 Sixty-three 

percent of those responding to our survey reported that observing 

hearings conducted by other immigration judges moderately or greatly 

enhanced their ability to adjudicate asylum cases. 

EOIR also recognizes that new developments in immigration law 

necessitate that immigration judges receive timely, current, circuit-specific 

legal updates. As such, it distributes case summaries on a weekly basis 

and, in response to reforms directed by the Attorney General in 2006, 

launched a monthly publication that provides a more in-depth analysis of

legal issues, case law, and statutory and regulatory developments. 

According to EOIR, although it has neither the time nor the funds to 

expand immigration judges’ opportunities to interact with each other 

outside their court locations, it thinks it would be of immense value. 

Lacking the opportunity in fiscal year 2008 for such interactions through 

an immigration judge conference and having received feedback that 

 418 C.F.R. §1003.1(a)(4) allows the Director of EOIR to designate immigration judges, 

retired BIA members, retired immigration judges, and administrative law judges employed 

within, or retired from, EOIR to act as temporary BIA members. These provisions offer a 

mechanism through which the department can provide the BIA temporary assistance to 

respond to an unanticipated increase or temporary surge in the number, size, or type of

cases, and other short-term circumstances that might impair the BIA’s ability to adjudicate 

cases in a manner that is both timely and fair. 

42In 2006, the Attorney General initiated a review of the quality and performance of the 

immigration courts and the BIA. Based on the results of the review, the Attorney General 

directed the implementation of 22 new measures, including the improvement of training for 

new immigration judges and the development of a continuing education program for 

veteran immigration judges. 

43Four immigration judges in our survey population were appointed in September 2006—

the same month EOIR implemented changes to its training for new immigration judges. 

Page 37 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
immigration judges would like to observe another immigration judge, 

EOIR is structuring opportunities for peer court observation to take place 

within each immigration judge’s court.44

EOIR’s 2005–2010 Strategic Plan calls for EOIR to annually identify 

training needs for all immigration court staff and, as such, EOIR uses a 

structured questionnaire to solicit immigration judges’ training needs at

both the new immigration judge training and the immigration judges’ 

annual training conference. According to EOIR, it receives continuous 

training recommendations from immigration judges in the field, NAIJ, the 

Immigration Judges Advisory Committee, and new immigration judges’ 

training faculty. Further, Assistant Chief Immigration Judges may observe

immigration court proceedings to determine whether immigration judges 

need additional training.

45 However, according to EOIR, budget cuts 

resulted in reductions in spending in fiscal year 2008, including canceling

planned conferences and curtailing training. 

BIA Reviews Immigration 

Judge Decisions That Are 

Appealed

According to EOIR, another means of providing quality assurance resides

in its formal appeals board, the BIA. The BIA is the highest administrative

body for immigration issues and is responsible for applying immigration 

and nationality laws uniformly throughout the United States. Unlike 

asylum officers’ decisions, all of which are reviewed by supervisors, the 

BIA reviews decisions when DHS or the asylum applicant appeals a 

decision. In addition, according to EOIR, when a decision is appealed to 

the BIA, a transcript of the decision is sent to the immigration judge’s 

Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who may review any or all of the 

transcribed decisions for quality assurance. Overall, 10 percent of all 

immigration judges’ decisions, which include asylum decisions, were 

appealed to the BIA in fiscal year 2007. 

 44For courts where only one immigration judge is assigned, supervisors are to make

arrangements for immigration judges to observe an immigration judge in a different court. 

45Assistant Chief Immigration Judges have supervisory authority over the immigration 

judges, the court administrators, and judicial law clerks. They serve as the principal liaison 

between the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge and the immigration courts. 

Page 38 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Asylum officers reported difficulties in assessing the authenticity of 

asylum claims, despite mechanisms USCIS designed to help asylum 

officers assess claims, and also reported time constraints in adjudicating 

cases. Mechanisms USCIS designed included, for example, identity and 

security checks and fraud prevention teams. Federal entities outside 

USCIS’s Asylum Division and FDNS also have a role in combating fraud 

and confirming the validity of claims, but their ability to provide assistance 

to asylum officers has been hindered due to a lack of resources, competing 

priorities and, in some cases, confidentiality requirements intended to 

protect asylum applicants and their families. In addition, asylum officers 

and supervisors reported that asylum officers do not have sufficient time 

to adjudicate cases in a manner consistent with their procedures manual 

and training, although management’s views were mixed. Furthermore, the 

Asylum Division established the productivity standard for asylum officers 

without the benefit of empirical data. 

Challenges in 

Assessing the 

Authenticity of Claims 

and Time Constraints 

Are Key Factors 

Affecting Asylum 

Officers’ 

Adjudications

Asylum Officers Reported 

Difficulties Assessing the 

Authenticity of Claims 

Despite USCIS 

Mechanisms and 

Assistance from Other 

Federal Agencies

Asylum officers face challenges in assessing the authenticity of claims—

that is, identifying fraud and assessing credibility. The very nature of the 

asylum system, which does not require applicants to submit 

documentation to support their claim, presents a challenge. Furthermore, 

economic incentives and benefits that accompany asylum can make the 

system a target of fraud. Abuse of the asylum system by particular groups 

has been reported in the past. For example, in 1999, a large-scale federal 

investigation began that resulted in the prosecution and conviction in 2005

of 23 individuals, including immigration brokers and consultants who 

aided thousands of Indonesian immigrants living in the United States in 

Asylum Officers Reported 

Facing Challenges Assessing 

the Authenticity of Claims

Page 39 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
fraudulently applying for government benefits, including asylum.

46 In a 

2006 document prepared by FDNS staff at a USCIS service center, a 

particular nationality was identified as using fraudulent documents for the 

purpose of applying for asylum and establishing residency in the United 

States. According to the report, “the issues identified . . . constitute 

widespread abuse of the asylum system” by applicants from that country.

In responding to our survey, many asylum officers reported difficulties 

carrying out their fraud-related responsibilities and, as discussed earlier in 

this report, many reported needing more or better fraud-related training. 

According to the Asylum Division, asylum officers must consider whether 

fraud exists in the applicant’s claim, identity documents, or other 

documents provided to support the claim. Asylum applicants’ use of a 

fraudulent document does not necessarily constitute fraud in their overall

claim. Even after identifying fraud, asylum officers must determine if the 

fraud was made knowingly to obtain an immigration benefit for which the 

applicant was not entitled.

47 As shown in figure 5, asylum officers who 

responded to our survey most frequently (73 percent) identified document 

fraud as moderately or very difficult for them to identify. In September 

2007, we reported that the ease with which individuals can obtain genuine

identity documents for an assumed identity creates a vulnerability that 

terrorists can exploit to enter the United States with legal status.

48

 46The investigation found that fraudulent asylum applications were routinely prepared for 

$2,000 or more and that counterfeit Indonesian documents, such as birth certificates and 

police reports, often were provided to support the claims. According to Asylum Division 

officials, the Asylum Division was provided evidence from the investigation, examined

cases known to be associated with the fraud ring, and initiated termination proceedings or

other action for cases in which benefit eligibility may have been affected. 

47Even when asylum officers identify fraud that is relevant to the claim, the applicant may 

still establish eligibility for asylum. In cases when applicants submit materially false 

evidence, asylum officers are instructed to give applicants the opportunity to provide an 

explanation. If the applicant provides a reasonable explanation, the asylum officer must

take it into account in assessing the applicant’s credibility. For example, an applicant might

explain that he or she obtained and submitted a fraudulent document to support a story of 

persecution, thinking that asylum would not be granted without documentation to support 

the claim. 

48GAO, Border Security: Fraud Risks Complicate State’s Ability to Manage Diversity Visa

Program, GAO-07-1174 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2007). 

Page 40 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Figure 5: Types of Fraud That Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Reported as 

Moderately or Very Difficult to Identify

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Interpreter fraud

Fraud in the claim

Jurisdictional fraud

Fraud related to date or

method of entry

Preparer fraud

Identity fraud

Attorney fraud

Document fraud

Type of fraud

Percentage of asylum officers

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

73

53

49

45

44

44

38

25

Note: n=171. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the survey items.

The figure also shows that about half of asylum officer survey respondents 

identified attorney fraud (53 percent) and identity fraud (49 percent) as 

moderately or very difficult for them to identify. According to Asylum 

Division data for fiscal year 2007, 38 percent of the applicants brought an

attorney with them to their asylum interview; in fiscal year 2006, 30 

percent did so. An unscrupulous attorney might prepare false asylum 

applications, including supporting affidavits and documents, which may be 

difficult to identify. For example, in February 2008, an attorney was 

indicted for preparing fraudulent asylum applications that included false 

documents with forged notary stamps and signatures. With respect to 

identity fraud, asylum officers we interviewed explained that the identity

of an applicant is sometimes hard to determine and applicants may falsely 

claim to be from one country where persecution is known to occur, yet 

really be from another country in that region. 

Page 41 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
In addition to identifying fraud, assessing credibility poses a challenge to 

asylum officers in making asylum decisions. As previously discussed in 

this report, asylum officers must make a credibility assessment regarding 

every applicant they interview. As shown in figure 6, the majority of 

asylum officers who responded to our survey reported significant 

challenges to assessing credibility in about half or more of the cases they 

adjudicated in the past year, including insufficient time to prepare and 

conduct research prior to the interview (73 percent), insufficient time to 

conduct the interview (63 percent), the lack of information regarding 

document validity (61 percent), the lack of overseas information on 

applicants (59 percent), and the lack of documents provided by applicants

(54 percent). According to the Asylum Division, given the preponderance 

of evidence standard, it is possible to have reasonable doubts about 

whether applicants meet the definition of a refugee and still correctly find 

that applicants met their burden of establishing that their claim is true. 

Figure 6: Percentage of Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Who Reported 

Significant Challenges to Assessing Credibility in about Half or More of the Asylum 

Cases They Adjudicated over the Past Year

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Lack of information on

country conditions

My own inability to speak

applicant's language

Lack of documents

provided by applicant

Lack of overseas

information on applicants

Lack of information

on document validity

Insufficient time to

probe in interview

Insufficient time to prepare

and conduct research

prior to review

Type of challenge

Percentage of asylum officers

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

59

73

63

61

15

54

19

Note: n=171. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the survey items.

Page 42 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Supervisory asylum officers also reported difficulties in carrying out their

fraud-related responsibilities. Supervisors are responsible for identifying 

possible fraud trends as they review asylum cases from multiple asylum 

officers and can identify patterns individual asylum officers may not 

observe. Nevertheless, in responding to our survey, 54 percent of 

supervisors (21 of 39) reported it moderately or very difficult to identify 

emerging trends in fraud in the time they have available. 

While asylum fraud presents a challenge to officers, its full extent is not 

known and is being systematically assessed for the first time. In March 

2005, FDNS undertook an Asylum Benefit Fraud Assessment because, 

according to FDNS, asylum was a benefit program historically considered

to be one of USCIS’s most fraud-prone or high-risk programs49 and reliable 

and comprehensive information about the types and prevalence of fraud in 

asylum applications was not available. The assessment randomly sampled 

239 affirmative asylum applications filed during a 6-month period in 2005 

that were either issued a final decision or placed on hold. FDNS 

Immigration Officers (FDNS-IO) were required to conduct a series of 

identity and security checks, some of which were mandatory at the time of 

adjudication, as well as additional checks and research. The FDNS-IOs 

also requested overseas document verification when they believed 

relevant information that would substantiate a fraud finding could be 

obtained. However, according to FDNS officials, as of July 2008, FDNS had 

not received a response on almost half of the 72 documents it sent 

overseas for verification. Other factors can also make it difficult to assess 

the full extent of asylum fraud. As FDNS officials explained, an asylee’s 

petition for overseas relatives to join the asylee in the United States—a 

process that can take years—can reveal that the stories of persecution an 

asylee presented when applying for asylum are not always consistent with 

information later provided by his or her relatives. The Director of Fraud 

Prevention Programs in State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs confirmed that 

the petition process has uncovered information that clearly demonstrated 

that the principal applicant’s asylum claim was fraudulent, including cases 

where personnel reached this conclusion after interviewing relatives or 

conducting investigations. As of July 2008, FDNS had not finalized the 

Asylum Benefit Fraud Assessment and had not decided whether to do so 

without information from approximately 10 asylum termination interviews 

 49FDNS planned to conduct six benefit fraud assessments; three had been issued as of July 

2008. 

Page 43 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
to be completed as a result of information obtained during the Asylum 

Benefit Fraud Assessment.50

In April 2005, the Asylum Division conducted a review of past cases in 

which asylum applicants had alleged ties with terrorists or engaged in 

terrorist activity, although ties may not have been known at the time of 

adjudication. As a result, it identified vulnerabilities to terrorism in the 

U.S. asylum system and found that many of the vulnerabilities it identified 

were resolved with the 1995 asylum reforms.51 However, the report also 

identified vulnerabilities that remained postreform, including the lack of 

checks to identify individuals, the possibility of an applicant’s interpreter 

perpetrating fraud, and vulnerabilities outside of its control.

52 According to

information the Asylum Division provided, it has since taken steps to 

address vulnerabilities within its control. Some of these, and other 

mechanisms it has designed, can help asylum officers identify fraud and 

assess credibility—specifically, identity and security check requirements, 

fraud prevention teams with anti-fraud responsibilities, monitoring 

applicants’ interpreters during asylum interviews, and tracking preparers 

suspected of fraud. However, because the extent of asylum fraud and how 

it has changed over time is not known, it is difficult to assess the effect of 

these measures on the identification of fraud. Furthermore, it is difficult to 

know the extent to which any of these measures have deterred fraud. 

USCIS Designed Mechanisms 

to Help Asylum Officers Assess 

the Authenticity of Claims

Identity and security checks. Security check requirements have 

increased, particularly since the terrorist attacks of September 11, and 

asylum staff at all levels viewed them as helping ensure the integrity of 

asylum decisions. Asylum officers are required to ensure multiple identity

and security checks are conducted to confirm an applicant’s identity, 

identify applicants who pose a national security or public safety risk, and 

resolve certain eligibility issues. Asylum officers must confirm that all 

 50The Asylum Office initiates a proceeding to terminate asylum status when evidence 

indicates, for example, that fraud exists in an alien’s application such that the alien was not

eligible for asylum at the time asylum was granted. 

51The Asylum Division found that most of these applicants had not been granted asylum 

and those granted asylum by the Asylum Division later had their asylum status terminated 

after terrorism investigations uncovered asylum fraud by the applicant. The assessment did 

not contain information on whether asylum was terminated for cases granted by

immigration judges. 

52The Asylum Division stated that some of the vulnerabilities it identified were outside of 

its control, such as detaining and removing applicants denied asylum, which fall under

ICE’s jurisdiction. 

Page 44 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
checks are initiated prior to issuing a decision and obtain cleared results 

of checks before issuing a grant of asylum.53

Some identity and security checks are automatically initiated immediately 

after an applicant files an asylum application at the USCIS Service 

Center;

54 however, many are initiated and completed during the 

adjudication process. According to Asylum Office Directors, in six of the 

eight Asylum Offices, asylum officers conduct the required identity and

security checks for the cases they adjudicate. In the remaining two offices, 

asylum officers are designated, on a rotational basis, to conduct identity 

and security checks for all asylum officers in the office; however, each 

asylum officer must still review the results of these checks for each case 

he or she is assigned. Each supervisor must confirm that documentation of 

the security checks is accurately completed in accordance with the 

decision being issued before signing off on the decision. 

The Asylum Division has worked with other federal entities to provide 

asylum officers with access to databases to conduct identity and security

checks and expanded and implemented new identity and security check

requirements on existing checks. Some of these checks are required for all 

USCIS adjudications; others are required only in an asylum adjudication. 

Since that time, the Asylum Division has required asylum officers to check 

the following databases: 

• Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS). IBIS is a multi-agency

database aimed at improving border enforcement and facilitating 

inspections of applicants for admission into the United States by 

identifying threats to national security or public safety. The database 

interfaces with another system that includes law enforcement data, 

including information on immigration law violators, individuals with a 

criminal history or who are subject to criminal investigations, or suspected 

terrorists. 

• U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT). In 

2004, the Asylum Division and the Department of Homeland Security’s USVISIT office worked together to develop a mechanism to provide asylum 

officers with access to the US-VISIT database through a web-based 

interface tool, US-VISIT SIT. US-VISIT collects, maintains, and shares 

 53Automated controls preclude a final grant of asylum from being entered into RAPS until 

certain security checks have been cleared. 

54Several security checks are initiated automatically when the applicant’s information is 

entered into RAPS. 

Page 45 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
biometric and other information on certain foreign nationals entering and 

exiting the United States. This tool allows asylum officers to ensure that 

the applicant is not identified by US-VISIT as a national security or public 

safety threat and that the applicant who appears for the interview is the 

same individual who appeared earlier for fingerprinting.

• State’s Consular Consolidated Database (CCD). The Asylum Division 

worked with State to provide asylum officers with access to information in 

the CCD, which contains records about visa applications. The database 

may contain biometric data and copies of information an applicant 

presented to a State Consular Officer when applying for the visa. Such 

data may be valuable to asylum officers in providing information about the 

identity, previous travel history, method of entry into the United States, or

background of an asylum applicant.

The Asylum Division has also made several changes expanding the 

requirements for several existing identity and security checks, including

the following: 

• Since February 2003, asylum officers have been required to check the

name of every asylum applicant against the Deportable Alien Control 

System (DACS) prior to adjudicating an asylum case in addition to when 

the asylum application was filed.

55 DACS contains records of individuals 

who have been detained by ICE or placed in removal proceedings. Prior to 

2003, asylum officers completed this check when the asylum application 

was filed and repeated the check only for cases resulting in a grant of 

asylum.

• Since November 2006, asylum officers have been required to verify that 

every asylum applicant aged 14 to 75 has been fingerprinted prior to the 

asylum interview in addition to obtaining fingerprint results prior to 

issuing a grant of asylum.56 This gives the asylum officer the opportunity to 

review any available information associated with the applicant’s 

fingerprint records prior to or at the time of the interview. The asylum 

officer must reschedule the interview if an applicant has failed to be 

fingerprinted in advance. Prior to this change, the requirement called only 

 55On August 11, 2008, ICE’s Office of Detention and Removal Operations deployed a new 

system—ENFORCE Alien Removal Module—to replace DACS. Prior to its deployment, the

Asylum Division issued revised procedures for using the system in conducting identity and 

security checks, and asylum officers received training on the system. 

56Asylum officers do not need to obtain fingerprint results before issuing a denial of asylum

or referring a case to the immigration courts, however, an asylum officer may not issue a 

grant of asylum until fingerprint results have cleared. 

Page 46 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
for asylum officers to obtain fingerprint results in cases that resulted in a 

grant of asylum. 

• When an asylum application is filed, RAPS automatically requests an FBI 

name check for every applicant aged 14 to 79. Since 2002, asylum officers 

have been required to obtain the results of the FBI name check before 

granting asylum. Prior to 2002, this check was initiated at the time an 

applicant filed an asylum application, but obtaining a result was not 

necessary before issuing a grant. Since 2005, RAPS has automatically 

initiated FBI name checks on aliases, maiden names, and alternate dates 

of birth.57

Seventy-eight percent of asylum officers who responded to our survey 

reported that, overall, they found that identity and security checks were 

moderately or very useful in identifying or providing information on 

individuals who pose a risk to national security or public safety. Moreover, 

as figure 7 shows, the majority found each of the required identity and

security checks to be moderately or very useful. However, as noted by an

asylum officer we interviewed, applicants who enter the United States 

without inspection or who use a false identity are less likely to be 

identified by these checks. 

 57Delays in receiving FBI name check information has been reported as a significant 

problem in immigration benefit programs. According to the Asylum Division’s Deputy

Director, such delays had been problematic for asylum adjudicators, but only in relatively 

few cases compared with other immigration benefit types. 

Page 47 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Figure 7: Security Checks Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Viewed as 

Moderately or Very Useful in Providing Information on Individuals Who Pose a Risk 

to National Security or Public Safety

Note: n=171. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the survey items.

a

The Central Index System (CIS) is a database maintained by USCIS that captures biographic and 

historical information on the status of applicants seeking immigration benefits and other individuals 

subject to the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and tracks the location of case files. 

According to the Asylum Division, checking applicants in the US-VISIT 

system had significantly mitigated existing vulnerabilities in the program 

by locking in an applicant’s identity through fingerprint and photograph at 

the earliest point possible in the application process and searching against 

other biometric databases to confirm an applicant’s identity and identify 

potential derogatory information. The Asylum Division further noted that, 

while the US-VISIT system is vast, it is not an exhaustive warehouse of 

biometric prints obtained by all U.S. government agencies or by other 

governments. According to an Asylum Office Director, between 

fingerprints, FBI name checks, IBIS, US-VISIT, and CCD, it would be 

reasonable to expect that a national security risk would be identified if 

such information were contained in one of the security databases. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

FBI name check

CISa

DACS

CCD

US-VISIT

IBIS

FBI fingerprints

Type of security check

Percentage of asylum officers

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

58

60

60

89

87

79

76

Page 48 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
In addition, 72 percent of asylum officers who responded to our survey 

reported that, overall, they found identity and security checks to be 

moderately or very useful in providing information regarding an 

applicant’s eligibility for asylum. At least half of the respondents found 

each of the required checks to be useful for this purpose, as shown in 

figure 8.

Figure 8: Security Checks Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Viewed as 

Moderately or Very Useful in Providing Information on an Applicant’s Eligibility for 

Asylum

Note: n=171. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the survey items.

a

The Central Index System (CIS) is a database maintained by USCIS that captures biographic and 

historical information on the status of applicants seeking immigration benefits and other individuals 

subject to the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and tracks the location of case files. 

Fraud-prevention teams. Asylum Offices have fraud-prevention teams 

comprised of at least one FDNS immigration officer (FDNS-IO) and one 

Fraud Prevention Coordinator (FPC) who are tasked with anti-fraud 

responsibilities. USCIS assigned responsibilities to FDNS-IOs at Asylum 

Offices that included tracking fraud patterns for FDNS, apprising Asylum 

Offices of fraud trends, resolving national security “hits,” addressing fraudrelated leads provided by asylum officers, liaising with law enforcement 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

FBI name check

CISa

DACS

FBI fingerprints

IBIS

US-VISIT 

CCD

Type of security check

Percentage of asylum officers

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

53

63

66

84

79

74

72

Page 49 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
entities, and referring cases of suspected fraud to ICE. FDNS-IOs are 

precluded from performing routine functions associated with the 

adjudication process, such as the resolution of non-national-securityrelated background checks or the review of suspect documents. The work 

of FDNS-IOs is directed by local Asylum Office management and by FDNS 

headquarters. As of July 2008, a total of 14 FDNS-IOs were located in 

Asylum Offices and, according to Asylum Division staff, additional 

positions may be authorized in the future. In addition, each Asylum Office 

has at least one FPC, usually a supervisory asylum officer with additional

fraud-related responsibilities as a collateral duty. Duties vary and are 

directed by local office management. FPCs may work closely with FDNSIOs but, in contrast to FDNS-IOs, FPCs have a direct role in supporting 

asylum officers in their adjudication decisions. According to an official in

the Asylum Division’s Operations Branch, FPCs may also review fraud 

referrals that asylum officers make to the FDNS-IOs to ensure quality and

determine fraud trends. 

The specific tasks performed by anti-fraud staff and who performs them

varied across offices. For example, either a FDNS-IO or a FPC might 

prescreen applications for fraud indicators, coordinate requests for 

document verification or overseas information, track interpreters or 

preparers suspected of fraud, communicate fraud trends to asylum 

officers, review national security “hits,” participate in or communicate 

with interagency task forces, or provide fraud-related training to office 

staff. 

Interpreter monitors. In an effort to combat the Asylum Division’s 

concern regarding fraud and quality of interpretation among some of the 

interpreters that non-English speaking applicants are required to bring to

their interview, the Asylum Division began phasing in the use of 

contracted telephonic interpreter monitors in the first half of 2006. 

According to the Asylum Division’s 2003 report on its interpreter 

monitoring pilot program, investigations revealed that interpreters were 

engaging in fraudulent behavior, such as altering asylum applicants’ 

testimony and coaching applicants during interviews. In May 2006, the 

Asylum Division reported that the interpreter monitoring contractor had 

been unable to accommodate 11 to 13 percent of requests for interpreter 

monitors in March and April 2006, and thus did not meet its goal to provide 

monitors 90 percent of the time. The interpreter monitoring program was 

intended as an interim step in combating interpreter fraud and ensuring 

accurate interpretation in the interview. USCIS plans to issue a rule that 

would require the Asylum Division to provide professional interpreters. 

According to Asylum Division officials, the Asylum Division has prepared

Page 50 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
a request for a multiple-award contract for interpreter services and 

expects to have the contract in place by the end of September 2008. As 

such, it would curtail its approach of monitoring applicants’ interpreters. 

Nevertheless, asylum staff indicated that interpreter monitors have 

improved the interviewing process and helped combat fraud. After an 

initial assessment of the interim project in May 2006, the Asylum Division 

concluded that monitors were successful in assisting asylum officers in 

obtaining information from applicants and deterring fraudulent 

interpreters, although the deterrent effect could not be quantified. Asylum 

officers who responded to our survey also viewed interpreter monitoring 

as successful in combating interpreter fraud and helping genuine refugees

communicate their claim. Specifically, 87 percent indicated that 

interpreter monitors were very or moderately useful in deterring 

interpreters from intentionally misinterpreting, while 55 percent reported 

that it is very or moderately easy to identify interpreter fraud when 

interpreter monitors are used. Eighty-two percent reported that interpreter 

monitors were very or moderately useful in helping genuine refugees 

clearly communicate their claim and avoid misunderstandings due to poor 

interpretation.

Tracking preparers. To help identify applications completed by 

suspicious fraudulent preparers, in July 2007, the Asylum Division began 

systematically tracking information on the preparer of each asylum 

application. The Asylum Division noted the difficulties of addressing fraud 

perpetrated by preparers—that is, individuals who assist asylum 

applicants with the completion of their asylum applications. Preparers of 

fraudulent claims have been known to produce applications containing,

for example, false claims of persecution and coach applicants on how to 

exploit the sympathies of asylum officers. The Asylum Division issued 

guidance in July 2007 that introduced new procedures to collect preparer

information and instructed asylum officers to verify that USCIS Service

Centers entered preparer information into RAPS. The guidance instructs 

asylum officers to gather information during the interview regarding the 

circumstances under which the application was prepared, including who 

prepared the application. According to the Asylum Division’s Deputy Chief 

at the time of our review, the division anticipates this effort will allow the 

collection and analysis of data on preparers and could help identify 

applications prepared by preparers determined to be fraudulent. 

Page 51 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Other planned initiatives. The Asylum Division is also considering 

various other anti-fraud efforts that are in various stages of planning and 

have been highlighted as key initiatives for fiscal year 2008. These plans 

include working with the Department of Defense to develop a systematic 

way of processing fingerprints for asylum seekers through Department of 

Defense systems, using software to scan applications to identify common 

text and data, and furthering the exchange of information with Canada and 

other countries. With respect to exchanging information with Canada, for 

example, USCIS is exploring the feasibility of systematically exchanging 

with Canada information submitted by asylum seekers.

58

Federal entities outside the Asylum Division and FDNS also have a role in

combating fraud and confirming the validity of claims, but their assistance 

to asylum officers has been hindered by a lack of resources, competing 

priorities, and—in some cases—confidentiality requirements intended to 

protect asylum applicants and their families. 

ICE’s Forensic Document Laboratory (FDL). Although the majority of 

asylum officers who responded to our survey reported it was difficult for 

them to identify fraudulent documents, the ability of the federal 

government’s forensic crime laboratory dedicated to detecting fraudulent 

documents to assist asylum officers has been hindered by competing 

priorities and a lack of exemplar documents—an authentic travel or 

identity document FDL uses to make comparisons in forensic 

examinations. Due to resource limitations, FDL prioritizes cases so that 

those in which the individual is detained receive highest priority and 

requests from asylum officers—those involving individuals with no set 

court date—are among those receiving the lowest priority. According to 

FDL data for fiscal year 2007, when FDL responded to requests from 

Asylum Offices and other entities with the same relative priority, it took an 

average of 122 days, with response times ranging from 1 to 487 days. 

Because the Asylum Division recognizes it is unlikely that FDL will 

respond to a document examination request before an adjudication 

decision must be made given asylum processing time requirements, 

asylum officers are instructed to submit documents to FDL if they or their 

supervisor believe that the analysis may change the outcome of the 

decision.

Assistance from Other Federal 

Entities That Could Help 

Asylum Officers Assess the 

Authenticity of Claims Is Not 

Always Available 

 58USCIS entered into an agreement with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration 

Canada in 2003 that permits the United States and Canada to share asylum-related 

information on a case-by-case and systematic basis subject to confidentiality provisions in 

existing law. 

Page 52 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
In addition, according to FDL’s Unit Chief, FDL often does not have the 

kinds of documents asylum seekers often submit to asylum officers to 

support their claims, such as overseas birth certificates, marriage 

certificates, or medical records. Recognizing that FDL’s ability to verify 

certain types of documents is hindered by its lack of relevant exemplars, 

the Asylum Division requires each Asylum Office to have at least two FDLtrained staff to provide training to other officers, as discussed earlier in 

this report. In addition to assisting officers in identifying fraudulent 

documents, these staff are to advise officers on whether FDL is likely to 

have an exemplar for the document they want verified. 

State and USCIS overseas offices. State and USCIS overseas offices59

can play an important role in helping asylum officers distinguish between 

genuine and fraudulent claims by providing overseas information on 

asylum applicants and their claims. According to USCIS officials we 

interviewed, overseas investigations may be one of the best methods of 

verifying the facts alleged by applicants. A FDNS official further explained 

that far more fraud could be uncovered if more work were conducted 

overseas, and this is especially true for asylum cases. State and USCIS may 

be able to provide information on a particular asylum case by verifying or

obtaining overseas documents, such as medical or employment records, 

by providing an assessment of the accuracy an applicant’s assertion about

country conditions or the applicant’s situation, or by engaging in 

investigations.

60

In our surveys we asked asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers 

about the usefulness of obtaining overseas medical and employment 

records, or verification of such records. Eighty-two percent of asylum 

officers and 90 percent of supervisory asylum officers (36 of 40) who 

responded thought that these records or verification of these records 

would be moderately or very useful in adjudicating cases. Several 

respondents explained that overseas information can help them verify 

accounts of medical treatment, encounters with police or military forces, 

or political affiliation that relate to an applicant’s claim. Furthermore, 

 59Requests for overseas assistance on specific asylum cases are directed to USCIS when it 

has a presence in the requisite location; if not, requests are directed to State. USCIS’s 

International Operations Division has 30 field offices that are located in embassies and 

consulates in various locations around the world. 

60In addition to responding to case-specific requests, State issues annual Country Reports 

on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom Reports, Profiles of 

Asylum Claims and Country Conditions, and fraud summary reports. 

Page 53 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
about half the asylum officers indicated they needed, but did not have 

such information (53 percent for medical records; 49 percent for 

employment records) in about half or more of the cases they adjudicated 

in the past year. Preliminary results of the Asylum Benefit Fraud 

Assessment further suggest the value of obtaining overseas information on 

asylum applications. USCIS reported preliminary data in January 2007 that 

indicated they received an overseas response for 13 requests for document 

verification, of which 9 were found to support a finding that the asylum 

claim was fraudulent. USCIS’s Refugee, Asylum, and International 

Operations Directorate, of which the Asylum Division is a component, 

proposed creating 54 new positions in fiscal year 2008, including positions 

in several overseas posts to be focused on fraud detection and national 

security. The fiscal year 2008 plan requires approval from State for the 

overseas positions. As of July 2008, State had approved most of them. 

According to the Asylum Division’s Acting Deputy Chief, the increased 

capacity may enable increased assistance to asylum officers, although it is

too early to determine to what degree. 

Despite adjudicators’ views that overseas information can be useful, 

overseas offices’ ability to respond to asylum officers’ requests for 

assistance has been hindered due to competing priorities, resource 

constraints, and challenges associated with respecting the confidentiality 

of asylum applicants to avoid placing them or their relatives at a greater 

risk of harm. Recognizing demands on overseas resources, the Asylum 

Division instructs asylum officers to limit overseas requests to those cases 

where such information is essential to making a final asylum 

determination. According to State procedures, in answering requests for 

specific information on asylum cases, it generally gives priority to requests

from immigration courts over requests from asylum officers, although it 

also gives priority to requests from Asylum Division headquarters 

regarding sensitive cases. A Deputy Director within State explained that

requests from immigration courts are given higher priority because 

individuals appearing before an immigration judge face the possibility of 

deportation. Confidentiality requirements designed to protect applicants’ 

safety can further constrain obtaining overseas information because 

making such inquiries of agencies of foreign governments can put asylum 

applicants or their families at risk by releasing information to the public or

alleged persecutors. 

These limitations notwithstanding, USCIS and State have worked together 

to improve asylum officers’ access to information regarding asylum 

applicants’ visa applications. Since May 2006, asylum officers have had 

access to State’s CCD. Because not all information included on the visa 

Page 54 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
application is captured in CCD, the Asylum Division issued procedures in 

March 2007 on how asylum officers can request full visa application 

information from State if such additional information is material to the 

applicant’s claim and can influence the adjudication decision. These 

procedures were disseminated close to the time we conducted our 

surveys. Ninety-one percent of asylum officers and 93 percent of 

supervisory asylum officers (37 of 40) who responded thought that having

the entire visa application in addition to what is available in CCD would be 

moderately or very useful in adjudicating cases. Fifty-five percent of 

asylum officers said they needed, but did not have, the entire visa 

application in about half or more of the cases they adjudicated in the past

year.

The process for requesting overseas information on asylum applicants, 

other than visa applications, varies among Asylum Offices, and USCIS and 

State have been working on improving procedures for making these 

requests. According to Asylum Division officials, asylum officers are to 

consult their supervisors when they desire overseas assistance. However, 

the process for initiating requests for overseas information—that is, 

whether requests are made through FDNS or Asylum personnel—varies 

among Asylum Offices. Seventy-four percent of asylum officers and 43 

percent of supervisors (16 of 37) said they did not understand or had no 

more than a slight understanding of the process their office used for 

requesting overseas verification services. In June 2008, the Asylum 

Division’s Acting Deputy Chief told us that USCIS and State were in the 

process of developing procedures that streamline the current process for 

requesting overseas assistance. According to an Operations Branch 

official, once the procedures are updated, the Asylum Division plans to 

provide training on the new procedures. 

ICE’s Office of Investigations. USCIS and ICE have an agreement that 

USCIS will refer articulated suspicions of fraud to ICE, which will make a 

decision whether to accept or decline a case for investigation within 60 

days. If ICE declines a case or does not respond within that time, the 

FDNS-IO is responsible for taking further action.

61 According to the Chief 

of FDNS, ICE declines about two-thirds of FDNS’s requests for 

investigation. FDNS data showed that of the 58 requests that FDNS-IOs at

 61According to the Chief of FDNS, as of August 2008, ICE and USCIS were in the final 

stages of reviewing a new Memorandum of Understanding that will no longer refer lowerlevel (single-scope) cases to ICE. Instead these cases will be worked and tracked by USCIS. 

Page 55 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Asylum Offices sent to ICE for investigation during fiscal year 2007, ICE 

had declined 33, accepted 12, and had not made a decision to accept or 

decline 13 requests as of July 2008. According to the Acting Chief of ICE’s 

Identity and Benefit Fraud Unit, ICE data showed that in fiscal year 2007, 

ICE opened 128 asylum fraud investigations, 70 of which were based on 

USCIS referrals. ICE investigations of asylum fraud can result from fraud 

referrals made by confidential informants, federal and local law 

enforcement personnel, as well as USCIS personnel. USCIS referrals can 

include those from asylum officers, FDNS-IOs, or district examiners. 

However, officials from the Identity and Benefit Fraud Unit explained it is 

difficult for ICE to identify the exact number of asylum fraud 

investigations because of the way a case may be recorded. Cases involving 

asylum fraud often involve other types of fraud, such as identity or 

marriage fraud, and may be recorded under a category relating to other 

fraud found in the investigation. Furthermore, a single conviction may 

involve an individual who was associated with numerous sham asylum 

applications. 

According to ICE officials, resource constraints preclude ICE from 

investigating all fraud referrals. Asylum fraud is difficult to investigate and 

resource-intensive because asylum claims often lack supporting evidence 

to facilitate investigations, according to the Acting Chief of ICE’s Identity 

and Benefit Fraud Unit. These investigations can take several years to 

complete. According to ICE, its investigations of asylum fraud most often 

target larger-scale conspiracies, and individual applicants are given a 

lower priority. ICE also gives asylum cases special attention when asylum 

applicants from certain countries might pose a threat to national security.62

Asylum Division personnel and Asylum Office fraud staff view ICE 

investigations of asylum fraud as a critical component in combating 

asylum fraud and, along with prosecutions, the best way to deter it. At one 

Asylum Office we visited, the Director stated that she believed prior local

ICE activity had deterred fraudulent asylum applications. Furthermore, 42 

percent of 107 asylum officers and 45 percent of 33 supervisory asylum 

officers who provided survey comments regarding what can be done to 

deter or cut down on asylum fraud shared views that actions such as 

investigating, prosecuting, or assigning penalties are needed to help deter 

 62In addition to conducting investigations, ICE also participated in some coordinated 

efforts in various local interagency fraud task forces with USCIS, including 17 multiagency

Document and Benefit Fraud Task Forces led by ICE that were created in fiscal years 2006 

and 2007 to detect and prosecute fraud. 

Page 56 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
fraud. In March 2006, we reported that taking appropriate and consistent 

actions against immigration benefit violators is an important element of 

fraud control and deterrence.63 

Representatives from these and other federal entities outside USCIS 

participated in the Asylum Division’s Fraud Prevention Conference in

December 2007, where conference leaders acknowledged that combating 

fraud requires both intra- and intergovernmental efforts. They further 

stressed the importance of finding administrative solutions to fraud, as 

prosecutions of asylum fraud are infrequent. The conference provided a 

forum for fraud detection and prevention personnel, investigators, 

attorneys, and personnel from USCIS, ICE, DOJ, and State to share 

information on current fraud trends, including specifics on suspected 

preparers who assisted, recruited, and sometimes duped clients to make 

fraudulent claims; methods used to make fraudulent claims; and indicators 

used to detect fraud.

The majority of asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers who 

responded to our survey reported that the 4 hours, on average, they have 

to complete an asylum case is insufficient to be thorough—that is, to 

complete the case in a manner consistent with their procedures manual 

and training—although views among managers varied. The 4-hour average 

is based on the productivity standard, which requires management to 

assign asylum officers work equivalent to 18 asylum cases in a 2-week 

period, allowing for 4 hours of training each week. The productivity 

standard is one of the elements in the asylum officers’ performance work 

Asylum Officers Report 

Time Constraints Affect 

Adjudications; 

Adjudication Requirements 

Have Increased While the 

Productivity Standard Is 

Unchanged 

Asylum Officers and 

Supervisors Report Asylum 

Officers Have Insufficient Time 

to Thoroughly Adjudicate 

Cases, but Management Views 

Are Mixed

 63GAO, Immigration Benefits: Additional Controls and a Sanctions Strategy Could 

Enhance DHS’s Ability to Control Benefit Fraud, GAO-06-259 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 

2006). 

Page 57 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
plan that is used to rate an asylum officer’s performance. As table 2 shows, 

28 percent of asylum officers and 28 percent of supervisory asylum 

officers (11 of 40) reported that asylum officers need about 4 hours or less 

to complete an asylum case. However, 65 percent of asylum officers and 

73 percent of supervisors (29 of 40) reported that asylum officers needed

more than the standard 4 hours to complete a case.

64

Table 2: Asylum Officer and Supervisory Asylum Officer Survey Respondents’ 

Views on the Time Asylum Officers Need to Complete an Asylum Case

Estimated hours needed to complete 

asylum cases

Percentage of

asylum officers 

Percentage of

supervisory 

asylum officers

About 4 hours or less 28 28

About 5–6 hours 48 58

About 7 hours or more 17 15

Unable to estimate 8 0

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

Notes: Asylum officer responses: n=171. 

Supervisory officer responses: n=40. 

There was some item-nonresponse variation across the survey items. 

Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

Many asylum officer survey respondents indicated time constraints 

hindered their ability to thoroughly adjudicate cases. For example, of 138 

respondents who provided narrative comments explaining how they 

manage their caseload when they have insufficient time, 39 percent wrote 

that they rush through their work or cut back on doing country-condition

research, interviewing, completing identity and security checks, or writing 

the assessment. Moreover, 43 percent of asylum officers reported that, 

during the past year, productivity standards hindered their ability to 

properly adjudicate in about half or more of their cases. 

Asylum Officers are taught at AOBTC that they must work under time 

constraints and develop interviewing skills that will enable them to gather

all the information they need. However, they are also informed of the 

 64There was some variation by office. For example, in five offices, 61 to 87 percent of

asylum officers reported needing about 5 hours or more to complete an asylum case. In the 

other three offices, 50 to 57 percent of the officers reported that they needed 4 hours or

less. Survey responses did not provide enough information to explain these differences. 

Page 58 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
danger in rushing through an interview, which could lead the asylum 

officer to incorrectly assess credibility. In conducting interviews with 

asylum officers, we asked 12 officers how much time they spend 

conducting an asylum interview. Eleven of the 12 asylum officers said that, 

of the 4 hours they generally have available for a case, they typically spend 

between 1 and 2 hours conducting the applicant interview. Nearly 30 

percent of asylum officers reported that they were able to elicit sufficient 

information in asylum interviews to properly evaluate the claim no more 

than about half of the time. Further, 92 percent reported that having more 

time to probe in an interview would moderately or greatly help them elicit

better information during the asylum applicant interview to properly 

evaluate the claim, including assessing the applicant’s eligibility and 

credibility. The same percentage reported that having more time to 

prepare for and conduct research prior to an interview would moderately 

or greatly help them elicit better information during the asylum applicant 

interview to properly evaluate the claim, including assessing the 

applicant’s eligibility and credibility. 

In addition, when asked what would help them better identify fraud, 

asylum officer survey respondents who provided comments most 

frequently said that having more time would help them better identify 

fraud, with about 40 percent of the 98 respondents making such 

comments. For example, an asylum officer explained that although more 

tools to detect fraud are always useful, they are of little or no use if asylum 

officers are not given either time or correct training to use such tools. 

Another asylum officer stated that attorneys and preparers know that 

asylum officers do not have time to check into the claim and, thus, the 

“system is perpetuating fraud by not giving [asylum officers] time to 

concentrate on the adjudication.” Sixty-four percent of supervisors (25 of 

39) who responded to our survey indicated that asylum officers were not 

always completing a fraud referral sheet when they should in at least some 

of the cases they reviewed. Of the 111 asylum officer survey respondents 

who explained what prevented them from referring suspected fraud cases 

to their FDNS-IO, about half attributed this to time limitations. 

One of USCIS’s strategic goals is to combat fraud and, in 2007, the Asylum 

Division included measures for combating fraud in its performance work 

Page 59 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
plan for supervisory asylum officers;65 however, it has not explicitly 

included measures for combating fraud in its performance work plan for 

asylum officers. Several asylum officers who provided comments to our 

survey explained that a disincentive exists to take the time to make a fraud 

referral when they suspect fraud. According to one asylum officer, there is

no reason to make a fraud referral because the performance work plan 

does not reward it and it takes a lot of extra time. In October 2007, in 

response to a DHS Office of Inspector General recommendation,66 USCIS 

stated it plans to ensure that adjudicators’ performance work plans 

include a measure for fraud detection—a recommendation that USCIS 

concurred with and plans to address. We reported in March 2003 that 

organizations should align individual performance expectations with 

organizational goals to improve performance by helping personnel 

connect their daily activities and organizational goals and encourage them

to achieve these goals.

67 As such, we agree with the Office of the Inspector

General’s recommendation. Asylum Division officials told us in July 2008 

that they had begun discussing this recommendation with USCIS and were 

looking to USCIS to take the lead on addressing the issue. 

Although most asylum officers and supervisors reported that asylum 

officers needed more time to thoroughly adjudicate asylum cases, 

management views were mixed. Five of the eight Asylum Office Directors 

said that they believed that the 4 hours asylum officers are given to 

complete a case was not reasonable, while three considered it to be 

reasonable. One Asylum Office Director elaborated that asylum officers do 

not struggle to complete cases within 4 hours, in part because the majority 

of the asylum cases adjudicated in that office are older cases that are 

usually easier to adjudicate. This Director explained that older cases may 

be easier if country conditions have changed so dramatically over time 

that the asylum claim can no longer be sustained, or if they were filed 

before asylum reform solely for the purpose of obtaining employment 

authorization. In the latter case, often the asylum claim is easily 

 65According to Asylum Division officials, beginning with the 2006–2007 rating cycle, the 

standard performance work plan for Asylum Office Directors and Deputy Directors hold 

these officials accountable for anti-fraud measures, although each Asylum Office 

personalizes the work plans based on its workload. 

66Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Review of the USCIS 

Benefit Fraud Referral Process, OIG-08-09, (April 2008). 

67GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual

Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003).

Page 60 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
determined to be unsupported. The Asylum Division recognizes that 

asylum officers must work under time constraints and that the tasks and 

time involved in completing a particular case may increase due to factors 

such as a complicated story that takes additional time to fully elicit or 

several dependents being listed on an application. Nevertheless, the Chief 

of the Asylum Division said that the 4-hour average was sufficient and was 

not convinced that more time would lead to increased adjudication quality. 

Also, asylum officer performance work plan guidance states that under 

extenuating circumstances, supervisors can allow asylum officers to take

more than the 4 days they typically have to provide their written decision

to their supervisor.68

Since 1999, asylum adjudication requirements have increased while the 

productivity standard, which was established without empirical data, has

remained unchanged. As previously discussed in this report, since 

September 11, 2001, the Asylum Division added requirements for asylum 

officers to check additional identity and security databases and increased

the procedural requirements regarding when to conduct certain checks.

The Asylum Division estimates that 10 percent of asylum officers’ time 

would be needed to conduct security checks and, in 2004, began including 

this in making staffing projections. We discussed this projection with five 

of the eight Asylum Office Directors we interviewed. Three of the five

Asylum Office Directors estimated that asylum officers spent 10 percent of 

their time conducting security checks, and two stated that asylum officers 

spent more than 10 percent of their time conducting these checks. 

According to one of these Directors, 30 minutes of the 4 hours asylum 

officers generally have to complete a case is needed to conduct identity

and security checks, and a QA/T explained that if the results of an identity

and security check identify a potential concern, resolving that concern can 

add an hour to the adjudication process. In addition, beginning in 2007, 

asylum officers have been required to confirm that Service Center staff 

entered preparer information in RAPS and question the applicant if no 

information was entered, as well as contact, swear in, and document 

contact with interpreter monitors. Furthermore, all of the eight Asylum 

Office Directors we interviewed commented that, over time, asylum cases 

have become more complex or that requirements for completing cases 

have increased. According to one Asylum Office Director, while tools have

Adjudication Requirements 

Have Increased, While the 

Productivity Standard, Which 

Was Established Without 

Empirical Data, Has Remained 

the Same

 68Asylum officers generally have 4 hours to adjudicate asylum cases over a 4-day period. 

Extenuating circumstances for exceeding the 4-day timeframe include excused leave and 

other higher-priority responsibilities.

Page 61 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
been provided to deal with the increased complexity of fraud in asylum 

applications, the asylum officers have not been given more time to use 

these tools. 

A Supervisory Asylum Officer on the 4-Hour Case Model 

The four hour case model has been used for many years, however over those years, 

many procedures have been added to the cases, many cases have become more 

complicated than those the Asylum Division handled at the inception of the asylum 

program, and the law has also evolved and become more complex. The applicants 

have become more sophisticated in their attempts at committing fraud, as well, and 

this development has caused a need for more investigation into the cases and more

detailed lines of questioning. Additionally, since 9/11, [asylum officers] have been 

given more responsibility with regard to the review of computer security checks and 

identity checks, which takes extra time . . . All of this adds time to a case adjudication, 

yet we are still following the four hour case model. 

—Supervisory asylum officer survey respondent 

Although the overall caseload of the Asylum Division has steadily declined 

from about 450,000 cases in 2002 to 83,000 cases in 2007, this has not 

translated into asylum officers having more time to adjudicate asylum 

cases.69 If local management is not able to assign asylum officers 18 asylum

cases per 2-week period, it assigns asylum officers other Asylum Division 

work that is equivalent to 18 asylum cases to compensate for fewer asylum 

cases. Given the other work assigned, asylum officers continue to have an

average of 4 hours under the productivity standard to complete each 

asylum case assigned. According to six of the eight Asylum Office 

Directors, asylum officers in their offices are generally being assigned 

work that equates to 18 asylum cases—that is, they are assigned asylum 

interviews in combination with other work. To compensate for being 

assigned fewer than the 18 asylum cases, asylum officers adjudicated 

nonasylum cases (i.e., credible fear, reasonable fear, and NACARA cases) 

and performed additional work such as administrative closures and 

research projects. Because of the decline in overall caseload, the Asylum 

Division plans to take on new responsibilities for asylum officers that are 

similar to their current work, such as adjudicating Refugee/Asylum 

Relative Petitions. The adjudication of these petitions will be modeled on 

 69Caseload includes pending and new receipts for asylum, credible and reasonable fear, and 

NACARA cases. An asylum case consists of the principal applicant and any dependents 

listed on the asylum application. This is different than EOIR’s definition of a case, which 

includes only one individual. 

Page 62 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
the current asylum adjudication process, requiring interviews and checks

against US-VISIT, in addition to the other mandatory identity and security

checks. The division also increased the number of asylum officers 

assigned to overseas details from about 12 officers in 2007 to 40 officers in 

2008. 

According to the Asylum Division Chief, the productivity standard was 

established in 1999 as the result of discussions with the asylum officers’ 

union and management’s judgment. The Asylum Division had not 

conducted a time study or gathered empirical data. At that time, the 

productivity standard was reduced from 24 cases to 18 cases in a 2-week

period. Asylum Division training materials explain that the productivity 

standard helps the Asylum Division achieve its mission of protecting 

refugees, while meeting quality and timeliness goals. Further, if the 

productivity standard is set too low, the Asylum Division would not have a 

reasonable ability to keep pace with new receipts given the staff available, 

whereas if it is set too high, the quality of adjudications would likely 

suffer. Asylum Division officials further explained that setting the 

productivity standard too low could result in adjudication delays that 

might encourage spurious filings of asylum applications for the purpose of

obtaining employment authorizations. In May 2003, we reported that time 

studies, in general, have the substantial benefit of providing quantitative

information that can be used to create objective and defensible measures 

of workload and can account for time differences in completing work that 

can vary in complexity. However, such studies do place some burden on 

personnel during data collection and involve other costs as well.

70 Without 

empirical data on which to base the asylum officer’s productivity standard,

the Asylum Division is not in the position to know whether asylum officers 

have sufficient time to conduct thorough asylum adjudications. 

 70GAO-03-789T. 

Page 63 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Key Factors Affecting 

Immigration Judge 

Adjudications Are 

Similar to Those 

Identified by Asylum 

Officers

Immigration judges’ responses to our survey indicated that key factors 

affecting their adjudications were similar to those that asylum officers 

identified. As shown in figure 9, of the 11 aspects of adjudicating asylum 

cases we inquired about in our survey, immigration judge survey 

respondents most frequently cited verifying fraud (88 percent) as a 

moderately or very challenging aspect of adjudicating asylum cases. The 

vast majority also reported time limitations (82 percent) and assessing 

credibility (81 percent) as moderately or very challenging. 

Figure 9: Percentage of Immigration Judge Survey Respondents Who Reported 

Aspects of Adjudicating Asylum Cases to Be Moderately or Very Challenging

Note: n=159. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the survey items.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Staying current with

Staying current with case law

Reserving a decision

Identifying national

Identifying

suspected fraud

Rendering oral decisions

country conditions

for later delivery

security risks

immediately after hearing cases

Attorney preparedness

Managing your caseload

Assessing credibility

Time limitations

Verifying fraud

Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases

Percentage of immigration judges

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

88

82 81

77 77

71 71

67

60 58

54

Page 64 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Immigration Judges 

Reported Challenges in 

Identifying Fraud and 

Assessing Credibility

Most immigration judges who responded to our survey identified fraud 

and assessing credibility as significant challenges in adjudicating asylum 

cases. In assessing an applicant’s eligibility for asylum, immigration judges 

consider adverse factors, including the use of fraud to gain admittance to

the United States and inconsistent statements made by the asylum 

applicant. As an immigration judge respondent explained, “it is very easy 

to suspect fraud, but as in all civil cases, fraud is one of the most difficult 

things to actually prove. Unless the DHS . . . can prove fraud by a 

preponderance of the evidence, or a respondent admits facts constituting 

fraud, the suspicion of fraud will remain just that.”

Of the various types of fraud that we inquired about in our survey, the 

majority of immigration judges who responded reported that all the types

of fraud were moderately or very difficult to identify, with attorney fraud 

(66 percent) and identity fraud (66 percent) most frequently reported as 

difficult to identify, as shown in figure 10. 

Figure 10: Types of Suspected Fraud That Immigration Judge Survey Respondents 

Reported as Moderately or Very Difficult to Identify

Note: n= 159. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the survey items.

Of the various types of fraud that we inquired about in our survey, the 

majority of immigration judges reported that all the types of fraud 

presented a challenge in at least some of the cases that they adjudicated 

over the last year. For example, as shown in figure 11, in at least some of 

the cases they adjudicated over the past year, 94 percent of immigration 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Suspected

fraud in the claim

Suspected

document fraud

Suspected

preparer fraud

Suspected

identity fraud

Suspected

attorney fraud

Type of fraud

Percentage of immigration judges

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

54

66

66

57

56

Page 65 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
judges reported that suspected fraud in the claim presented a challenge, 

and 93 percent reported that suspected document fraud presented a 

challenge. 

Figure 11: Types of Suspected Fraud That Immigration Judge Survey Respondents 

Reported as Presenting a Challenge in Some or All of the Cases They Adjudicated

over the Past Year

Note: n=159. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the survey items.

Most immigration judges who responded to our survey also reported 

assessing credibility as a challenging aspect of adjudicating asylum cases. 

In each decision, an immigration judge must include a detailed credibility 

finding. Eighty-one percent of immigration judges reported that assessing 

credibility was a moderately or very challenging aspect of adjudicating 

asylum cases and an area in which they needed additional training. 

Further, 48 percent of immigration judges cited assessing credibility as 

one of their top three greatest challenges in adjudicating asylum cases. In 

addition, a NAIJ representative stated that assessing credibility is very 

difficult and that immigration judges would be better able to explore 

issues relevant to credibility if they had more time in court to review 

testimony and evidence.

The majority of immigration judges who responded to our survey reported 

impediments to assessing credibility in about half or more of the cases 

they adjudicated over the past year, including a lack of documentary 

evidence (70 percent), lack of other overseas information on applicants 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Suspected

attorney fraud

Suspected

identity fraud

Suspected

preparer fraud

Suspected

document fraud

Suspected

fraud in the claim

Type of fraud

Percentage of immigration judges

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

54

94

93

85

73

Page 66 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
(61 percent), and lack of document verification from overseas (56 

percent), as shown in figure 12. An immigration judge survey respondent 

shared the view that because of a high level of fraud and abuse in asylum 

cases and in the process, any case-specific evidence the ICE trial attorneys

could present to prove or disprove an asylum applicant’s case would be 

extremely useful in trying to reach a fair and just result for the parties. 

Although lack of overseas information was reportedly an impediment to 

immigration judges’ ability to assess credibility, according to EOIR, it is 

the role of the ICE trial attorney or the asylum applicant to gather 

information from overseas agencies and verify the authenticity of 

documents.71 

 71Immigration judges who feel they need more information than is provided in the Country 

Reports on Human Rights Practices or Profiles of Asylum Claims may make specific 

requests on an individual case basis to State. 

Page 67 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Figure 12: Percentage of Immigration Judge Survey Respondents Who Reported 

Impediments to Assessing Credibility in about Half or More of the Asylum Cases 

They Adjudicated over the Past Year

Note: n=159. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the survey items.

In response to reforms directed by the Attorney General in 2006, EOIR 

designed the Fraud and Abuse Program that established a formal 

procedure for immigration judges, BIA members, and other EOIR staff to 

report suspected instances of immigration fraud or abuse. Prior to the 

implementation of this new program, immigration judges reported 

suspected fraud on an ad hoc basis primarily through management 

channels or EOIR’s Attorney Discipline Program.

The goals of the Fraud and Abuse Program include 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Quality of interpretation

in the courtroom

Lack of information

on country conditions

Lack of a record from the

asylum officer's interview

Insufficient time to prepare

for and review cases

Lack of document

verification from FDL

Lack of document

verification from overseas

Lack of other overseas

information on applicants

Lack of documentary

evidence

Impediments to assessing credibility

Percentage of immigration judge respondents

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

39

70

61

56

44

8

25

17

• protecting the integrity of proceedings before EOIR; 

Page 68 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
• referring, where appropriate, information to either law enforcement or a 

disciplinary authority;72

• encouraging and supporting investigations and prosecutions; and 

• providing immigration judges, BIA members, and other EOIR staff with 

source materials to aid in screening for fraudulent activity.

According to EOIR, the program improves immigration judges’ ability to 

identify fraud by providing examples of prevalent forms of fraud and 

abuse and suggestions for the screening of boilerplate claims and common 

addresses. The program issues a monthly newsletter conveying such 

information and has also established a Web site. 

EOIR provided some training on the Fraud and Abuse Program. Although 

the majority of immigration judges who responded to our survey reported

being somewhat or not at all familiar with EOIR’s new Fraud and Abuse 

Program, EOIR was in the process of informing immigration judges of this

program when we conducted our survey during May through July 2007. As 

of July 2008, the manager of the program had conducted presentations at 

26 immigration courts and at the annual immigration judge conference. A 

NAIJ representative stated that the Fraud and Abuse Program presentation

that immigration judges received during the annual immigration judge 

conference was useful, but because the program was new, NAIJ had not 

received feedback from immigration judges indicating their use of the 

program.

According to EOIR, the Fraud and Abuse program is tracking all incoming 

referrals. As of July 2008, the program had received 132 referrals, including 

referrals of suspected asylum fraud and document fraud. Twenty-six of the 

132 referrals were made by immigration judges. Patterns in referrals will 

be used to alert EOIR staff and other entities to fraud schemes. According 

to EOIR, as the Fraud and Abuse Program is relatively new, it remains 

flexible to respond to agency needs. The program has surveyed staff who 

attended the presentations at immigration courts about additional services 

they would like from the program and, according to EOIR officials, 

solicited immigration judges’ input in July 2008 to develop ideas for 

additional training, among other things. EOIR officials stated that the 

Fraud and Abuse Program Manager has developed internal benchmarks of 

 72An immigration judge who makes a referral to the Fraud and Abuse Program is not 

required to delay adjudication of the case. 

Page 69 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
performance to assess the program, such as responding to all referrals 

within 5 days and reviewing inactive cases every 60 days. 

Most immigration judges who responded to our survey reported time 

constraints as a challenge in adjudicating asylum cases, and EOIR has 

taken some steps to mitigate these challenges. Specifically, 82 percent of 

immigration judges who responded to our survey reported that time 

limitations were moderately or very challenging in adjudicating asylum 

cases and 77 percent reported that managing caseload was moderately or 

very challenging. The fact that the growth in the number of onboard 

immigration judges has not kept pace with overall growth in caseload and 

case completions, which include asylum cases, may contribute to this 

challenge. While, from fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the number of 

onboard immigration judges increased by 2 (from 214 to 216 immigration 

judges), caseload, which includes newly filed and reopened cases and 

cases pending from prior years, rose 14 percent from about 442,000 to 

about 506,000 and completions rose 20 percent from about 274,000 to 

about 328,000. The average caseload per onboard immigration judge rose 

13 percent from 2,067 cases in fiscal year 2002 to 2,343 cases in fiscal year 

2007. 

According to a NAIJ representative, time constraints can have an effect on

the quality of decisions. The representative further explained that if a case 

needs to be delayed or rescheduled, it may be rescheduled as much as a 

full year later because of the volume of cases on an immigration judge’s 

schedule. According to EOIR, both an immigration judge’s overall caseload 

and the way the immigration judge manages that caseload affect the 

pressures the immigration judge experiences on the bench. A heavy

caseload may limit an immigration judge’s ability to manage comfortably. 

Immigration Judges 

Reported Facing Time 

Constraints and EOIR Has 

Taken Some Steps to 

Address This Challenge 

Page 70 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
A U.S. Court of Appeals Chief Judge on Time Constraints Facing Immigration 

Judges 

A single [Immigration] Judge has to dispose of 1,400 cases a year or nearly twentyseven cases a week, or more than five each business day, simply to stay abreast of his 

docket. I fail to see how Immigration Judges can be expected to make thorough and 

competent findings of fact and conclusions of law under these circumstances. This is 

especially true given the unique nature of immigration hearings. Aliens frequently do not 

speak English, so the Immigration Judge must work with a translator, and the 

Immigration Judge normally must go over particular testimony several times before he

can be confident that he is getting an accurate answer from the alien. Hearings, 

particularly in asylum cases, are highly fact intensive and depend upon the presentation 

and consideration of numerous details and documents to determine issues of credibility 

and to reach factual conclusions. This can take no small amount of time depending on 

the nature of the alien’s testimony. 

—The Honorable John M. Walker, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd 

Circuit in addressing the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, April 2006 

Nearly all immigration judge survey respondents also reported needing 

more than the 4 hours off the bench that is provided for them to handle 

administrative matters.

73 Fifty-two percent reported that they need more 

than 8 hours per week for administrative tasks and 45 percent said they 

need about 5 to 8 hours. Sixty-nine percent reported that they did not use 

their administrative time as intended about half the time; instead, they 

used that time to hear cases. 

According to EOIR, EOIR monitors the caseload of each immigration court 

to identify courts that have been unable to meet their established goals for 

timely case adjudication and provides assistance to help those courts meet 

these goals. In 2006, we reported that EOIR helped courts address growing 

caseloads by detailing immigration judges, using technology, transferring 

responsibility for hearing locations, and establishing new courts.

74 EOIR 

informed us in 2007 that it continues to employ these mechanisms. In 2007, 

when we surveyed immigration judges, 57 percent reported that having a 

visiting immigration judge detailed to their court somewhat or greatly 

helped their ability to manage their caseload, and 40 percent reported 

 73According to EOIR officials, immigration judges are to schedule administrative time, or

time off the bench, to adjudicate motions, write reserved opinions, meet with the court 

administrator, or conduct legal research. Four hours of administrative time has been the

norm since 1983. 

74GAO, Executive Office for Immigration Review: Caseload Performance Reporting Needs

Improvement, GAO-06-771 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 11, 2006).

Page 71 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
having immigration judges from other courts hear cases via 

videoconference somewhat or greatly helped their ability to manage their 

caseload.

In addition, because of the volume of cases that immigration judges 

handle, EOIR advises immigration judges to issue oral decisions 

immediately after hearing a case, deeming it generally to be the most 

efficient way to complete cases.75 However, 71 percent of immigration 

judges who responded to our survey reported that rendering an oral 

decision immediately after a hearing was moderately or very challenging.

According to a NAIJ representative, oral decisions are difficult because 

immigration judges are trying to balance multiple tasks at once during a 

hearing—listening carefully to the testimony, asking follow-up questions, 

and applying case law correctly. Having time to reflect after listening to 

testimony, and having time to prepare a written decision would result in 

better decisions. However, according to EOIR, rendering oral decisions 

following a hearing allows both sides to hear the decision while the 

evidence is fresh in their minds and then make an informed choice 

whether to appeal the decision. Furthermore, immigration judges who 

reserve decisions for later quickly develop a backlog. 

According to EOIR, issues resulting from heavy caseloads are best 

addressed by increasing the number of immigration judges and staff 

available. To help immigration judges better manage their caseload, EOIR 

requested funding to hire 240 additional staff for immigration courts.

According to EOIR, in developing its request, it considered budget 

guidance and the number of positions it could reasonably expect to fill in a 

given year. One hundred and twenty new positions were requested and

funded in fiscal year 2007, 20 of which were immigration judge positions. 

Although EOIR requested funding for the remaining 120 positions in fiscal 

year 2008, it did not receive its full budget request. As a result, EOIR 

abolished its plans to hire an additional 120 positions in fiscal year 2008, 

including 20 immigration judge positions. Prior to the hiring of additional 

staff, most immigration judges who responded to our survey reported that 

having additional law clerks (98 percent), additional immigration judges 

(84 percent), and additional administrative court staff (77 percent) would 

moderately or greatly improve their ability to carry out their 

responsibilities. According to EOIR, as of May 2008, it was in the process 

 758 C.F.R. § 1003.37(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12(a) provide that a decision of the immigration 

judge may be rendered orally or in writing. 

Page 72 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
of hiring approximately 38 immigration judges, comprised of newly 

authorized positions and replacements for attrition. Until all authorized 

immigration court staff are on board, it is too soon to determine the extent

to which increased staffing will affect immigration judges’ ability to 

manage their caseload. 

Adjudicating asylum cases is a challenging undertaking because asylum 

officers do not always have the means to determine which claims are 

authentic and which are fraudulent. USCIS has taken steps to instill quality 

and strengthen the integrity of the asylum decision-making process. 

However, asylum officers still face adjudication challenges, including 

asylum fraud, lack of information from entities outside USCIS that could 

help assess the authenticity of claims, and increased responsibilities 

without additional time to carry them out. With potentially serious 

consequences for asylum applicants if they are incorrectly denied asylum

and for the United States if criminals or terrorists are granted asylum, 

asylum officers must make the best decision they can within the 

constraints that are placed on them.

The mechanisms USCIS designed to promote quality and integrity in 

decision making can be better utilized to decrease the risk that incorrect 

asylum decisions are made. Eliciting information through applicant 

interviews is a challenging and critical component of an asylum officer’s 

ability to distinguish between genuine and fraudulent claims. By 

supplementing existing training with additional opportunities for asylum 

officers to observe skilled interviewers, the Asylum Division could 

improve asylum officers’ ability to elicit needed information during an 

applicant interview to help distinguish between a genuine and fraudulent 

claim. In addition, by developing a framework to solicit asylum officers’ 

and supervisors’ views of their training needs in a structured and 

consistent manner, the Asylum Division would help ensure that 

headquarters and Asylum Offices have more complete information from 

which to make training decisions. Furthermore, by more fully 

implementing its quality review framework, the Asylum Division would be 

in a better position to identify deficiencies in the quality of asylum 

decisions asylum officers make, identify the root causes of such 

deficiencies, and take appropriate action, such as focusing training 

opportunities. 

Insufficient time for asylum officers to adjudicate cases can undermine the 

efficacy of the tools that asylum officers do have, as well as USCIS’s goals 

to ensure quality and combat fraud. We recognize that conducting an 

Conclusions 

Page 73 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
empirical study of the time asylum officers need to complete a thorough 

adjudication, including conducting increased security checks and referring

instances of suspected fraud when appropriate, would involve some 

expenditure of resources. However, doing so would better position the 

Asylum Division to know whether it is providing asylum officers with the 

time needed to do their job in accordance with their procedures manual 

and training. More recent tools, such as additional identity and security 

check information and the placement of FDNS immigration officers in 

Asylum Offices can be valuable, but only if asylum officers have the time 

to fully utilize them. 

To improve the integrity of the asylum adjudication process, we 

recommend that the Chief of the Asylum Division take the following five 

actions: 

• explore ways to provide additional opportunities for asylum officers to 

observe skilled interviewers; 

• develop a framework for soliciting information in a structured and 

consistent manner on asylum officers’ and supervisors’ respective training 

needs, including, at a minimum, training needs discussed in this report; 

• ensure that the information collected on training needs is used to provide 

training to asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers at the offices 

where the information shows it is needed or nationally, when training 

needs are common; 

• develop a plan to more fully implement the quality review framework—

and complement existing supervisory and headquarters reviews—to 

include, among other things, how to ensure that in each Asylum Office a 

sample of decisions of asylum officers are reviewed for quality and 

consistency and interviews conducted by asylum officers are observed; 

and 

• develop a cost-effective way to collect empirical data on the time it takes 

asylum officers to thoroughly complete the steps in the adjudication 

process and revise productivity standards, if warranted. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from DHS, DOJ, and 

State. The departments did not provide official written comments to 

include in our report. However, in e-mails received September 12, 2008, 

the DHS and USCIS liaisons stated that DHS concurred with our 

recommendations. DHS and EOIR provided written technical comments, 

which we incorporated into the report, as appropriate. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

Page 74 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, 

and the Secretary of State. We will also provide copies to others on 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. For further 

information about this report, please contact Richard M. Stana, Director, 

Homeland Security and Justice Issues, at (202) 512-8777 or at 

stanar@gao.gov. GAO staff members who were major contributors to this 

report are listed in appendix VII. 

Richard M. Stana, Director 

Homeland Security and Justice Issues 

Page 75 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

We sent our Web-based survey to all asylum officers who were in their 

position at the end of fiscal year 2006. We received 189 responses from 

asylum officers, resulting in a 74 percent response rate. To ensure survey 

respondents had recent knowledge about the issues our survey explored,

18 of the 189 respondents were directed to not complete the rest of survey 

because their responses to our initial questions indicated their primary 

responsibilities did not include adjudicating asylum cases or they had 

adjudicated no, or almost no, asylum cases over the past year. Although 

171 asylum officers completed the survey, the number answering any

particular question may be lower, depending on how many chose to 

answer any given question. In addition, for certain questions, respondents 

were instructed to skip particular questions based on their responses to 

previous questions. Each question includes the number of asylum officers 

responding to it. 

Our survey was comprised of closed- and open-ended questions. In this 

appendix, we include all the survey questions and aggregate results of 

responses to the closed-ended questions; we do not provide information 

on responses provided to the open-ended questions. For a more detailed

discussion of our survey methodology see appendix IV. 

Background 

Q1. How long have you been an Asylum Officer? (In years)

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

6 5 0 16 189

Q2. How long have you been an Asylum Officer with the office you are assigned to currently? (In years) 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

6 5 0 16 189

Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Page 76 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Q3. Over the past year, did your primary responsibilities include interviewing and adjudicating affirmative asylum, credible/reasonable 

fear, or NACARA cases? 

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Number 

of 

respondents

96 4 189

Q3a. Over the past year, about how many of the cases you adjudicated were affirmative asylum cases?

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases 

(percent) 

Some cases

(percent)

No or almost 

no cases

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

36 25 22 11 6 181

Training

Q4. Were you certified in-house before you attended the Asylum Officer Basic Training Course (AOBTC)? 

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Number 

of 

respondents

39 61 167

Q5. Overall, how well or poorly did AOBTC prepare you to adjudicate affirmative asylum cases? 

Very well 

(percent) 

Moderately 

well 

(percent) 

Neither well 

nor poorly

(percent) 

Moderately 

poorly

(percent)

Very poorly

(percent)

Not 

applicable, 

have not

attended 

AOBTC 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

25 50 12 8 4 0 1 171

Page 77 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Q6. Do you think AOBTC needs to be improved in any of the following areas to better prepare you to make affirmative asylum 

decisions? 

[Where Q5 is "very well", "moderately well", "neither well nor poorly", "moderately poorly", "very poorly", or "do not know"]

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Conducting 

identity and 

security checks 76 11 13 166

b. Identifying 

possible issues

relating to 

national 

security 66 23 10 163

c. Interviewing 

skills 39 56 5 163

d. Legal 

requirements 

for asylum 

eligibility 23 72 5 162

e. Country 

conditions 

research 29 67 4 163

f. Identifying 

possible fraud 77 17 6 167

g. Decision 

writing 33 61 6 162

h. Asylum 

process and 

procedures 37 57 6 166

i. Time 

management 60 34 5 164

j. Other 64 27 9 78

Page 78 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Q7. How much, if at all, is additional training on the following topics needed at your asylum office to improve your ability to adjudicate 

affirmative asylum claims? 

Greatly 

needed

(percent) 

Moderately 

needed

(percent) 

Slightly 

needed

(percent)

Not at all 

needed

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. Asylum 

process and 

procedures 16 27 31 24 2 165

b. Conducting 

identity and 

security checks

(i.e., database 

queries and 

any related 

research) 31 32 25 10 2 169

c. Interpreting 

the results of 

identity and 

security checks 43 25 21 10 1 169

d. One-year 

filing deadline 5 20 23 49 1 166

e. Mandatory 

bars to asylum 11 23 35 30 1 167

f. Issues 

related to 

national 

security 31 26 24 17 2 168

g. Interviewing 

skills 18 21 25 33 3 167

h. 

Understanding 

intercultural 

communication 13 19 22 42 4 166

i. 

Understanding 

how stress and 

trauma may 

affect the 

interview 16 21 23 36 4 165

j. Assessing 

credibility 40 24 16 18 1 165

k. Current 

trends in fraud 52 27 12 8 1 167

l. Identifying 

fraudulent 

documents 57 26 12 4 1 164

Page 79 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Greatly 

needed

(percent) 

Moderately 

needed

(percent) 

Slightly 

needed

(percent)

Not at all 

needed

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

m. Identifying 

fraud in claim 53 24 13 8 2 166

n. Identifying 

interpreter 

fraud 43 22 16 17 2 166

o. Identifying 

preparer fraud 51 21 16 10 2 167

p. Identifying 

attorney fraud 50 17 20 12 1 165

q. Using the 

Asylum Virtual 

Library 21 23 30 25 1 162

r. Other country 

condition 

research 

methods 14 32 23 28 2 166

s. Country 

condition 

updates 17 29 26 26 2 167

t. Applying 

country 

condition 

information 15 22 22 40 1 164

u. U.S. asylum 

law (e.g., case 

law, changes in

statute and 

regulations) 18 26 31 24 1 168

v. Conducting 

legal research 16 28 25 29 2 167

w. Applying the

REAL ID Act 41 27 20 11 1 167

x. Writing 

decisions 11 18 28 40 2 166

y. Time 

management 38 19 22 20 1 162

Q8. Are there topics, other than those listed in the previous question, that you think should be addressed through training? 

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

40 49 11 152

Page 80 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Q9. What other topic(s) should be addressed through training? 

Q10. Has your asylum office solicited your views on what training should be offered locally? 

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

32 63 6 163

Q11. Approximately when were your views last solicited? 

[Where Q10 is "Yes"] 

Within the 

past 6 months

(percent) 

More than 6 

months ago,

but within the 

past year 

(percent) 

More than 1 

year ago, but

within the 

past 2 years 

(percent) 

More than 2 

years ago, but

within the 

past 5 years

(percent)

More than 5 

years ago

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

61 14 14 2 0 10 51

Q12. Over the past year, on average, about how many hours per week of formal training, informal training, and self-study time (e.g., 

conducting research, reading case law, reviewing new training materials or procedural memos) has your office provided you? 

Less than 1 

hour

(percent) 

About 1 hour

(percent) 

About 2 hours

(percent) 

About 3 hours

(percent)

About 4 hours

(percent)

More than 4 

hours

(percent) 

Unable to 

estimate

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

12 12 34 7 20 4 11 169

Q13. Of the training time provided during the past year, about what portion, on average, was intended for self-study (e.g., conducting

research, reading case law, reviewing new training materials or procedural memos)? 

All or almost 

all of that time 

(percent) 

Most of that 

time 

(percent) 

About half of 

that time 

(percent) 

Some of that 

time

(percent)

None or

almost none

of that time

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

4 10 11 32 36 8 167

Q14. Of that self-study time, about what portion, on average, have you used to do your routine work (e.g., adjudicating cases, 

performing administrative tasks, checking e-mail)? 

All or almost 

all of that time 

(percent) 

Most of that 

time 

(percent) 

About half of 

that time 

(percent) 

Some of that 

time

(percent)

None or

almost none

of that time

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

41 14 6 10 21 8 159

Page 81 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Q15. What are the primary reasons that you use self-study time to perform other duties? 

Q16. What, if anything, would make training at your asylum office more effective? 

Identity and Security Checks

Q17. Who generally conducts the identity and security checks on the affirmative asylum cases that are assigned to you? 

I generally do 

the checks 

(percent) 

Others 

generally do 

the checks 

(percent) 

Generally I do

some of the 

checks and

other staff do

other checks

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

61 11 28 170

Q18. Do you think your ability to conduct and review identity and security checks would be improved by having additional time or 

training in the following areas?

[Where Q17 is either "I generally do the checks" or "Generally I do some of the checks and other staff do other checks"] 

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Additional 

time to conduct

required 

checks 87 12 1 150

b. Additional 

time to conduct

checks beyond 

those that are 

required 78 15 7 149

c. Additional 

training on 

conducting all 

required 

checks 61 34 5 146

d. Additional 

training on 

conducting 

checks beyond 

those that are 

required 66 25 9 146

Page 82 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

e. Additional 

training on the 

type of 

information

contained in

the various 

databases I 

search 80 16 4 148

f. Additional 

training on how

to interpret the 

results of 

checks 83 15 2 148

g. Other 63 31 6 51

Q19. Please list the checks, if any, for which you would like more time or training. 

Q20. In general, how often are the identity and security checks that others conduct sufficiently thorough? 

[Where Q17 is either "Others generally do the checks" or "Generally I do some of the checks, and other staff do other checks"] 

Always or

almost always

(percent) 

Most of the 

time 

(percent) 

About half of 

the time 

(percent) 

Some of the 

time

(percent)

Never or

almost never

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

18 42 18 14 8 0 66

Q21. In general, how easy or difficult is it for you to interpret the results of the identity and security checks that others conduct? 

[Where Q17 is either "Others generally do the checks" or "Generally I do some of the checks, and other staff do other checks"] 

Very easy 

(percent) 

Moderately 

easy 

(percent) 

Neither easy 

nor difficult 

(percent) 

Moderately 

difficult

(percent)

Very difficult

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

23 35 26 15 2 0 66

Page 83 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Q22. In terms of identifying applicants who should or should not receive asylum, do you think it is more effective for you to conduct 

your own security and identity checks, or to have others in the office conduct the checks before the case is assigned to you? 

It is more 

effective for 

me to conduct 

my own 

security 

checks 

(percent) 

It is more 

effective to

have others in

the office 

conduct the

checks before

the case is 

assigned to

me 

(percent) 

It makes no

difference 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

44 42 7 7 167

Q23. When conducting identity and security checks, how well do you understand: 

Greatly 

understand

(percent) 

Moderately 

understand

(percent) 

Slightly 

understand

(percent)

Hardly or not 

at all 

understand

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

a. the type of 

information

contained in

the various 

databases or 

systems you 

check? 31 58 9 1 171

b. the results 

you receive? 30 60 8 2 164

Q24. Overall, how useful in accomplishing the following objectives do you consider the identity and security checks that you or others 

conduct at your office? 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. Identify or 

provide 

information on 

individuals who

pose a risk to 

national 

security and/or

public safety 47 31 17 4 2 169

Page 84 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

b. Provide 

information

regarding

applicants' 

eligibility for 

asylum 40 32 22 4 1 165

Q25. How useful do you consider each of the following databases or systems to be in identifying or providing information on individuals

who may pose a risk to national security and/or public safety? 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Not applicable 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. FBI 

fingerprints 68 21 8 2 0 1 171

b. FBI name 

check 38 19 26 11 0 5 170

c. IBIS 63 25 9 2 0 1 171

d. U.S.-

VISIT/SIT 53 26 12 5 0 4 171

e. CIS 38 21 22 14 1 4 169

f. DACS 34 26 24 10 1 4 169

g. CCD 

(Department of 

State's 

Consolidated 

Consular 

Database) 53 23 15 3 0 6 171

h. ChoicePoint 22 11 7 3 15 42 161

Q26. How useful do you consider each of the following databases or systems to be in providing information regarding an applicant's 

eligibility for asylum? 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Not applicable 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. FBI 

fingerprints 55 17 23 5 0 1 171

b. FBI name 

check 38 15 27 16 1 3 170

c. IBIS 49 25 18 6 0 2 170

d. U.S.-

VISIT/SIT 57 22 15 5 0 2 169

Page 85 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Not applicable 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

e. CIS 39 24 21 12 2 3 168

f. DACS 38 28 21 9 1 3 170

g. CCD 

(Department of 

State's 

Consolidated 

Consular 

Database) 60 25 9 2 0 5 171

h. ChoicePoint 21 12 4 6 18 38 154

Q27. Do you or others need additional data from, or access to, databases or systems in order to conduct identity and security checks? 

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

48 19 33 168

Q28. Please identify the databases or systems to which you think access is needed. 

Q29. How, if at all, do you think identity and security checks can be improved? 

Case Assignment

Q30. How effective or ineffective do you think your office's current process is for assigning affirmative asylum cases to officers in: 

Very effective

(percent) 

Moderately 

effective 

(percent) 

Neither 

effective nor

ineffective

(percent)

Moderately 

ineffective

(percent)

Very 

ineffective 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. preventing 

fraud by asylum

officers (e.g., 

precluding 

officers from 

arranging to 

adjudicate 

particular cases 

for money or 

other 

compensation)? 48 15 7 5 4 21 168

Page 86 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Very effective

(percent) 

Moderately 

effective 

(percent) 

Neither 

effective nor

ineffective

(percent)

Moderately 

ineffective

(percent)

Very 

ineffective 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

b. ensuring 

equitable 

distribution of 

workload 

among asylum 

officers? 18 21 9 19 25 9 169

Q31. What, if anything, do you think could be done to improve the current process for assigning affirmative asylum cases in your 

office? 

Q32. In how many cases, if any, do you think that asylum officers' expertise (e.g., language capability or expertise in a particular 

geographic area) should be considered when affirmative asylum cases are assigned to officers? 

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases 

(percent) 

Some cases

(percent)

No or almost 

no cases

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

20 13 6 24 31 7 167

Q33. Please discuss why you think asylum officer expertise should or should not be considered in assigning cases. 

Interviewing and Assessing Credibility

Q34. Overall, in your affirmative asylum interviews, how often do you feel you are able to elicit sufficient information to properly 

evaluate the claim? 

Always or

almost always

(percent) 

Most of the 

time 

(percent) 

About half of 

the time 

(percent) 

Some of the 

time

(percent)

Never or

almost never

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

25 47 15 8 5 1 171

Q35. Since being certified to conduct interviews, have you observed, or had the opportunity to observe, interviews conducted by skilled 

interviewers? 

I have had the

opportunity to

observe and

have done so 

(percent) 

I have had the

opportunity

but have not

done so

(percent) 

I have not had

the 

opportunity to

do so

(percent) 

I don't recall

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

44 0 52 3 162

Page 87 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Q36. To improve asylum officers' interviewing skills, how useful do you think it would be for asylum officers to observe interviews 

conducted by skilled interviewers? 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent) 

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Don't know

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

63 25 11 1 1 167

Q37. How useful do you think it would be, or would have been, to observe skilled interviewers at the following stages in your career as 

an asylum officer? 

[Where Q36 is "very useful", "moderately useful", or "slightly useful"] 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. During my 

1st year as an 

asylum officer 89 10 1 0 1 166

b. During my 

2nd year 29 42 16 8 5 154

c. Between my

3rd and 5th 

year 20 20 28 22 10 148

d. After my 5th 

year 21 10 29 27 13 143

e. When 

returning to 

affirmative 

asylum 

adjudications 

after other 

assignments or

rotations 37 17 25 12 10 155

Page 88 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Q38. In adjudicating affirmative asylum cases during the past year, in about how many cases did you find each of the following to be a 

significant challenge to assessing credibility?

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases

(percent)

Some cases

(percent)

No or almost 

no cases 

(percent) 

Unable to 

estimate

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Lack of 

documents 

provided by 

applicant 17 19 18 37 8 1 170

b. Insufficient 

time to prepare

and conduct 

research prior 

to the interview 40 21 12 22 5 1 168

c. Insufficient 

time to probe in

interview 34 20 8 28 8 1 169

d. My own 

inability to 

speak 

applicant's 

language 5 7 7 26 52 3 171

e. Lack of 

information

regarding

document 

validity 32 18 11 29 9 1 171

f. Lack of 

overseas 

information on 

applicant 32 16 11 25 14 2 170

g. Lack of 

information on 

country 

conditions 8 2 5 47 38 0 170

h. Other 52 7 9 14 5 14 44

Page 89 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Q39. How well do you understand how to apply each of the following provisions of the REAL ID Act as they pertain to adjudicating 

affirmative asylum cases? 

Greatly 

understand

(percent) 

Moderately 

understand

(percent) 

Slightly 

understand

(percent)

Hardly or not 

at all 

understand

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

a. Determining 

whether the 

applicant has 

established 

that one of the 

five protected 

grounds was or

will be at least 

one central 

reason for the 

persecution 62 28 5 5 169

b. Determining 

whether the 

applicant 

should provide 

evidence that 

corroborates 

otherwise

credible 

testimony 39 41 14 6 168

c. Factoring a 

relevant 

inconsistency, 

inaccuracy, or 

falsehood into 

a credibility 

determination, 

even if the 

inconsistency, 

inaccuracy, or 

falsehood does

not go to the 

heart of the 

applicant's 

claim 45 34 13 9 168

Q40. Do you face any barriers in applying the provisions of the REAL ID Act in adjudicating affirmative asylum cases?

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

37 41 22 162

Page 90 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Q40a. What barriers do you face? Please include in your response the specific provision(s) involved. 

Q41. How much, if at all, would the following possible changes help you elicit better information during the asylum applicant interview 

to properly evaluate the claim, including assessing the applicant's eligibility and credibility?

Greatly help

(percent) 

Moderately 

help 

(percent) 

Slightly help

(percent)

Not at all help

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. Receiving 

more training 

on interview 

preparation 13 21 33 31 2 167

b. Receiving 

more training 

on how to 

conduct the 

interview 12 19 34 34 2 167

c. Receiving 

more training 

on eliciting 

information in 

the interview to

test credibility 32 23 24 20 1 168

d. Receiving 

more training 

on how to 

evaluate 

credibility 30 19 26 23 1 167

e. Having more 

time during the

interview 75 17 4 4 0 168

f. Having more 

time to prepare

and conduct 

research prior 

to the interview 76 16 6 2 0 169

g. Receiving 

the A-file 

further in 

advance 52 23 13 8 3 168

h. Having

greater 

discretion to 

conduct 

additional 

interviews 

when 

appropriate 44 20 21 12 4 164

Page 91 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Greatly help

(percent) 

Moderately 

help 

(percent) 

Slightly help

(percent)

Not at all help

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

i. Routinely 

conducting two

interviews with 

the applicant 

on different 

dates to allow 

time for interim

research 35 17 20 22 7 168

j. Coconducting the 

interview with 

another officer 24 16 14 34 11 166

k. Having 

additional 

opportunities to 

collaborate with

other officers 

on cases 44 23 18 12 4 167

l. Other 64 6 6 12 12 50

Use of Contracted Interpreter Monitors

Q42. Have you had experience with using contracted interpreter monitors during your affirmative asylum interviews? 

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Number 

of 

respondents

98 2 169

Q43. In general, how useful do you think the interpreter monitors are in: 

[Where Q42 is "Yes"] 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. deterring

interpreters 

from 

intentionally 

misinterpreting? 60 27 8 4 1 168

Page 92 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

b. helping 

genuine 

refugees clearly

communicate 

their claim and 

avoid 

misunderstandi

ngs due to poor 

interpretation? 48 34 13 5 0 166

c. helping you 

identify fraud? 27 22 28 19 3 166

d. helping you 

expedite the 

interview? 18 17 17 44 4 168

Q44. Compared to the current practice of using interpreter monitors along with applicants' interpreters, how much do you think having 

only contracted telephonic interpreters would improve or worsen: 

Greatly 

improve

(percent) 

Moderately 

improve

(percent) 

Neither 

improve nor

worsen

(percent)

Moderately 

worsen

(percent)

Greatly 

worsen

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. genuine 

refugees' ability 

to clearly 

communicate 

their claim? 42 25 15 9 4 5 169

b. your ability 

to identify 

fraud? 40 20 26 3 4 7 169

c. your ability to

expedite the 

interview? 34 25 15 10 8 8 169

Assessing Fraud

Q45. Overall, how easy or difficult is it for you to identify each of the following types of fraud in affirmative asylum cases?

Very easy 

(percent) 

Moderately 

easy 

(percent) 

Neither easy 

nor difficult

(percent)

Moderately 

difficult

(percent)

Very difficult 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Identity fraud 4 24 19 31 19 4 170

b. Document 

fraud 2 12 12 36 36 1 171

Page 93 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Very easy 

(percent) 

Moderately 

easy 

(percent) 

Neither easy 

nor difficult

(percent)

Moderately 

difficult

(percent)

Very difficult 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

c. Interpreter 

fraud (when 

interpreter 

monitors are 

used) 18 37 16 19 5 4 170

d. Preparer 

fraud 9 26 19 31 14 1 169

e. Attorney 

fraud 5 17 21 29 24 4 169

f. Fraud in 

claim 8 26 26 26 12 2 171

g. Fraud 

related to date 

or method of 

entry 9 29 16 30 15 1 171

h. Jurisdictional 

fraud (forum 

shopping) 8 24 20 26 18 4 170

i. Other 19 9 6 6 28 31 32

Q46. Over the past year, did you ever grant asylum for any of the following reasons, despite thinking the applicant tried to represent 

fraudulent documents as genuine? 

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. I found the 

applicant's 

claim to be 

credible. 53 42 5 165

b. I found no 

legal basis to 

refer or deny. 51 44 6 162

c. My 

supervisor 

found that my 

reasons to 

refer or deny 

were not 

supported by 

the law or my 

analysis. 32 62 6 161

Page 94 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

d. The process

involved in

granting 

asylum was 

easier than 

referring or 

denying. 19 80 1 161

e. I didn't have 

sufficient time 

to gather the 

evidence 

needed to refer

or deny the 

claim. 36 61 2 166

f. The 

fraudulent 

document(s) 

were not 

material or 

relevant to the 

claim. 48 44 8 160

g. There was 

no way to verify

whether the 

document(s) 

were truly 

fraudulent. 59 37 4 165

h. My 

supervisor did 

not want me to

send the 

document(s) to 

the Forensic 

Document 

Laboratory 

(FDL) for 

verification. 19 79 2 157

i. Other 54 34 11 35

Page 95 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Q47. Over the past year, in about how many cases in which you granted asylum did you do so despite thinking you were presented 

with fraudulent documents? 

[Where Q46 is "Yes" on one or more item] 

All or almost 

all of the 

cases in

which I 

granted

asylum

(percent) 

Most of the 

cases in

which I 

granted

asylum

(percent) 

About half of 

the cases in

which I 

granted

asylum

(percent) 

Some of the 

cases in

which I 

granted

asylum

(percent)

None or

almost none

of the cases in

which I 

granted

asylum

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

3 5 7 49 28 8 133

Q48. Overall, how effective or ineffective do you think the FDNS-IO (Fraud Detection and National Security Immigration Officer)

position is in identifying or verifying fraud? 

Very effective

(percent) 

Moderately 

effective 

(percent) 

Neither 

effective nor

ineffective 

(percent) 

Moderately 

ineffective

(percent)

Very 

ineffective

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

17 32 14 8 10 20 171

Q49. What, if anything, would make the FDNS-IO position more effective?

Q50. To what extent are you encouraged to or discouraged from formally referring cases to your FDNS-IO (i.e., completing a fraud 

referral sheet) when you suspect fraud? 

Very 

encouraged

(percent) 

Moderately 

encouraged

(percent) 

Neither 

encouraged

nor

discouraged

(percent) 

Moderately 

discouraged

(percent)

Very 

discouraged

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

30 20 21 14 12 3 168

Q51. What, if anything, prevents or limits you from referring cases to your FDNS-IO? 

Q52. Is there also a Fraud Prevention Coordinator in your office? 

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

85 7 8 168

Page 96 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Q53. Overall, how effective or ineffective is the Fraud Prevention Coordinator position in identifying fraud? 

[Where Q52 is "Yes"] 

Very effective

(percent) 

Moderately 

effective 

(percent) 

Neither 

effective nor

ineffective 

(percent) 

Moderately 

ineffective

(percent)

Very 

ineffective

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

17 30 13 9 11 20 143

Q54. What, if anything, would make the Fraud Prevention Coordinator position more effective? 

Q55. When you have suspected or identified fraud during the past year, in how many of these cases do you think the asylum seeker 

was knowingly involved in the fraud? 

All or almost 

all of these 

cases 

(percent) 

Most of these 

cases 

(percent) 

About half of 

these cases 

(percent) 

Some of these 

cases

(percent)

None or

almost none

of these cases

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

45 27 5 16 0 7 166

Q56. How much, if at all, do you think each of the following possible changes are needed to help you identify fraud in the affirmative 

asylum cases you adjudicate?

Greatly 

needed

(percent) 

Moderately 

needed

(percent) 

Slightly 

needed

(percent)

Not at all 

needed

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. Additional 

FDNS-IO(s) in 

your office 37 19 8 24 13 167

b. Additional 

Fraud 

Prevention 

Coordinator(s) 

in your office 24 25 8 27 16 166

c. Additional 

Forensic 

Document 

Laboratory 

(FDL)-trained 

staff in your 

office 68 17 5 5 4 168

d. Having two 

or more asylum 

officers 

participate in 

interviews 25 9 13 40 13 165

Page 97 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Greatly 

needed

(percent) 

Moderately 

needed

(percent) 

Slightly 

needed

(percent)

Not at all 

needed

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

e. Scanning all

I-589s and 

using software 

to identify 

boilerplates 

and trends 61 16 11 7 6 165

Q57. What else do you think can be done to help you better identify whether or not fraud exists in the cases you adjudicate? 

Q58. What else do you think can be done to deter or cut down on fraud in affirmative asylum cases? 

Country Conditions

Q59. How useful to your country condition research is each of the following sources of information? 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. Information 

submitted by 

the applicant 14 22 45 19 0 168

b. Your own 

research done 

on prior case(s) 75 20 4 0 1 167

c. Information 

available 

through the 

Resource

Information 

Center (RIC), 

including 

Asylum Virtual 

Library 34 32 28 3 3 169

d. Department 

of State's 

annual Country

Reports on

Human Rights 

Practices and 

International 

Religious 

Freedom 

reports 58 34 8 1 0 170

Page 98 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

e. Department 

of State's 

Profiles of 

Asylum Claims

and Country 

Conditions 42 28 13 2 15 166

f. Department 

of State's fraud 

summary 

reports 25 26 20 5 24 167

g. Other 74 9 9 0 9 46

Q60. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you that you have sufficient tools for doing country condition research? 

Very satisfied

(percent) 

Moderately 

satisfied

(percent) 

Neither 

satisfied nor

dissatisfied

(percent) 

Moderately 

dissatisfied

(percent)

Very 

dissatisfied

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

29 50 10 8 4 0 171

Q61. What, if anything, do you think can be done to help you better conduct country condition research?

Q62. How useful do you think each of the following types of case-specific information would be in adjudicating affirmative asylum 

cases? 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. Entire visa 

application in 

addition to 

what is 

available in 

CCD 74 17 4 2 4 171

b. Department 

of State 

advisory 

opinion 42 21 15 12 9 168

c. Overseas 

employment 

records or 

verification 70 15 10 2 4 171

Page 99 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

d. Overseas 

medical

records or 

verification 69 18 8 4 2 170

e. Other 72 4 0 2 21 47

Q63. Think about the affirmative asylum cases that you adjudicated in the past year. In how many of these cases did you need, but did 

not have, the following case-specific information? 

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases

(percent)

Some cases

(percent)

No or almost 

no cases 

(percent) 

Unable to 

estimate

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Entire visa 

application in 

addition to 

what is 

available in 

CCD 30 16 9 26 13 7 168

b. Department 

of State 

advisory 

opinion 22 6 6 19 32 15 162

c. Employment

records or 

verification 29 13 8 24 23 4 168

d. Medical

records or 

verification 31 14 8 24 19 4 169

e. Other 43 11 3 3 14 26 35

Q64. How well do you understand the process(es) used in your office for requesting overseas verification (e.g., employment or medical 

records or verification)? 

Greatly 

understand

(percent) 

Moderately 

understand

(percent) 

Slightly 

understand

(percent) 

Hardly or not 

at all 

understand

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

11 15 14 60 164

Page 100 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Q65. How, if at all, do you think the process(es) could be improved for requesting and obtaining overseas verification? 

Workload

Q66. How easy or difficult is it for you to manage your workload? 

Very easy 

(percent) 

Moderately 

easy 

(percent) 

Neither easy 

nor difficult 

(percent) 

Moderately 

difficult

(percent)

Very difficult

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

8 6 15 35 34 1 170

Q67. Please briefly explain why it is difficult for you to manage your workload. 

Q68. What can be done to help you and other asylum officers better manage the workload? 

Q69. How much time do you think you need, on average, to complete an affirmative asylum case in a manner consistent with the 

procedures manual and training? 

(Number of respondents is 189.) 

Percent

3 hours or less 10 

About 4 hours 15 

About 5 hours 21 

About 6 hours 22 

About 7 hours 4 

About 8 hours 8 

More than 8 

hours 3 

Unable to 

estimate 7 

Q70. If you feel you currently have insufficient time, how do you manage to complete your assigned cases? 

Q71. Over the past year, in about how many cases, if any, did productivity or timeliness standards hinder your ability to properly 

adjudicate affirmative asylum cases in accordance with standard procedures and the law?

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases

(percent)

Some cases

(percent)

No or almost 

no cases 

(percent) 

Unable to 

estimate

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Productivity 

standards 20 12 11 29 23 6 160

b. Timeliness 

standards 21 13 13 31 17 4 163

Page 101 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Decision Making

Q72. Overall, when you think about the out-of-status affirmative asylum cases you adjudicated during the past year, would you say that 

it has been easier for you to grant asylum or to refer a case to an immigration judge? 

Much easier 

to grant 

asylum

(percent) 

Generally

easier to grant 

asylum

(percent) 

No easier to

grant than to 

refer 

(percent) 

Generally

easier to refer

(percent)

Much easier 

to refer

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

13 14 54 10 5 2 164

Q73. If you found that it was easier to decide a case in a particular way for out-of-status applicants, please explain why.

Q74. Overall, when you think about the in-status affirmative asylum cases you adjudicated during the past year, would you say that it 

has been easier for you to grant asylum or to issue a notice of intent to deny (NOID)? 

Much easier 

to grant 

asylum

(percent) 

Generally

easier to grant 

asylum

(percent) 

No easier to

grant than to 

issue a NOID 

(percent) 

Generally

easier to issue 

a NOID

(percent)

Much easier 

to issue a 

NOID

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

25 16 50 4 2 3 161

Q75. If you found that it was easier to decide a case in a particular way for in-status applicants, please explain why. 

Q76. Are there any factors, other than the merits of the asylum case, that influence your decisions? 

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

38 58 4 162

Q77. Please explain what these factors are and the circumstances in which they arise. 

Q78. Think about the affirmative asylum cases in which you granted asylum during the past year. In about how many of these cases 

did you grant asylum to an applicant who met the legal standard, even though you did not believe the applicant's claim?

All of almost 

all of the 

cases in

which I 

granted

asylum

(percent) 

Most of the 

cases in

which I 

granted

asylum

(percent) 

About half of 

the cases in

which I 

granted

asylum

(percent) 

Some of the 

cases in

which I 

granted

asylum

(percent)

None or

almost none

of the cases in

which I 

granted

asylum

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

7 9 11 45 24 4 170

Page 102 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Q79. In such cases, why did you grant asylum? 

Q80. In general, how effective or ineffective is having supervisory asylum officers review 100 percent of affirmative asylum decisions in 

accomplishing each of the following objectives? 

Very effective

(percent) 

Moderately 

effective 

(percent) 

Neither 

effective nor

ineffective

(percent)

Moderately 

ineffective

(percent)

Very 

ineffective 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Improving 

the quality of 

decisions 22 31 21 11 12 4 170

b. Promoting 

consistency in 

decisionmaking 18 19 21 11 27 5 170

c. Ensuring 

compliance 

with 

procedures 33 40 9 6 8 5 169

Q81. Thinking about your current supervisor, how often would you say that supervisory review of your affirmative asylum cases: 

Always or

almost always

(percent) 

Most of the 

time 

(percent) 

About half of 

the time

(percent)

Some of the 

time

(percent)

Never or

almost never

(percent) 

Unable to 

estimate

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. resulted in

your decision 

being returned 

to you for 

substantive 

correction? 5 1 4 34 55 1 167

b. changed the

outcome of 

your decision 

from a grant to 

a referral or 

denial? 4 1 2 25 67 1 169

c. changed the

outcome of 

your decision 

from a denial or

referral to a 

grant? 2 2 0 26 68 2 169

Page 103 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers 

Q82. How often has the decision you reached in an affirmative asylum case been influenced by your perception of how your current 

supervisor would like you to decide the case? 

Always or

almost always

(percent) 

Most of the 

time 

(percent) 

About half of 

the time 

(percent) 

Some of the 

time

(percent)

Never or

almost never

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

9 10 8 28 44 2 170

Q83. In cases, if any, where your decision was influenced by your perception of what your supervisor wanted, in which of the following

ways did you tend to make the decision?

Granted

asylum rather

than referred

or issued a 

NOID 

(percent) 

Referred or

issued a NOID 

rather than

granted

asylum

(percent) 

No more likely 

to decide one 

way or the 

other

(percent) 

Not applicable

(percent)

Don't know

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

25 21 28 24 2 163

Closing

Q84. Please provide any additional comments or ideas you have for improving the quality of the asylum process or adjudications within

USCIS. 

Page 104 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

We sent our Web-based survey to all supervisory asylum officers who were 

in their position at the end of fiscal year 2006. We received 43 responses 

from supervisory asylum officers, resulting in a 77 percent response rate. 

To ensure survey respondents had recent knowledge about the issues our 

survey explored, 3 of the 43 respondents were directed to not complete 

the rest of survey because their responses to initial questions indicated

that, over the past year, they were not a first-line supervisor responsible 

for reviewing asylum officer decisions or had reviewed no, or almost no, 

asylum decisions. Although 40 supervisory asylum officers completed the 

survey, the number answering any particular question may be lower, 

depending on how many chose to answer any given question. In addition, 

for certain questions, respondents were instructed to skip particular 

questions based on their responses to previous questions. Each question 

includes the number of supervisory asylum officers responding to it. 

Our survey was comprised of closed- and open-ended questions. In this 

appendix, we include all the survey questions and aggregate results of 

responses to the closed-ended questions; we do not provide information 

on responses provided to the open-ended questions. For a more detailed

discussion of our survey methodology see appendix IV. 

Background 

Q1. How long have you been a supervisory asylum officer? (In years) 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

6 5 0 16 43

Q2. How long have you been a supervisory asylum officer with the office you are assigned to currently? (In years) 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

6 5 0 16 42

Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Page 105 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Q3. Currently, how many asylum officers do you directly supervise? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

5 5 0 9 43

Q4. Over the past year, did your responsibilities include being a first-line supervisor responsible for reviewing asylum officer decisions? 

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Number 

of 

respondents

98 2 43

Q5. Over the past year, about how many of the decisions you reviewed were affirmative asylum decisions? 

All or almost 

all decisions

(percent) 

Most 

decisions

(percent) 

About half the

decisions

(percent) 

Some 

decisions

(percent)

No or almost 

no decisions

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

33 38 21 2 5 42

Supervisory Asylum Officer Responsibilities

Q6. How easy or difficult is it for you to carry out each of the following responsibilities in the time available? 

Very easy 

(percent) 

Moderately 

easy 

(percent) 

Neither easy 

nor difficult

(percent)

Moderately 

difficult

(percent)

Very difficult 

(percent) 

Not applicable

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Supervise

subordinates 0 13 20 50 18 0 40

b. Evaluate the

overall 

performance of

asylum officers

you supervise 0 15 8 48 30 0 40

c. Assess 

asylum officers' 

productivity 

and timely case

completion 5 18 18 26 33 0 39

Page 106 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Very easy 

(percent) 

Moderately 

easy 

(percent) 

Neither easy 

nor difficult

(percent)

Moderately 

difficult

(percent)

Very difficult 

(percent) 

Not applicable

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

d. Observe and 

provide 

feedback on an

average of one

interview per 

month for each

asylum officer 

you supervise 0 13 10 35 43 0 40

e. Evaluate 24

written 

decisions per 

year for each of

the asylum 

officers you 

supervise 0 8 20 48 23 3 40

f. Review 100 

percent of 

written 

decisions of the 

asylum officers

you supervise 0 13 15 40 33 0 40

g. Assess the 

legal analysis 

of the written 

decisions you 

review 5 28 18 43 8 0 40

h. Identify 

emerging 

trends in fraud 3 18 26 23 31 0 39

i. Assess 

training needs 

of asylum 

officers you 

supervise 10 23 31 23 13 0 39

j. Stay current 

with asylum 

regulations, 

case law, and 

procedures 3 20 18 30 30 0 40

k. Stay current 

with country 

conditions 0 18 25 40 18 0 40

l. Perform 

collateral 

duties, as 

assigned to 

you 3 5 13 35 45 0 40

Page 107 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Very easy 

(percent) 

Moderately 

easy 

(percent) 

Neither easy 

nor difficult

(percent)

Moderately 

difficult

(percent)

Very difficult 

(percent) 

Not applicable

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

m. Manage 

your own 

workload 0 5 25 35 35 0 40

Q7. How inherently easy or difficult do you consider each of the following responsibilities without regard for the time available to carry 

them out? 

Very easy 

(percent) 

Moderately 

easy 

(percent) 

Neither easy 

nor difficult

(percent)

Moderately 

difficult

(percent)

Very difficult 

(percent) 

Not applicable

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Supervise

subordinates 10 33 23 20 15 0 40

b. Evaluate the

overall 

performance of

asylum officers

you supervise 13 38 20 23 8 0 40

c. Assess 

asylum officers' 

productivity 

and timely case

completion 18 38 20 18 8 0 40

d. Observe and 

provide 

feedback on an

average of one

interview per 

month for each

asylum officer 

you supervise 20 38 20 18 5 0 40

e. Evaluate 24

written 

decisions per 

year for each of

the asylum 

officers you 

supervise 20 40 20 13 8 0 40

f. Review 100 

percent of 

written 

decisions of the 

asylum officers

you supervise 23 30 20 18 10 0 40

Page 108 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Very easy 

(percent) 

Moderately 

easy 

(percent) 

Neither easy 

nor difficult

(percent)

Moderately 

difficult

(percent)

Very difficult 

(percent) 

Not applicable

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

g. Assess the 

legal analysis 

of the written 

decisions you 

review 28 30 18 23 3 0 40

h. Identify 

emerging 

trends in fraud 10 33 21 23 13 0 39

i. Assess 

training needs 

of asylum 

officers you 

supervise 26 31 26 15 3 0 39

j. Stay current 

with asylum 

regulations, 

case law, and 

procedures 10 35 18 25 13 0 40

k. Stay current 

with country 

conditions 18 35 23 18 8 0 40

l. Perform 

collateral 

duties, as 

assigned to 

you 10 30 28 18 15 0 40

m. Manage 

your own 

workload 10 38 28 10 15 0 40

Q7n. For any of the responsibilities you rated as moderately difficult or very difficult in Questions 7a to 7m above, why do you consider 

them difficult? 

Q7o. What other aspects of your job as a supervisor, if any, do you consider to be difficult and why?

Page 109 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Q8. Over the past year, on average, about how many hours per week did you spend carrying out collateral duties (e.g., Fraud 

Prevention Coordinator, Collateral Duty Safety Officer)? 

(Number of respondents is 43.) 

Percent

Less than 4 

hours 2 

4 or more 

hours but less 

than 8 hours 21 

8 or more 

hours but less 

than 12 hours 19 

12 or more 

hours but less 

than 16 hours 14 

16 or more 

hours but less 

than 20 hours 12 

20 or more 

hours 26 

Don't know 0 

Q9. Think about the affirmative asylum decisions you reviewed over the past year. About how many of these decisions did you: 

All or almost 

all of the 

decisions I 

reviewed

(percent) 

Most of the 

decisions I 

reviewed

(percent) 

About half of 

the decisions I 

reviewed

(percent)

Some of the 

decisions I 

reviewed

(percent)

None or

almost none

of the

decisions I 

reviewed

(percent) 

Unable to 

estimate

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. return for 

correction 

using the 

Written 

Decision 

Evaluation 

Form? 3 3 13 66 8 8 38

b. return for 

correction 

using the 

Administrative 

Tasks 

Evaluation 

Form? 5 3 18 55 13 5 38

Page 110 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

All or almost 

all of the 

decisions I 

reviewed

(percent) 

Most of the 

decisions I 

reviewed

(percent) 

About half of 

the decisions I 

reviewed

(percent)

Some of the 

decisions I 

reviewed

(percent)

None or

almost none

of the

decisions I 

reviewed

(percent) 

Unable to 

estimate

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

c. return 

without using 

an evaluation 

form? 5 3 8 55 24 5 38

Q10. Of the affirmative asylum decisions you returned to asylum officers for correction during the past year using the Written Decision 

Evaluation Form, about how many did you return due to deficiencies in the following areas? 

All or almost 

all of the 

decisions I 

returned 

(percent) 

Most of the 

decisions I 

returned 

(percent) 

About half of 

the decisions I 

returned

(percent)

Some of the 

decisions I 

returned

(percent)

None or

almost none

of the

decisions I 

returned 

(percent) 

Unable to 

estimate

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Writing style 

(encompasses 

the following

standards: 

required 

elements, clear

and concise, 

and accurate 

and objective) 0 3 16 47 34 0 38

b. Legal 

analysis 

(encompasses 

the following

standards: 

credibility, 

harm, nexus, 

bars, and the 

one-year filing 

deadline) 24 18 21 34 3 0 38

Q11. Of the affirmative asylum decisions you returned for correction during the past year using the Written Decision Evaluation Form, 

in about how many did your review result in asylum officers changing the outcome of the case? 

All or almost 

all of the 

decisions I 

returned 

(percent) 

Most of the 

decisions I 

returned 

(percent) 

About half of 

the decisions I 

returned 

(percent) 

Some of the 

decisions I 

returned

(percent)

None or

almost none

of the

decisions I 

returned

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

5 15 3 51 21 5 39

Page 111 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Q12. In general, how effective or ineffective is having supervisory asylum officers review 100 percent of affirmative asylum decisions in

accomplishing each of the following objectives? 

Very effective

(percent) 

Moderately 

effective 

(percent) 

Neither 

effective nor

ineffective

(percent)

Moderately 

ineffective

(percent)

Very 

ineffective 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Improving 

the quality of 

decisions 43 40 10 5 3 0 40

b. Promoting 

consistency in 

decision 

making 30 43 8 10 5 5 40

c. Ensuring 

compliance 

with 

procedures 53 38 10 0 0 0 40

Assignment of Cases to Asylum Officers

Q13. How effective or ineffective do you think your office's current process is for assigning affirmative asylum cases to officers in: 

Very effective

(percent) 

Moderately 

effective 

(percent) 

Neither 

effective nor

ineffective

(percent)

Moderately 

ineffective

(percent)

Very 

ineffective 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. preventing 

fraud by asylum

officers (e.g., 

precluding 

officers from 

arranging to 

adjudicate 

particular cases 

for money or 

other 

compensation)? 68 15 5 3 8 3 40

b. ensuring 

equitable 

distribution of 

workload 

among asylum 

officers? 38 36 10 10 5 0 39

Page 112 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Q14. What, if anything, do you think could be done to improve the current process for assigning affirmative asylum cases in your 

office? 

Q15. In about how many affirmative asylum cases, if any, do you think that asylum officers' expertise (e.g., language capability or 

expertise in a particular geographic area) should be considered when affirmative asylum cases are assigned to officers? 

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases 

(percent) 

Some cases

(percent)

No or almost 

no cases

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

3 18 5 38 33 5 40

Asylum Officer Responsibilities

Q16. What challenges, if any, have the greatest impact on asylum officers' ability to adjudicate affirmative asylum cases in a manner 

consistent with the procedures manual and training? 

Please identify up to 3 challenges--one challenge per response box--and answer the following questions for each: 

(a) How would you describe the challenge? 

(b) What are the impacts of this challenge? and 

(c) What, if anything, would you suggest that the Asylum Division or USCIS do to help asylum officers overcome this challenge? 

Q17. In about how many cases, if any, do you think that challenges the asylum officers you supervise face hinder their ability to 

adjudicate affirmative asylum cases in a manner consistent with the procedures manual and training? 

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases 

(percent) 

Some cases

(percent)

No or almost 

no cases

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

16 26 21 34 3 0 38

Q18. In general, how well or poorly do you think the asylum officers you supervise consider each of the following aspects of the oneyear rule in adjudicating affirmative asylum cases? 

Very well 

(percent) 

Moderately 

well 

(percent) 

Neither well 

nor poorly

(percent)

Moderately 

poorly

(percent)

Very poorly 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Determining 

whether clear 

and convincing

evidence exists 

that the 

application was 

filed within one

year of entering

the country 28 53 13 8 0 0 40

Page 113 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Very well 

(percent) 

Moderately 

well 

(percent) 

Neither well 

nor poorly

(percent)

Moderately 

poorly

(percent)

Very poorly 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

b. Determining 

whether 

evidence exists 

for an 

exception to 

the one-year 

rule 20 58 13 10 0 0 40

c. Identifying 

and analyzing 

country 

condition 

information in 

applying the 

exceptions of 

the one-year 

rule 28 43 20 10 0 0 40

d. Determining 

whether the 

delay in filing 

was 

reasonable in 

light of the 

circumstances 20 60 13 8 0 0 40

Q19. In general, how well or poorly do you think asylum officers you supervise apply each of the following provisions of the REAL ID 

Act in adjudicating affirmative asylum cases?

Very well 

(percent) 

Moderately 

well 

(percent) 

Neither well 

nor poorly

(percent)

Moderately 

poorly

(percent)

Very poorly 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Determining 

whether the 

applicant has 

established 

that one of the 

five protected 

grounds was or

will be at least 

one central 

reason for the 

persecution 25 45 20 8 3 0 40

Page 114 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Very well 

(percent) 

Moderately 

well 

(percent) 

Neither well 

nor poorly

(percent)

Moderately 

poorly

(percent)

Very poorly 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

b. Determining 

whether the 

applicant 

should provide 

evidence that 

corroborates 

otherwise

credible 

testimony 5 50 23 13 8 3 40

c. Factoring a 

relevant 

inconsistency, 

inaccuracy, or 

falsehood into 

a credibility 

determination, 

even if the 

inconsistency, 

inaccuracy, or 

falsehood does

not go to the 

heart of the 

applicant's 

claim 3 50 25 18 5 0 40

Asylum Officer Workload

Q20. How much time, on average, do you think asylum officers need to complete an affirmative asylum case in a manner consistent

with the procedures manual and training? 

(Number of respondents is 43.) 

Percent

3 hours or less 9 

About 4 hours 16 

About 5 hours 33 

About 6 hours 21 

About 7 hours 7 

About 8 hours 7 

More than 8 

hours 0

Unable to 

estimate 0 

Page 115 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Q21. How easy or difficult do you think it is for the asylum officers you supervise to manage their workload? 

Very easy 

(percent) 

Moderately 

easy 

(percent) 

Neither easy 

nor difficult 

(percent) 

Moderately 

difficult

(percent)

Very difficult

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

0 0 5 55 40 0 40

Q22. What, if anything, can be done to help asylum officers better manage their workload?

Fraud

Q23. Overall, how effective or ineffective do you think the FDNS-IO (Fraud Detection and National Security Immigration Officer)

position is in identifying or verifying fraud in affirmative asylum cases? 

Very effective

(percent) 

Moderately 

effective 

(percent) 

Neither 

effective nor

ineffective 

(percent) 

Moderately 

ineffective

(percent)

Very 

ineffective

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

15 35 13 8 18 13 40

Q24. What, if anything, would make the FDNS-IO position more effective?

Q25. On average, how well or poorly do the asylum officers you supervise identify whether or not fraud exists in the affirmative asylum 

cases they adjudicate? 

Very well 

(percent) 

Moderately 

well 

(percent) 

Neither well 

nor poorly

(percent) 

Moderately 

poorly

(percent)

Very poorly

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

10 31 38 15 5 0 39

Q26. In about how many of the affirmative asylum decisions you reviewed during the past year did asylum officers not complete a fraud 

referral sheet when you thought they should have? 

All or almost 

all of the 

decisions I 

reviewed

(percent) 

Most of the 

decisions I 

reviewed

(percent) 

About half of 

the decisions I 

reviewed

(percent) 

Some of the 

decisions I 

reviewed

(percent)

None or

almost none

of the

decisions I 

reviewed

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

0 10 10 44 28 8 39

Page 116 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Q27. What, if anything, can be done to help asylum officers better identify whether or not fraud exists in the cases they adjudicate? 

Q28. What, if anything, do you think can be done to deter or cut down on fraud in affirmative asylum cases? 

Country Condition Information

Q29. How useful do you think each of the following types of case-specific information would be in adjudicating affirmative asylum 

cases? 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. Entire visa 

application in 

addition to 

what is 

available in 

CCD 88 5 8 0 0 40

b. Department 

of State 

advisory 

opinion 28 25 33 8 8 40

c. Overseas 

employment 

records or 

verification 88 3 10 0 0 40

d. Overseas 

medical

records or 

verification 85 8 8 0 0 40

e. Other 78 0 6 0 17 18

Q30. How well do you understand the process(es) used in your office for requesting overseas verification (e.g., employment or medical 

records or verification)? 

Greatly 

understand

(percent) 

Moderately 

understand

(percent) 

Slightly 

understand

(percent) 

Hardly or not 

at all 

understand

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

16 41 16 27 37

Page 117 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Q31. How, if at all, do you think the process(es) could be improved for requesting and obtaining overseas verification? 

Training

Q32. How much, if at all, do you think asylum officers need additional training on the following topics to improve their ability to 

adjudicate affirmative asylum claims? 

Greatly need

(percent) 

Moderately 

need

(percent) 

Slightly need

(percent) Not at all need

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. Asylum 

process and 

procedures 32 29 39 0 0 38

b. Conducting 

identity and 

security checks

(i.e., database 

queries and 

any related 

research) 23 63 15 0 0 40

c. Interpreting 

the results of 

identity and 

security checks 38 50 10 3 0 40

d. One-year 

filing deadline 13 30 48 10 0 40

e. Mandatory 

bars to asylum 23 50 23 5 0 40

f. Issues 

related to 

national 

security 33 40 28 0 0 40

g. Overall 

interviewing 

skills 53 35 13 0 0 40

h. Eliciting 

sufficient 

information

during 

interviews 58 25 18 0 0 40

i. Remaining 

non-adversarial

during 

interviews 13 35 35 18 0 40

Page 118 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Greatly need

(percent) 

Moderately 

need

(percent) 

Slightly need

(percent) Not at all need

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

j. Intercultural 

communication

and other 

factors that 

may impede 

communication

in the interview 20 28 40 10 3 40

k. 

Understanding 

how stress and 

trauma may 

affect the 

interview 23 33 40 5 0 40

l. Assessing 

credibility 50 45 5 0 0 40

m. Current 

trends in fraud 28 65 8 0 0 40

n. Identifying 

fraudulent 

documents 55 30 13 0 3 40

o. Identifying 

fraud in claim 43 38 18 3 0 40

p. Identifying 

interpreter 

fraud 26 56 13 5 0 39

q. Identifying 

preparer fraud 33 48 15 5 0 40

r. Identifying 

attorney fraud 33 43 20 5 0 40

s. Using the 

Asylum Virtual 

Library 30 45 25 0 0 40

t. Other country

condition 

research 

methods 23 48 28 3 0 40

u. Country 

condition 

updates 23 44 31 3 0 39

v. Applying 

country 

condition 

information 15 59 23 3 0 39

Page 119 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Greatly need

(percent) 

Moderately 

need

(percent) 

Slightly need

(percent) Not at all need

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

w. U.S. asylum 

law (e.g., case 

law, changes in

statute and 

regulations) 35 43 23 0 0 40

x. Conducting 

legal research 33 38 28 0 0 39

y. Applying the

REAL ID Act 35 55 10 0 0 40

z. Writing 

decisions 25 45 30 0 0 40

aa. Time 

management 65 20 15 0 0 40

Q33. Are there topics, other than those listed in the previous question, that you think should be addressed through training for asylum 

officers? 

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

22 44 34 32

Q34. What other topic(s) should be addressed through training for asylum officers? 

Q35. Have you attended the Asylum Division's 2-week Supervisory Asylum Officer's Training Course? 

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

65 35 0 40

Q36. Overall, how well or poorly did the Asylum Division's 2-week Supervisory Asylum Officer's Training Course prepare you for 

reviewing asylum officer decisions? 

[Where Q35 is "Yes"] 

Very well 

(percent) 

Moderately 

well 

(percent) 

Neither well 

nor poorly

(percent) 

Moderately 

poorly

(percent)

Very poorly

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

36 20 32 4 8 0 25

Page 120 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Q37. Do you think the Asylum Division's 2-week Supervisory Asylum Officer's Training Course needs to be improved in any of the 

following areas to help you better carry out your duties as a supervisory asylum officer? 

[Where Q35 is "Yes"] 

Yes 

(percent) 

No 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Providing 

feedback on 

asylum officer 

written 

decisions 54 42 4 24

b. Providing 

feedback on 

asylum officer 

interviews 42 54 4 24

c. Analyzing 

credibility 50 46 4 24

d. 

Understanding 

concepts of 

burden of proof 42 54 4 24

e. Identifying 

and analyzing 

mandatory bars 

to asylum 38 58 4 24

f. Analyzing 

nexus to a 

protected 

characteristic 33 63 4 24

g. Analyzing 

whether harm 

rises to the 

level of 

persecution 25 71 4 24

h. 

Understanding 

and 

contributing to 

Asylum 

Division efforts 

to combat 

asylum fraud 52 39 9 23

i. Analyzing the

one-year filing 

deadline 

requirement 

and exceptions 29 67 4 24

Page 121 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum 

Officers 

Q38. As a supervisor, is there any additional training that you think should be provided to improve your ability to do your job or 

contribute to the Asylum Program? 

Closing

Q39. Please provide any additional comments or ideas you have for improving the quality of the asylum process or adjudications within

USCIS. 

Page 122 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

Page 123 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges

We sent our Web-based survey to all immigration judges who were in their 

position at the end of fiscal year 2006. We received 160 responses from 

immigration judges, resulting in a 77 percent response rate. To ensure 

survey respondents had recent knowledge about the issues our survey 

explored, 1 of the 160 respondents was directed to not complete the rest of 

survey because his or her response to an initial question indicated that the 

immigration judge had heard no, or almost no, asylum cases over the past 

year. Although 159 immigration judges completed the survey, the number 

answering any particular question may be lower, depending on how many 

chose to answer any given question. In addition, for certain questions, 

respondents were instructed to skip particular questions based on their 

responses to previous questions. Each question includes the number of 

asylum officers responding to it. 

Our survey was comprised of closed- and open-ended questions. In this 

appendix, we include all the survey questions and aggregate results of 

responses to the closed-ended questions; we do not provide information 

on responses provided to the open-ended questions. For a more detailed

discussion of our survey methodology see appendix IV. 

Background 

Q1. How many years have you served as a United States Immigration Judge? (In years)

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

11 12 1 27 158

Q2. Of the cases you have heard during the past year, about how many would you say were asylum cases? 

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases 

(percent) 

Some cases

(percent)

No or almost 

no cases

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

4 39 36 20 1 160

Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

Q3. Which of the following statements best describes the detention status of asylum applicants who appear before you? 

All or almost 

all are 

detained

(percent) 

Most are 

detained

(percent) 

About half are 

detained

(percent) 

Some are 

detained

(percent)

None or

almost none

are detained

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

14 4 2 26 53 0 159

Q4. In general, how would you compare the overall complexity of the asylum cases you hear to the other types of immigration cases 

you hear, taking into account factors such as case law, facts of the case, and country conditions? 

Asylum cases

I hear are 

generally

much more 

complex than

other

immigration 

cases. 

(percent) 

Asylum cases

I hear are 

generally

slightly more 

complex than

other

immigration 

cases. 

(percent) 

There is 

generally no 

difference 

between the 

complexity in

the asylum

cases I hear 

and other

immigration 

cases. 

(percent) 

Asylum cases

I hear are 

generally

slightly less 

complex than

other

immigration 

cases.

(percent)

Asylum cases

I hear are 

generally

much less 

complex than

other

immigration 

cases.

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

48 29 14 6 2 1 157

Resources

Q5. In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the current quality of the following resources in helping you carry out your 

judicial responsibilities? 

Very satisfied

(percent) 

Moderately 

satisfied

(percent) 

Neither 

satisfied nor

dissatisfied

(percent)

Moderately 

dissatisfied

(percent)

Very 

dissatisfied

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. In-house 

interpreters 63 28 4 5 0 0 144

b. Contracted 

interpreters: in 

person 28 58 6 6 1 0 156

c. Contracted 

interpreters: 

over the phone 6 36 16 21 18 5 154

d. Transcription 

services 4 16 15 36 28 1 151

e. Recording 

equipment 0 5 4 18 72 1 156

f. Other 4 0 0 16 76 4 25

Page 124 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

Q6. In your opinion, how much, if at all, would each of the following changes improve your ability to carry out your judicial 

responsibilities? 

Greatly 

improve

(percent) 

Moderately 

improve

(percent) 

Slightly 

improve

(percent)

Not at all 

improve

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. Additional 

immigration 

judges in your 

court 63 21 8 8 1 156

b. Additional 

law clerks in 

your court 87 10 2 1 0 158

c. Additional 

administrative 

staff in your 

court 45 32 16 6 1 156

d. Additional 

on-bench 

reference 

materials 29 37 24 10 1 156

e. 

Standardized

decision 

templates 24 30 23 23 1 151

f. Updates to 

the current 

Immigration 

Judge 

Benchbook 23 32 28 15 2 151

g. Written 

transcripts of 

your 

proceedings 

before you 

make a 

decision 53 18 13 12 4 151

h. Digital 

courtroom 

recording 

equipment 73 10 4 0 13 157

i. Access to 

Asylum 

Program's 

Virtual Library 

(formerly 

Resource

Information 

Center) 30 38 13 7 12 151

j. Other 90 3 0 0 6 31

Page 125 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

Country Conditions

Q7. In your opinion, how useful is each of the following sources of country conditions information in helping you render decisions in

asylum cases? 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Little or no 

experience

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. Country 

conditions 

information

contained in

the asylum 

applicant's file 

(from the 

Asylum Office) 18 29 24 10 19 154

b. Country 

conditions 

information

submitted by 

the government 

attorney (DHS 

Assistant Chief 

Counsel) 32 46 15 2 6 158

c. Country 

conditions 

information

submitted by 

the asylum 

applicant 

during 

proceedings 32 47 19 1 0 158

d. EOIR Virtual 

Law Library 39 36 14 4 6 156

e. Department 

of State Web 

site 19 39 20 3 19 156

f. Department 

of State's 

annual Country

Reports on

Human Rights 

Practices and 

International 

Religious 

Freedom 

reports 52 35 12 2 0 155

Page 126 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Little or no 

experience

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

g. Department 

of State's 

Profiles of 

Asylum Claims

and Country 

Conditions 50 31 15 4 0 157

h. Department 

of State's fraud 

summary 

reports 22 14 14 6 45 155

i. Specific 

responses to 

inquiries you 

made to the 

Department of 

State's Bureau 

of Democracy, 

Human Rights,

and Labor 36 7 5 10 42 149

j. A law clerk's 

research 63 17 6 1 14 153

k. Your own 

research 68 22 2 1 7 149

l. Other 75 10 0 0 15 20

Q8. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the tools you currently have for doing country conditions research? 

Very satisfied

(percent) 

Moderately 

satisfied

(percent) 

Neither 

satisfied nor

dissatisfied

(percent) 

Moderately 

dissatisfied

(percent)

Very 

dissatisfied

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

10 39 17 24 9 0 156

Assistance from Other Organizations

Q9. How useful do you think each of the following types of case-specific information would be in rendering your decisions in asylum 

cases? 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. Visa 

application 61 23 10 3 2 158

Page 127 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

b. Document 

verification 

from the 

Forensic 

Document 

Laboratory 86 10 3 1 0 157

c. Overseas 

medical

document or 

verification 83 9 6 1 1 158

d. Overseas 

employment 

document or 

verification 69 17 10 2 2 156

e. Overseas 

investigation 86 7 4 1 1 156

f. Other casespecific 

information or 

services 78 10 2 0 10 49

Q10. In about how many of the asylum cases you heard during the past year did you need, but did not have, any of the following casespecific information? 

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases

(percent)

Some cases

(percent)

None or

almost no

cases 

(percent) 

Unable to 

estimate

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Visa 

application 25 14 6 26 23 6 153

b. Document 

verification 

from the 

Forensic 

Document 

Laboratory 19 24 15 27 13 3 156

c. Overseas 

medical

document or 

verification 24 17 15 27 14 3 153

d. Overseas 

employment 

document or 

verification 26 13 9 24 25 4 152

e. Overseas 

investigation 32 19 8 19 19 3 154

Page 128 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

None or

almost no

cases 

(percent) 

Unable to 

estimate

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases

(percent)

Some cases

(percent)

f. Other casespecific 

information or 

services 38 9 6 6 22 19 32

Q11. Thinking about your decision-making process in asylum cases, how useful do you think it would be to receive the following 

information if it were available?

Very useful

(percent) 

Moderately 

useful

(percent) 

Slightly useful

(percent)

Not at all 

useful

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. Asylum 

officer's written 

decision 28 25 30 16 1 158

b. Asylum 

officer's 

interview writeup 25 32 30 11 2 158

c. Asylum 

officer's notes 24 28 29 18 1 157

d. Transcripts 

of the asylum 

interview 61 22 11 5 1 157

e. Recordings 

of the asylum 

interview 39 14 18 25 4 155

Q12. What additional information, if any, would be useful to you in rendering decisions in asylum cases?

 

Page 129 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

Professional Development 

Q13. How much, if at all, has each of the following professional development activities enhanced your ability to adjudicate asylum 

cases? 

Greatly 

enhanced

(percent) 

Moderately 

enhanced

(percent) 

Slightly 

enhanced

(percent)

Hardly or not 

at all 

enhanced

(percent)

Little or no 

experience

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. Attending 

National 

Judicial 

College 

(training for 

new 

immigration 

judges) 27 17 13 8 35 136

b. Observing 

an experienced 

immigration 

judge in 

another court 30 33 15 5 17 149

c. Being 

mentored by an

experienced 

immigration 

judge 33 27 15 6 20 143

d. Mentoring a 

new 

immigration 

judge 18 23 12 7 40 146

e. Attending 

national 

conferences for 

immigration 

judges in 

person 51 29 12 8 1 158

f. Attending 

national 

conferences for 

immigration 

judges through

telephone, 

videoconferenc

e, tapes or CDs 3 12 37 38 10 156

g. Attending a 

national 

conference 

panel on the 

REAL ID Act 21 17 6 9 47 141

Page 130 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

Hardly or not 

at all 

enhanced

(percent)

Greatly 

enhanced

(percent) 

Moderately 

enhanced

(percent) 

Slightly 

enhanced

(percent)

Little or no 

experience

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

h. Receiving 

monthly 

updates on 

immigration law 

developments 46 41 12 0 1 158

i. Informal 

meetings with 

other 

immigration 

judges 54 31 6 3 6 156

j. Other 

professional 

development 

opportunities 60 10 0 0 30 40

Q14. How much, if at all, do you need additional professional development or training in the following areas to enhance your ability to

adjudicate asylum cases? 

Greatly 

needed

(percent) 

Moderately 

needed

(percent) 

Slightly 

needed

(percent)

Not at all 

needed

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. Assessing 

credibility 23 36 24 15 3 155

b. Identifying 

fraud 43 30 16 8 3 152

c. U.S. asylum 

law (e.g., 

changes in 

statute and 

regulations, 

BIA and circuit 

court 

decisions) 19 35 31 12 2 155

d. One-year 

rule 5 11 36 46 2 157

e. Rendering 

an oral

decision 8 23 31 36 1 156

f. Rendering a 

written decision 6 17 29 45 3 154

g. Time 

management 

training 12 18 23 43 4 155

Page 131 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

Greatly 

needed

(percent) 

Moderately 

needed

(percent) 

Slightly 

needed

(percent)

Not at all 

needed

(percent)

Don't know

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

h. Sensitivity 

and cultural 

awareness 

training 8 19 36 34 3 157

i. Nongovernmental

training and 

conferences 20 18 29 16 16 153

j. Intergovernmental

agency 

conferences 

(DHS, State) 26 29 21 12 13 156

k. Observing 

how other 

immigration 

judges handle 

asylum cases 

in their 

courtrooms 17 29 27 22 4 157

l. Informal 

meetings with 

other 

immigration 

judges 36 39 15 5 4 156

m. Detail 

opportunities at

Board of 

Immigration 

Appeals 37 25 9 19 10 155

n. Additional 

continuing 

education on

asylum issues 41 35 17 4 3 156

o. Other 70 5 0 0 25 20

Caseload 

Q15. Think about your allocated administrative time (time off the bench). Over the past year, about what portion of that time, on 

average, did you use to hear cases? 

All or almost 

all of that time 

(percent) 

Most of that 

time 

(percent) 

About half of 

that time 

(percent) 

Some of that 

time

(percent)

None or

almost none

of that time

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

41 17 10 17 14 1 157

Page 132 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

Q16. On average, about how many hours do you think you need each week to complete the work you do off the bench (e.g., manage 

your caseload, stay current with case law, evaluate motions, and keep up with administrative tasks)? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

11 10 4 50 156

Q17. How much does each of the following factors help or hinder your ability to manage your caseload?

Greatly help

(percent) 

Somewhat 

help 

(percent) 

Neither help 

nor hinder

(percent)

Somewhat 

hinder

(percent)

Greatly hinder 

(percent) 

Little or no 

experience

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. 

Requirements 

for case 

completion 

goals 3 6 18 24 49 0 157

b. Time 

requirements 

for expedited 

asylum cases 3 6 21 34 35 1 156

c. Deadlines for 

older cases 

awaiting 

adjudication 3 9 18 24 42 4 157

d. Applicants 

withdrawing 

applications for

asylum 24 25 31 8 2 11 156

e. Applicants 

who have 

representation 65 21 11 3 1 0 158

f. Grouping 

cases by 

interpreters 18 30 27 8 4 13 154

g. Serving as a

visiting judge in

another 

immigration 

court 6 13 23 20 16 23 153

h. Having a 

visiting 

immigration 

judge on detail

in your court 17 39 26 4 0 13 150

Page 133 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

Greatly help

(percent) 

Somewhat 

help 

(percent) 

Neither help 

nor hinder

(percent)

Somewhat 

hinder

(percent)

Greatly hinder 

(percent) 

Little or no 

experience

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

i. Having 

immigration 

judges from 

other courts 

hear cases via 

videoconferenc

e 11 29 24 4 1 32 152

j. Waiting for 

DHS to 

complete 

background 

checks 1 1 14 40 42 1 156

k. Waiting for 

DHS to obtain 

forensic 

documents 3 3 10 37 42 6 158

l. Applicants 

seeking to 

change venue 

without a valid 

basis 1 0 44 26 18 12 154

m. Double 

booking cases 7 16 15 21 23 19 155

n. Other 5 5 0 14 67 10 21

Credibility and Fraud 

Q18. Over the past year, in about how many asylum cases did you find each of the following to be an impediment to assessing 

credibility? 

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases

(percent)

Some cases

(percent)

No or almost 

no cases 

(percent) 

Unable to 

estimate

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Lack of 

documentary 

evidence 19 28 23 26 2 3 156

b. Insufficient 

time to prepare

for and review 

cases 14 16 10 35 24 1 155

c. Quality of 

interpretation in

the courtroom 1 1 6 57 33 2 155

Page 134 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases

(percent)

Some cases

(percent)

No or almost 

no cases 

(percent) 

Unable to 

estimate

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

d. Lack of 

document 

verification 

from Forensic 

Document 

Laboratory 15 21 9 45 8 3 156

e. Lack of 

document 

verification 

from overseas 25 21 10 35 5 4 156

f. Lack of other 

overseas 

information on 

applicants 29 26 6 29 6 4 156

g. Lack of 

information on 

country 

conditions 2 8 6 39 41 3 157

h. Lack of a 

record from the 

asylum officer's 

interview 13 7 6 32 37 7 152

Q19. What other factors, if any, would you consider to be significant impediments to assessing credibility?

Q20. How familiar are you with EOIR's Fraud and Abuse Program? 

Very familiar 

(percent) 

Moderately 

familiar 

(percent) 

Somewhat 

familiar 

(percent) 

Not at all 

familiar

(percent)

Don't know

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

12 26 39 20 3 157

Q21. Of the asylum cases you heard during the past year, about how many cases did you refer to EOIR's Fraud and Abuse Program? 

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases 

(percent) 

No or almost 

no cases

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Some cases

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

0 0 0 6 94 0 154

Page 135 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

Q22. Overall, how easy or difficult is it for you to identify each of the following types of suspected fraud in asylum cases?

Very easy 

(percent) 

Moderately 

easy 

(percent) 

Neither easy 

nor difficult

(percent)

Moderately 

difficult

(percent)

Very difficult 

(percent) 

Don't know

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Suspected 

document fraud 4 21 16 31 25 3 154

b. Suspected 

identity fraud 1 16 14 32 34 3 154

c. Suspected 

preparer fraud 4 22 15 31 26 3 152

d. Suspected 

fraud in the 

claim 2 24 18 30 24 2 154

e. Suspected 

attorney fraud 1 17 15 27 39 2 151

f. Other 6 19 6 19 25 25 16

Q23. Over the past year, in about how many asylum cases would you say the following types of suspected fraud presented a challenge 

for you in deciding cases? 

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases

(percent)

Some cases

(percent)

No or almost 

no cases 

(percent) 

Unable to 

estimate

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Suspected 

document fraud 8 14 21 50 5 2 155

b. Suspected 

identity fraud 1 3 12 56 23 5 154

c. Suspected 

preparer fraud 4 7 13 61 11 4 152

d. Suspected 

fraud in the 

claim 6 19 29 39 4 3 154

e. Suspected 

attorney fraud 1 3 8 42 39 7 149

f. Other 0 15 31 23 15 15 13

Page 136 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

Rendering a Decision 

Q24. Over the past year, in about how many asylum cases were you satisfied with the level of preparation by the attorneys who 

appeared in your courtroom? 

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases

(percent)

Some cases

(percent)

No or almost 

no cases 

(percent) 

Unable to 

estimate

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Government

attorney (DHS 

Assistant Chief 

Counsel) 4 39 30 21 6 1 155

b. Applicant's 

attorney 1 22 46 30 1 0 152

Q25. In about how many of the asylum cases you heard during the past year, did issues related to the one-year rule (date of entry or 

eligibility for exceptions to the rule) have to be resolved? 

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases 

(percent) 

Some cases

(percent)

No or almost 

no cases

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

4 16 36 43 2 0 157

Q26. Think about the cases you heard during the past year in which issues related to the one-year rule had to be resolved. On

average, about how much time did you spend per case adjudicating the issue? 

Less than half 

an hour

(percent) 

At least half 

an hour but 

less than 1 

hour

(percent) 

At least 1 hour 

but less than

2 hours 

(percent) 

2 hours or

more

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate

(percent)

Not applicable 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

39 39 15 3 3 1 157

Q27. Of the cases in which you denied asylum during the past year, about how many did you deny solely because you found that the 

applicant was ineligible due to the one-year rule? 

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases 

(percent) 

Some cases

(percent)

No or almost 

no cases

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

1 3 8 73 10 4 157

Page 137 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

Q28. Over the past year, in about how many asylum cases did you make a frivolous application finding?

All or almost 

all cases 

(percent) 

Most cases 

(percent) 

About half the

cases 

(percent) 

Some cases

(percent)

No or almost 

no cases

(percent)

Unable to 

estimate 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

0 0 0 23 77 0 158

Q29. What, if any, barriers do you face in making a frivolous application finding? 

Q30. Overall, do you think the process involved in adjudicating asylum cases makes it easier for you to grant asylum or easier to deny 

asylum? 

Much easier 

to grant 

asylum

(percent) 

Generally

easier to grant 

asylum

(percent) 

No easier to

grant than to 

deny asylum

(percent) 

Generally

easier to deny

asylum

(percent)

Much easier 

to deny

asylum

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

Don't know

(percent) 

25 22 42 5 1 5 153

Q31. If you found that it was easier to decide asylum cases in a particular way, what about the process makes it easier to decide cases

in that way? 

Challenges 

Q32. How challenging, if at all, do you find each of the following aspects of adjudicating asylum cases?

Very 

challenging

(percent) 

Moderately 

challenging

(percent) 

Somewhat 

challenging

(percent)

Not at all 

challenging

(percent)

Not applicable 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

a. Time 

limitations 58 25 13 5 0 158

b. Managing 

your caseload 45 32 17 6 0 157

c. Assessing 

credibility 49 32 16 3 0 156

d. Identifying 

suspected 

fraud 39 32 24 4 2 153

e. Verifying 

fraud 73 15 9 1 2 151

f. Identifying 

national 

security risks 43 23 23 3 7 150

Page 138 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

Very 

challenging

(percent) 

Moderately 

challenging

(percent) 

Somewhat 

challenging

(percent)

Not at all 

challenging

(percent)

Not applicable 

(percent) 

Number

of 

respondents

g. Staying 

current with 

case law 19 39 32 10 0 157

h. Staying 

current with 

country 

conditions 20 34 38 8 0 157

i. Having to 

render oral 

decisions 

immediately 

after hearing 

cases 50 21 21 8 1 157

j. Reserving a 

decision for 

later delivery 33 27 19 13 8 153

k. Attorney 

preparedness 38 38 19 4 0 156

l. Other 83 6 0 0 11 18

Q33. From the following list, which three do you see as posing the greatest challenge to you in adjudicating asylum cases? Please 

check no more than three boxes. 

Number 

of 

respondents

a. Time 

limitations 83 

b. Managing 

your caseload 44 

c. Assessing 

credibility 76 

d. Identifying 

suspected 

fraud 19 

e. Verifying 

fraud 52 

f. Identifying 

national 

security risks 14 

g. Staying 

current with 

case law 16 

Page 139 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges 

Number 

of 

respondents

h. Staying 

current with 

country 

conditions 11 

i. Having to 

render oral 

decisions 

immediately 

after hearing 

cases 61 

j. Reserving a 

decision for 

later delivery 16 

k. Attorney 

preparedness 53

l. Other 8 

Closing Comments 

Q34. Please provide any additional comments or ideas you have for improving the asylum process. 

Page 140 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix IV: Survey and Site-Visit 

Methodology 

To corroborate information and pursue issues we identified during our 

research on the U.S. Asylum System and our interviews with agency

officials, we developed and deployed three different Web-based surveys to

(1) asylum officers, (2) supervisory asylum officers, and (3) immigration 

judges. We asked asylum officers about their views on areas including 

training, conducting identity and security checks, interviewing and 

assessing credibility, assessing fraud, country-condition information, 

workload, and decision making. We asked supervisory asylum officers 

about their views on areas including their own responsibilities and training 

as well as asylum officers’ responsibilities and training. We asked 

immigration judges about their views on areas including professional 

development, credibility and fraud in asylum cases, rendering an asylum 

decision, and caseload. 

Appendix IV: Survey and Site-Visit 

Methodology 

Survey Methodology 

GAO social science survey specialists along with GAO staff knowledgeable

about asylum adjudications developed the three survey instruments. We 

sent drafts of the asylum officer survey and supervisory asylum officer 

survey to Asylum Division officials for preliminary reviews to ensure that 

our questions were clear and unambiguous, used clear terminology and 

appropriate response options, and that the survey was comprehensive and 

unbiased. We sent a draft of the survey of immigration judges to Executive

Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) officials and Assistant Chief 

Immigration Judges for the same purpose. We also asked for and received 

comments from the asylum officer representative to the American 

Federation of Government Employees on the draft asylum officer survey

and representatives from the National Association of Immigration Judges 

(NAIJ) on the draft immigration judge survey. We considered comments 

and suggestions from all parties and made revisions where we thought 

they were warranted. 

We conducted pretests of the three surveys to ensure that the questions 

were clear and concise, and refined the instruments based on feedback we 

received. We pretested the asylum officer survey with eight asylum 

officers with a range of experience levels in five different Asylum Offices. 

We conducted these pretests using a combination of in-person, telephone, 

and Web-based approaches. We conducted pretests of the supervisory 

asylum officer survey with three supervisors with varying levels of 

experience in three different Asylum Offices; all were conducted by 

telephone and one used a Web-based approach. We conducted pretests of 

the immigration judge survey by telephone with three immigration judges 

in three different immigration courts. 

Survey Development 

Page 141 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix IV: Survey and Site-Visit 

Methodology 

Identification of Survey 

Respondents 

To develop mailing lists for the asylum officer and supervisory asylum 

officer surveys, we obtained from the Asylum Division the name, Asylum 

Office, and e-mail address of every onboard asylum officer and supervisor 

along with the date each officer began his or her position. Similarly, to 

develop a mailing list for the immigration judge survey, we obtained from

EOIR the name, immigration court, and e-mail address of every onboard 

immigration judge along with the date each immigration judge began his or 

her position. We excluded from this list Assistant Chief Immigration 

Judges because we provided them with the opportunity to review a survey 

draft and provide comments. To ensure that we solicited information only 

from those who had some basic level of experience on which to draw, we 

sent surveys only to individuals who had been in their position for at least

approximately 6 months—that is, they were on board as of September 30, 

2006, the end of fiscal year 2006. Two hundred fifty-six asylum officers, 56 

supervisory asylum officers, and 207 immigration judges met the criterion. 

Asylum officer survey. We announced our upcoming Web-based survey 

of asylum officers on March 1, 2007, and e-mailed asylum officers a cover 

letter and link to the survey on March 5. The Chief of the Asylum Division 

also informed Asylum Office staff of our survey efforts and encouraged 

asylum officers to participate, noting that participation was voluntary, and 

directed Asylum Office management to provide all asylum officers with 2 

hours of administrative time during which they could elect to complete the 

survey. During the period from March 5 through April 30 (the final 

deadline for completing the survey), we e-mailed reminder notices five 

times to asylum officers who had not responded, encouraging them to 

participate. On April 24, we followed up by telephone with 17 asylum 

officers—all those who had begun, but had not finished, the survey. We 

received 189 responses from asylum officers, resulting in a 74 percent 

response rate. Of the 189 respondents, 171 said that, over the past year, 

their primary responsibilities included adjudicating asylum cases and that 

they had adjudicated at least some affirmative asylum cases, which was 

the focus of our review. The remaining 18 asylum officers who said their

primary responsibilities did not include adjudicating asylum cases or they 

had not adjudicated at least some asylum cases over the past year were 

directed to not complete the rest of survey. 

Supervisory asylum officer survey. With respect to the Web-based 

survey of supervisory asylum officers, we announced the survey on March 

12, 2007, and e-mailed supervisory asylum officers a cover letter and link

to the survey on March 14. As with the asylum officer survey, the Chief of

the Asylum Division also informed Asylum Office staff of our survey 

Survey-Distribution 

Timeframes and Response 

Rates 

Page 142 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix IV: Survey and Site-Visit 

Methodology 

efforts and encouraged supervisors to participate, noting that participation 

was voluntary, and directed Asylum Office management to provide all

supervisors with 2 hours of administrative time during which they could

elect to complete the survey. During the period from March 12 through 

May 6 (the final deadline for completing the survey), we e-mailed reminder 

notices four times to supervisory asylum officers who had not responded, 

encouraging them to participate. 

On April 24, we followed up by telephone with 3 supervisory asylum 

officers—all those who had begun, but had not finished, the survey. We 

received 43 responses from supervisory asylum officers, resulting in a 77 

percent response rate. Of the 43 respondents, 40 said that they had 

reviewed at least some affirmative asylum decisions over the past year. 

The remaining 3 supervisory asylum officers who said they reviewed no or

almost no asylum cases over the past year were directed to not complete 

the rest of the survey. Percentages for data from relatively small 

populations, such as supervisor asylum officers, may convey a level of 

precision that can be misleading because they can change greatly with 

minor changes in the data. Thus, in reporting supervisory asylum officers’ 

survey responses throughout this report, we generally identified the 

number in addition to the percentage of supervisory asylum officers who 

responded to a question in a particular way. 

Immigration judge survey. We announced our upcoming Web-based 

survey of immigration judges on May 25, 2007, and e-mailed a cover letter 

and link to the survey on May 30. The President of NAIJ encouraged 

immigration judges to participate. During the period from May 30 through 

July 29 (the final deadline for completing the survey), we e-mailed 

reminder notices five times to immigration judges who had not responded, 

encouraging them to participate. From July 12 through July 16, 2007, we 

followed up by telephone with the 65 immigration judges who had not 

completed the survey. We surveyed all 207 immigration judges who were 

on board as of September 30, 2006, and received 160 responses for a 77 

percent response rate. Of the 160 respondents, 159 said that they had 

heard at least some asylum cases over the past year. The one immigration 

judge who had not adjudicated any asylum cases over the past year was 

directed to not complete the rest of the survey. 

Survey Analysis In analyzing the three surveys, we computed descriptive statistics on the 

closed-ended survey responses and conducted a systematic content 

analysis on selected open-ended survey responses. (See app. I, app. II, and 

Page 143 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix IV: Survey and Site-Visit 

Methodology 

app. III, respectively, for aggregate responses to the asylum officer, 

supervisory asylum officer, and immigration judge survey). 

To analyze the content of responses of asylum officers and supervisors to 

particular open-ended questions, two staff members independently 

reviewed all the responses and identified preliminary response categories, 

and then mutually agreed on response categories. They subsequently 

reviewed responses, again, and independently placed them into 

appropriate categories. Any discrepancies were discussed and resolved,

with a third team member being consulted when needed. 

Because these were not sample surveys, but rather a census of all the 

relevant groups, there are no sampling errors. However, the practical 

difficulties of conducting any surveys may introduce nonsampling errors. 

For example, differences in how a particular question was interpreted or 

the sources of information available to respondents can introduce 

unwanted variability into the survey results. We included steps in both the 

data-collection and data-analysis stages for the purposes of minimizing 

such nonsampling errors. As indicated above, social science survey 

specialists designed the draft questionnaires in close collaboration with 

GAO subject matter experts, and drafts were reviewed for accuracy by

agency officials. Versions of the questionnaire were pretested with several 

members of each of the populations. Since this was a Web-based survey, 

respondents entered their answers directly into the electronic 

questionnaire, eliminating the need to key data into a database, minimizing 

error. We examined the survey results and performed computer analyses 

to identify inconsistencies and other indications of error. A second, 

independent analyst checked the accuracy of all computer analyses. 

To gain a better understanding of asylum adjudications, we visited three of 

the Asylum Division’s eight Asylum Offices—Los Angeles, San Francisco, 

and New York. The views we obtained at these three offices may not be 

generalized to all eight Asylum Offices. However, since we selected these 

offices based on their diversity in size (based on the number of asylum 

officers and cases adjudicated), percentage of cases granted asylum, and 

geographic location, they provided us with an overview and perspective of 

the asylum process as well as potential challenges facing asylum officers. 

At each of the three offices, we conducted semistructured interviews with 

the Asylum Office Director and Deputy Director, a Quality Assurance and 

Site Visits 

Page 144 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix IV: Survey and Site-Visit 

Methodology 

Training Coordinator, and the Fraud Detection and National Security 

Immigration Officer; and at two of the three offices, we interviewed the 

Fraud Prevention Coordinator.1

 In addition, we interviewed a total of 14 

asylum officers and 5 supervisory asylum officers among the three offices. 

At one office, we asked the Director to identify 2 asylum officers and 1 

supervisory asylum officer for us to interview. At the other two offices, we 

selected asylum officers and supervisors using a random sampling 

approach that we stratified based on experience levels. The composition 

of each office in terms of number and experience levels of officers and 

staff availability affected who we were able to interview. Between these 

two offices, we interviewed 12 asylum officers (5 officers with more than 8 

years of experience who we categorized as “very experienced,” 4 officers 

with between 2 and 8 years of experience who we categorized as 

“experienced,” and 3 officers with less than 2 years of experience who we 

categorized as “less experienced”). At each of these 2 offices, we 

interviewed 1 “very experienced” and 1 “experienced” supervisory asylum 

officer. Between the 2 offices, we also observed a total of 14 interviews 

that asylum officers conducted with asylum applicants. In addition, we 

observed a local training session at each of these 2 offices. 

To obtain an additional perspective on factors that may affect asylum 

officers’ and immigration judges’ adjudication of asylum cases, we 

interviewed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Assistant 

Chief Counsels (also known as ICE trial attorneys) associated with 

immigration courts in Los Angeles and San Francisco, California, and New 

York City, New York who were identified by an ICE Deputy Chief Counsel 

as having experience with asylum cases. As the government’s 

representative in removal proceedings, ICE trial attorneys see asylum 

cases that come before the immigration court. In Los Angeles and San 

Francisco, we met with a Deputy Chief Counsel and a total of three ICE 

trial attorneys; in New York City, we met with four ICE trial attorneys. To 

further our understanding of factors affecting immigration judges’ asylum

adjudications, we visited the Los Angeles immigration court where we 

interviewed four immigration judges and observed court proceedings, 

which included initial and merit hearings on asylum cases. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2005 through 

September 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government 

 1

At the third Asylum Office, the Fraud Prevention Coordinator was not available during the 

week we visited. 

Page 145 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix IV: Survey and Site-Visit 

Methodology 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Page 146 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix V: Asylum Adjudication Process 

Page 147 GAO-08-935

Appendix V: Asylum Adjudication Process 

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) affirmative asylum process 

generally consists of several steps. The alien initiates the process by filing 

an asylum application at a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS) Service Center,1 where the case is entered into the Refugees, 

Asylum, and Parole System and some background, identity, and security 

checks are automatically initiated. Service Center personnel send 

automatically generated notices to the applicants, requiring them to 

appear for biometrics collection, including fingerprints, at a USCIS 

Application Support Center prior to the asylum interview. Service Center 

personnel send the applicant’s file to the Asylum Office that has 

jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence. Within 21 days of 

filing, the Asylum Office sends an automatically generated interview notice 

to the applicant. The Asylum Office is allocated at least 15 days to 

complete the adjudication after conducting the interview. Generally, cases 

are randomly assigned to asylum officers who are required by law to 

conduct interviews with applicants within 45 days of the application filing 

date in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The purpose of the 

interview is to verify the applicant’s identity, establish the applicant’s 

alienage, evaluate the applicant’s credibility, and determine whether the 

applicant is eligible for asylum. Applicants are permitted, but not required, 

to bring their own attorney or accredited representative to the interview. If 

the applicant is not fluent in English, the applicant is required to bring an 

interpreter to the asylum interview. Within 4 days of the interview, the 

asylum officer is to prepare the written decision and submit it to a 

supervisory asylum officer.

2

 The supervisor is to review the decision to 

ensure the asylum officer’s decision is supported by law and that 

procedures are properly followed. The supervisor either signs or returns it 

to the asylum officer for correction. Applicants interviewed at Asylum 

Offices are required to return to the asylum office 2 weeks after the 

interview and within 60 days of filing the asylum application to receive the 

asylum decision.

Asylum Adjudication 

Process within DHS 

 1

Under certain circumstances, aliens can file an asylum application directly with an Asylum

Office. In such cases, Asylum Office personnel carry out the responsibilities otherwise 

conducted by Service Center personnel. 

2

For decisions that are mailed, asylum officers must submit the written decision to a

supervisory asylum officer within 10 days. 

Asylum Challenges
Appendix V: Asylum Adjudication Process 

Within the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Executive Office for 

Immigration Review’s (EOIR) asylum process generally consists of the 

following steps. The applicant is to appear before an immigration judge for 

an initial hearing, during which the immigration judge is to, among other 

things, (a) ensure that the applicant understands the contents of the 

Notice to Appear, (b) provide the applicant information on available free

of charge or low-cost legal representation in the area, and (c) schedule a 

subsequent date to hear the merits of the asylum claim. At that time, the 

immigration judge also hears the pleadings of the U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) trial attorney and the applicant. Prior to the 

merits hearing, the ICE trial attorney, and the applicant or the applicant’s

representative must submit applications, exhibits, motions, a witness list, 

and criminal history to the immigration court, if applicable. The ICE trial 

attorney and the applicant, or the applicant’s representative, may also 

submit prehearing briefs or statements for the immigration judge to review

in advance of the hearing to narrow the legal issues. In some cases 

attorneys, or the immigration judge, may request a prehearing conference

for reasons including narrowing the issues or exchanging information. A 

merits hearing is then held, during which the applicant (or the applicant’s

representative) and an ICE trial attorney present the case before the 

immigration judge by generally making opening statements, presenting 

witnesses and evidence to the immigration judge, cross-examining, and

making closing statements.

3

 The immigration judge may participate in the 

questioning of the applicant or other witnesses. At the end of the hearing,

the immigration judge is to issue a decision that includes the facts that 

were found to be true, an accurate statement of the law, factors that were 

considered, and the weight that was given to the evidence presented 

(including the credibility of witnesses). If the applicant or ICE disagrees 

with the immigration judge’s decision, either party may appeal it to EOIR’s 

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) within 30 days. If the BIA ruling is 

adverse to the applicant, the applicant generally may file a petition for 

review in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

4

Asylum Adjudication 

Process within DOJ 

 3

The immigration courts provide interpreters for the hearings when necessary. 

4

If DHS disagrees with the BIA’s ruling, in rare instances, the case may be referred to the 

Attorney General for review. The Attorney General has the authority to overturn the BIA’s

ruling, and if the result is adverse to the alien, the alien may appeal to federal court. DHS

may not appeal decisions of the BIA or the Attorney General.

Page 148 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
A

Caseload a

ppendix VI: Asylum Division and EOIR 

nd Staffing Information 

Page 149 GAO-08-935

Appendix VI: Asylum Division and EOIR 

Caseload and Staffing Information 

During fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the Asylum Division received 

391,763 new cases, of which 63 percent consisted of asylum receipts—that 

is, new or reopened asylum applications. As shown in figure 13, asylum 

officers’ annual caseload declined during this period, and completions 

declined from fiscal year 2005 through 2007.

1

Asylum Division 

Caseload and Staffing 

Levels 

Figure 13: Asylum Division Caseload and Completions for Fiscal Years 2002–2007 

 

Number of cases (in thousands)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Fiscal year

Other cases pending (NACARA and credible and reasonable fear)

Other receipts (NACARA and credible and reasonable fear)

Asylum cases pending

Asylum receipts

Other completions (NACARA and credible and reasonable fear)

Asylum completions

Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Division data.

Caseload

Completions

1

The Asylum Division tracks adjudicated and unadjudicated completions. Adjudicated 

completions consist of cases in which an asylum officer has made a decision after 

interviewing the applicant and evaluating the merits of the case. Unadjudicated 

completions consist of cases in which no asylum decision was made on the merits of the 

case. For the purposes of this report, “completions” refers to both adjudicated and 

unadjudicated cases. Pending cases include cases that were awaiting completion at the 

beginning of each fiscal year. 

Asylum Challenges
Appendix VI: Asylum Division and EOIR 

Caseload and Staffing Information 

During this same period, authorized staffing for asylum officers ranged 

from a high of 332 officers in 2004 to a low of 291 officers in 2007, as 

shown in table 3, although not all asylum officers were considered 

available to conduct adjudications. The Asylum Division projects the 

number of “available asylum officers” by subtracting from authorized 

levels the number of staff designated to conduct overseas refugee 

adjudications and security screening and the number it projects will be 

unavailable due to activities such as training and leave.

2

 During fiscal years 

2002 through 2007, the Asylum Division reported available asylum officers 

ranged from a high of 232 in 2003 to a low of 199 in 2005. It reported 163 

officers would be available in 2008. The Asylum Division may detail 

asylum officers from one office to another to assist offices with high 

caseloads. 

Table 3: Authorized and Available Staffing Levels for Asylum Officers, Fiscal Years 

2002–2007 

Fiscal year Authorized asylum officers Available asylum officers 

2002 293 215

2003 294 232

2004 332 224

2005 303 199

2006 303 219

2007 291 210

Source: Asylum Division. 

 2

The Asylum Division reports that asylum officers will be available for asylum and 

NACARA adjudications, credible and reasonable fear determinations, and asylum 

terminations of asylum status proceedings during 41 weeks each year. 

Page 150 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix VI: Asylum Division and EOIR 

Caseload and Staffing Information 

Immigration court receipts—that is, newly filed and reopened cases— 

totaled about 1.9 million cases during fiscal years 2002 through 2007, of 

which 22 percent were asylum, and the rest were other types of 

immigration cases. From fiscal years 2002 through fiscal year 2005, 

immigration judges’ caseload, which includes receipts and all cases still 

pending from the prior years, increased annually, but began to decline in 

fiscal year 2006 (see fig. 14). Completions increased annually from fiscal 

years 2002 through 2006, and declined in 2007.

3

 According to the Executive

Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), immigration caseload is expected

to increase by a minimum of 25,000 additional cases by 2008 as a result of

current and planned DHS initiatives, such as the addition of detention 

facilities and beds and enhanced anti-smuggling programs. 

EOIR Immigration 

Court Caseload and 

Staffing Levels

Figure 14: EOIR Caseload and Completions for Fiscal Years 2002–2007

 

Number of cases (in thousands)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Fiscal year

All pending

All receipts

Alll completions

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.

Caseload

Completions

3

Completions include cases that resulted in a decision and other completions, such as

administrative closures and transfers of cases to other courts. 

Page 151 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix VI: Asylum Division and EOIR 

Caseload and Staffing Information 

As shown in table 4, from fiscal years 2002 through fiscal year 2007, the 

number of authorized immigration judges increased from 216 in fiscal year 

2002 to 251 in fiscal year 2007, with the most significant increase occurring

in fiscal year 2007. At the same time, the number of immigration judges 

who were on board remained fairly constant, except for an increase in 

fiscal year 2006. 

Table 4: Authorized and Onboard Staffing Levels for Immigration Judges, Fiscal 

Years 2002–2007

Fiscal year Authorized immigration judges Onboard immigration judgesa

2002 216 214

2003 223 217

2004 224 215

2005 225 212

2006 230 225

2007 251 216

Source: EOIR. 

a

Data on onboard immigration judges are as of October 1 of each fiscal year except for 2003. EOIR 

was unable to provide October 1 data for fiscal year 2003 and provided March 2003 data instead. 

Page 152 GAO-08-935 Asylum Challenges
Appendix VII: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 153 GAO-08-935

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Richard M. Stana, (202) 512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Evi Rezmovic, Assistant Director, 

and Lori Weiss, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. Tracey Cross, 

Foster Kerrison, Maria Mercado, Catherine Kim, Yvette Gutierrez-Thomas, 

Jason Campbell, and Alana Miller made significant contributions to the 

work. Michele Fejfar, Elizabeth Wood, and Carolyn Boyce assisted with 

design, methodology, and data analysis. Lara Kaskie and Richard Ascarate 

provided assistance in report preparation, Frances Cook provided legal 

support, Tom Jessor provided expertise on immigration court issues, and 

Karen Burke and Etana Finkler developed the report’s graphics. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(440542) Asylum Challenges
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 afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

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

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs