a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate

October 2005 FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Agencies Have 

Improved the 

Intercountry Adoption 

Process, but Further 

Enhancements Are 

Needed

GAO-06-133
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

October 2005

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Agencies Have Improved the Intercountry 

Adoption Process, but Further 

Enhancements Are Needed 

Highlights of GAO-06-133, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Foreign 

Relations, U.S. Senate 

U.S. intercountry adoptions nearly

tripled from more than 8,000 to 

more than 22,000 between fiscal

years 1994 and 2004. While the 

Department of State (State) and

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS) manage the 

process, factors ranging from

corruption to inadequate legal 

frameworks in foreign countries

could lead to abuses such as the 

abduction of children. GAO (1) 

describes the U.S. intercountry

adoption process, (2) assesses the

U.S. government’s efforts to

manage the intercountry adoption

process, (3) assesses U.S. efforts to

strengthen safeguards and mitigate

against the potential for fraudulent 

adoptions, and (4) describes the

Hague Convention (Convention)

and the statuses of U.S. and top 

sending countries’ implementation

of the Convention. 

What GAO Recommends

To improve the management of the 

U.S. intercountry adoption process,

GAO recommends that the

Secretary of Homeland Security

work with the Director of USCIS to

formalize its quality assurance 

process so it can assess the quality

of the adoption process over time

and identify areas where training or 

guidance may be warranted, and to

consider establishing a formal and

systematic approach to document 

specific incidents of problems 

identified in foreign countries to

retain institutional knowledge and

analyze trends. DHS and State 

agreed with our findings and 

recommendations. 

Adoptive parents must meet domestic and foreign government requirements 

to complete intercountry adoptions. However, factors such as foreign 

governments’ procedures may contribute to varying time frames for 

adoptions. USCIS and State are the domestic agencies responsible for 

intercountry adoptions. 

 

USCIS and State made efforts to enhance the process by improving 

interagency coordination and communication with parents and developing 

additional guidance on adoptions. In addition, USCIS streamlined the 

intercountry adoption process by eliminating the application and fees for 

parents to obtain U.S. citizenship certificates for eligible children. While 

USCIS has taken measures to review the quality of the adoptions process, 

GAO found that the agency does not have a formal quality assurance 

program in place where results are summarized and reported to senior 

agency officials so that an assessment of the quality of the intercountry 

adoption process can be made over time. 

 

Factors in foreign countries’ environments may allow for abuses in 

adoptions. To reduce the likelihood of such abuses, USCIS and State have 

taken such steps as holding diplomatic discussions with foreign 

governments and imposing additional U.S. procedural requirements. 

However, USCIS has not established a formal and systematic process for 

documenting specific incidents of problems in foreign countries. Such a 

process would allow for a systematic approach to analyze problematic

trends and retain institutional knowledge. 

The Hague Convention governing intercountry adoptions establishes 

minimum standards designed to help alleviate some of the risk associated 

with the adoption process. The United States has signed the Convention and 

taken several steps toward implementing the Convention; however, key 

steps remain, including formal ratification of the Convention. Since its 

creation, 66 countries (which represented about 39 percent of all U.S. 

intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004) have ratified the Convention. 

Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions from Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004 

Fiscal year

Adoptions in thousands

0

8.333

22.884

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: GAO analysis of State data.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-133.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Jess Ford at 

(202) 512-4268 or fordj@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 6

USCIS and State Implement Law for U.S. Intercountry Adoptions, 

with Foreign Governments Playing a Role in the Process 12

U.S. Agencies Improved the U.S. Intercountry Adoption Process, but 

USCIS Lacks a Formal Quality Assurance Process 19

USCIS and State Have Taken Steps to Strengthen Safeguards to the 

Process in Foreign Environments, but USCIS Does Not 

Systematically Document Incidents of Potential Abuses 24

United States and Some U.S. Top Sending Countries Have Not 

Ratified Multilateral Convention That Establishes Minimum 

Intercountry Adoption Standards 28

Conclusions 33

Recommendations for Executive Action 33

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 34

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 36

Appendix II: Total Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by Country, 

Fiscal Year 2004 39

Appendix III: List of USCIS Overseas District and 

Sub Offices 43

Appendix IV: Hague Ratification by Country and U.S. Intercountry 

Adoption Totals for Fiscal Year 2004 44

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 46

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of State 48

GAO Comments 60

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 61

Tables Table 1: Countries That Currently Have Restrictions on 

Intercountry Adoptions, as of September 30, 2005 12

Table 2: Approximate Length of Time for Completion of Adoption 

Overseas and Estimated Adoption Costs in Top Four 

Sending Countries (2005) 19
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Figures Figure 1: Number U.S. Intercountry Adoptions from Fiscal Years 

1994 through 2004 8

Figure 2: Distribution of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by Sending 

Countries from Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004 9

Figure 3: Number of Intercountry Adoptions from Top Four 

Sending Countries from Fiscal Years 1994 through 

2004 10

Figure 4: U.S. Intercountry Adoption Process 17

Figure 5: Hague Implementation Time Line by Fiscal Year 31

Figure 6: World Map of Hague Ratification by Country and U.S. 

Intercountry Adoption Totals for Fiscal Year 2004 44

Abbreviations

DHS Department of Homeland Security

IAA Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000

INA Immigration and Nationality Act

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service

IR immediate relative

IVO Immigrant Visa Overseas System

PAS Performance Analysis System

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

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 1 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

October 21, 2005 Letr

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar

Chairman 

Committee on Foreign Relations

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

More and more U.S. citizens are starting and expanding their families by 

adopting children from other countries. The number of children that 

entered the United States through intercountry adoptions increased from 

about 8,000 in fiscal year 1994 to about 22,000 in fiscal year 2004.1

 The U.S. 

intercountry adoption process is managed by the Department of Homeland 

Security’s (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and 

the Department of State (State) and is complicated by a number of 

domestic and foreign government requirements for adopting a child from 

another country. Prospective parents often use the services of an adoption 

agency to help guide them through this adoption process and identify 

orphans that need families. To adopt a foreign-born child that will live in 

the United States, the prospective parents must meet qualifications 

outlined by U.S. immigration law. Additionally, the child and the 

prospective parents must meet the legal requirements for adoption in the 

child’s country of origin, and the child must meet requirements outlined by 

U.S. immigration law to enter the United States. Despite the existence of 

such U.S. and foreign government regulations, a number of factors in 

foreign countries, such as corruption, may lead to abuses in intercountry 

adoption procedures. In recent years, several countries have suspended 

their intercountry adoption programs in response to concerns over abuses 

in intercountry adoptions, as well as to review their intercountry adoption 

processes and improve safeguards. The 1993 Hague Convention on 

Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry 

Adoption (Convention) provides additional safeguards by establishing 

uniform standards for intercountry adoptions.

1

A U.S. intercountry adoption is defined as an adoption of a child who changed his or her 

habitual country of residence, the sending country, to the United States, the receiving 

country. This report measures the number of U.S. intercountry adoptions using the number 

of visas issued to these children to immigrate to the United States. Unless otherwise 

specified, the report uses the term “intercountry adoption” to refer to children coming into 

the United States.
Page 2 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

In response to your interest in intercountry adoptions, this report (1) 

describes the U.S. intercountry adoption process, (2) assesses USCIS’ and 

State’s efforts to manage the intercountry adoption process, (3) assesses 

U.S. efforts to strengthen safeguards and mitigate against the potential for 

fraudulent adoptions, and (4) describes the Hague Convention and the 

statuses of U.S. and top sending countries’ implementation of the 

Convention.

To address our objectives, in Washington, D.C., we interviewed USCIS and 

State officials responsible for intercountry adoptions and reviewed 

relevant agency documents on the U.S. intercountry adoption process. We 

also visited USCIS offices in New York and Los Angeles to see how USCIS 

implements domestic procedures related to intercountry adoptions. Both 

of these offices ranked in the top 20 percent of domestic offices for the 

number of intercountry adoption cases received in fiscal year 2004 and 

demonstrate geographic diversity. In addition, we contacted U.S. adoption 

organizations and agencies to understand their roles, as well as some 

adoptive parents who belonged to national adoptive parent support groups 

and were willing to respond to us, to hear about their experiences with the 

U.S. intercountry adoption process. To understand the intercountry 

adoption environment and U.S. processes and procedures in overseas 

locations, we visited Guatemala and Russia. These two countries were 

consistently ranked among the countries where the majority of children 

adopted into the United States originated from in fiscal years 1994 to 2004. 

In both countries, we met with USCIS and State Bureau of Consular Affairs 

officials managing the U.S. intercountry adoption process, foreign 

government officials, and private adoption facilitators, and visited 

orphanages to learn about their respective roles in the adoption process. 

We conducted research on the Convention by reviewing it, obtaining 

information on countries’ current statuses, verifying that the Convention’s 

Web site data was current through a discussion with a member of the 

Convention, and discussing the implementation statuses with Guatemalan 

and Russian government officials. Appendix I contains a more detailed 

description of our scope and methodology. 

We performed our work from February to October 2005 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief Adopting a child from a foreign country is a complex process with a variety 

of domestic and foreign government requirements that prospective parents 

must meet. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) establishes 
Page 3 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

requirements for prospective adoptive parents seeking to adopt children 

from foreign countries and criteria for the child’s entry into the United 

States. USCIS and State are the two federal agencies responsible for 

implementing the INA’s intercountry adoption requirements. In addition to 

domestic requirements, the parents and the child must also meet the 

requirements for adoption established by the national government where 

the child resides. USCIS is the principal federal focal point for receiving 

and processing intercountry adoption applications, determining the 

parent’s eligibility and fitness to adopt, and determining whether the child 

meets the INA’s definition of an orphan. In overseas locations where there 

is no USCIS office, USCIS has delegated its authority to determine orphan 

status to State.2

 In addition, State’s overseas consular offices issue visas for 

entry into the United States. After the U.S. intercountry adoption 

requirements have been met and the child has immigrated to the United 

States, eligible children receive automatic U.S. citizenship. Due to various 

factors, including foreign country requirements, time frames and costs 

incurred for adopting children may vary. 

We found that USCIS and State made efforts to improve the process by 

implementing many of the priorities that an interagency task force 

identified in 2002. To enhance the process, both agencies improved 

interagency coordination and communication with parents and developed 

additional guidance. In addition, USCIS made efforts to streamline the 

intercountry adoption process by eliminating the application and fees for 

parents to obtain U.S. citizenship certificates for eligible children. The task 

force identified problems with consistency in applying procedures among 

adoption adjudicators and a lack of centralized guidance from 

headquarters. To ensure better consistency among its adjudicators, USCIS 

developed standard operating procedures in 2003. However, the agency has 

not provided training on these new procedures. Although USCIS has taken 

measures to review the quality of the adoptions process, we found that the 

agency does not have a formal quality assurance program in place where 

results are summarized and formally reported to senior agency officials. To 

help ensure the accuracy and completeness of adoption documents, in 

early 2004, a USCIS district office began a document review of completed 

adoption files and addressed individual cases through e-mails sent to 

relevant officials at USCIS and State. However, a more structured approach 

would allow the agencies to assess the quality of the intercountry adoption 

2

One exception is Moscow, Russia, where USCIS has an office present, but State has this 

delegated authority. See appendix III for a list of USCIS Overseas District and Sub Offices. 
Page 4 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

process over time, ensure that senior officials from USCIS and State are 

aware of the results, and identify opportunities where additional training or 

guidance may be warranted. 

Although USCIS and State have taken steps to strengthen safeguards to 

reduce the likelihood of fraudulent adoptions in foreign countries, USCIS 

has not established a procedure to systematically document problematic 

incidents that it has identified in its work so that these trends can be 

analyzed by its staff. Some factors in the foreign country, such as 

corruption and the lack of a legal framework over intercountry adoptions, 

may allow for inappropriate activities in adoptions to occur. To reduce the 

likelihood of abuses in intercountry adoptions, State and USCIS have taken 

such steps as holding diplomatic discussions with foreign governments and 

imposing additional U.S. procedural requirements. For instance, in 

Guatemala, concerns of illegally obtained children for adoption led to the 

U.S. requirement for DNA testing of mothers and children. Also, USCIS and 

State provide publicly available information on Web sites regarding 

country-specific requirements and any known problems with the countries’ 

processes. Although agency officials are aware of general risk 

environments in foreign countries, USCIS has not established a formal and 

systematic process for analyzing and documenting specific incidents of 

potential abuses in the foreign environment. Such a process would include 

documenting USCIS staff’s knowledge of unscrupulous facilitators and 

disreputable adoption agencies identified in their work on adoptions. Given 

the experience with past intercountry adoption concerns related to child 

selling and buying activities, documentation of problematic individuals and 

incidents in foreign countries would allow for a systematic approach to 

analyze problematic trends and retain institutional knowledge.

The Convention governs intercountry adoptions by establishing minimum 

standards designed to help alleviate some of the risk associated with 

intercountry adoption processes; however, since the United States and 

three out of its four top sending countries have not ratified it, the benefits 

of the Convention have not been fully realized. The Convention provides 

some safeguards by establishing international minimum standards in the 

intercountry adoption process. Under the Convention, countries are to 

designate a Central Authority to carry out the Convention, prohibit 

improper financial gains from intercountry adoptions, and accredit 

adoption service providers that perform certain functions specified by the 

Convention. The United States has signed the Convention, designating 

State as the Central Authority, and State has taken several steps toward 

implementing the Convention. However, key steps remain, which include 
Page 5 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

finalizing regulations and accrediting entities to carry out some of the 

functions in the adoption process. Once these steps are completed, the 

United States plans to ratify the Convention. Although State’s target date 

for implementation is fiscal year 2007, agency officials stated that they 

could not predict how long it will take to complete implementation due to 

the reliance on other bodies to complete certain steps, such as adoption 

service providers applying for accreditation. Three of the top four sending 

countries of U.S. adoptions over the past 10 fiscal years—Guatemala, 

Russia, and South Korea—have not ratified the Convention. In September 

2005, China, the top sending country of U.S. adoption, ratified the 

Convention. Since its creation, 66 countries (which represented about 39 

percent of all U.S. intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004) have ratified 

the Convention. 

To improve the management of the U.S. intercountry adoption process, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following 

actions working with the Director of USCIS to

• formalize its quality assurance mechanisms so that the agency can 

assess the quality of the intercountry adoption process over time, ensure 

that senior officials from USCIS and State are aware of the outcomes of 

the quality assurance process, and identify opportunities where 

additional training or guidance may be warranted; and

• consider establishing a formal and systematic approach to document 

specific incidents of problems in intercountry adoptions that it has 

identified in foreign countries to retain institutional knowledge and 

analyze trends of individuals or organizations involved in improper 

activities.

The Departments of Homeland Security and State provided written 

comments on a draft of this report, which we have reprinted in appendixes 

V and VI. DHS generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations. State also agreed with our findings and conclusions and 

provided additional information regarding its outreach efforts to the 

adoption community. In addition, State provided supplementary 

information on its Actions on Intercountry Adoptions in Selected Countries 

in appendix VI. 
Page 6 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Background The INA3

 defines U.S. parameters for intercountry adoptions. INA 

establishes criteria for children’s entry into the United States and eligibility 

requirements for prospective adoptive parents of children from foreign 

countries. A child is eligible for an immediate relative (IR) classification 

under the INA if the child meets the definition of an “orphan,” as stipulated 

in the act.4

 In addition, adopting parents must meet certain requirements 

related to their age, financial status, and medical condition.

Over the past 5 years, there have been legislative developments in the U.S. 

intercountry adoption process, with further changes proposed. The 

Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA)5

 provides the domestic legislation 

to implement the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, hereinafter referred to as 

the Hague Convention or the Convention in this report. The IAA designates 

State to serve as the Central Authority of the United States to carry out 

most responsibilities of the Convention, including accreditation of 

adoption service providers.6

 Also in 2000, the United States enacted the 

Child Citizenship Act7

 to allow automatic citizenship for eligible adopted 

3

Codified at 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.

4

The act includes in its definition of immediate relative children who have been orphaned by 

the death or disappearance of, or abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, 

both parents. If one parent remains, that parent must be incapable of providing the proper 

care for the child and must, in writing, irrevocably release the child for adoption and 

emigration. Additionally, a child can qualify as an IR if the child has resided with and been in 

the legal custody of the adopting parent for at least 2 years, or, in some instances, where the 

child has not yet been adopted, but is traveling to the United States for purposes of 

adoption. Also, a child qualifies as an IR if he or she is the natural sibling of a child that has 

been adopted or is being adopted by the same family and meets all requirements above 

except that the child is under the age of 18. 

5

Pub. L. No. 106-279 (Oct. 6, 2000).

6

The act assigns functions specified in Article 14 of the Convention (relating to the filing of 

applications of prospective adoptive parents) to the Attorney General.

7

Pub. L. No. 106-395 (Oct. 30, 2000). 
Page 7 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

children.8 Furthermore, in 2005 congressional legislation was introduced 

regarding the U.S. intercountry adoption process.9

Intercountry Adoptions 

Have Steadily Increased

Intercountry adoptions may be a viable alternative to domestic adoptions 

for parents interested in adopting an infant, according to the National 

Adoption Information Clearinghouse. In fiscal years 2002 to 2004, DHS 

reported that at least 40 percent of children adopted by U.S. parents were 

under age 1, and at least 42 percent were between the ages of 1 and 4. In the 

past 10 years, the annual number of U.S. intercountry adoptions has 

consistently increased and nearly tripled, from more than 8,000 in fiscal 

year 1994 to more than 22,000 in fiscal year 2004 (see fig. 1).10

8

To be eligible, a child must meet the following requirements: (1) has at least one U.S. citizen 

parent (by birth or naturalization), (2) is under 18 years of age, (3) resides permanently in 

the United States in the legal and physical custody of a U.S. citizen parent, and (4) meets the 

requirements applicable to adopted children under the INA.

9

The legislation, known as the Intercountry Adoption Reform Act of 2005, proposes to 

establish an Office of Intercountry Adoptions within State and appoint an Ambassador at 

Large to head the office; transfer functions and resources related to intercountry adoptions 

currently performed by DHS to State; amend INA to grant automatic U.S. citizenship to 

some foreign-born adopted children; and require an annual report on intercountry adoption. 

10To assess the reliability of the data we used from the State’s Immigrant Visa Overseas 

System (IVO), we interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the completeness and 

accuracy of the data. Based on the information and documentation we obtained, we 

concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable to use in this report. 
Page 8 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Figure 1: Number U.S. Intercountry Adoptions from Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004

The majority of children adopted into the United States between 1994 and 

2004 have originated from four countries—China, Russia, South Korea, and 

Guatemala—which consistently ranked among the top five sending 

countries of children adopted by U.S. parents (see app. II for a listing of all 

intercountry adoptions by country in fiscal year 2004). In total, adoptions 

from these four countries accounted for over 70 percent of all U.S. 

intercountry adoptions in the past 10 years (see fig. 2). 

Fiscal year

Adoptions in thousands

0

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

8.333

22.884

Source: GAO analysis of State data.
Page 9 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Figure 2: Distribution of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions by Sending Countries from 

Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004

a

Each of the countries included in “other countries” makes up less than 3% of intercountry adoptions 

during this time.

Adoptions from China, Russia, and Guatemala increased significantly 

between fiscal years 1994 and 2004, accounting for the vast majority (92 

percent) of the total increase (about 14,000) in U.S. intercountry adoptions 

during this time. The number of adoptions from South Korea has remained 

more consistent during this time (see fig. 3). 

11%

27%

24%

29%

9%

Russia

South Korea

Other countriesa

Top four sending countries

China

Guatemala

Source: GAO analysis of State data.
Page 10 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Figure 3: Number of Intercountry Adoptions from Top Four Sending Countries from 

Fiscal Years 1994 through 2004

Although the United States is one of the world’s leading receiving countries 

for intercountry adoptions, some U.S. children are adopted by foreigners. 

Statistics on the number of U.S. children adopted by foreigners are not 

currently collected on a national level,11 however, Canada, for example, 

reports adoptions of over 700 U.S. children from 1993 to 2002. 

Current Restrictions on 

Intercountry Adoptions

In recent years, several countries, including the United States, have 

restricted12 intercountry adoptions from or to all or specified countries for 

various reasons, including concerns of fraud, medical concerns, 

11With U.S. implementation of the Hague Convention through IAA, State will be required to 

submit a report to Congress that includes the number of U.S. children emigrating from the 

United States for intercountry adoptions.

Fiscal year

Adoptions

0

625

1,250

1,875

2,500

3,125

3,750

4,375

5,000

5,625

6,250

6,875

7,500

South Korea

Guatemala

Russia

China

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: GAO analysis of State data.

12The term restriction in this report may refer to suspensions, bans, or moratoriums.
Page 11 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

natural disasters,13 and time allowed for a country to review safeguards in 

its intercountry adoption process. Although some of these restrictions have 

since been removed, such as those recently in China, Azerbaijan, and 

Vietnam,14 several remain in effect. Currently, the United States has a 

suspension on intercountry adoptions from Cambodia—the only U.S.-

imposed suspension—which was issued in 2001 due to evidence of 

widespread corruption. Additionally, several foreign governments currently 

have restricted intercountry adoptions, in some cases because the 

countries are examining their adoption process (see table 1). 

13For example, countries affected by the 2004 Tsunami, such as Indonesia and Sri Lanka, 

announced measures to prevent adoptions of children who lost their parents in the disaster 

until all reasonable efforts to reunite such children with immediate or close relatives had 

been concluded. According to State officials, this practice follows accepted international 

practice regarding intercountry adoptions rather than imposing restrictions on adoptions. 

14China issued a suspension on intercountry adoptions due to medical reasons (SARS 

outbreak) that was lifted in 2003. Vietnam issued a decree in 2002 that required an 

agreement on intercountry adoptions between Vietnam and other countries. The United 

States and Vietnam did not have an agreement at the time the decree was issued and, 

therefore, intercountry adoptions were stopped. However, after the two countries signed an 

agreement in June 2005, adoptions have resumed. Azerbaijan issued a suspension in 2004 

pending the implementation of new adoption procedures. Azerbaijan lifted the suspension 

in August 2005 when an Azerbaijani investigation into adoption practices was concluded. 
Page 12 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Table 1: Countries That Currently Have Restrictions on Intercountry Adoptions, as 

of September 30, 2005

Source: GAO analysis of State information. 

USCIS and State 

Implement Law for 

U.S. Intercountry 

Adoptions, with 

Foreign Governments 

Playing a Role in the 

Process

The U.S. intercountry adoption process, which is defined by the INA and 

primarily implemented by USCIS and State, is complicated by a number of 

domestic and foreign government requirements and can be separated into 

three phases.15 First, USCIS determines the parents’ eligibility and fitness to 

adopt through its review of the prospective parents’ application, home 

study reports, and background checks. Next, USCIS—or State, in countries 

where USCIS has no offices—determines the child’s orphan status by 

examining documents and, when warranted, conducting overseas 

investigations. Finally, State’s overseas consular officers verify the child’s 

orphan status and eligibility for an immigrant visa. (Fig. 4 illustrates the 

three phases of the U.S. government’s process for intercountry adoptions.) 

Depending on the type of visa issued, children admitted to the United 

States may qualify for automatic citizenship. Various factors, such as 

different foreign government’s requirements, contribute to varying lengths 

Country Reason for restriction

Belarus Adoptions are on hold while the government conducts an investigation of 

allegations of adoption irregularities; a new adoption law was signed in 

January 2005, but a new adoption procedure has not yet been finalized.

Costa Rica Issued a moratorium in 2003 with countries that have not ratified the 

Hague Convention; however, Costa Rican law permits intercountry 

adoptions to be performed by attorneys, and maintains no restrictions on 

such adoptions.

Georgia Banned directed adoptions, in which birth parents relinquish a child 

directly to adoptive parents, in 2003 (this was the most common method of 

adoption by U.S. citizens in Georgia); State notes that this is generally 

viewed in the adoption community as a positive development.

Romania Limited intercountry adoptions to biological grandparents, effective in 

2005, making permanent the moratorium it issued in 2001 because its 

adoption framework did not protect the best interest of the child.

Ukraine Suspended acceptance of new adoption dossiers from U.S. citizens and 

citizens of several other countries; according to Ukraine, this decision was 

based in part on the past noncompliance of some families with post 

adoption reports required by Ukrainian law.

15Most parents who permanently reside in the United States and adopt overseas go through 

this three-step process. 
Page 13 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

of time required for the process and the varying costs incurred by adoptive 

parents. 

Phase I—Prospective 

Parents’ Suitability to Adopt 

Is Determined

In the first phase of the U.S. intercountry adoption process, USCIS 

determines the potential parents’ suitability to adopt a child who resides 

outside of the United States. The INA defines qualifications for prospective 

adoptive parents.16 USCIS implements this requirement through its 68 

domestic offices.17 Prospective parents submit to USCIS fingerprints; a 

filing fee; home study;18 proof of compliance with preadoption 

requirements of the prospective parent’s state of residence; other 

documents such as proof of citizenship, age, marriage license, and divorce 

decrees; and, in some cases, an Application for Advance Processing of 

Orphan Petition (Form I-600A).19 The home study is completed by a party 

approved under the laws of the prospective parent’s state of residence, 

such as an adoption agency, and includes interviews with the family and an 

assessment of the prospective parent’s suitability to adopt a child. After 

USCIS receives all required documents from parents, the agency reviews 

the documents, conducts background checks on all adult members living in 

the household, and makes its determination. If USCIS determines that the 

prospective parents are eligible to adopt and fit to provide the child with 

proper care, then it sends them a Notice of Favorable Determination 

16Under the INA, the prospective parent of an orphan must be a U.S. citizen and, if married, 

apply for permission to adopt a foreign orphan jointly with his or her spouse or, if 

unmarried, be at least 25 years old at the time he or she files the orphan petition. Meeting 

preadoption requirements of the child’s proposed state of residence is applicable to cases in 

which parents are required to readopt the child in the United States. 

17At USCIS domestic offices, staffing to handle intercountry adoptions is determined by each 

office. In offices with large caseloads, between one and two staff handle intercountry 

adoption cases. Intercountry adoption cases make up less than 1 percent of the agency’s 

overall workload, about 22,000 cases of approximately 6 to 7 million total cases. 

18The laws of every state and the District of Columbia require all prospective parents (no 

matter where they intend to adopt) to participate in a home study. This process has two 

purposes for intercountry adoption: to educate and prepare the adoptive family for adoption 

and to evaluate the fitness of the adoptive family. Specific home study requirements vary 

greatly from agency to agency, state to state, and (in the case of intercountry adoption) by 

the child’s country of origin. USCIS includes requirements for the home study in its standard 

operating procedures. 

19Filing of the Form I-600A is optional, and it enables parents who want to adopt, yet have 

not identified an orphan, to initiate the adoption process. Regardless of whether parents file 

a Form I-600A, they must file a Form I-600. 
Page 14 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Concerning Applications for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition (Form 

I-171H or I-797C). 

Phase II—Child’s Status as 

an Orphan Is Determined

The second phase in the process requires U.S. federal agencies to 

determine the orphan status of the child to be adopted, as defined by the 

INA. Depending upon the location of the child, either an USCIS officer or 

State consular officer determines whether the prospective adoptive child 

meets the U.S. immigration law definition of an orphan.20

Once a child has been identified, adopting parents file a Petition to Classify 

the Orphan as an Immediate Relative (Form I-600), provide proof of the 

child’s age and identity, proof that the child is an orphan, and proof of a 

foreign government-issued adoption decree or guardianship. In order to 

obtain adoption decree or guardianship in the foreign country, parents 

must meet the foreign government’s laws and requirements. Foreign 

governments may place additional requirements on prospective parents, 

including those regarding the prospective parents’ age and residency in 

country, as well as the requirement for parents to agree to provide post 

adoption information. The Russian government, for example, requires an 

agreement from adoptive parents to provide periodic and on time 

postplacement reports. However, Russian government officials have noted 

that American adoptive parents have not always complied with this 

requirement.

USCIS or State officials review the documentation for Form I-600 and, 

depending on the specifics of the case, may also undertake a field 

investigation. Sometimes officers interview birth mothers or visit 

orphanages to verify the circumstances surrounding the child’s orphan 

status. Following the completed review, USCIS or State officials make a 

determination. If all documents are sufficient and the child has been 

determined an orphan, USCIS or State officials approve the I-600 petition 

and send parents a Notice of Approval of Relative Immigration Visa 

Petition (Form I-171). 

20In 30 overseas USCIS offices, USCIS adjudicates orphan cases. In countries where USCIS 

does not have an overseas office, State consular officers help determine the child’s orphan 

status and approve adoption cases; if cases are not approvable, consular officers send these 

to one of USCIS’ three district offices overseas in Bangkok, Mexico City, and Rome. See 

appendix III for a list of USCIS Overseas District and Sub Offices. 
Page 15 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Phase III—Child’s Eligibility 

to Immigrate to the United 

States Is Determined

The third step of the process involves State’s issuance of an immigrant visa 

to the child for admission into the United States.21 With respect to state law, 

most states grant full recognition to a foreign adoption decree. In some 

instances, states require adoptive parents to validate the foreign decree.22

After parents have an approved Form I-600, they submit a completed 

Immigrant Visa application (Form DS-230, Parts I and II) along with the 

application fee and required documentation. The consular officer then 

examines the documents, which include the following:23

• child’s birth certificate and passport (or other valid travel document);

• evidence of adoption or legal custody for purposes of emigration and 

adoption, as well as evidence of whether the adopting parents saw the 

child prior to or during adoption proceedings (if applicable); and 

• record of medical exam from the embassy’s panel physician (this exam 

is largely to ensure that children with communicable diseases do not 

enter the United States; parents are advised by State to consult with 

other professionals for complete physical or mental evaluations of the 

orphan’s health). If significant health problems are uncovered, parents 

may be asked to sign an affidavit acknowledging their desire to continue 

with the case given the medical condition of the child and, in some 

cases, parents may be requested to sign an affidavit regarding their 

intent to obtain necessary vaccinations for the child upon entry to the 

United States. 

21In Guatemala, the U.S. embassy schedules specific immigrant visa appointment dates and 

times for all adoption cases.

22According to the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, states such as Colorado 

and Connecticut do not grant full recognition until that decree is validated by a state court. 

For more information, see http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/general/legal/statutes/international.pdf. 

23For children not yet adopted, not seen by both adopting parents, or who will reside in 

states requiring readoption, parents must also submit the Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support) 

with accompanying documentation. 
Page 16 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

State consular officers then approve the child for an IR-3 or IR-4 immigrant 

visa,24 if all documentation for the orphan is in order. State provides an 

immigrant visa package25 for the child to be presented to the Customs and 

Border Protection officer at the U.S. port of entry. According to State 

officials, the visa issuance process usually takes about 1 or 2 days.

24IR-3 visas are issued for orphans who had a full and final adoption overseas by both 

adopting parents, when both parents physically saw the child prior to or during local 

adoption proceedings. IR-4 visas are is sued when a full and final adoption has not been 

completed overseas, or when a full and final adoption has been completed but one or both 

parents(s) did not see the child prior to or during the adoption process. 

25The visa package includes the Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition, 

Petition to Classify the Orphan as an Immediate Relative, a USCIS or State official’s 

Determination on Child for Adoption, court adoption decree, birth certificate, abandonment 

or relinquishment documents, DS-230, medical-panel physician report, immunizations or 

waiver, evidence of employment, and evidence of assets and liabilities. Additionally, the 

Affidavit of Support (Form I-864) and 3 years’ income tax reports are included in the 

package for IR-4 visas.
Page 17 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Figure 4: U.S. Intercountry Adoption Process 

Application

I-600A

Application

I-600

I-171H

approval

or

I-797C

approval

I-171

approval

Sources: GAO analysis of USCIS and State information.

Parents submit home study, 

fees, I-600A application, 

and other required 

documents to USCIS.

- USCIS reviews home 

study, application, etc.

- USCIS conducts 

background check.

Are parents 

eligible to 

adopt?

Sealed visa package

Parents

approved

Child

approved

Is the 

documentation 

sufficient?

no

yes

yes

Does child meet 

definition of orphan?

no

yes

yes

Parents identify child

- Parents submit I-600 and other 

required documents to USCIS/State. 

- Parents meet foreign government 

requirements.

- Parents obtain adoption decree or 

guardianship from foreign 

government.

- USCIS/State review 

documents.

- USCIS/State conduct field 

investigations, if necessary.

Parents 

submit 

application, 

fee, and 

other 

required 

documents 

to State.

- State reviews and 

verifies documents.

- Medical exam of child 

by State-contracted 

physician.

- Interview of child and 

parent/s.

Is the 

documentation 

sufficient?

yes

Is the 

visa 

approved?

Phase 1

Parent suitability 

determined

Phase 2

Orphan status

determined

Phase 3

Visa eligibility 

determined

Visa

issuance

photo
Page 18 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

U.S. Citizenship 

Requirements Differ 

Depending on Visa 

Classification 

The INA establishes the criteria by which foreign-born children adopted by 

U.S. parents become U.S. citizens. Foreign-born children under the age of 

18 admitted to the United States and residing permanently in the United 

States based on an issued IR-3 visa automatically acquire U.S. citizenship as 

of the date of admission to the United States. USCIS reviews IR-3 visa 

packages and sends Certificates of Citizenship to eligible children without 

requiring any additional forms or fees. In most cases, children that receive 

IR-4 visas may automatically acquire U.S. citizenship at entry if there was a 

final adoption abroad by a U.S. citizen parent and the state where the child 

resides does not require readoption. Other children that receive IR-4 visas 

acquire U.S. citizenship upon full and final adoption in the United States.

A Range of Factors 

Contribute to Varying 

Adoption Completion Times 

and Costs

Various factors make it difficult to generalize the length of time required 

and exact costs incurred by adoptive parents for intercountry adoptions. 

Country-specific adoption requirements, particularly in the top sending 

countries of U.S. intercountry adoptions, may contribute to the different 

time frames it may take to adopt a child. For example, the Russian 

government requires adoptive parents to travel to Russia to meet the 

prospective adoptive child. Since Russia also requires that the child remain 

in Russia before the court hearing, adoptive parents may travel a second 

time to Russia to attend the court hearing and adopt the child. In addition, 

procedural requirements in the foreign country may be difficult to meet. 

For instance, in Guatemala, birth certificates of the adopted child and 

documents proving the identity of birth mothers may be difficult and timeconsuming to locate. Other factors, such as the prospective parents’ ability 

to provide adequate and timely information to meet U.S. intercountry 

adoption requirements, may also contribute to the length of time it takes 

for U.S. government officials to approve adoptions. For example, 

prospective parents may file application forms for intercountry adoptions 

to USCIS, which allows prospective parents up to 12 months to submit 

supportive documentation, such as the home study. Estimated total 

adoption costs incurred by adoptive parents may also vary depending on 

the foreign country.26 Table 2 shows the variations on the estimated length 

of time that foreign governments take to approve typical U.S. intercountry 

26These costs include U.S. government fees, such as the USCIS application fee of $525, 

State’s visa fee of $335, and Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint fee of $70 per 

adoptive family member. The remainder of the costs to adoptive parents includes adoption 

agency, facilitator, and attorney fees; fees charged for the home study; travel expenses; and 

fees charged by foreign governments. 
Page 19 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

adoption cases in country and estimated cost of an adoption incurred by 

adoptive parents among the top sending countries of U.S. intercountry 

adoptions.

Table 2: Approximate Length of Time for Completion of Adoption Overseas and 

Estimated Adoption Costs in Top Four Sending Countries (2005)

Source: Data provided by State. 

Note: Data is based on testimonial information obtained by State Consular Affairs officials reviewing 

intercountry adoption cases in foreign countries. This data provides estimated information on typical 

U.S. intercountry adoption cases. 

a

According to State officials, this length of time is the approximate time spent on U.S. intercountry 

adoption cases by the foreign government and does not include time spent by the U.S. government for 

approval.

U.S. Agencies 

Improved the U.S. 

Intercountry Adoption 

Process, but USCIS 

Lacks a Formal Quality 

Assurance Process 

In 2002, an interagency task force on intercountry adoptions was created to 

examine ways to improve the U.S. intercountry adoption process, and 

USCIS and State implemented most of the priorities that the task force 

identified as necessary for improving the adoption process. USCIS has 

taken measures to review the quality of the adoptions process but lacks a 

structured quality assurance program where results are summarized and 

communicated to senior agency officials.

USCIS and State Improved 

the Intercountry Adoption 

Process

USCIS and State have taken several measures to improve the intercountry 

adoptions process. The Commissioner of the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) 27 made intercountry adoptions a priority for 

the agency in March 2002, after the Commissioner suspended orphan visa 

Country

Approximate length of time 

foreign governments take to 

approve adoption in countrya

Estimated adoption costs for

adoptive parents (per

adoption)

China 10 to12 months $15,000 to $20,000

Russia 5 months $40,000

Guatemala 6 to 7 months $20,000 to $25,000

South Korea 1 year $18,000 to $24,000

27On March 1, 2003, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services became one of three INS 

components to join DHS.
Page 20 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

processing for Cambodia.28 The INS created an adoptions task force with 

State to comprehensively review the existing INS structure for handling 

intercountry adoptions. The task force identified several priorities to 

improve the intercountry adoption process, and the agencies have, over the 

past 3 years, addressed many of the priorities by taking the following 

actions: 

• Improved interagency coordination: The task force suggested that 

coordination needed to continue and that USCIS consider how adoption 

work should be distributed and coordinated between USCIS and State. 

USCIS and State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs have established a 

relationship to work together to address and resolve adoption issues. 

For instance, the agencies hold quarterly meetings to coordinate 

implementing changes to regulations, discuss challenges to the process, 

and improve the forms used by officials in the process. In particular, 

USCIS and State officials regularly discuss specific adoption cases and 

issues that arise in overseas posts, as well as regulatory, administrative, 

and policy matters related to intercountry adoptions. Moreover, in April 

2005, USCIS and State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs officials met at a 

USCIS field office to establish a mechanism for sharing information on 

visa processing. 

• Improved efforts to communicate with parents: The adoptions task 

force identified the need for USCIS and State to provide advisory 

notices for prospective adoptive parents. The task force suggested that 

emphasis should be placed on ensuring that parents were consistently 

informed about procedures, as well as prohibitions related to child 

buying in the process, and that parents receive the most current and 

complete information available on issues identified in countries where 

adoptions occur. To improve communications with parents, USCIS and 

State’s Office of Children’s Issues in the Bureau of Consular Affairs 

provide information on their Web sites,29 USCIS and State officials meet 

with adoption organizations and parents to discuss various issues and 

USCIS field offices have taken steps to provide customer service to 

parents. For example, USCIS and State Web sites provide information 

on the process in the United States and overseas, and the roles of both 

28The Cambodia situation is discussed later in this report. 

29USCIS’ Web site is http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/index2.htm. State’s Web site is 

http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/adoption_485.html. 
Page 21 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

agencies, and alert parents to potential concerns through advisory 

notices about adoption procedures in other countries. USCIS and State’s 

Office of Children’s Issues provide outreach to parents and the adoption 

community by presenting information at regional and national 

conferences. In the two domestic USCIS field offices we visited, we 

found that officials had taken several actions to communicate with 

prospective adoptive parents, such as establishing procedures to meet 

prospective parents and providing telephone numbers for parents to 

directly contact the Adoption Adjudication Officer. 

• Developed standard operating procedures: Another priority of the 

adoptions task force was for USCIS to provide consistent guidance for 

its field officers adjudicating orphan petitions by developing standard 

operating procedures on how to determine parents’ suitability to adopt 

and a child’s orphan status. The task force pointed out that, in some 

cases, an adjudicator may be the only person in the field office that 

handles adoptions and may have a supervisor reviewing their work who 

does not have expertise in adoptions. The task force also reported that, 

even among the best adjudicators, there was little procedural 

consistency in adjudicating adoptions and no centralized guidance from 

headquarters. To address this priority, in 2003, USCIS developed 

standard operating procedures on adoption adjudications and made 

them available to their staff electronically. We reviewed the standard 

operating procedures and found that they described in a very detailed 

manner the process for adjudicating orphan petitions. Furthermore, 

State provides guidance to consular officers on how to process orphan 

visa cases in its Foreign Affairs Manual. 

• Conducted agency training: The task force noted that both USCIS and 

State officials sometimes lacked the training necessary to determine 

orphan status. In response, USCIS developed training materials for its 

domestic and overseas field adjudicators for determining orphan status 

and conducted an intercountry adoptions training course in 2002, which 

some State officials attended. We reviewed the training materials and 

found that they re-emphasized INA statutes for defining orphan status, 

defined the agency’s role and responsibilities for adjudicating orphan 

petitions, and provided details for conducting orphan investigations. In 

addition, to assist consular officers in their orphan investigations, State 

offers fraud training to help its officers ascertain whether information in 

documents for determining orphan status, such as birth certificates, is 

false or whether documents have been altered or falsified. According to 
Page 22 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

a State official, State increased the frequency of the course from twice a 

year to 8 to 10 times per year in 2005. 

• Streamlined the intercountry adoption process: The task force 

emphasized that the agency continue to demonstrate its commitment to 

maintaining the intercountry adoption process as a priority. USCIS 

streamlined some of its intercountry adoption procedures as a result. A 

USCIS official acknowledged that the agency is challenged to balance 

the prospective parents’ interest in creating their new family as quickly 

as possible with the need to review and process each application and 

the required documents in accordance with U.S. law. To address issues 

relating to timeliness, the agency has instituted a policy requiring 

completion of all immigration related applications within 6 months. 

Between October 2003 and July 2005, the agency has processed 

adoption applications in less than 4 months, on average.30 According to 

USCIS officials, many petitioners file an incomplete Advanced Orphan 

Petition (Form I-600A) or Orphan Petition (Form I-600) while they are in 

the process of completing their home study. Regulations allow the 

petitioner(s) up to 12 months to submit supportive documentation. The 

agency strives to process completed applications within 30 days of 

receiving all required documentation, according to USCIS officials. 

In addition, in November 2003, USCIS made efforts to eliminate its 

backlog of U.S. citizenship certificates by centralizing the process. 

USCIS advised its field offices that, if they needed assistance with their 

backlog, to send these cases to a central location for processing. 

According to a USCIS official, from November through December 2003, 

this central office processed 671 of the 700 backlogged cases—the 

remaining cases were either denied or returned to the field office for 

additional follow-up. In addition, to streamline and simplify the 

issuance of Certificates of Citizenship for adopted children who receive 

IR-3 visas and have their adoption finalized overseas, USCIS created the 

IR-3 Entrant Program in January 2004. The program eliminates the 

application and fee for citizenship certificates for about 70 percent of 

children adopted by U.S. citizens. A USCIS official noted that the 

30Since USCIS allows parents up to 1 year to file their home study after USCIS has received 

the parents’ application and fee, USCIS determines the application processing time from 

when USCIS receives the parents’ application and fees to when USCIS completes 

adjudication of the application including the submitted home study.
Page 23 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

agency has consistently met its goal to provide certificates within 45 

days after the family has entered the United States. 

Further, in the intercountry adoption process, a system of checks and 

balances has developed that allows State, in the visa issuance phase, to 

review USCIS paperwork before issuing the visa to the child. 

Additionally, as a part of the streamlined process for issuing the 

citizenship certificates to adopted children, USCIS reviews IR-3 

immigrant visa packages to verify that the child acquired automatic 

U.S. citizenship upon admission to the United States as required under 

the INA. Since April 2005, USCIS and State have established procedures 

to specifically address issues in visa classification decisions. 

USCIS Has Taken Measures 

to Review the Quality of the 

Adoptions Process, but a 

Structured Quality 

Assurance Program Is Not 

in Place 

The adoptions task force reported that USCIS should adopt a quality 

assurance program for orphan adjudications. Although USCIS has taken 

measures to review the quality of the adoptions process, we found that 

USCIS has not developed a formal quality assurance process, similar to the 

programs used in other areas of the agency. The activities of the quality 

assurance program could include such procedures as the review of random 

cases adjudicated by field officers to determine whether they are following 

agency guidance and procedures, as well as the evaluation of statistics to 

determine average processing times of orphan petitions by field offices. 

The task force reported that, even among the best officers, there was little 

procedural or substantive consistency in approach or a centralized source 

of guidance from headquarters. In 2003, USCIS developed standard 

operating procedures that detailed a step by step approach for adjudicating 

orphan petitions with the goal of improved consistency among its 

adjudications, but the agency has not provided training to adjudicating 

officers on these new procedures. The task force also reported that 

problems in adjudicating orphan petitions can be traced to the fact that 

individuals train their successors as best as they can, but there is no routine 

mechanism for obtaining feedback on written work from someone with 

specialized adoption expertise. In the field offices we visited, we found that 

the adjudicators had learned the process for adjudicating adoption 

petitions mostly through on-the-job training and mentoring. USCIS held 

intercountry adoptions training in 2002 as a result of the task force’s 

suggestion; however, not all adjudicators who process adoption cases 

attended the training. A USCIS official stated that the agency plans to hold 

similar training in fiscal year 2006, but no dates have been set. 
Page 24 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

In January 2004, as part of the Child Citizenship Act Program, the USCIS 

Buffalo office began its review of adoption documents for children who 

received IR-3 visas to help ensure the accuracy and completeness of the 

information relating to the adoption process. This review process accounts 

for about 70 percent of the adoption cases, with the remaining 30 percent 

not included. The USCIS Buffalo office has an informal process for 

addressing individual cases by sending e-mails to relevant officials at 

USCIS and State. We reviewed several of the e-mails sent by the USCIS 

Buffalo office, which identified issues such as insufficient documentation, 

misclassifications of visas, and inconsistent interpretation of INA 

regulations. While USCIS Buffalo’s review process has merits, the results of 

the review are not summarized and formally reported to either senior 

USCIS or State officials. Moreover, USCIS does not have a structured 

approach that would allow the agencies to assess the quality of the 

intercountry adoption process over time, ensure that senior officials from 

USCIS and State are aware of the results, and identify opportunities where 

additional training or guidance may be warranted. 

USCIS and State Have 

Taken Steps to 

Strengthen Safeguards 

to the Process in 

Foreign Environments, 

but USCIS Does Not 

Systematically 

Document Incidents of 

Potential Abuses

The conditions in foreign environments can contribute to potential abuses 

in the intercountry adoptions process. USCIS and State have taken steps to 

increase safeguards and mitigate the potential for fraudulent adoptions, 

though USCIS has not formally and systematically documented specific 

problematic incidents to help USCIS adjudicators better understand the 

potential pitfalls in some intercountry adoptions.

Factors in Some Foreign 

Countries May Contribute to 

Abuses in U.S. Intercountry 

Adoptions

While the U.S. immigration law covering intercountry adoptions is designed 

to ensure that adopting parents are suitable and fit to provide proper care 

of the child and that the foreign-born child is an orphan, conditions in some 

countries—such as corruption and the lack of a legal framework over 

intercountry adoptions—may lead to abuses in the intercountry adoption 
Page 25 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

process. According to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF),31

such abuses are more likely to occur in countries where legislative 

provisions are nonexistent, inadequate, or plagued with gaps and 

loopholes. UNICEF research also identified that risk for abuses 

significantly increased when government entities that oversee the adoption 

process are absent, insufficient, or when the prospective parents act 

through intermediaries that may not be licensed. For example, State has 

received a growing number of complaints concerning adoption facilitators 

operating in various countries. Licensing of agents and facilitators is done 

in accordance with local law. However, not all foreign governments require 

that agents and facilitators be licensed. Accordingly, it can be difficult to 

hold facilitators accountable for fraud, malfeasance, or other bad practices 

in general. 

According to USCIS, State, and UNICEF, there have been some known 

cases of abuse in intercountry adoptions, which include

• abducting children;

• exchanging a child for financial or material rewards to the birth family, 

or “child buying”;

• deliberately providing misleading information to birth parents to obtain 

their consent;

• providing false information to prospective adopters;

• falsifying documents; and 

• obtaining favorable adoption decisions from corrupt local or central 

government officials.

Past difficulties with intercountry adoptions in foreign countries, most 

notably in Cambodia, illustrate the potential effect of high-risk adoption 

environments. The United States issued a suspension on intercountry 

adoptions from Cambodia in December 2001 after receiving complaints 

from nongovernmental organizations in Cambodia that criminals were 

involved in “baby buying” for adoptions. From 1997 to 2001, the 

conspirators operated a scheme to defraud U.S. citizens who adopted some 

31Innocenti Digest, Intercountry Adoption (Florence, Italy: December 1998). 
Page 26 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

700 children from Cambodia. The conspirators received approximately $8 

million dollars from adoptive parents in the United States. The conspiracy 

involved assorted crimes, including alien smuggling, visa fraud, and money 

laundering, and included schemes such as the use of baby buyers obtaining 

children from birth parents by informing the birth parents that they may 

have their child back at any time, then obtaining false Cambodian 

passports to enable the children to leave the country. In 2004, after a DHS 

investigation, a U.S. adoption facilitator pled guilty to conspiracy to 

commit visa fraud and conspiracy to launder money.

The United States has also noted ongoing concerns with intercountry 

adoptions in certain countries, as of the date of this report. These countries 

include Guatemala, where a large number of U.S. adopted children 

originate from, as well as Nepal, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. In Guatemala, 

USCIS and State noted on their Web sites that the use of a false birth 

mother to release her child is the usual method chosen by unscrupulous 

operators to create a paper trail for an illegally obtained child. USCIS and 

State officials acknowledged the known problems in Guatemala of birth 

mothers who are paid by private adoption attorneys to relinquish their 

children for adoption. According to State, problematic cases may further be 

complicated by high incidence of corruption and civil document fraud in 

Guatemala. In Nepal, visa fraud is a significant problem facing potential 

adoptive parents, according to State’s Web site. State also emphasized that 

document and identity fraud related to adoptions are serious concerns in 

Nigeria, and a high rate of adoption fraud has been uncovered in Sierra 

Leone.

Both Agencies Have Taken 

Steps to Strengthen 

Intercountry Adoption 

Safeguards in Foreign 

Countries, but USCIS Has 

Not Formally and 

Systematically Documented 

Incidents of Potential 

Abuses 

USCIS and State have taken various steps to strengthen safeguards against 

abuses associated with adoptions from foreign countries. USCIS and 

State’s Office of Children’s Issues coordinate to provide publicly available 

information to alert prospective adoptive parents to country-specific 

adoption processes and serious problems that may develop or already exist 

in foreign adoption processes State officials also hold diplomatic 

discussions with foreign countries regarding intercountry adoptions. 

Through discussions between the United States and Vietnam, for example, 

intercountry adoptions, which had been suspended, resumed after the two 

countries signed an agreement of cooperation in June 2005. In addition, 

USCIS has established written guidance for ways to identify fraud in 

intercountry adoption cases. The guidance provides that USCIS officers 

consider specific fraud indicators, such as documentary deficiencies and 

delays in registering birth certificates. Furthermore, State has provided 
Page 27 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

fraud prevention management training to State consular officers, and 

USCIS officials said that all USCIS officers receive training, which includes 

an antifraud segment, when hired.

USCIS and State have established procedures for determining the orphan 

status of the child based on the conditions that exist in the country relating 

to the intercountry adoption process. These procedures may add to the 

length of time for the adoption process. For example, in countries where 

the adoption process is clear and transparent, and when officers deal with 

adoption agencies with high standards, USCIS allows the field investigation 

to be completed through a documentary review. In some instances, 

however, deficiencies or inconsistencies in the documentation presented 

will require in-depth field investigations. In certain countries, these 

investigations can include additional steps, such as interviews with the 

birth mother, DNA testing when necessary and feasible, and interviews 

with adoption entities such as facilitators, orphanage directors, and local 

officials. In Guatemala, for example, USCIS requires DNA testing in all 

cases where the child is released by an identified birth mother due to 

concerns over the use of false birth mothers to release illegally obtained 

children. In Nigeria, where document and identity fraud related to 

adoptions are serious concerns, all adoptions are required to undergo full 

field investigations to verify the authenticity of the information provided in 

the adoption decrees and U.S. orphan petitions. These added steps in the 

process may contribute to a lengthier completion time for intercountry 

adoptions, but may also help the U.S. government in ensuring the 

legitimacy of information provided on the adopted child and in detecting 

fraud. 

Both USCIS and State publicize general knowledge of the risk environment 

in foreign countries. However, while State has documented specific 

concerns via cable communication, USCIS has not established a procedure 

to systematically document instances of individual problematic situations 

identified through its intercountry adoption work in foreign countries, 

including its staff’s knowledge of unscrupulous adoption attorneys and 

facilitators, as well as disreputable orphanages and adoption agencies. 

Although USCIS officials informed us that they discuss the risk 

environment in foreign countries with overseas staff on a periodic and 

informal basis, agency officials’ knowledge of specific incidents of concern 

may be better captured in a systematically documented method. In 

Guatemala, for example, USCIS staff informed us of instances where 

facilitators may have provided substantial funds to birth mothers who have 

relinquished their children for adoption. A USCIS official had also banned 
Page 28 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

specific adoption attorneys in Guatemala from submitting intercountry 

adoption cases due to the USCIS official’s suspicions of the attorneys’ 

fraudulent practices. This information, however, is communicated 

anecdotally to other USCIS officials without being specifically and 

systematically documented. In addition, while USCIS provides information 

for State’s publicly available notices documenting country conditions, 

individual and detailed accounts of concern are not systematically 

captured. USCIS officials also noted that they have access to cables 

prepared by State officials that discuss concerns with intercountry 

adoptions in foreign countries. Contents in State’s documented cables 

range from documentation of general risks to intercountry adoptions in 

foreign countries to findings during orphan investigations in specific 

adoption cases. 

GAO internal control standards specify that agencies consider adequate 

mechanisms to identify risks arising from external factors, including 

careful considerations of the risks resulting from interactions with other 

federal entities and parties outside the government. Our standards also 

note that agency management should establish a formal process to analyze 

these risks. Documentation by USCIS staff of specific problematic 

incidents would provide a systematic method to retain institutional 

knowledge, analyze trends in the occurrence of these problems, and share 

critical information. 

United States and 

Some U.S. Top Sending 

Countries Have Not 

Ratified Multilateral 

Convention That 

Establishes Minimum 

Intercountry Adoption 

Standards

The Hague Convention, which governs intercountry adoptions, establishes 

minimum standards designed to help alleviate some of the risk associated 

with foreign governments’ adoption processes. The United States has 

signed the Convention and taken key steps toward implementation but has 

not yet formally ratified it, while some U.S. top sending countries have also 

not ratified the Convention.32

32In order to become a party to the Convention, states must either ratify or accede to the 

Convention. Member states to the Hague Conference typically sign and then subsequently 

ratify the Convention. Nonmember states, including, for example, Guatemala, do not sign 

the Convention, but can accede to it. 
Page 29 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Hague Convention 

Establishes Minimum 

Standards for Intercountry 

Adoptions

The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in 

Respect of Intercountry Adoptions is designed to help alleviate some of the 

risks associated with the adoption process by establishing international 

minimum standards that sending and receiving countries must abide by.33

In particular, the objectives of the Convention are (1) to establish 

safeguards to ensure that intercountry adoptions take place in the best 

interests of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental rights as 

recognized in international law; (2) to establish a system of cooperation 

among Contracting States to ensure that those safeguards are respected 

and thereby prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in children; and 

(3) to secure the recognition in Contracting States of adoptions made in 

accordance with the Convention. Standards of the Convention will only be 

applicable for intercountry adoptions in which both the sending and 

receiving country have ratified the Convention. 

More specifically, the Convention’s safeguards include the required 

designation of a Central Authority in each country to implement 

Convention procedures, as well as requirements regarding prospective 

parents, adoptable children, and other involved entities. These Central 

Authorities must coordinate with each other, provide evaluation reports on 

their country’s adoption experiences to other countries, and take the 

appropriate measures to prevent improper financial gain from an 

intercountry adoption, among other responsibilities. Additionally, under a 

Hague adoption, a prospective adoptive parent must apply for an adoption 

through the sending country’s Central Authority. To meet these 

requirements, the sending country must establish that a child is eligible for 

adoption by ensuring that adoption is in the best interest of the child and 

that appropriate counseling and consents, not induced by payment, have 

been provided, while the receiving country must determine that the 

prospective parents are eligible and suitable to adopt. Moreover, the 

Convention requires the receiving country to ensure that the child will be 

authorized to enter and permanently reside in the country before the 

adoption takes place, though this is not a prerequisite to parent-child 

contact. Under the Convention, the Central Authority may delegate certain 

functions to a public authority or an accredited body, as long as this body 

pursues only nonprofit objectives, is staffed by qualified persons, and is 

33The Convention also allows countries that have implemented the Convention to enter into 

agreements to improve the function of the Convention procedures. 
Page 30 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

subject to supervision. The Convention also permits many Central 

Authority functions to be performed by other bodies or persons who meet 

certain ethical, training, and experience standards.34

Although the Convention establishes minimum standards, it does not 

establish formal means to determine whether countries are complying with 

them. The United States has monitoring mechanisms, outlined in the IAA,35

to ensure it adheres to the standards of the Convention. However, the 

Convention does not include mechanisms to determine whether other 

countries are doing so as well. For example, although the Convention 

requires the sending countries to prepare a report for each child, it is up to 

the sending country to ensure that its report is factual. 

United States and Some Top 

Sending Countries Have Yet 

to Ratify the Convention

Although State has taken some key steps to implement the Convention, 

several remain. The United States signed the Convention in 1994. In 2000, 

the Senate gave its advice and consent, but the United States will not 

formally ratify the Convention until it is able to carry out the obligations 

required of it by the Convention. That same year, the United States passed 

the implementing legislation, the IAA, which established State as the U.S. 

Central Authority for intercountry adoptions. Following passage of the 

legislation, State has taken several steps to prepare for implementation, 

including drafting and issuing regulations for comment as required by 

IAA,36 hiring staff to carry out some of the responsibilities of the 

Convention, and requesting applications for accrediting entities, which 

under IAA are responsible for accrediting adoption service providers. 

However, some key steps remain, which include finalizing regulations, 

deploying case registry software to track adoption cases,37 and signing 

agreements with accredited entities. Implementation of the Convention is 

34Central Authorities from other countries have the right to not accept nonaccredited 

entities involvement in the process. The Central Authority is required to provide the names 

of accredited and nonaccredited bodies involved in the process. 

35Pub. L. No. 106-279 (Oct. 6, 2000), 42 USC4901 et seq. 

36IAA requires the issuance of new regulations for the accreditation process for adoption 

service providers and preservation of Convention records. In addition, regulations will need 

to be drafted to account for the changes made to the visa issuance process. 

37IAA requires State to submit a report to Congress that includes the number of intercountry 

adoptions that involve a child immigrating to and emigrating from the United States for both 

Hague and non-Hague adoption cases. 
Page 31 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

one of State’s highest priorities, according to State officials. Figure 5 

provides a detailed time line of the United States’ implementation of the 

Convention.

Figure 5: Hague Implementation Time Line by Fiscal Year

State officials said the implementation of the Convention is a long-term 

project and attributed its lengthiness to several challenges. First, IAA 

required that State consider the standards or procedures developed or 

proposed by the adoption community before issuing regulations.38 Once 

regulations were issued to the public for comment, State received about 

1,500 comments from more than 200 entities expressing a wide range of 

views, some calling for more stringent standards and others for less 

2000 2001 2002 2006 2003 2004 2005 2007

United States passed 

implementing 

legislation 

designating State as

Central Authority; 

State began 

development of case 

registry software.

State drafted 

regulations for the 

accreditation process

and preserving records; 

State established 

requirements for a

federal accreditation 

program.

State issued 

regulations for 

comment.

State plans to finalize 

adoption visa

regulations; State 

plans to finalize and 

deploy case registry 

software.

State plans to ratify the 

Convention; however, 

State cannot ratify until 

a number of adoption 

service providers are 

accredited and, further, 

State cannot predict 

how many may apply for 

accreditation and how 

long it will take to 

approve them.

State cleared 

regulations with 

stakeholders and 

agencies as required 

by IAA.

State received about 

1,500 comments on 

regulations and began 

preparation of written 

responses and revision 

of regulations; State 

received 12 

applications for 

accrediting entities (6 

of which State is in 

discussions with).

State plans to 

authorize designated 

accrediting entities

with signed 

agreements to 

accredit/approve 

adoption agencies.

Source: GAO analysis of State documents.

3842 U.S.C. 14923 (b).
Page 32 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

stringent. State revised the regulations, including responses to comments, 

and sent them to Office of Management and Budget. Second, State is 

further challenged in drafting agreements with accrediting entities because 

such entities could be either state licensing bodies or nonprofits, both of 

which entail a variety of different restrictions, such as state laws. Finally, 

State must complete some steps in sequential order. For example, 

agreements with accrediting entities can not be signed until the regulations 

are finalized. Further, although State’s target date for implementation is 

fiscal year 2007, agency officials stated that they could not predict how 

long it will take accrediting entities to approve adoption service agencies. 

According to officials, State will have completed its work needed to 

implement the Convention by the end of 2005, at which time the adoption 

service providers will have to apply for accreditation. In addition, USCIS 

must revise regulations to implement the Convention, and, according to 

USCIS, they are currently in the process of making the revisions.

Since its creation, 66 countries (which represented about 39 percent of all 

U.S. intercountry adoptions in fiscal year 2004) have ratified the 

Convention.39 Three out of four top sending countries for U.S. intercountry 

adoptions—Guatemala, Russia, and South Korea—have not ratified the 

Convention. In September 2005, China, the top sending country of U.S. 

adoptions, ratified the Convention. State officials said that Russia is 

working toward ratification of the Convention. Guatemala acceded to the 

Convention in 2002, but, in 2003, the Guatemalan court ruled the accession 

to be unconstitutional based on technicalities. South Korea has not signed 

the Convention. See appendix IV for the countries that have implemented 

the Convention, as well as the total number of U.S. intercountry adoptions 

in fiscal year 2004 from these countries, as well as the top four sending 

countries.

Following implementation of the Convention, the United States plans to 

continue adoptions with non-Hague Convention countries, according to 

State officials. However, State officials told us that prior to U.S. 

implementation of the Convention, other Hague Convention countries 

could potentially suspend adoptions with the United States. For example, 

Costa Rica announced the suspension of non-Hague adoptions in 2003, 

though the country has continued to allow some adoptions by U.S. citizens, 

according to State officials. 

39For a full list, see http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.statusprint&cid=69.
Page 33 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Conclusions With more and more U.S. citizens expanding their families by adopting 

children who live in other countries, it is important for the U.S. government 

to have procedures in place that provide prospective parents with 

transparent and accessible information on adoptions, coordination 

between the two primary agencies responsible for implementing U.S. 

immigration law on intercountry adoptions, and mechanisms to evaluate 

the suitability of prospective parents and to determine the child’s status as 

an orphan and eligibility to immigrate to the United States. The United 

States has such procedures in place, and the designated agencies have 

worked to improve them. While U.S. adoptive parents desire a smooth and 

expedited adoption process, agency officials are challenged to balance the 

importance of prioritizing and expediting intercountry adoption cases with 

the need to conduct thorough investigations to ensure the legitimacy of 

each adoption. 

In recent years, State and USCIS have taken measures to enhance the 

intercountry adoption process. However, the development of an 

intercountry adoptions quality assurance program would help to ensure 

that U.S. intercountry adoption procedures are consistently followed 

domestically and worldwide. Moreover, because foreign governments play 

a prominent role in U.S. intercountry adoptions, the U.S. government is 

limited in its ability to mitigate against abuses that take place abroad. 

Although the U.S. government has taken measures to address some risks to 

intercountry adoptions, a systematic documentation of such incidents in 

foreign countries would allow for a formal mechanism for retaining and 

sharing specific information among staff working on adoption cases.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To improve the management of the U.S. intercountry adoption process, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following 

actions working with the Director of USCIS to

• formalize its quality assurance mechanisms so that the agency can 

assess the quality of the intercountry adoption process over time, ensure 

that senior officials from USCIS and State are aware of the outcomes of 

the quality assurance process, and identify opportunities where 

additional training or guidance may be warranted; and

• consider establishing a formal and systematic approach to document 

specific incidents of problems in intercountry adoptions that it has 

identified in foreign countries to retain institutional knowledge and 
Page 34 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

analyze trends of individuals or organizations involved in improper 

activities.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

The Departments of Homeland Security and State provided written 

comments on a draft of this report (see apps. V and VI). GAO incorporated 

technical comments from both agencies as appropriate. Both DHS and 

State generally agreed with the report draft’s observations and conclusions. 

DHS agreed with our two recommendations for USCIS to formalize its 

quality assurance mechanisms and for USCIS to consider establishing a 

formal and systematic approach to document specific incidents of 

problems in intercountry adoptions identified in foreign countries. DHS 

also commented that the report accurately describes the process and 

responsibilities of both agencies in the intercountry adoption process. DHS 

noted that both agencies have improved interagency coordination and 

efforts to communicate with parents, developed standard operations 

procedures, conducted training, and streamlined the process. 

State commented that the department and USCIS have established 

procedures that provide prospective adoptive parents with transparent and 

accessible information, ensure coordination between their distinct 

supportive roles, and meet the requirements of U.S. law. State also noted 

that the report outlines the separate responsibilities of each agency and 

recognizes the steps that both agencies have taken to ensure that 

intercountry adoptions take place within the context of strong safeguards. 

State replied that it is deeply concerned about the welfare of children 

around the world and regards the Hague Convention as an important 

means of promoting strong safeguards and ensuring that intercountry 

adoption remains a viable option for children around the world who seek 

permanent family placements. The department also discussed its action on 

implementing the Hague Convention and indicated that it plans to complete 

the tasks necessary to ratify the Convention in 2005 and to enable adoption 

service providers to be accredited in time for the United States to be able to 

ratify the Convention in 2007. Also, State provided additional information 

regarding its outreach efforts to the adoption community that we added to 

the report and provided supplementary information on Department of State 

Actions on Intercountry Adoptions in Selected Countries. 
Page 35 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

We will send copies of this report to appropriate Members of Congress, the 

Secretaries of the Departments of Homeland Security and State, and the 

Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. We also will make 

copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix VII.

Sincerely yours,

Jess T. Ford

Director, International Affairs and Trade
Page 36 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

To describe the U.S. intercountry adoption process, we met with 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS) and Department of State (State) officials in Washington, 

D.C., with responsibilities for managing intercountry adoptions cases. 

Specifically, we met with officials in USCIS’ Offices of Field Operations and 

International Operations, and State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs’ Offices of 

Children’s Issues and Visa Services. We reviewed documents on U.S. 

intercountry adoptions, including information on USCIS and State Web 

sites, which outlined specific procedures for prospective adoptive parents 

to complete during the intercountry adoption process, as well as 

information on the child’s eligibility for citizenship. Furthermore, we 

reported on the varying intercountry adoption completion times and costs 

incurred by adoptive parents in the top four sending countries based on 

discussions with officials from State’s Office of Children’s Issues, who 

obtained this information from State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs officers 

handling intercountry adoption cases in the four overseas locations. These 

Bureau of Consular Affairs officers provided approximate time frames 

based on their experiences in reviewing intercountry adoption cases. We 

did not test the reliability of this data.

To assess the U.S. government agencies’ efforts to manage the intercountry 

adoption process, we interviewed USCIS and State officials in Washington, 

D.C. We reviewed a USCIS task force report from June 2002, which 

assessed the U.S. intercountry adoption process and identified areas for 

improvements. We discussed actions taken to address these issues with 

USCIS officials. We further reviewed USCIS and State documents to 

understand their procedures for handling intercountry adoptions cases and 

their management of the process. These documents include USCIS 

Standard Operating Procedures and Adjudicator’s Field Manual, as well 

as State’s Foreign Affairs Manual. Additionally, we reviewed USCIS and 

State’s caseload data, documentation of communication and coordination 

between the two agencies, as well as training materials provided to USCIS 

and State officials related to intercountry adoptions. The estimate of the 

time that USCIS officials took to process intercountry adoption 

applications relies on their Performance Analysis System (PAS). GAO 

tested the reliability of the PAS data and found that it was sufficiently 

reliable at the aggregate level to identify overall trends. We also visited 

USCIS offices in New York and Los Angeles to see how USCIS implements 

domestic procedures related to intercountry adoptions. Both of these 

offices ranked in the top 20 percent of domestic offices for the number of 

adoption cases received in fiscal year 2004 and demonstrate geographic 

diversity. Additionally, we visited Guatemala City, Guatemala, and Moscow, 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 37 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Russia, to see how USCIS and State implement intercountry adoption 

procedures overseas. Our reasons for selecting those two countries are 

discussed below. Furthermore, we contacted U.S. adoption organizations 

and agencies to understand their roles, as well as some adoptive parents 

who belonged to national adoptive parent support groups and were willing 

to respond to us, to hear about their experiences with the U.S. intercountry 

adoption process. 

To understand the intercountry adoption process and the adoption 

environment in overseas locations, we visited Guatemala City and Moscow; 

we selected these locations for various reasons. Both countries were 

consistently ranked among the top five sending countries for U.S. 

intercountry adoptions from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 2004. In 

Guatemala City, USCIS officials adjudicate all orphan petitions to 

determine the eligibility of the adopted children while State officials issue 

visas to the adopted children. In contrast, State officials with designated 

responsibility in Moscow approve the eligibility of the adopted children and 

issue their visas. In addition, USCIS and State officials noted concerns with 

intercountry adoptions abuses in Guatemala, which research conducted for 

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) corroborated. In both countries, 

we interviewed USCIS and State Bureau of Consular Affairs officials 

managing the U.S. intercountry adoption process. We also met with foreign 

government officials and private adoption facilitators and visited 

orphanages to learn about their respective roles in the adoption process 

and their views on the risks associated with intercountry adoptions in 

Guatemala and Russia. The information on foreign law in this report does 

not reflect our independent legal analysis, but is based on interviews and 

secondary sources.

To describe the Hague Convention and the statuses of U.S. and top sending 

countries’ implementation of the Convention, we analyzed the text of the 

Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of 

Intercountry Adoption to identify the purpose and standards of the 

Convention. We also analyzed the U.S. Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, 

which provides for the implementation of the Convention by the United 

States. We also reviewed State’s Web sites and documents regarding the 

status of its implementation of the Convention, including comments on 

draft regulations and State’s Fiscal Year 2006 Performance Summary. In 

addition, we interviewed USCIS and State officials to determine the status 

of the U.S. implementation of the Convention. Finally, we obtained data on 

other countries’ ratification of the Convention from the Web site of The 

Hague Conference on Private International Law, which tracks the statuses 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 38 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

of countries that have signed and ratified the Convention. To verify that this 

data on the Web site was current, we interviewed an official from the 

member of the permanent bureau of the Convention. Furthermore, we 

discussed the implementation statuses of the Convention in their own 

countries with Guatemalan and Russian government officials.

We performed our work from February to October 2005 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 39 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Appendix II

Total Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions 

by Country, Fiscal Year 2004 ApendxiI

Sending country Number of adoptions

Afghanistan 1

Albania 9

Algeria 1

Armenia 31

Azerbaijan 26

Bangladesh 9

Barbados 1

Belarus 202

Belize 13

Benin 1

Bolivia 5

Bosnia-Herzegovina 1

Brazil 69

Bulgaria 110

Burma 2

Burundi 3

Cameroon 6

Canada 6

Cape Verde 1

Central African Republic 1

Chile 4

China—mainland born 7,044

China—Taiwan born 109

Colombia 287

Congo, Democratic Republic of the 1

Costa Rica 10

Croatia 1

Czech Republic 2

Djibouti 3

Dominica 2

Dominican Republic 18

Ecuador 28

El Salvador 16

Eritrea 6

Estonia 13
Appendix II

Total Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions 

by Country, Fiscal Year 2004

Page 40 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Ethiopia 289

Fiji 2

Georgia 24

Germany 2

Ghana 13

Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1

Greece 2

Guatemala 3,264

Guyana 36

Haiti 356

Honduras 8

Hong Kong S.A.R. 15

Hungary 8

India 406

Indonesia 2

Iran 6

Ireland 3

Jamaica 51

Japan 45

Jordan 4

Kazakhstan 826

Kenya 21

Korea, South 1,716

Kyrgyzstan 2

Laos 4

Latvia 15

Lebanon 14

Lesotho 1

Liberia 86

Lithuania 29

Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Rep. of 1

Madagascar 4

Malaysia 1

Mali 1

Marshall Islands, Republic of the 8

Mexico 89

Moldova 32

(Continued From Previous Page)

Sending country Number of adoptions
Appendix II

Total Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions 

by Country, Fiscal Year 2004

Page 41 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Mongolia 23

Morocco 7

Mozambique 3

Nepal 73

Nicaragua 11

Nigeria 71

Pakistan 32

Panama 6

Peru 21

Philippines 196

Poland 102

Portugal 4

Romania 57

Russia 5,865

Rwanda 3

Saint Lucia 2

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2

Samoa 34

Senegal 2

Serbia and Montenegro 2

Seychelles 1

Sierra Leone 36

Singapore 1

Slovakia 1

Somalia 4

South Africa 8

Sri Lanka 13

Swaziland 1

Syria 3

Tajikistan 6

Tanzania 4

Thailand 69

Togo 1

Tonga 4

Trinidad and Tobago 8

Turkey 5

Uganda 17

(Continued From Previous Page)

Sending country Number of adoptions
Appendix II

Total Number of U.S. Intercountry Adoptions 

by Country, Fiscal Year 2004

Page 42 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Source: State.

Ukraine 723

Uzbekistan 3

Vietnam 21

Zambia 10

Total 22,884

(Continued From Previous Page)

Sending country Number of adoptions
Page 43 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Appendix III

List of USCIS Overseas District and 

Sub Offices ApendxiI

Source: USCIS data.

a

Although USCIS has a Sub Office in Moscow, Russia, USCIS officials in Moscow do not handle U.S. 

intercountry adoption cases. Instead, State’s consular officers approve these cases in Moscow.

City Country Office type

Bangkok Thailand District Office

Beijing China Sub Office under Bangkok District Office

Guangzhou China Sub Office under Bangkok District Office

Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam Sub Office under Bangkok District Office

Hong Kong China Sub Office under Bangkok District Office

Manila Philippines Sub Office under Bangkok District Office

Seoul Korea Sub Office under Bangkok District Office

Mexico City Mexico District Office

Ciudad Juarez Mexico Sub Office under Mexico City District Office

Guatemala City Guatemala Sub Office under Mexico City District Office

Havana Cuba Sub Office under Mexico City District Office

Kingston Jamaica Sub Office under Mexico City District Office

Lima Peru Sub Office under Mexico City District Office

Monterrey Mexico Sub Office under Mexico City District Office

Panama City Panama Sub Office under Mexico City District Office

Port-au-Prince Haiti Sub Office under Mexico City District Office

San Salvador El Salvador Sub Office under Mexico City District Office

Santo Domingo Dominican Republic Sub Office under Mexico City District Office

Tegucigalpa Honduras Sub Office under Mexico City District Office

Tijuana Mexico Sub Office under Mexico City District Office

Rome Italy District Office

Accra Ghana Sub Office under Rome District Office

Athens Greece Sub Office under Rome District Office

Frankfurt Germany Sub Office under Rome District Office

Islamabad Pakistan Sub Office under Rome District Office

Johannesburg South Africa Sub Office under Rome District Office

London England Sub Office under Rome District Office

Moscowa

 Russia Sub Office under Rome District Office

Nairobi Kenya Sub Office under Rome District Office

New Delhi India Sub Office under Rome District Office
Page 44 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Appendix IV

Hague Ratification by Country and U.S. 

Intercountry Adoption Totals for Fiscal Year 

2004 ApendxiIV

Figure 6: World Map of Hague Ratification by Country and U.S. Intercountry 

Adoption Totals for Fiscal Year 2004

Albania 9

Andorra 0

Australia 0

Austria 0

Azerbaijan 26

Belarus 202

Belgium 0

Bolivia 5

Number of

adoptions

Number of

adoptions

Number of

adoptions

Hague

countries

Hague

countries

Hague

countries

Brazil 69

Bulgaria 110

Burkina Faso 0

Burundi 3

Canada 6

Chile 4

China 7,044

Colombia 287

Costa Rica 10

Cyprus 0

Czech Republic 2

Denmark 0

Ecuador 28

El Salvador 16

Estonia 13

Finland 0

Guatemala 3,264
Appendix IV

Hague Ratification by Country and U.S. 

Intercountry Adoption Totals for Fiscal Year 

2004

Page 45 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Number of

adoptions

Number of

adoptions

Number of

adoptions

Number of

adoptions

Number of

adoptions

Number of

adoptions

Hague

countries

Hague

countries

Hague

countries

Hague

countries

Hague

countries

Hague

countries

Sources: GAO analysis of Hague Conference and State data; MapArt (illustration).

France 0

Georgia 24

Germany 2

Great Britain and

 Northern Ireland 1

Guinea 0

Hungary 8

Iceland 0

India 406

Israel 0

Italy 0

Latvia 15

Lithuania 29

Luxembourg 0

Madagascar 4

Malta 0

Mauritius 0

Mexico 89

Moldova 32

Monaco 0

Mongolia 23

Netherlands 0

New Zealand 0

Norway 0

Panama 6

Paraguay 0

Peru 21

Philippines 196

Poland 102

Portugal 4

Romania 57

San Marino 0

Slovakia 1

Slovenia 0

South Africa 8

Spain 0

Sri Lanka 13

Sweden 0

Switzerland 0

Thailand 69

Turkey 5

Uruguay 0

Venezuela 0

Hague not ratified/13,935 total adoptions

Top sending countries in FY 2004

Hague ratified/8,949 total adoptions

Russia 5,865

South Korea 1,716

China 7,044
Page 46 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security ApendxiV

GAO-06-133.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security

Page 47 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions
Page 48 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of State ApendxiVI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of State

Page 49 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

GAO-06-133.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of State

Page 50 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of State

Page 51 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Now on p. 12.

See comment 1.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of State

Page 52 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Now on p. 21.

See comment 2.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of State

Page 53 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of State

Page 54 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of State

Page 55 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of State

Page 56 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of State

Page 57 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of State

Page 58 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of State

Page 59 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of State

Page 60 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

The following are GAO’s comments on the letter from the Department of 

State dated October 12, 2005.

GAO Comments 1. State commented that the draft report’s table of countries that currently 

maintain restrictions on intercountry adoptions included countries 

affected by the 2004 South Asian tsunami. The department did not 

believe that it was appropriate to do so because the region was 

following accepted international practices rather than imposing 

restrictions on intercountry adoptions in contrast to the other countries 

included in the table. We removed this listing from the table.

2. State provided additional information regarding its outreach efforts to 

the adoption community, which we added to the report.
Page 61 GAO-06-133 Intercountry Adoptions

Appendix VII

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contact Jess Ford (202) 512-4268 or fordj@gao.gov

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Phyllis Anderson, Assistant 

Director; Joe Carney; Tracey Cross; Mark Dowling; Joel Grossman; Rhonda 

Horried; and Victoria Lin made key contributions to this report.

(320335)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

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

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER