Department of Homeland Security
 

The Visa Waiver Program 


OIG-13-07 November 2012
 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov 

November 2, 2012
 

MEMORANDl)M FOR: The Honorable David Heyman 

Assistant Secretary 

Office of Policy ~ 

FROM: Charles K. Edwards ..., 4;. ~ 

~~ < 

Acting Inspector General 

SUBJECT: The Visa Waiver Program 

Attached for your action is our final report, The Visa Waiver Program. We incorporated the 

formal comments from the Office of Policy in the final report. 

The report contains four recommendations aimed at improving the Visa Waiver Program. Your 

office concurred with all recommendations. As prescribed by the Department of Homeland 

Security Directive 077-1, Follow-Up and Resolutions for the Office of Inspector General Report 

Recommendations, within 90 days ofthe date ofthis memorandum, please provide our office 

with a written response that includes your (1) agreement or disagreement, (2) corrective action 

plan, and (3) target completion date for each recommendation. Also, please include 

responsible parties and any other supporting documentation necessary to inform us about the 

current status of the recommendation. We consider recommendations #2 and #4 resolved and 

open. Recommendations #1 and #3 are unresolved. 

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we are providing copies of 

our report to appropriate congressional committees with oversight and appropriation 

responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will post the report on our 

website for public dissemination. 

Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact Deborah L. Outten-Mills, 

Acting Assistant Inspector General for Inspections, at (202 254- 4015 

Attachment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1 

Background ........................................................................................................................ 2 

Results of Review ................................................................................................................ 6 

Standards for Compliance Need To Be Communicated .............................................6 

Recommendation ................................................................................................... 7 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ........................................................... 7 

Reporting Timeframes Have Not Been Met Consistently ....................................... 8 

Recommendations ............................................................................................... 11 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................... 11 

The VWPO Maintains Effective Collaboration With DOS and DOJ ....................... 12 

The VWPO’s Placement Within the DHS Organizational Structure ...................... 13 

Recommendation ................................................................................................. 13 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................... 14 

Appendixes

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ............................................ 15 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ............................... 16 

Appendix C: Major Contributors to This Report ................................................ 21 

Appendix D: Report Distribution ........................................................................ 22 

Abbreviations

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOJ Department of Justice 

DOS Department of State 

ESTA Electronic System for Travel Authorization 

FY fiscal year 

I&A Office of Intelligence and Analysis 

OIA Office of International Affairs 

OIE Office of International Enforcement 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-13-07
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

VWP Visa Waiver Program 

VWPO Visa Waiver Program Office 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-13-07 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Executive Summary

The Visa Waiver Program was established in 1986 to promote international tourism 

without jeopardizing U.S. security. The program allows nationals from designated 

countries to enter the United States and stay for up to 90 days without obtaining a visa 

from a U.S. embassy or consulate. Currently, there are 36 Visa Waiver Program 

countries. The Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, requires the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to assess the law 

enforcement and security risks of Visa Waiver Program countries, and terminate a 

country from the Visa Waiver Program if necessary. 

The purpose of our review was to determine the adequacy of processes used to 

determine (1) a country’s initial designation as a Visa Waiver Program participant, and 

the continuing designation of current Visa Waiver Program countries; and (2) how 

effectively the Visa Waiver Program Office collaborates with key stakeholders. 

Within the Office of Policy, the Visa Waiver Program Office is responsible for determining 

a country’s initial and continuing eligibility to participate in the Visa Waiver Program, 

and preparing the Secretary of Homeland Security’s decision on whether each country’s 

participation should be continued or terminated. The Visa Waiver Program Office 

conducts mandatory reviews of countries requesting to participate in the program, as 

well as countries already in the program. 

We determined that the Visa Waiver Program Office had established standard operating 

procedures and review criteria that satisfy the goals for conducting country reviews. 

Although Visa Waiver Program officials maintained effective collaboration with 

stakeholders during the review process, additional efforts are needed to communicate 

with appropriate officials the standards needed to achieve compliance with Visa Waiver 

Program requirements and the criteria used to assess compliance. In addition, 

challenges that may reduce the effectiveness of the Visa Waiver review process include 

untimely reporting of results, current staffing levels within the Visa Waiver Program 

Office, and its location in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) organizational 

structure. 

We are recommending that the Visa Waiver Program Office develop processes for 

communicating with embassy and foreign representatives the standards for Visa Waiver 

Program countries to achieve compliance, and for meeting mandated timeframes for 

reporting on a country’s compliance with program requirements. In addition, we 

recommend that the Visa Waiver Program Office be appropriately staffed to fulfill its 

oversight responsibility, and located within an organizational structure that will enhance 

its overall performance and reporting capabilities. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Background 

The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows nationals from participating countries to travel 

to the United Sates for tourism or business for 90 days or less without a nonimmigrant 

visa. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 created the VWP as a pilot 

program to (1) promote international business and tourism, (2) focus consular resources 

on higher-risk visa applicants, and (3) allow reciprocal visa-free travel for Americans to 

VWP designated countries. After recognizing the benefits of this type of travel with 

eight participating countries, Congress passed the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act

in October 2000. Table 1 shows the 36 countries currently participating in the VWP. 

Table 1. VWP Participating Countries 

Andorra Hungary New Zealand 

Australia Iceland Norway 

Austria Ireland Portugal 

Belgium Italy San Marino 

Brunei Japan Singapore 

Czech Republic Latvia Slovakia 

Denmark Liechtenstein Slovenia 

Estonia Lithuania South Korea 

Finland Luxembourg Spain 

France Malta Sweden 

Germany Monaco Switzerland 

Greece The Netherlands United Kingdom 

Source: Department of Homeland Security. 

Travelers visiting the United States under the VWP are not subject to the same 

screening as non-VWP travelers. For example, non-VWP travelers are usually 

interviewed by a consular officer as part of their visa application process. In contrast, 

VWP travelers’ first encounter with a U.S. official is usually at a U.S. port of entry. 

To balance the competing concerns of facilitating VWP travel without affecting U.S. law 

enforcement and security interests, the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act included 

provisions to strengthen documentation and reporting requirements for VWP countries. 

Specifically, participating countries must meet statutory and policy requirements, 

including: 

•	 Have a non-immigrant visitor visa refusal rate of less than 3 percent for the previous 

year or an average of no more than 2 percent over the past 2 fiscal years with 

neither year exceeding 2.5 percent; 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2	 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

•	 Issue their nationals machine-readable passports that incorporate biometric 

identifiers; 

•	 Issue their citizens International Civil Aviation Organization–compliant machinereadable passports containing an electronic chip; 

•	 Not compromise the law enforcement or security interests of the United States; 

•	 Offer at least 90 days of reciprocal visa-free travel to U.S. citizens; 

•	 Enter into an agreement with the United States to report, or make available through 

Interpol, information about the theft or loss of passports; 

•	 Enter into an agreement with the United States to share information regarding 

whether its citizens and nationals traveling to the United States represent a threat to 

the security or welfare of the United States; and 

•	 Accept the repatriation of any citizens, former citizens, or nationals against whom a 

final order of removal is issued no later than 3 weeks after the order is issued. 

Nationals from participating VWP countries traveling to the United States must— 

•	 Not be a threat to the welfare, health, safety, or security of the United States, as 

determined by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the U.S. port of entry; 

•	 Have complied with conditions of any previous admissions under the program; 

•	 Have a round-trip transportation ticket issued by a carrier that has signed an 

agreement with the U.S. Government to participate in the program if entering the 

United States by air or sea; 

•	 Arrive in the United States aboard such a carrier; 

•	 Waive their right to review or appeal an immigration officer’s determination as to 

admissibility at the port of entry, and also waived the right to contest, other than on 

the basis of an application for asylum, any action for removal; and 

•	 Have proof of financial solvency and a home abroad to which they intend to return if 

entering the United States by land. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3	 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act of 2002 was established in response 

to evolving threats to international travel following the events of the 9/11 terrorist 

attacks. This act required VWP countries to report or make available all lost and stolen 

passport data, and increased the frequency of mandatory country reviews from 5 years 

to at least once every 2 years for evaluating and reporting security risks posed by their 

continued participation in the program. 

The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), as 

amended, required the creation of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization 

(ESTA). ESTA determines an applicant’s eligibility to travel to the United States under 

the VWP. The system became fully operational in the fall of 2008 and mandatory for all 

VWP visitors traveling to the United States by airplane or cruise ship in January 2009. 

Before departing for travel under the VWP, travelers are required to use ESTA to 

provide biographical and travel information and respond to eligibility questions. ESTA 

applications are queried against databases for law enforcement, lost and stolen 

passports, some visa refusals, and visa revocations. An approved ESTA is valid for 2 

years or until the passport expires. A new ESTA is also required when a traveler’s 

biographical information or circumstances underlying any of the previous answers to 

the traveler’s eligibility questions have changed. ESTA approval can be revoked at any 

time and does not grant admission, which is determined by CBP inspectors at a U.S. port 

of entry.1 

The 9/11 Act also mandated that all VWP countries enter into agreements with the 

United States to share information on their citizens who may represent a threat to the 

security and welfare of the United States and enter into an agreement to share all lost 

and stolen passport data with the United States. DHS, in consultation with other 

Federal agencies, has determined that VWP countries can satisfy these requirements by 

entering into the following bilateral agreements: 

•	 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-6 – establishes procedures to share 

watchlist information about known or suspected terrorists between the United 

States and VWP participant countries. 

•	 Preventing and Combating Serious Crime – enhances law enforcement cooperation 

through the sharing of law enforcement data, including fingerprints and other 

biometric and biographic information, to better identify terrorists and criminals 

during investigations and other law enforcement activities. 

1

 8 C.F.R. 217.5. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4	 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

•	 Lost and Stolen Passports – requires VWP countries to enter into an agreement with 

the United States to report, or make available through Interpol or other means as 

designated by DHS, information about all stolen or lost passports. 

The Visa Waiver Program Office (VWPO) manages the oversight of participating VWP 

countries, as well as the process for assessing the law enforcement and security 

implications of including additional countries. To determine compliance with program 

requirements, the VWPO conducts the following mandatory reviews of countries 

requesting to participate in the program, as well as countries already in the program: 

•	 Designation Review – An initial evaluation to determine eligibility of a candidate 

country. It includes a site-visit and analysis of information received from open 

sources, intelligence reports, and requests for information. 

•	 Continuing Designation Review – An evaluation to determine whether a country may 

continue to participate in the VWP, which includes an analysis of relevant 

information and documentation produced by the VWPO, the VWP country, 

Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of State (DOS), DHS components, and the 

Intelligence Community. The VWPO can perform two types of reviews to make this 

determination: 

 In-country review – a site-visit to the country to gather and analyze targeted 

information and make observations that may affect U.S. security and law 

enforcement interests; or 

 Administrative review – similar to an in-country review, but without a site-visit, 

and can be enhanced through video- or teleconferencing with embassy and/or 

foreign officials. 

Based on these reviews, the VWPO is required to produce a report to Congress. To 

meet this mandate, the VWPO prepares a country report that describes all findings and 

recommendations of the review. A summary report to Congress is provided that 

includes the Secretary’s determination, how that determination was reached, and 

highlights any issues of concern regarding the VWP country. 

The VWPO also regularly monitors political activities and current affairs in participating 

countries as part of an overall effort to identify issues that would affect security, 

immigration enforcement, and other risks to the United States. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5	 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Results of Review

We evaluated processes and procedures used by the VWPO to (1) determine the impact 

of a country’s initial or continuing designation in the VWP on U.S. national security, 

immigration enforcement, and other risks; and (2) assist in the Secretary’s decision 

regarding a country’s participation in the VWP. We also assessed the collaboration 

among the VWPO, DOS, and DOJ in ensuring country compliance with VWP requirements, 

and in balancing the law enforcement and security interests with existing bilateral 

diplomatic relations. 

The VWPO has developed and implemented standard operating procedures and 

evaluation criteria that ensure that the objectives for conducting initial and continuing 

designation reviews, as mandated by Congress, are met. In addition, the VWPO has 

engaged in on-going communication and effective collaborations with DOS and DOJ 

officials during each phase of the VWP review process. 

We identified areas that need to be addressed to increase the effectiveness of the 

VWPO review process: (1) communicating to embassy and DOS officials in VWP 

countries the standards necessary to achieve compliance with VWP requirements and 

the criteria used by the VWPO to assess compliance, and (2) issuing required reports to 

Congress within mandated timeframes. In addition, the DHS Office of Policy should 

evaluate the VWPO’s staffing levels and organizational reporting lines to ensure the 

VWPO’s ability to fulfill oversight responsibilities and enhance overall operational 

performance. 

Standards for Compliance Need To Be Communicated

The VWPO has established evaluation criteria and procedures for determining a 

country’s initial eligibility and continuing compliance with VWP requirements. 

The following areas are covered during the country reviews: 

• Nationality and citizenship laws; 

• Security of passports; 

• Border and immigration controls; 

• Security and law enforcement threats; and 

• Political and economic disruptions. 

Although the country reviews have provided sufficient information to make 

required determinations, embassy and DOS officials expressed the need for 

greater transparency in the review process. Specifically, they raised concerns 

regarding their understanding of VWP compliance standards. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

DOS and embassy officials explained that many U.S. and foreign representatives 

are not aware of the specific criteria, standards, or metrics that the VWPO team 

applies during its review to determine a country’s continued designation in the 

VWP. As a result, some foreign officials expressed uncertainty about what 

constitutes compliance, and were concerned about the effect of reviews on their 

country’s VWP status. 

Understanding why certain data are collected, laws are questioned, or 

representatives are interviewed would lead to greater cooperation and 

compliance. Engaging appropriate officials in dialogue that enhances their 

understanding of the review methodology and what is needed to achieve 

compliance would minimize concerns over the review process and its results. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Office of Policy: 

Recommendation #1: Communicate to Department of State and foreign officials 

the compliance standards and the criteria used to assess compliance. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Office of Policy Response: The Office of Policy concurs. The Office of Policy 

explained that the VWPO currently shares information with foreign officials from 

VWP countries and aspirants. Furthermore, it states that information regarding 

statutory and policy requirements for VWP participation and criteria used by the 

VWPO is also shared with State Department colleagues. The VWPO will continue 

this level of communication and transparency. 

OIG Analysis: The Office of Inspector General (OIG) recognizes that there is 

ongoing communication between the VWPO and the Department of State. 

However, the level of detail regarding compliance standards and criteria being 

communicated may not be consistent across all VWP participants. Pending our 

receipt of a standardized approach to communicating with Department of State 

and foreign officials regarding compliance standards and criteria used for 

assessing compliance, we consider this recommendation unresolved and open. 

Reporting Timeframes Have Not Been Met Consistently

As part of each initial or continuing designation review, the VWPO prepares a 

country report that documents all of the information collected during the 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

review, analysis of the information, and the Secretary’s determination of 

whether to (1) designate a country as a new member of the VWP or (2) continue 

or terminate a participating country’s membership in the VWP. In addition, each 

country report includes the findings of an independent intelligence assessment 

prepared by the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A). Based on the 

country report, a mandatory summary report to Congress is prepared and 

provided to appropriate congressional committees.2

 The summary report should 

be provided no later than 2 years after the previous summary report. However, 

we learned that even though the on-site reviews are conducted, some summary 

reports are not prepared and submitted to Congress within required timeframes. 

As of July 2012, 11 of 36 summary reports exceeded the congressionally 

mandated 2-year reporting cycle. VWPO staff explained that reporting delays 

can be attributed to inadequate staffing to manage the workload, and delays 

receiving I&A intelligence assessments. However, VWPO officials added that 

these delays have not posed any undue risks or threats to U.S. security interests, 

since any issues within a VWP country that might affect its continued compliance 

with VWP requirements are continuously monitored. 

The following provides information regarding the country report and summary 

report to Congress, along with specific challenges encountered in meeting the 

mandated reporting timeframes. 

Country Report 

The country report may include a site-visit report; other baseline, background, 

and analytical information; and key findings, recommendations, and conclusions 

from the I&A intelligence assessment. 

The VWPO staff, DOS, and U.S. embassy officials review and, when necessary, 

edit the country report before it is finalized. Figure 1 shows the review process. 

2

 U.S. House of Representatives: Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on Foreign Affairs, and 

Committee on Homeland Security. U.S. Senate: Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on Foreign 

Relations, and Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Figure 1. Country Report Process 

Source: OIG analysis. 

Country Report Challenges 

The following factors contribute to delays in completing and issuing country 

reports: 

• Staffing 

VWP officials stated that inadequate staffing contributes to 40 percent of the 

delays. In addition to managing the statutorily required review process, the 

VWPO negotiates information sharing agreements and leads the interagency 

dialogue on law enforcement, immigration security, and travel facilitation 

issues related to the VWP. VWPO staffing levels have fluctuated over the 

past 4 years, and reached their lowest levels in fiscal year (FY) 2012. In FY 

2008, the VWPO had seven staff members—a director and six advisors. 

Currently, the VWPO has four Senior Advisors and one Acting Director, who 

performs some of the duties of a Senior Advisor. Although the staffing level 

has decreased, nine countries have been added to the VWP since 2008, and 

other countries are under consideration. VWP officials expressed concerns 

about managing future country portfolios with the current VWPO staffing 

level if more countries are added to the program. During our fieldwork, we 

obtained a draft organization chart for FY 2013 that included a request for 

two additional positions. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

• I&A Intelligence Assessments 

I&A’s intelligence assessments of the VWP countries are a crucial part of the 

VWP country review process. I&A officials said that a major reason for 

reporting delays is I&A’s internal review process, which can take 3 months, 

and the competing work priorities of a small office. I&A and VWPO officials 

have engaged in discussions to streamline the process and produce more 

timely reports. 

Summary Report to Congress 

The summary report to Congress satisfies DHS’ statutory mandate to report to 

Congress (1) potential security concerns regarding VWP countries and (2) the 

Secretary’s decision regarding a country’s initial or continuing designation status. 

Figure 2 describes the summary report review process within DHS. 

Figure 2. Congressional Summary Report Process 

Source: OIG analysis. 

Summary Report Challenges 

Since the summary report is based on the country report, delays in completing 

the country report will affect the timeliness of the summary report. In addition, 

VWPO officials stated that the summary report review cycle, as depicted in 

figure 2, is lengthy and has resulted in additional delays. 

VWPO officials explained that timeliness may be improved through the use of 

batch reporting. The VWPO has developed a batch reporting timeline to address 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

delays in completing VWP reviews and associated reports. The reporting 

timeline and notification process will be fully implemented in 2013, with the first 

batch of reports planned for March 2013. With a complete schedule of reports 

to Congress available at the beginning of the fiscal year, the VWPO and other 

offices involved in the VWP review process hope to better manage their 

workload and meet projected deadlines. 

Although the VWPO continually monitors the political and economic situation of 

all participating countries, timely summary reports represent an important tool 

for informing Congress of a country’s VWP status and related security risks, and 

documenting the Secretary’s decision regarding the continuing participation of 

VWP countries. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Office of Policy: 

Recommendation #2: Develop and implement an overall reporting process that 

will satisfy the 2-year reporting timeframe for Congress to receive information 

regarding the status of VWP participating countries. 

Recommendation #3: Staff the VWPO at a level to maximize its effectiveness in 

assessing VWP countries’ compliance with program requirements. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Recommendation #2: 

Office of Policy Response: The Office of Policy concurs. The VWPO has 

developed a reporting protocol and schedule to address delays in completing 

VWP eligibility reviews and associated reports. The protocol is in the process of 

being fully implemented. 

OIG Analysis: The protocol developed to address the delays in completing 

reviews and reports satisfies the intent of this recommendation. Pending our 

receipt of documentation that the protocol has been implemented, and that the 

timeliness of the summary reports to Congress has improved, this 

recommendation remains resolved and open. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Recommendation #3: 

Office of Policy Response: The Office of Policy concurs. A position will be 

announced shortly to replace a Senior Advisor in the VWP who departed. When 

and if the VWP expands, additional resources will be considered, as appropriate. 

OIG Analysis: Efforts to fill the Senior Advisor position represent a positive step 

in adequately staffing the VWPO. However, additional staffing should be 

considered. The VWP provided a draft organization chart for FY 2013 that 

included a request for two additional positions. Pending confirmation that these 

positions are filled, we consider this recommendation unresolved and open. 

The VWPO Maintains Effective Collaboration With DOS and DOJ

Although DHS is responsible for determining a country’s eligibility to participate 

in the VWP, DOS has a statutorily required consultative role in the review 

process. As such, DHS officials maintain on-going communication and 

collaboration with U.S. embassy representatives, DOS Regional Desk Officers, 

Bureau of Consular Affairs, Bureau of Counterterrorism, and DOJ staff in order to 

obtain and exchange information needed to determine participating countries’ 

compliance with VWP requirements and monitor on-going concerns. 

Collaboration Between DHS and DOS 

DHS and DOS have different missions regarding the VWP countries. DHS focuses 

primarily on law enforcement and immigration issues, while DOS also considers 

diplomatic relationships. Even with their differing perspectives, DHS and DOS 

officials stated that they have a positive working relationship. 

Following a nomination by the Secretary of DOS, DHS designates an eligible 

country as part of the VWP, evaluates its participation in the program, and 

terminates it if its participation threatens the law enforcement or security 

interests of the United States. DHS conducts VWP evaluations in consultation 

with DOS components, particularly the Bureau of Consular Affairs, the Regional 

Desks, and U.S. embassies before, during, and after site-visits and country 

reviews. In addition, embassy personnel provide country-specific information. 

To monitor on-going issues and activities in VWP countries, VWPO and DOS 

officials exchange information. They also engage in discussions to ensure 

agreement on important issues related to the VWP. VWPO officials stated that 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

communications with DOS personnel include email, telephone discussions, DOS 

cables, and meetings in Washington, DC. 

Collaboration Between DHS and DOJ 

DHS coordinates with DOJ to assess the law enforcement and security-related 

issues of the VWP in participating countries. DHS and DOJ co-chair negotiations 

of Preventing and Combating Serious Crime agreements with VWP countries and 

collaborate throughout the implementation of these agreements. 

As part of the continuing designation reviews, DOJ’s responsibilities include 

updating the law enforcement cooperation section of prior country reports and 

commenting on draft reports as needed. The VWPO solicits DOJ’s input on U.S. 

extradition and mutual legal assistance relationships with VWP countries and 

other kinds of formal and informal law enforcement cooperation. A DOJ official 

stated that DOJ’s collaboration with VWPO staff is excellent. 

The VWPO’s Placement Within the DHS Organizational Structure

The VWPO, originally called the Office of International Enforcement (OIE), was 

established in 2004 as part of Border and Transportation Security Directorate. In 

2005, the OIE was placed under the newly created Office of Policy’s Office of 

Policy Development and in 2007 was renamed the VWPO. Since the Office of 

Policy Development was eliminated in 2011, the VWPO is currently in an 

unofficial dual-reporting relationship with Office of International Affairs (OIA) 

and the Office of Policy for issues involving policy development, legislative 

proposals, and final approval of summary reports to Congress. 

The OIA’s functions are closely aligned with the duties and responsibilities of the 

VWPO. Consideration is being given to moving the VWPO to the OIA. A 

permanent reorganization to recognize this transfer would give the VWPO the 

support and management structure to accomplish its mission more effectively. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Office of Policy: 

Recommendation #4: Assign the VWPO to an organization that will provide an 

effective management structure. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Office of Policy Response: The Office of Policy concurs. The Office of Policy 

states that the VWPO’s responsibilities necessitate that it be situated in a 

management structure that integrates, coordinates, and can provide 

departmental oversight across legal, policy operational, and international 

domains. Secretary Napolitano has determined that day-to-day operations of 

the VWPO should be located in the Office of International Affairs, while the 

Office of Policy continues to oversee and manage the policy issues associated 

with the Visa Waiver Program. 

OIG Analysis: Pending our receipt of an approved Office of International Affairs 

organization chart, we consider this recommendation resolved and open. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

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

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

to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within the Department. 

This review was included in the OIG Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Plan. Our 

objectives were to determine (1) how effectively the Office of Policy’s VWPO collaborates 

with key VWP stakeholders and (2) the adequacy of processes used by the VWPO to 

determine whether candidate countries satisfy the requirements for designation as 

VWP members, and participating countries’ compliance with VWP requirements. 

We conducted our fieldwork from February to May 2012, and interviewed VWPO 

officials and representatives of DOS and DOJ. We also interviewed DHS and DOS 

personnel at U.S. embassies in Austria, Norway, Germany, and the United Kingdom. 

We conducted this review under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, and according to the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the Council 

of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-13-07 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

United States Dt:parltueut o(State 

Assisfcmt Secretary ofSlare 

for Consular Affairs 

Washington. D.C. 10510 

October 9, 2012 

Dear Acting Inspector General Edwards: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft report on 

the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). The Department of State concurs with the 

report's observations that DHS, State, and U.S. Embassy officials have a positive 

working relationship, and that thc VWP is a vital component of U.S. border 

security policy. ~ational security is the top priority for the Department of State, 

as well as DHS, and it is important for the report to reflect this fact. 

Recognizing the important national security implications ofinformation 

sharing agreements, the Department of State has undertaken extensive diplomatic 

work to ensure member countries sign these important agreements, and we will 

continue to do so. In addition to aggressive and consistent senior embassy official 

engagement in all member countries, State worked diligently to reinforce the 

message by ensuring that infonnation sharing agreements were priority issues on 

the President's agenda wht:n he met with counterparts of noncompliant countries. 

The Department of State concurs with the conclusion that DHS could 

improve communication on VWP issues with member countries, and also notes 

DHS does not systematically report its findings to the member country upon 

completion ofa country review. The member country receives no formal notice 

from DHS as to whether its membership in the VWP will continue, though DHS 

does usually engage Ule COWltry, through the U.S. Embassy, on issues where DHS 

finds the country deficient. The Department believes the creation of a formal, 

consistent mechanism to communicate DHS decisions on VWP designations to 

member countries and to notify them of any deficiencie:s discovered would 

strengthen the overall VWP program. We recognize the increased workload these 

responsibilities entail and support the report's recommendation that DHS provide 

additional personnel and resources to the Visa 'Waiver Program Office. 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-13-07 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the 

draft report. If I may provide additional information, please do not hesitate to 

contact me. 

Sincerely yours, 

Assistanl Secretary 

~ of State 

tor Consular Affairs 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-13-07 
 O

 

 

FFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

u.s. Depal1meBt of Hflmelud Seeurity 

Washingtoa, DC 20528 

ocr 16 2012 Homeland 

Security 

Charles K. Edwards 

Acting Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building410 

Washington, DC 20528 

Re: Office ofthe Inspe<tor General (OIG) Draft Report, "The Vi,. Waiver Program" (OIG 

Project No. 12-020-ISP-PLCY-VWP) 

Dear Mr. Edwards: 

Thank you for your August 21 memorandum and the opportunity to review and provide 

comments on draft report titled "The Visa Waiver Progrmn" (OIG number 12-02Q..ISP-PLCYVWP). 

The Office ofPoHcy (PLeY) appreciates that the draft report is broadly supportive of the Visa 

Waiver Program Office's (VWPO) efforts to implement established procedures and criteria to 

conduct security reviews of Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries and aspirants seeking VWP 

designation. The draft report also notes that the security reviews conducted by the VWPO 

provide sufficient infonnation and context to fonnulate a determination of a country's status in 

the VWP. Further, the report highlights that the VWPO engages in on-going communication and 

effective collaboration with other Federal agencies that have a role in the VWP. Finally, the 

draft report acknowledges that the VWPO needs appropriate resources and management 

structW'C to fulml its duties. 

The draft reJX)rt contains four recommendations, alJ of which PLCY concurs with. Specifically: 

Recommendation Nt: Communicate to Department of State (DOS) and foreign officials the 

compJiance standards and the niteria used to assess compliance. 

Response: PLCY agrees that ensuring that the State Department and foreign oflicials 

understand what constitutes compliance and why certain data are collected among other 

requirements is a valuable clement in building greater cooperation and compliance. As such, 

PLCY concurs and believes the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) cutTent practice 

meets the intent of the recommendation. 

Specifically. the VWPO currently shares infonnation regarding the statutory and policy 

requirements for VWP participation and what can be expected, during and after a security review 

with foreign officials from VWP countries and aspirants. Such communication occurs through 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-13-07 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 

meetings in Washington, DC with embassy representatives, as wen as through meetings incountry with personnel from the host government. Further. the VWPO regularly notifies foreign 

governments of a security review's conclusion--a practice that was initiated in January 2011. 

These notifications are made either directly with embassies in Washington, DC, or in 

coordination with the U.S. Embassy in-country. If the VWPO identifies an issue ofconcem 

during a security review that necessitates corrummication with a foreign government, the VWPO 

coordinates with the U.S. Embassy in-country for these discussions. 

Second, information regarding the statutory and policy requirements for VWP participation and 

the criteria used by tbe VWPO during VWP security reviews is also shared with State 

Department colleagues. For example, such communications oeem as part of regular and 

sometimes daily meetings in Washington, DC with the DOS Bureau of Consular Affairs, Bureau 

of Counterterrorism, Regional Bureaus, and Legal Affairs officials, as well as in meetings incountry with U.S. Embassy personnel. The infonnation is further communicated to State 

Department and other federal officials through periodic national security staff-led Interagency 

Policy Committees (IPCs) and sub-IPCs on VWP. 

In addition. U.S. Embassy personnel accompany the VWPO on in-country meetings that are 

conducted as part of a VWP security review, and State Department officials are given an 

opportunity to review VWP reports produced during a review. They are also regularly updated 

on a review's progress. 

Finally, over the past three years, the VWPO, in conjunction with the Bureau of Consular Affairs 

and the Bureau of Counterterrorism. has also provided guidance to VWP posts that outlines the 

various statutory and policy requirements for VWP designation. Posts additionally have been 

provided each country's status in meeting the VWP requirements. 

Thc VWPO will continue this high level of conununication and transparency with the State 

Department and foreign governments and will Look for opportunities to enhance such 

communication as well. 

Recommendation #2: Develop and implement an overall reporting process that will satisfy 

the 2-year reporting timeframe for Congress to receive information regarding the status of 

VWP participating countries. 

Response: PLCY concurs with the recommendation and believes that DHS's updated reporting 

practices support the recommendation. The timing ofVWP reporting was identified in a May 

2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. In response to this report, the VWPO 

developed a reporting protocol and schedule to address delays in completing VWP eligibility 

reviews and associated reports. That protocol and schedule is in the process of being fully 

implcmented. Since the May 2011 GAO audit, 20 reports on VWP reviews have been submitted 

to Congress. 

VWP reports are the product of an intra-Department and inter-agency collaboration. As such, 

the VWPO also reached out to DHS and interagency partners involved in the eligibility review 

2 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

process to ensure their awareness of the new reporting schedule, to discuss related workflow 

issues, and to establi5h timeframes for document production and required clearances. 

In addition, the VWPO established a mechanism to infonn Congress if there are potential delays 

for a particular VWP review or its associated reports. Such notifications will begin once the 

reporting process referenced above is fully implemented. 

Recommendation #3: Starr the VWPO at a level to maximize its effectiveness in assessing 

VWP (ountries' compliance with program requirements. 

Response: PLCY concurs with this recommendation. A position will be annolUlCed shortly to 

replace. Senior Advisor in the VWPO who departed the office in June 2012. Further. when and 

if the Visa Waiver Program expands (Le., new countries seek eligibility review or designation 

review, or new countries are in fact added), additional resources will be considered, as 

appropriate. 

Reeommendation #4: Assign the VWPO to an organization that will provide an effective 

management structure. 

Response: PLCY agrees with the importance of assigning the VWPO to an organization that 

will provide an effective management structure. The VWPO supports roles and responsibilities 

that cut across policy development and review,legal analysis, program management. and 

imemational engagement. Tbe VWPO is responsible for reviewing and monitoring the status of 

existing VWP countries, detennining the eligibility prior to designation of potential new VWP 

candidates, making determinations regarding compliance with policy and statutory requirements. 

negotiating related bilateral VWP infonnation sharing agreements, and reporting regularly to 

Congress. This effort, thus, necessitates being situated in a management structure that integrates, 

coordinates, and can provide Departmental o'JersigiIt across legal. policy, operational, and 

international domains. It also requires close coordination with other DHS Components and 

across the interagency. The VWPO was originally moved into PLCY in 2007 because of its 

central role and responsibility to integrate and coordinate effot1s across legal, policy, operational 

and international domains. More recently. Secretary Napolitano has detennined that day-to-day 

operations of the VWPO should be located in the Office of International Affairs, while PLCY 

continue to oversee and manage the policy issues associated with the visa waiver program. 

Once again, thank. you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report. If you 

have any questions, you may contact me at (202) 282-9708 

Sincerely. 

yJ~ David Heyman 

Assistant Secretary 

for Policy 

3 

www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Deborah Outten-Mills, Acting Assistant Inspector General for Inspections 

Dagmar Firth, Senior Inspector 

Shawntae Hampton, Inspector 

Jennifer Kim, Inspector 

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-13-07 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

DHS Component Liaison (two copies) 

Acting Chief Privacy Officer 

Office of Management and Budget

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress

Congressional oversight and appropriations committees, as appropriate 

www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-13-07 
 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this document, please call us at (202) 254-4100, fax your 

request to (202) 254-4305, or e-mail your request to our Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) Office of Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. 

For additional information, visit our website at: www.oig.dhs.gov, or follow us on Twitter 

at: @dhsoig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To expedite the reporting of alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any 

other kinds of criminal or noncriminal misconduct relative to Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) programs and operations, please visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov 

and click on the red tab titled "Hotline" to report. You will be directed to complete and 

submit an automated DHS OIG Investigative Referral Submission Form. Submission 

through our website ensures that your complaint will be promptly received and 

reviewed by DHS OIG. 

Should you be unable to access our website, you may submit your complaint in writing 

to: DHS Office of Inspector General, Attention: Office of Investigations Hotline, 245 

Murray Drive, SW, Building 410/Mail Stop 2600, Washington, DC, 20528; or you may 

call 1 (800) 323-8603; or fax it directly to us at (202) 254-4297. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.