Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: DHS Should Conclude Negotiations and Finalize Regulations to Implement Federal Immigration Law
Published: 2010-05-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In May 2008, the United States enacted the Consolidated Natural Resources Act (CNRA), amending the United States' Covenant with the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) to establish federal control of CNMI immigration in 2009, with several CNMI-specific provisions affecting foreign workers and investors during a transition. CNRA requires that GAO report on implementation of federal immigration law in the CNMI. This report describes the steps federal agencies have taken to (1) secure the border in the CNMI and (2) implement CNRA with regard to workers, visitors, and investors. GAO reviewed federal laws, regulations, and agency documents; met with U.S. and CNMI officials; and observed federal operations in the CNMI.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have each taken steps to secure the border in the CNMI in accordance with CNRA. From November 28, 2009, to March 1, 2010, CBP processed 103,565 arriving travelers at CNMI airports, and ICE processed 72 aliens for removal proceedings. In calendar year 2009, USCIS processed 515 CNMI applications for permanent U.S. residency and 50 CNMI applications for U.S. naturalization or citizenship. However, the DHS components face operational challenges and have been unable to negotiate solutions with the CNMI government. First, airport space available to CBP does not meet facility standards and CBP has not reached a long-term occupancy agreement with the CNMI. Second, ICE has not come to an agreement with the CNMI for access to detention space and as a result has transferred 3 of 30 aliens--convicted criminals under CNMI or U.S. law--to correctional facilities in Guam and Honolulu. Third, DHS efforts to gain direct access to the CNMI's immigration databases have been unsuccessful, hampering U.S. enforcement operations. DHS has begun to implement work permit and visa programs for foreign workers, visitors, and investors, but key regulations are not final and certain transition programs therefore remain unavailable. A lawsuit filed by the CNMI government challenging some provisions of the CNRA resulted in a court injunction delaying implementation of the CNMI-only transitional worker program until DHS considers public comments and issues a new rule. As a result this program is unavailable to employers as of May 1, 2010. DHS has established the Guam-CNMI visa waiver program. However, DHS did not include China and Russia, two countries that provide significant economic benefit to the CNMI. Currently, DHS allows nationals from these two countries into the CNMI temporarily without a visa under the DHS Secretary's parole authority. DHS is reconsidering whether to include these countries in the Guam-CNMI visa waiver program. Although DHS has proposed rules that apply temporary U.S. nonimmigrant treaty investor status to investors with CNMI foreign investor entry permits, the program is not yet available.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Under the terms of its 1976 Covenant with the United States, the  Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) administered its  own immigration systems from 1978 to 2009. The CNMI used its authority  to admit substantial numbers of foreign workers through a permit  program for non-U.S. citizens (noncitizens) entering the CNMI. In 2005,  these workers represented a majority of the CNMI labor force and  outnumbered U.S. citizens in most industries, including tourism and  garment manufacturing, which, until recently, was central to the CNMI’s  economy. The CNMI also admitted visitors under its own entry permit  program and entry permit waiver program and provided various types of  admission to foreign investors.
In May 2008, the United States enacted the Consolidated Natural  Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), amending the U.S.-CNMI Covenant to  establish federal control of CNMI immigration in 2009. CNRA’s stated  intent is to ensure effective border control procedures and protect  national and homeland security, while minimizing any potential adverse  economic and fiscal effects of phasing out the CNMI’s foreign worker  permit program and maximizing the CNMI’s potential for economic and  business growth. CNRA establishes several CNMI-specific provisions  affecting foreign workers and investors during a transition period that  began on November 28, 2009, and ends in 2014. CNRA also amends U.S.  immigration law to establish a joint visa waiver program for the CNMI  and Guam by replacing an existing visa waiver program for Guam visito During the transition period, the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, in  consultation with the U.S. Secretaries of the Interior, Labor, and State and  the U.S. Attorney General, has the responsibility to establish, administer,  and enforce a transition program to regulate immigration in the CNMI. rs.
CNRA requires that we report on the implementation of federal  immigration law in the CNMI and the implementation’s impacts on the  CNMI economy. In February 2010, we reported on the status, since the  establishment of federal immigration control, of several databases that the  CNMI has used to record the permit status of certain aliens and to track  the arrivals and departures of travelers. As agreed with your offices, in  this report we describe (1) the steps that have been taken to establish  federal border control in the CNMI and (2) the status of efforts to  implement CNRA programs with regard to workers, visitors, and investors.  We further agreed to issue a subsequent report regarding any impact on  the CNMI economy resulting from implementation of CNRA.
In preparing this report, we reviewed CNRA as well as regulations,  standard operating procedures, budget documents, and other documents  obtained from federal agencies. We visited Guam and the CNMI, where we  met with officials from the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security (DHS),  Labor (DOL), and the Interior (DOI). In Guam we met with the governor  and representatives of the private sector. In the CNMI we observed  immigration screening in Saipan and Rota and interviewed the CNMI  Attorney General and officials from the CNMI Department of Labor, the  Marianas Visitors Authority, the Workforce Investment Agency, and  representatives of the private sector. Additionally, we met with officials  from DHS, DOL, DOI, and the Department of State (State) in Washington,  D.C. We conducted this performance audit from September 2009 to May  2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on the audit objectives. (See app. I for a more  detailed description of our methodology.)
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: CNMI Political History
paragraphs: The CNMI comprises a group of 14 islands in the western Pacific Ocean,  lying just north of Guam and 5,500 miles from the U.S. mainland. Most of  the CNMI population—58,629 in 2007—resides on the island of Saipan,  with additional residents on the islands of Tinian and Rota. After World  War II, the U.S. Congress approved the Trusteeship Agreement that made  the United States responsible to the United Nations for the administration  of the islands. Later, the Northern Mariana Islands sought self- government while maintaining permanent ties to the United States. In  1976, after almost 30 years as a trust territory, the District of the Mariana  Islands entered into a Covenant with the United States establishing the  island territory’s status as a self-governing commonwealth in political  union with the United States. The Covenant grants the CNMI the right of  self-governance over internal affairs and grants the United States complete  responsibility and authority for matters relating to foreign affairs and  defense affecting the CNMI. The Covenant initially made many federal  laws applicable to the CNMI, including laws that provide federal services  and financial assistance programs. The Covenant preserved the CNMI’s  exemption from certain federal laws that had previously been inapplicable  to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, including federal immigration  laws and certain federal minimum wage provisions. However, under the  terms of the Covenant, the U.S. government has the right to apply federal  law in these exempted areas without the consent of the CNMI government.  The U.S. government enacted the recent federal immigration legislation  under this authority.
section_title: Primary U.S. Agencies Involved in Immigration and Border Control
subsections: section_title: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
paragraphs: Three DHS components—CBP, ICE, and USCIS—have responsibility for  federal immigration and border control.
Customs and Border Protection. CBP is the lead federal agency  charged with keeping terrorists, criminals, and inadmissible aliens out of  the country while facilitating the flow of legitimate travel and commerce at  the nation’s borders. Prior to international passengers’ arrival in the  United States, CBP officers are required to cross-check passenger  information, which air and sea carriers submit electronically prior to  departures from foreign ports, against law enforcement databases. On  arrival, the passengers are subject to immigration inspections of visas,  passports, and biometric data. Generally, international passengers must  present a U.S. passport, permanent resident card, foreign passport, or  foreign passport containing a State-issued visa. Federal regulations require  that international airports provide facilities for the inspection of aliens and  provide office and other space for the sole use of federal officials working  at the airport.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE is responsible for  enforcing immigration laws within the United States, including, but not  limited to, identifying, apprehending, detaining, and removing aliens who  commit crimes and aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States.  ICE’s Office of Investigations investigates offenses, both criminal and  administrative, such as human trafficking, human rights violations, human  smuggling, narcotics, weapons, and other types of smuggling, and financial  crimes. ICE’s Office of Detention and Removal Operations is the primary  enforcement arm within ICE for the identification, apprehension, and  removal of aliens unlawfully in the United States. The Office of Detention  and Removal’s priority is to detain aliens that pose a risk to the community  and those that may abscond and not appear for their immigration hearing.  Consequently, the office uses detention space to hold certain aliens while  processing them for removal or until their scheduled hearing date. ICE  acquires detention space by negotiating intergovernmental service  agreements with state and local detention facilities, using federal facilities,  and contracting with private service contracting facilities.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. USCIS processes  applications for immigration benefits—that is, the ability of aliens to live,  and in some cases to work, in the United States permanently or  temporarily or to apply for citizenship. Most applications for immigration  benefits can be classified into three major categories: family-based,  employment-based, and humanitarian-based. Family-based applications  are filed by U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens to establish their  relationships to certain alien relatives, such as a spouse, parent, or minor  child, who wish to immigrate to the United States. Employment-based  applications include petitions filed by employers for aliens to enter the  United States temporarily as nonimmigrant workers for temporary work  or training or as immigrants for permanent work. USCIS reviews petitions  for certain nonimmigrant workers against criteria such as whether the  petition is accompanied by a certified determination from DOL, whether  the employer is eligible to employ a nonimmigrant worker, whether the  position is a specialty occupation, and whether the prospective  nonimmigrant worker is qualified for the position. Humanitarian-based  applications include applications for asylum or refugee status filed by  aliens who fear persecution in their home countries. USCIS also processes  applications for Temporary Protected Status by aliens affected by natural  disasters or other temporary emergency conditions for employment  authorization and applications for adjustment of status to lawful  permanent residence by alien beneficiaries of family-or employment-based  immigrant petitions who are lawfully present in the United States.
In addition, the Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated to all DHS  components certain immigration authorities, such as authority to grant  parole—that is, official permission for an otherwise inadmissible alien to  be physically present in the United States temporarily. For example, CBP  can grant visitors entry into the United States under the Secretary’s parole  authority, and USCIS can issue advance parole to aliens in the United  States who need to travel abroad and return and whose conditions of stay  do not otherwise allow for readmission if they depart.
DHS also operates the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. Under this program,  foreign nationals from 36 countries may qualify for temporary entry to the  United States with a valid passport from their own country.
section_title: U.S. Department of Labor
paragraphs: DOL responsibilities under its labor certification programs include  ensuring that U.S. workers are not adversely affected by the hiring of  nonimmigrant and immigrant workers. Certain employers must attest to  taking certain steps, depending on the particular labor certification  program, such as notifying all employees of the intention to hire foreign  workers and offering their foreign workers the same benefits as U.S.  workers. For most labor certification programs, DOL certifies eligible  foreign workers to work in the United States on a permanent or temporary  basis if it determines that qualified U.S. workers are not available to  perform the work and that the employment of the foreign worker will not  adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers  similarly employed.
section_title: U.S. Department of State
paragraphs: State has responsibility for issuing visas to foreign nationals who wish to  come to the United States on a temporary or permanent basis. State’s  process for determining who will be issued or refused a visa comprises  several steps, including documentation reviews, in-person interviews,  collection of biometrics, and cross-referencing an applicant’s name against  a database that U.S. embassies or consulates (posts) use to access critical  information for visa adjudication. Each stage of the visa process varies in  length depending on a post’s applicant pool and the number of visa  applications that a post receives.
Figure 1 shows the responsibilities of the DHS components and of DOL  and State related to U.S. immigration and border control.
Ste issu visas  thllow lien to  pply for dmission  t the order.
ICE i reponle for  the enforcement of  immigrtion l  within the interior of  the United Ste,  inclding the identifi- ction, pprehenion,  detention, nd removl  of criminlien.
USCIS process  lien’ ppliction  for immigrtion  enefit (the ability to  live, nd in ome  cas work, in the  United Ste  permnently or  temporrily).
Except where not  reqired te, DOL reqire  employer to flly tet  the labor mrket for  U.S. worker nd  ensure tht U.S.  worker re not  dverely ffected y  the hiring of  nonimmigrnt nd  immigrnt worker.
section_title: U.S. Entry Visas
paragraphs: Under U.S. immigration law, noncitizens may apply for U.S. entry visas  either as nonimmigrants or as immigrants intending to reside permanently.  The nonimmigrant categories for temporary admission include workers  who meet certain requirements, visitors for business or pleasure, and  treaty investors, among others. The immigrant categories include  permanent immigrant investors, family-based, and various employment- based categories for admission to the United States as lawful permanent  residents permitted to work in the United States.
Following are descriptions of the nonimmigrant categories for temporary  admission.
Foreign workers. U.S. immigration law provides for several types of visas  for nonimmigrant workers and their families—H visas and certain  others—and sets caps for two types of H visas, H-1B and H-2B. In  addition to providing for nonimmigrant visas, federal law provides for  permanent employer-sponsored immigrant visas for individuals seeking to  reside permanently in the United States.
Visitors. Under federal law, visitors may come to the United States for  business on a B-1 visa, for pleasure on a B-2 visa, or for business or  pleasure on a combined B-1/B-2 visa. Visitors with B visas are normally  admitted for a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of 1 year. Eligible  nationals of the 36 countries included in the general U.S. Visa Waiver  Program may stay for up to 90 days for business or pleasure in the United  States without obtaining a nonimmigrant visa.
Foreign investors. Federal law allows foreign investors to enter the  United States as nonimmigrants under treaty investor status with an E-2  visa. Treaty investors must invest a substantial amount of capital in a  bona fide enterprise in the United States, must be seeking entry solely to  develop and direct the enterprise, and must intend to depart the United  States when their treaty investor status ends. Treaty investors must be  nationals of a country with which the United States has a treaty of  friendship, commerce, or navigation and must be entering the United  States pursuant to the provisions of the treaty. Federal law also allows  foreign investors to seek permanent immigrant visas (EB-5) for  employment-creation purposes.
section_title: CNRA Provisions Applying U.S. Immigration Law to the CNMI
paragraphs: CNRA applied federal immigration laws to the CNMI beginning on  November 28, 2009, subject to a transition period that ends on December  31, 2014, and with key provisions affecting foreign workers, visitors, and  foreign investors. CNRA includes several provisions that affect foreign  workers and investors during the transition period but that may be  extended indefinitely for foreign workers. During the transition period, the  U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the U.S.  Secretaries of the Interior, Labor, and State and the U.S. Attorney  General, has the responsibility to establish, administer, and enforce a  transition program to regulate immigration in the CNMI. Agencies must  implement agreements with the other agencies to identify and assign their  respective duties for timely implementation of the transition program.  The agreements must address procedures to ensure that CNMI employers  have access to adequate labor and that tourists, students, retirees, and  other visitors have access to the CNMI without unnecessary obstacles. In  addition, CNRA requires, among other things, that the CNMI government  provide the Secretary of Homeland Security all CNMI immigration records,  or other information that the Secretary deems necessary to help  implement the transition program.
Following are descriptions of key CNRA provisions related to foreign  workers, visitors, and foreign investors.
Foreign workers. CNRA allows federal agencies to preserve access to  foreign workers in the CNMI during the transition period, as well as any  extensions of the CNMI-only permit program, but limits subsequent access  to foreign workers to those generally available under U.S. immigration  law. Key provisions regarding foreign workers in the CNMI include the  following:    During the transition period, existing CNMI-government-approved foreign  workers lacking U.S. immigration status can continue to live and work in  the CNMI for a limited time—2 years after the effective date of the  transition program or when the CNMI-issued permit expires, whichever is  earlier. However, CNMI employers hiring workers on or after the  transition effective date must comply with U.S. employment authorization  verification procedures.
During the transition period and any extensions of the CNMI-only permit  program, employers of workers not otherwise eligible for admission under  federal law can apply for temporary CNMI-only nonimmigrant work  permits. During this period, the Secretary of Homeland Security has the  authority to determine the number, terms, and conditions of these permits,  which must be reduced to zero by the end of the transition period and any  extensions of the CNMI-only work permit program. This program may be  extended indefinitely beyond December 31, 2014, by the U.S. Secretary of  Labor for up to 5 years at a time.
During the transition period, employers in the CNMI and Guam can  petition for foreign workers under the federal nonimmigrant H visa  process, without limitation by the established numerical caps, for two  types of H visas. This exemption from the visa caps expires when the  transition period ends in 2014.
During and after the transition period, CNMI employers can petition for  nonimmigrant worker visas generally available under U.S. law. During and  after the transition period, CNMI employers can also petition for  employment-based permanent immigration status for workers under the  same procedures as other U.S. employers.
Visitors. CNRA amends U.S. immigration law to replace the existing  Guam visa waiver program with a joint Guam-CNMI program, in addition  to other changes. Under the Guam-CNMI visa waiver program, eligible  visitors from designated countries who travel for business or pleasure to  Guam or the CNMI are exempt from the standard federal visa  documentation requirements. The Secretary of Homeland Security is to  determine which countries and geographic areas will be included in the  Guam-CNMI visa waiver program. Citizens of countries that do not qualify  for entry under the Guam-CNMI visa waiver program or other U.S. visa  waiver programs may apply for U.S. visitor visas valid for entry to any part  of the United States, including Guam and the CNMI.
Foreign investors. CNRA establishes that foreign investors in the CNMI  who meet certain requirements can convert from a CNMI long-term  investor to U.S. CNMI-only nonimmigrant treaty investor status during the  transition period. New foreign investors can apply for U.S. nonimmigrant  treaty investor status and also can petition for U.S. permanent immigration  status, which was previously unavailable in the CNMI. The Secretary of  Homeland Security is to decide which CNMI foreign investor permit  holders will receive status as U.S. nonimmigrant treaty investors during  the transition period.
Figure 2 shows key federal immigration provisions related to foreign  workers, visitors, and foreign investors.
CNRA does not allow aliens present in the CNMI to apply for asylum until  2015. In the interim, an alien present in the CNMI can request not to be  removed based on a claim of protection from persecution or torture.
section_title: CNMI Actions Related to Implementation of Federal Immigration Law
paragraphs: Since enactment of CNRA in 2008, the CNMI has taken several actions  related to the implementation of federal immigration law.
subsections: section_title: CNMI Lawsuit
paragraphs: On September 12, 2008, the CNMI filed a lawsuit against the United States  in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to have specific  provisions of Title VII of CNRA overturned on the grounds that it  constituted unnecessary intrusion into the CNMI’s local affairs, violating  the terms of the CNMI Covenant and the U.S. Constitution. The CNMI  argued that provisions of CNRA violated the CNMI’s right of local self- government guaranteed by the Covenant, denying it the right to regulate  its local labor force and economy as well as depriving it of revenue, all  without its consent. The CNMI argued that the Constitution limits the  power of Congress to impose a regulatory regimen upon a state without  giving the local government the opportunity to participate in the political  process that resulted in the legislation. The United States, argued, in part,  that the CNMI lacked standing to pursue its claims. The federal  government further argued that even if the CNMI had standing, the  commonwealth had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be  granted, because the legislation applying immigration law to the CNMI was  lawful. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has issued  several rulings in the lawsuit. On November 25, 2009, the court agreed with  the United States that the provisions of CNRA extending U.S. immigration  laws to the CNMI beginning on November 28, 2009, do not violate the U.S.- CNMI Covenant or the U.S. Constitution. The court dismissed the two  counts of the CNMI’s complaint alleging these violations. The court  granted a CNMI motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the  implementation of DHS regulations to implement the transitional worker  program.
section_title: CNMI Protocol for Implementing CNRA
paragraphs: On September 15, 2009, the CNMI government issued “The  Commonwealth’s Protocol for Implementing P.L. 110-229,” covering the  use of CNMI facilities for U.S immigration purposes and U.S.-CNMI data  exchange, among other topics.
CNMI facilities. The protocol outlines the approach that the CNMI will  take regarding certain aspects of the transition program, including those  pertaining to facilities. Specifically, regarding airport facilities, the  protocol describes an intent to work with CBP, taking account of the  Commonwealth Port Authority’s practical and financial limitations. The  protocol explains that the CNMI was prepared to vacate its existing  immigration space at the Saipan, Tinian, and Rota airports but does not  intend to remove any existing lessee currently occupying space at the  airport to accommodate CBP. The CNMI intends to provide facility space  on terms to be negotiated. Regarding detention space in its prison, the  CNMI noted that it was discussing this issue with ICE.
Data exchange. The CNMI protocol proposes to allow the U.S.  government access to immigration-related data. The CNMI has used two  databases, the Labor Information Data System (LIDS) and the Border  Management System (BMS), respectively, to record the permit status of  certain aliens and to record the arrivals and departures of travelers.  Specifically, the CNMI protocol envisions the following:    DHS and the CNMI will engage in a two-way data exchange, with DHS  providing flight entry data and the CNMI providing information from its  immigration records (LIDS and BMS).
The CNMI will provide access to CNMI immigration records that DHS  formally requests via an appropriate document and within a reasonable  time frame.
The CNMI will consider privacy protections in making information  available to the U.S. government.
The CNMI expects to recover the cost of generating and producing any  information requested by DHS.
section_title: CNMI Umbrella Permits
paragraphs: The CNMI issued temporary permits authorizing the holders to remain in  the commonwealth after the federalization transition date, November 28,  2009, for a maximum of 2 years consistent with the terms of the permit.  These “umbrella” permits also include provisions for extending,  transferring, and seeking employment. Between October 15 and November  27, 2009, the CNMI Department of Labor, Department of Commerce, and  Attorney General’s office identified all aliens eligible to receive umbrella  permits, which they issued if an alien appeared personally with adequate  identification and signed the contractual agreement contained in the  umbrella permit. Permits were issued to workers, students, and investors  as well as to their immediate relatives.
Since the injunction against DHS’s regulations for the transitional worker  program, a disagreement has arisen between the U.S. and CNMI  governments regarding employment authorization for aliens who were  authorized to be present by the CNMI government as of November 28,  2009, and were issued an umbrella permit. The U.S. government considers  the employment authorization of aliens to be a matter of federal law, while  the CNMI government maintains that it is a shared responsibility. As a  result of the disagreement, the federal government and CNMI government  have issued conflicting guidance. For example, according to USCIS, an  employer in the commonwealth does not need the approval of the CNMI  Department of Labor to hire a holder of a CNMI foreign worker permit  (Foreign National Worker Permit). In contrast, the CNMI government  maintains that the approval of the local Department of Labor is required.
section_title: DHS Has Begun Implementing Border Control but Has Not Negotiated Solutions to Operational Challenges
paragraphs: DHS components CBP, ICE, and USCIS have each taken steps to secure  the border in the CNMI in accordance with CNRA. In addition, DHS has  taken several steps to facilitate the implementation of CNRA. However,  lack of resolution of the components’ negotiations with the CNMI  government contributes to operational challenges. CBP operational space  at the CNMI airports does not meet its facility standards for ports of entry,  and DHS and the CNMI government have not executed long-term  occupancy agreements that would allow DHS to upgrade the airport  facilities. ICE efforts to acquire detention space at the CNMI local  correctional facility also have been unsuccessful. As a result, as of March  2010, ICE has transferred only 3 of 30 aliens with prior criminal records to  correctional facilities in Guam or Honolulu and released the other 27 on  their own recognizance. Additionally, DHS has not succeeded in  negotiating with the CNMI for direct access to CNMI immigration data,  making it difficult for U.S. officials to verify the status of aliens in the  CNMI and hampering enforcement operations.
subsections: section_title: DHS Has Taken Steps to Secure Border in the CNMI
subsections: section_title: CBP Has Begun Inspecting Arriving Travelers
paragraphs: Prior to beginning inspection of arriving travelers in the CNMI, CBP  officials made numerous visits to the CNMI to determine resource  requirements and prepare for implementation of federal border control. In  June 2009, CBP officially notified the CNMI Port Authority of its border  control facility space, configurational, infrastructure, and physical security  requirements. In response, the CNMI Port Authority sent a letter stating  that it was unable to meet CBP requirements owing to limited financial  resources and expertise and asking CBP to initiate efforts to meet the  facility requirements. According to CBP, it subsequently began  preparations to reconfigure the facilities. CBP officials told us that the  Commonwealth Port Authority gave information technology staff access to  the Saipan and Rota airports to install secure wireless networks on  November 23, 2009, pursuant to CBP’s signing of right-of-entry agreements  for the Saipan and Rota airports on that date. According to CBP, these  agreements allowed it to prepare to begin operations in the airports by  November 28, 2009, while the agency sought to negotiate permanent  occupancy agreements. On November 28, 2009, 45 CBP officers moved  into space previously occupied by the CNMI Department of Immigration at  the Saipan airport and space previously occupied by the airport police at  the Rota airport and began inspecting travelers’ immigration status on  entry into, and in some cases on exit from, the CNMI.
In January 2010, we observed CBP officers at the Saipan airport following  procedures consistent with those required at other U.S. international  airports. For example, we watched CPB officers screen arriving visitors in  the immigration inspection area. According to the CBP officials in Guam  and the CNMI, prior to visitors’ arrival in the CNMI, CBP officers screen  100 percent of the names that airlines submit electronically through a  passenger information system, which the officers access through a  database known as TECS. At immigration booths, we observed CBP  officers verifying arriving passengers’ admissibility by scanning passports,  reviewing other travel documents, and asking questions about the  traveler’s intent. We also observed CBP officers taking photos and  fingerprints and enrolling travelers in an immigration database known as  US-VISIT. We further observed CBP officers escorting some travelers to a  temporary secondary screening area, where officers asked additional  questions to determine travelers’ admissibility and subsequently admitted  or denied travelers entry into the CNMI.
In addition, we observed CBP officers interviewing Chinese and Russian  visitors in the primary screening area who were eligible for, and granted  parole into, only the CNMI under the Secretary’s parole authority.  Because China and Russia are not currently included in the U.S. or Guam- CNMI visa waiver programs, CBP inspectors complete several more  administrative steps to parole Chinese and Russian visitors into the CNMI  than are required to admit visitors from eligible countries. According to  the CBP shift supervisor, while a typical primary interview may take 2 to 3  minutes, an interview for parole may take 5 to 6 minutes.
From November 28, 2009, to March 1, 2010, CBP officers working at the  Saipan and Rota airports processed 103,565 arriving travelers, granting  parole to 11,760 (11 percent). Table 1 summarizes the number of arrivals  processed by CBP officers at the Saipan and Rota airports from November  28, 2009, to March 1, 2010, including those admitted from primary and  secondary screening areas, those granted parole, and those refused entry  from the secondary screening area.
During this period, more than 80 percent of the arriving travelers came  from Japan or South Korea (see fig. 3). Of the arriving travelers from China  and Russia, 86 percent (10,398 of the 12,131) and 90 percent (1,027 of the  1,146), respectively, were paroled into the CNMI only, under DHS  authority.
On March 28, 2010, CBP replaced the first group of officers temporarily  assigned to the Saipan and Rota airports with a new group, according to  CBP officials. On the basis of current flight schedules and estimated  number of travelers, CBP has reduced from 45 to 30 the number of full- time officers required in Saipan and Rota. CBP posted announcements for  entry-level and supervisory officer positions in the CNMI in November  2008 and April 2009 and received approximately 500 job applications from  the CNMI community. Consistent with provisions of CNRA that require  DHS, among other agencies, to recruit and hire staff for its operations  from among qualified U.S. citizens and nationals residing in the CNMI,  CBP hired seven local CNMI citizens, including two who had previously  worked for the CNMI Department of Immigration, and three residents of  Guam. According to CBP’s Human Capital Office, permanent staff will  start working at CNMI airports in July 2010.
section_title: ICE Has Begun Identifying, Detaining, and Removing Illegal Aliens
paragraphs: Since November 28, 2009, 10 ICE officials detailed to Saipan have provided  outreach to the CNMI community, assessed local security risks, identified  aliens in violation of U.S. immigration laws, and processed or detained  aliens for removal proceedings. During the first month of operations in the  CNMI, ICE officials met with local law enforcement officials and provided  information at local events to educate the community on ICE’s law  enforcement role and responsibilities. ICE officials also established a  point of contact in the CNMI Department of Labor and met with staff in  the CNMI Attorney General’s office.
To protect national security, public safety, and the integrity of the U.S.  border in the CNMI, ICE assessed potential security risks that may lead to  future criminal and civil enforcement in the commonwealth. First, ICE  officials predicted that as CNMI labor permits expire, aliens ineligible for  immigration benefits may file fraudulent immigration benefit applications.  Second, ICE officials anticipate an increase in alien smuggling to Guam as  aliens ineligible for immigration benefits try to reach Guam to apply for  asylum. On January 5, 2010, ICE and the U.S. Coast Guard interdicted 24  Chinese nationals attempting to enter Guam illegally by boat.
ICE has also identified individuals who may be in violation of U.S.  immigration laws and has begun processing some aliens for removal. From  December 7, 2009, to March 1, 2010, ICE identified 264 aliens subject to  possible removal from the CNMI—including 214 referrals from the CNMI  Attorney General’s office with pending CNMI deportation orders and 49  referrals from the ICE Office of Investigations and the community—and  requested immigration status information about these individuals from the  CNMI Department of Labor. As of March 1, 2010, ICE officials had  processed 72 of the 264 aliens for removal proceedings, either for being  present in the United States without inspection or parole or for not  possessing a required valid entry document. Of these 72 aliens, 56 were  convicted criminals under CNMI or U.S. law, including 30 who had  completed their sentences at the local correctional facility and had been  released into the community under CNMI authority. ICE also had  transferred 3 of these 30 aliens convicted of crimes under CNMI or U.S.  law to correctional facilities in either Guam or Honolulu and had released  the other 27 on their own recognizance.
On March 9, 2010, ICE officials told us that they had not deported any of  the 72 aliens being processed for removal but that 31 were scheduled for  immigration hearings by the end of March 2010 and 9 had agreed to waive  their right to a hearing and to be deported after completing their criminal  sentences. According to ICE officials, immigration hearings take place  during 1 week of every month, when a judge from the U.S. Department of  Justice Executive Office of Immigration Review travels to Saipan.
section_title: USCIS Has Begun Adjusting Immigrants’ and Nonimmigrants’ Status
paragraphs: Prior to November 28, 2009, USCIS representatives visited the CNMI to  establish contacts, prepare plans for outreach to the community on  forthcoming federal regulations and the transition to federal control of  immigration in the CNMI and identify issues to resolve subsequent to the  transition. Key USCIS activities included the following.
In March 2009, USCIS opened an Application Support Center in Saipan and  stationed two full-time employees at the center to provide information  services, interview residents currently eligible to apply for lawful  permanent resident status or citizenship, and process requests requiring  biometric services. The center is also staffed by three contract employees  who provide biometric collection services.
In early December 2009, USCIS officials met with CNMI employers,  business groups, representatives of community organizations, and the  general public by conducting 13 town hall or public forum meetings on  U.S. immigration law and procedures with a particular focus on  completion of the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. Topics  discussed included (1) the process for CNMI nationals to apply for  immigration benefits under U.S. law; (2) the process for U.S. citizens to file  petitions for alien relatives; and (3) the requirements for aliens living in the  CNMI to obtain the advance parole needed to travel abroad and return to  the CNMI.
For calendar year 2009, USCIS processed 515 CNMI applications for  permanent residency and 50 CNMI applications for naturalization or  citizenship, more than doubling the number of interviews conducted for  applications for residency or citizenship from calendar year 2008,  according to data provided by USCIS officials. By March 17, 2009, USCIS  also received 1,353 advance parole requests and approved 1,123 of them.  USCIS also granted 705 paroles-in-place for domestic travel and 24 group  paroles.
section_title: DHS Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate Implementation of CNRA
paragraphs: To facilitate implementation of CNRA in the CNMI, DHS led meetings with  DOI, DOL, and State, the other departments charged with implementing  CNRA; reported to Congress on the budget and personnel needed by the  DHS components; and initiated outreach to the CNMI government.
Led interdepartmental meetings. From May 2008 through November  2009, DHS led, jointly with DOI, several interdepartmental meetings to  discuss the implementation of CNRA, according to DHS, DOI, and DOL  officials. Discussion during the meetings focused on operational and  legal issues related to implementation of federal immigration law in the  CNMI and on developing an interdepartmental memorandum of  understanding of the departments’ respective duties. According to DHS  and DOL officials, by the end of March 2010, the memorandum had been  finalized but not yet signed by the departments’ Secretaries’ and was  therefore not publicly available.
Reported to Congress on needed budget and personnel. In January  2009, DHS submitted a report to Congress, as required by CNRA, on  current and planned federal personnel and resource requirements. The  report estimated that $97 million was necessary to fulfill all DHS  responsibilities in the CNMI for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. In June 2009,  responding to questions for the record in conjunction with a May 2009  hearing on the implementation of CNRA, DHS presented a new estimate of  $148.5 million and described a phased approach to distribute costs from  fiscal years 2009 to 2011. As of April 2010, DHS had not yet specified the  changes in resources required for administering immigration and travel  laws for the CNMI and Guam, as directed by Congress in its fiscal year  2009 appropriation.
Initiated outreach to CNMI government. Although it has implemented  CNRA primarily through its components, DHS has also initiated  department-level outreach to the CNMI government. Prior to November  28, 2009, the DHS Office of Policy—charged with coordinating DHS  components and working with other federal departments involved in  implementing CNRA—contacted the CNMI government and led several  intercomponent DHS visits to the commonwealth to meet with CNMI  officials and gather information related to the DHS components’ efforts to  establish federal border control in the CNMI. Additionally, in September  2009, the Secretary of DHS met with the Governor of the CNMI to discuss  several aspects of CNRA implementation.
section_title: DHS Components Face Operational Challenges in the CNMI and Have Been Unable to Negotiate Solutions with the CNMI Government
subsections: section_title: CBP Has Not Yet Finalized Long-Term Occupancy Agreements with the CNMI Government for Required Airport Space
paragraphs: The space that the CNMI government has provided for CBP operations at  the Saipan and Rota airports is inadequate to meet CBP’s basic facility  requirements, and the two parties have not yet concluded negotiations for  long-term occupancy agreements that would allow CBP to begin upgrading  the facilities. The CBP Airport Technical Design Standards describes  basic CBP facility requirements for international airports and reflects U.S.  policy, procedures, and minimum development standards for the design  and construction of CBP facilities at airports. These standards specify  space requirements for CBP’s primary, secondary, and administrative  areas, among others, based on the size of the airport and the number of  passengers processed per hour. In addition, U.S. law requires that airports  designated as international airports must provide the U.S. government,  without charge, adequate space for inspection and temporary detention of  aliens as well as for offices.
CBP has estimated that it will process between 800 and 1,400 passengers  per hour at peak hours at the Saipan International Airport and has  designated the airport as a low-volume and midsize airport, requiring at  least 15,000 square feet for primary and secondary screening and other  space. CBP currently occupies approximately 9,390 square feet of airport  space previously used by CNMI Immigration. CBP’s current configuration  at the airport does not include holding cells that meet federal standards;  as a result, CBP lacks space to temporarily detain individuals who present  a risk to public safety and to its officers. According to CBP officials, as of  April 2010, CBP continued to seek access to approximately 7,200  additional square feet of space at the Saipan airport. CBP officials told us  that they were considering three alternatives:  reconfigure part of a 15,390 square-foot space as of January 2010, leased  for storage by a tenant but, according to CBP, not in use;  identify other space in the airport for reconfiguration, in close proximity  to the current immigration processing area; or    build an additional facility on airport land adjacent to CBP’s immigration  processing area at the Saipan airport.
As of April 2010, CBP and the Commonwealth Port Authority had not  concluded negotiations regarding long-term occupancy agreements for  space at the Saipan and Rota airports or resolved key differences.
CBP: In technical comments on a draft of this report, CBP stated that,  given the CNMI’s economic and financial conditions, the agency will  initially fund any construction or reconfiguration required to bring CNMI  existing airport facilities into compliance with CBP’s operational  requirements. CBP also stated that it was working to define its space  needs and to complete facility design plans. However, CBP said that it  would not rent airport space that the CNMI is obligated to provide at no  cost. CBP stated that it agreed with the CNMI regarding the need for  discussion of identified options to meet CBP space needs and for  negotiation of certain key points. As of May 2010, CBP officials reported  that they had not requested that the DHS Office of Policy intervene in  conversations with the CNMI government regarding long-term occupancy  agreements for airport space.
CNMI: According to CNMI officials, the Commonwealth Port Authority is  aware that the airport space does not meet CBP operational requirements.  However, the officials told us that the port authority is not in a financial  position to provide space to CBP without charge, including space that is  currently generating revenue from a tenant. In January 2010, CNMI port  authority officials told us that CPB had not consulted with them regarding  any construction plans, which would require their approval. Additionally,  in commenting on a draft of this report in April 2010, the CNMI said that  CBP had not officially communicated a request regarding its space needs.  The CNMI further commented that the commonwealth is not prepared to  enter into negotiations with CBP unless it is assured that the request for  space has been cleared at least at the assistant secretary level at DHS and  that the department has received the necessary assurance from Congress  that the funds necessary to fulfill CBP’s space needs will be available.
section_title: ICE Efforts to Negotiate for Detention Space in CNMI Correctional Facility Have Been Unsuccessful
paragraphs: ICE has been unable to conclude negotiations with the CNMI government  to arrange access to detention space in the CNMI correctional facility. In  March 2010, ICE estimated that it required 50 detention beds for its CNMI  operations. Under a 2007 intergovernmental service agreement between  the U.S. Marshals Service and the CNMI Department of Corrections, the  CNMI adult correctional facility in Saipan provides the U.S. government 25  detention beds at a rate of $77 per bed per day. As of September 2008,  less than 30 percent of the facility’s beds (134 of 513) were filled.
To obtain needed detention space, ICE proposed to either amend the 2007  U.S. Marshals Service agreement before it expired on April 1, 2010, or  establish a new agreement with the CNMI government. As of March 2010,  after a year of negotiation, ICE had not finalized an agreement with the  CNMI government owing to unresolved cost documentation issues,  according to a senior ICE official.
In March 2009, ICE officials initiated discussion with the CNMI  government regarding needed detention space and requested that CNMI  representatives complete a jail service cost statement.
In October 2009, representatives from the CNMI provided an incomplete  jail service cost statement. The statement did not include capital  construction costs, and CNMI representatives informed ICE officials that  all estimates were preliminary and that the statement would require  additional review.
In November 2009, a CNMI official provided ICE with an e-mail containing  top-level cost estimates, including capital and operating costs totaling  approximately $107 per day.
In December 2009, ICE requested additional documentation for the  construction costs, and the CNMI Attorney General provided a second jail  service cost statement with a further breakdown of the CNMI rate of $107  per day. An ICE assessment of the CNMI statement deemed that the  CNMI had miscalculated certain costs and, after recalculating these costs,  proposed a bed rate of approximately $89 per day.
In January 2010, according to ICE officials, the CNMI acknowledged  calculation errors but did not agree to a bed rate lower than $105.
Since January 2010, negotiations between ICE and the CNMI regarding  detention space have been on hold. According to the ICE contracting  official, the CNMI has not provided any additional information supporting  its $105 rate. Before contracting for beds, ICE requires documentation that  establishes a fair and reasonable cost. According to the CNMI Attorney  General, further documentation for the $105 rate is not necessary because  the commonwealth is negotiating as an equal partner rather than as an  applicant submitting cost proposals to DHS. ICE officials noted that  although they had briefed the DHS Office of Policy on this operational  challenge, ICE had remained responsible for the negotiations because of  its expertise. ICE officials also observed that the CNMI had rebuffed all  ICE efforts to acquire detention space.
According to ICE officials, ICE prefers to detain aliens with prior criminal  records while they await their immigration removal hearings, owing to  possible flight risk and danger to the community. Given the current lack of  needed detention space, ICE has identified three alternatives regarding  detainees it seeks to remove from the CNMI while removal proceedings  are under way:  1.  Issue orders of supervision. Since November 28, 2009, ICE has  released 43 detainees into the CNMI community, including 27 with  prior criminal records, under orders of supervision. According to ICE  officials, orders of supervision are appropriate for detainees who do  not present a danger to the community or a possible flight risk. 2.  Pay to transport detainees to other U.S. locations. ICE can  transport detainees to another detention facility, such as in Guam or  Honolulu. Guam’s correctional facility charges $77 per day. As of  March 1, 2010, ICE had paid approximately $5,000 to transport two  detainees to Guam and one to Honolulu. 3.  Pay CNMI’s daily rate at Saipan correctional facility. ICE may  pay the CNMI’s $105 daily rate for each detainee, if the CNMI provides  appropriate documentation justifying its proposed rate.
In addition, because ICE has been unable to conclude its negotiations with  the CNMI Department of Corrections, ICE cannot conduct immigration  removal hearings for persons currently serving time in the CNMI  corrections facility. As of March 1, 2010, ICE identified 26 CNMI prisoners  serving criminal sentences in the local CNMI correctional facility for  removal proceedings. In general, ICE attempts to conclude removal  proceedings before inmates are released, in order to expedite removals  and avoid additional detention costs, according to ICE officials. However,  the CNMI Department of Corrections will not permit ICE to conduct  immigration hearings at the facility unless ICE agrees to pay utility and  access fees to establish video conferencing services in the CNMI prison.  Officials with the CNMI correctional facility proposed a fee of $84 per day  for utilities and to allow video conferencing hookups. According to an ICE  official, ICE has agreements with other federal and state prisons in other  U.S. locations to hold immigration hearings while inmates are incarcerated  and has installed video-conferencing equipment, free of charge, to allow  inmates to participate in their immigration proceedings while in custody.
section_title: DHS Has Been Unable to Negotiate Direct Access to CNMI Immigration and Border Control Data to Support Ongoing Operations
paragraphs: As of April 1, 2010, DHS components lacked direct access to CNMI  immigration and border control data contained in two CNMI databases,  LIDS and BMS. The CNMI government assigned a single point of contact in  the CNMI Department of Labor to respond to CBP, ICE, and USCIS queries  from the databases, most commonly for verification of an individual’s  immigration status. However, DHS component officials have expressed  concerns about the reliance on the CNMI point of contact and stressed that  it is imperative for the department to have direct access to the CNMI data  systems to perform the department’s mission with maximum efficiency.
ICE officials expressed the following concerns regarding DHS’s reliance  on a single CNMI point of contact for requests for CNMI immigration data:  ICE may lack information needed to support decisions regarding aliens’  status or eligibility to remain in the CNMI. For example, ICE must rely on  the CNMI point of contact for information to determine the status of a  given individual with an umbrella permit.
Relying on one CNMI point of contact to verify immigration status for  individuals subject to ICE investigations could compromise security for  ongoing operations.
Because the CNMI point of contact is an indirect source, basing ICE  detention and removal decisions on data provided by the point of contact  could lead to those decisions’ eventual reversal in court.
Given that ICE operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, the CNMI point  of contact cannot respond to all of ICE’s needs in a timely manner.
USCIS officials also expressed concerns regarding lack of direct access to  LIDS:    Direct access to LIDS would allow USCIS to verify information provided  by applicants for immigration benefits such as advance parole. For  example, when an applicant for advance parole presents the required  CNMI-issued entry permit or umbrella permit, direct access to LIDS would  let USICS officials verify the authenticity of the permit.
Direct access to the data will facilitate the processing of applications for  CNMI-only work permits and for CNMI-only nonimmigrant treaty investor  status.
Direct access to CNMI immigration status information would assist USCIS  in responding to interagency requests for immigration status verification  through its SAVE program and in implementing the E-Verify program in  the CNMI.
In February 2010, CNMI officials reported that the point of contact  assigned to work with the U.S. government had promptly supplied  information on individual cases to U.S. officials from immigration and  border control databases. Moreover, a senior CNMI official stated that if  the point of contact is unable to respond to future DHS inquiries in a  timely manner, CNMI officials would be willing to engage in additional  discussions regarding more direct access to LIDS and BMS.
According to ICE officials, the CNMI responses to ICE inquiries have not been  timely and have not always provided sufficient information. Documentation  that ICE provided shows that from late December 2009 through March 2010,  ICE’s Office of Detention and Removal made 68 inquiries to CNMI’s  Department of Labor to determine aliens’ immigration status. We examined  ICE’s record of these inquiries and found that CNMI response times ranged  from 16 minutes to around 23 hours, averaging roughly 4 and a half hours. ICE  officials reported that the responses contained first and last names and LIDS  numbers but rarely included biographical or identifying information, such as  date-of birth, nationality, or photographs, that could be used to further ICE  investigations. An ICE official also told us that in late February 2010, he sent  an inquiry regarding whether 214 aliens with pending deportation orders,  referred to ICE by the CNMI Attorney General, had been granted valid work  permits prior to November 28, 2009. According to ICE officials, by the end of  March 2010, the CNMI Department of Labor had provided a blanket response  that was insufficient to answer the inquiry.
DHS has communicated, at the department and component levels, with the  CNMI government regarding access to CNMI immigration data.
In a July 2008 letter to the Governor of the CNMI, the DHS Office of Policy  requested information on the current CNMI system for recording and  documenting the entry, exit, work authorization, and authorized  conditions of individuals staying in the CNMl. DHS also requested any  repositories of fingerprints, photographs, or other biometric information  included in the system.
On August 19, 2008, the office of the Governor of the CNMI responded to  the DHS letter by providing an overview of the BMS system but stated that  the CNMI does not maintain any repositories of fingerprints or other  biometric information to share with DHS. According to a CNMI official,  the commonwealth requested fingerprint scanners from DHS but did not  receive them.
During the September 2009 meeting between the Governor of the CNMI  and the Secretary of DHS, the Governor proposed, through the CNMI  protocol for implementing CNRA, providing restricted access to  information contained in LIDS and BMS, for a fee and in exchange for  airline flight entry data.
On February 18, 2010, the Governor sent a letter to CBP indicating that he  had been preliminarily advised that CBP would not share with the CNMI  advanced passenger information provided by airlines and he reiterated the  CNMI’s request for this information. The letter indicated that access to  the airline flight data would facilitate CNMI efforts to prevent an increase  in the number of aliens remaining in the commonwealth beyond their  authorized stay.
On March 31, 2010, CBP Office of Field Operations responded to the CNMI  letter, denying the CNMI access to advanced passenger information  provided by the airlines. The CBP letter stated that the CNMI’s intended use  of the data did not justify their release to CNMI authorities. The CBP letter  further indicated that, given DHS’s responsibility for removing aliens  present in the CNMI beyond their authorized stay, it would be in the CNMI’s  and DHS’s mutual interest for DHS to have access to CNMI immigration  records or any other information that the Secretary deems necessary.
In March 2010, CNMI officials told us that the commonwealth would not  provide DHS increased access to immigration and border control data  because DHS was unwilling to share airline flight data. In written  comments on a draft of this report, the CNMI government stated its  intention to appeal to the Secretary of Homeland Security the DHS  decision not to share these data.
section_title: U.S. Agencies’ Implementation of CNRA Programs for Workers, Visitors, and Investors Is Incomplete
paragraphs: U.S. agencies have begun to implement CNRA for workers, visitors, and  investors, but key regulations are not final and, as a result, transition  programs to preserve access to foreign workers and for investors are not yet  available. In August 2008, we reported on key decisions that the agencies  must make to implement the legislation. On November 25, 2009, the U.S.  District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction  prohibiting implementation of the DHS interim rule for the CNMI-only  transitional worker program. As a result, although federal immigration laws  now apply to the CNMI, the regulatory framework for the CNMI-only  transitional work program is not yet in place and the permit program is not  yet available. DHS has established the Guam-CNMI visa waiver program but  did not include two countries, China and Russia, that the CNMI and Guam  consider key to their tourist industries. According to DHS officials, a policy  review is under way to determine whether the program should be revised to  include these countries, and visitors from both nations meanwhile may  enter the CNMI on the Secretary of Homeland Security’s discretionary  authority to grant parole on a case-by-case basis. The DHS rule for investors  currently exists in a proposed form, and as a result, the regulatory  framework for the CNMI-only investor status is not yet available.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Agencies Have Taken Steps to Create CNMI-Only Work Permit Program, but Program Is Not Yet Available
subsections: section_title: DHS Issued Interim Rule for CNMI-Only Work Permit Program, but Court Injunction Has Prevented Implementation
paragraphs: On October 27, 2009, DHS issued an interim rule comprising regulations to  implement the CNMI-only work permit program for foreign workers not  otherwise admissible under federal law that was established in CNRA.  These regulations address (1) the number of permits to be issued, (2) the  way the permits will be distributed, (3) the terms and conditions for the  permits, and (4) the fees for the permits. The rule was scheduled to take  effect in its current form on November 27, 2009. In issuing the interim rule,  DHS announced that it would accept comments in the development of the  final rule but was not following notice-and-comment rulemaking  procedures, asserting that it had good cause not to do so.
Table 2 shows the key decisions that CNRA calls for the Secretary of  Homeland Security to make in implementing the CNMI-only work permit  program.
DHS’s interim rule establishes the following:    Number of permits. DHS will grant up to 22,417 CNMI-only work permits  between November 28, 2009, and September 30, 2010, based on the CNMI  government’s estimate of the maximum number of foreign workers in the  commonwealth on May 8, 2008. The interim rule notes that DHS will  publish annually in the Federal Register its determination of the number of  permits to be granted each year of the transition period.
Distribution of permits. Under the CNMI-only work permit program,  employers must petition for nonimmigrant workers to obtain status, so  that DHS can administer the work permit program in a manner consistent  with other nonimmigrant categories for temporary admission, such as H- 1B visas. Accordingly, DHS created the CW-1 status, which it deemed to be  synonymous with the term “permit” referenced in the legislation. DHS will  determine whether an occupational category requires alien workers to  supplement the resident work force. The DHS interim rule does not  exclude any specific occupations from the program. However, the rule  notes concerns that three occupational categories—dancing (such as  exotic dancing), domestic workers, and hospitality workers—are subject  to exploitation and abuse, and it invites comments on whether DHS should  exclude these occupations in a final rule.
Terms and conditions of the permit program. Employers must attest  to their eligibility to petition for a CNMI-only work permit, and foreign  workers must meet qualifications for positions. If a foreign worker is in  the CNMI, the employer must attest that the worker is there lawfully.  Additionally, the employer must attest that the position is nontemporary  or nonseasonal and is in an occupational category as designated by the  Secretary and that qualified U.S. workers are not available to fill the  position.
Permit fee. The fee for the CNMI-only work permit is $470. This fee  includes an annual supplemental fee of $150 per worker per year to fund  CNMI vocational education, with the remaining $320 charged per Petition  for a Nonimmigrant Worker in the CNMI (I-29CW). To reduce costs, an  employer may name more than one foreign worker on each petition,  provided that the workers are in the same occupational category, for the  same period of time, and in the same location.
In issuing the interim rule, DHS claimed that it qualified for an exemption  from a requirement that federal agencies publish a notice of proposed  rulemaking in the Federal Register and give the public 30 days to  comment. DHS raised several points to support its finding that it had  good cause to dispense with the notice-and-comment period for the CNMI- only work permit rule. For example, DHS asserted that 18 months is a  short time frame in which to review the CNMI’s immigration system and  develop the regulatory scheme necessary to transition the CNMI to the  U.S. federal immigration system. DHS noted in the interim rule it would  accept comments through November 27, 2009, and would consider those  comments in developing a final rule. DHS stated that the interim rule  would go into effect in its current form on November 27, 2009. The D.C.  District Court found these arguments unpersuasive in its decision to issue  a preliminary injunction for this rule.
DHS received numerous comments on the interim rule from the CNMI  government, a private sector group, and interested businesses and  individuals. The CNMI government asserted that the rule was incomplete  and would damage CNMI workers, employers, and community and  commented that the rule violated procedural requirements for agency  rulemaking. In addition, the Saipan Chamber of Commerce raised  concerns regarding the economic impact of the regulations and made a  proposal to make it easier for workers with the CNMI-only work permit to  return from travel outside the commonwealth. (See text box.)
Comments from the CNMI Government and Private Sector on DHS Interim Rule  for CNMI-Only Work Permit Program  The CNMI government commented on the DHS interim rule stating that, in addition to  disregarding the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act,  the rule was deficient for the following reasons, among others:    The interim rule fails to implement the transitional work program mandated by CNRA.
It does not establish how permits are to be allocated among competing employers,  and it does not establish a procedure for reducing the number of permits to zero by  the end of the transition period.
DHS failed to conduct a required economic impact analysis of the proposed rule.
The interim rule will harm the Commonwealth’s U.S. workers, foreign workers,  employers, and community:    The regulations do not provide preferences for U.S. workers and require only that  employers attest that qualified U.S. workers are not available to fill the position.  Based on CNMI experience with such an “attestation” system, the CNMI  Department of Labor believes it will invite widespread abuse and decrease the job  opportunities available to U.S. workers.
The regulations would cause substantial harm to foreign workers in the CNMI by  subjecting them to increased fees and abuses. For example, the CNMI  Department of Labor finds that the federal system does not bar employers with  records of prior labor abuse from hiring foreign workers and does not assure that  employers have sufficient resources to pay wages.
The regulations hurt employers by defining “legitimate business” to exclude the  direct employment of housekeepers or caregivers by households. The CNMI  Department of Labor also notes the importance of male and female waiters, hosts,  and entertainers to the tourist industry and states that prostitution and other forms  of exploitation occur in the CNMI at a rate far lower than the U.S. national  average.
The regulation will hurt the community by greatly increasing the number of illegal  aliens, with no concomitant federal enforcement capability to remove them.
Comments from the Saipan Chamber of Commerce cite several concerns: the lack of a  DHS schedule for allocating and reducing the number of worker permits and the  possibility that DHS might restrict access to certain job categories for law enforcement  purposes instead of directly targeting businesses that engage in illegal activity.   Additionally, the chamber asks that multiple-entry visas be made available within the  CNMI to workers who qualify for status under the interim rule. This would allow workers  who travel abroad for a visit to return to the CNMI without undergoing the time- consuming and expensive federal visa process at a U.S. consulate.
Because of the injunction issued in response to the CNMI’s amended  lawsuit against the U.S. government, the CNMI-only foreign work permits  are not yet available. In its November 2, 2009, amendment to its ongoing  lawsuit to overturn portions of CNRA, the CNMI filed a motion for  preliminary injunction to prevent the operation of the DHS interim rule  until a procedural violation is remedied. The CNMI argued that DHS had  violated procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act,  which requires notice and the opportunity for public comment before  regulations can go into effect. On November 25, 2009, the U.S. District  Court for the District of Columbia issued an order prohibiting  implementation of the interim rule, stating that DHS must consider public  comments before issuing a final rule. In granting the preliminary  injunction, the court found, among other things, that DHS had had a  lengthy period in which to develop regulations and had not demonstrated  that it had used that time to complete implementation as efficiently as  possible. The court also noted that the commonwealth’s residents and  government had meaningful concerns about the regulations. In response  to this preliminary injunction, DHS reopened the comment period from  December 9, 2010, until January 8, 2010. As of May 2010, DHS had not yet  issued a final rule and, as a result, CNMI-only work permits are not  available. DHS plans to issue a final rule for the CNMI-only work permit  program in September 2010.
section_title: DOL Has Not Made Extension Decision for CNMI-Only Work Permit Program
paragraphs: DOL officials informed us that they had not yet obtained sufficient  experiential data to make a decision to extend the CNMI-only work permit  program. DOL officials further indicated that a determination to extend  the transition period well in advance of the expiration of the transition  period may raise concerns about the validity of the Secretary’s  determination, in light of the factors that CNRA authorizes the Secretary to  consider in making the determination (see table 3). DOL officials also told  us that they still lacked key data on which to base an extension decision.
section_title: DHS Has Implemented Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program but Is Reconsidering Inclusion of Certain Countries
paragraphs: On January 16, 2009, DHS issued an interim final rule for the Guam-CNMI  joint visa waiver program, which is intended to allow visitors for business  or pleasure to enter the CNMI and Guam without obtaining a  nonimmigrant visa for a stay of no longer than 45 days. DHS’s rule  designates 12 countries or geographic areas, including Japan and South  Korea, as eligible for participation in the program but excludes several  countries that had been part of the previous Guam visa waiver program.  DHS considered designating Russia and China as eligible for participation,  because visitors from those countries provide significant economic  benefits to the CNMI. However, because of political, security, and law  enforcement concerns, including high nonimmigrant visa refusal rates,  DHS deemed China and Russia as not eligible to participate in the  program.
Table 4 shows the key decision that, under CNRA, the Secretary of  Homeland Security is to make regarding countries to be included in the  Guam-CNMI visa waiver program.
In developing the Guam-CNMI visa waiver program, DHS officials  consulted with representatives of the CNMI and Guam governments, both  of which sought the inclusion of China and Russia in the program. In the  regulations, DHS states that after additional layered security measures are  in place, DHS will make a determination as to whether nationals of China  and Russia can participate in the visa waiver program. These security  measures may include, among others, electronic travel authorization to  screen and approve potential visitors prior to arrival in Guam and the  CNMI. In May 2009, DHS officials informed Congress that the department  is reconsidering whether to include China and Russia in the Guam-CNMI  visa waiver program. DHS plans to issue a final rule for the Guam-CNMI  visa waiver program in November 2010.
Public comments on the proposed regulations from the Guam and CNMI  governments and private sectors asked DHS to delay the Guam-CNMI visa  waiver program implementation date, as allowed for in CNRA, from June  1, to November 28, 2009. The comments emphasized the economic  significance of including China and Russia in the program. Guam officials  argued that tourist arrivals in Guam from traditional markets were  declining and that having access to China presented an important  economic benefit. CNMI officials noted that the CNMI economy would be  seriously damaged unless the CNMI retained access to the China and  Russia tourism markets. (See text box.)
Comments from CNMI and Guam Governments and Organized Private Sector on  Interim Final Rule for Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program  CNMI Government and Private Sector  CNMI government comments on the interim final rule stressed the serious economic  losses that would occur if China and Russia visitors were excluded from the visa  waiver program and sought a delay in the program’s implementation until additional  security measures are in place and DHS has amended the regulation to allow visitors  from China and Russia under the program.
The Saipan Chamber of Commerce sought to delay the implementation of the rule and  asked that DHS identify the specific additional layered security measures that would  allow it to reconsider its exclusion of China and Russia from the visa waiver program.  Further, the chamber commented that the economic analysis used by DHS was  substantially flawed, including an underestimate of the declines in tourists coming to  the CNMI under standard U.S. visa requirements.
Guam Governor and Private Sector  The Guam Governor’s comments noted the economic benefit from the new provision  allowing longer stays but identified the need to include visitors from China in the visa  waiver program and the need for a formal mechanism to add countries to the program.  The Governor supported the CNMI recommendation that implementation be delayed.  The Guam Visitor Bureau also sought a delay in implementation so that additional  layered security could be put in place, such that DHS could reach a determination to  allow visitors from China and Russia.
Guam private sector groups emphasized the economic benefits to Guam if DHS were  to include China in the program. The private sector groups also identified China as a  future growth market that could offset declines in visitors from Japan.
On October 21, 2009, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced to  Congress and the Governors of the CNMI and Guam the decision to parole  tourists from China and Russia into the CNMI on a case-by-case basis for a  maximum of 45 days, in recognition of their significant economic benefit  to the commonwealth. CBP issued procedures for administering the parole  in a bulletin to members of its Carrier Liaison Program and internal  guidance to staff. According to a State official, information regarding the  decision to parole visitors did not reach Chinese officials working at the  airports in that country and, as a result, the Chinese authorities suspended  charter flight service between China and the CNMI between November 28,  2009, and December 18, 2009. According to CNMI officials, the suspension  of charter flight service resulted in the loss of approximately $7.8 million  in visitor revenue.
section_title: Proposed DHS Rule to Provide CNMI-Only Treaty Investor Status to Foreign Investors Is Not Yet Final
paragraphs: DHS has proposed a rule to allow a large proportion of holders of CNMI  foreign investor permits to obtain U.S. CNMI-only nonimmigrant investor  treaty status during the transition period. Table 5 shows the decision,  with its federal requirements and authorizations, that CNRA calls for the  Secretary of Homeland Security to make regarding CNMI foreign  investors.
Eligibility for CNMI-only treaty investor status. In proposing to allow  CNMI foreign investor permit holders to obtain U.S. CNMI-only  nonimmigrant treaty investor status, DHS included three types of CNMI  permits: the long-term business investor entry permit, the foreign investor  entry permit, and the retiree investor entry permit. As we reported in 2008,  long-term business entry permits accounted for a large proportion of  CNMI foreign investor entry permits that were active and valid in July  2008. According to the DHS proposed rule, eligibility criteria for CNMI- only nonimmigrant investor treaty status during the transition period  include, among others, having been physically present in the CNMI for at  least half the time since the investor obtained CNMI investor status.  Additionally, investors must provide evidence of maintaining financial  investments in the CNMI, with long-term business investors showing an  improved investment of at least $150,000.
Validity period for CNMI-only treaty investor status. DHS proposed  terminating the validity period for the CNMI-only nonimmigrant treaty  investor status on December 31, 2014. Under the proposed rule, the status  would terminate regardless of whether the temporary worker provisions  are extended.
DHS proposed the rule on September 14, 2009, and accepted comments  until October 14, 2009. According to DHS’s April 2010 Semiannual  Regulatory Agenda, the department intends to issue a final rule for the  investor program in July 2010. CNMI-only nonimmigrant treaty investor  status will not be available until the final rule is issued with an effective  date.
DHS received several comments on the proposed rule from the CNMI  government, Saipan Chamber of Commerce, and individuals (see text box).
Comments from CNMI Government and Organized Private Sector on Proposed  DHS Rule for CNMI-only Nonimmigrant Investor Treaty Status  In its comments on the proposed regulations, the CNMI government disagreed with  DHS’s conclusion that the CNMI-only investor status must end in 2014, stating that the  status would instead be extended if the U.S. Secretary of Labor extends the transition  period for the CNMI-only worker program. Further, the CNMI noted that the proposed  regulations would exclude many current CNMI investors from qualifying for the E-2 CNMI  investor status. For example, the CNMI reported that about 85 of 514 long-term business  entry permit holders could not qualify if an investment level of $150,000 is required.  CNMI also reported that 251 of the 514 permit holders were granted at a $50,000  required investment level and were “grandfathered” in 1997 when the minimum  investment requirement was increased. Further, the CNMI noted that the requirement of  continuous residence is unnecessarily restrictive and would operate to exclude some of  the CNMI’s current investors. For the period beyond the end of the transition period, the  CNMI government projected that only 42 of 514 long-term business entry permit holders  may be able to meet the minimum investment level to qualify for federal investor status.
The Saipan Chamber of Commerce also provided several comments on the proposed  regulations:      The transition period for investors would be extended if the U.S. Secretary of Labor  extends the transition period for the CNMI worker program.
DHS has the option to extend grandfathered treaty investor status beyond the end of  the transition period and should take this step to benefit the economy.
All holders of CNMI Long-Term Business Certificates should be grandfathered, as the  proposed regulations would exclude those who had received CNMI permits with less  than a $150,000 investment and those who are not nationals of nations with which the  United States maintains a treaty of friendship, commerce, or navigation.
Multiple-entry visas should be made available to E-2 CNMI investors within the CNMI,  to allow investors who travel abroad to return to the CNMI without undergoing the  time-consuming and expensive federal visa process at a U.S. consulate.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Responding to CNRA’s extension of federal immigration law to the CNMI,  DHS components have taken a number of steps since November 28, 2009,  to ensure effective border control procedures in the commonwealth and to  protect national and homeland security. In 2008 and 2009, DHS also  initiated department-level outreach to the CNMI government to facilitate  the components’ implementation of CNRA. Additionally, DHS and other  agencies have taken steps to implement CNRA provisions for workers,  visitors, and investors, although the programs for workers and investors  are not yet available to eligible individuals in the CNMI.
Despite the DHS components’ progress in establishing federal border  control in the CNMI, however, their inability to conclude negotiations with  the CNMI government regarding access to airport space, detention  facilities, and CNMI databases has resulted in continuing operational  challenges. First, lacking occupancy agreements with the CNMI, CBP  officers have continued to operate in CNMI airport space that does not  meet the agency’s facility standards. Second, lacking an agreement with  the CNMI government regarding detention space, ICE has released a  number of aliens with criminal records into the CNMI community under  orders of supervision and has paid to transport several detainees to Guam  and Hawaii. Third, lacking direct access to CNMI’s immigration and border  control databases, ICE officials have instead directed data requests to a  single CNMI point of contact, limiting their ability to quickly verify the  status of aliens and compromising the security of ongoing operations.  Although the DHS components have made continued efforts to overcome  these operational challenges without department-level intervention, in  each case, their efforts have encountered obstacles. Negotiations with the  CNMI government for long-term access to the CNMI airports have not  been concluded, and key differences remain unresolved; meanwhile,  negotiations for access to CNMI detention facilities and databases have  reached impasse. Without department-level leadership, as well as strategic  approaches and time frames for concluding its components’ negotiations  with the CNMI, DHS’s prospects for resolving these issues is uncertain.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enable DHS to carry out its statutory obligation to implement federal  border control and immigration in the CNMI, we recommend that the  Secretary of Homeland Security work with the heads of CBP, ICE, and  USCIS to establish strategic approaches and time frames for concluding  negotiations with the CNMI government to resolve the operational  challenges related to access to CNMI airport space, detention facilities,  and information about the status of aliens.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to officials in DHS, DOI, DOL, State, and  the governments of the CNMI and Guam for review and comment. We  received written comments from DHS, DOI, the CNMI government, and  the Guam government, which are reprinted in appendixes II, III, IV, and V,  respectively. We also received technical comments from DHS and DOL,  which we incorporated as appropriate. State did not provide comments.
Following are summaries of the written comments from DHS, DOI, the  CNMI government, and the Guam government and of our responses where  appropriate.
DHS. DHS agreed with our recommendation that the Secretary of  Homeland Security work with the heads of CBP, ICE, and USCIS to  establish strategic approaches and time frames for concluding  negotiations with the CNMI to resolve the operational challenges related  to CBP’s access to airport space, ICE’s contract negotiations regarding  detention facilities, and the ability for DHS and its component agencies to  obtain information about the status of aliens from databases under the  control of the CNMI government.
DOI. DOI stated that the report clearly sets out the problems of  implementing the extension of U.S. immigration law to the CNMI and that  the information contained in the report corresponds to the observations  and analyses of the department’s Office of Insular Affairs.
CNMI government. The CNMI government raised concerns about the scope  of our report and its support for several findings. The CNMI government  expressed particular concern that we did not address certain issues that  CNRA directed GAO to assess. As stated in the objectives of this report, we  describe the steps taken by federal agencies to establish federal border  control in the CNMI and the status of efforts to implement CNRA programs  specific to the CNMI for workers, visitors, and investors. Recognizing that the  regulations establishing the CNMI-only programs for workers and investors  are not yet available, we reached agreement with the offices of the addressees  of this report to examine the likely economic impact of federalization after  regulations are in place. The CNMI also expressed concerns regarding the  timeliness and content of federal agencies’ regulations to implement the  CNRA programs for workers, visitors, and investors and regarding DHS  efforts to identify overstayers and remove aliens. In our report, we discuss the  CNMI’s concerns regarding each regulation. Additionally, the CNMI raised  concerns regarding the adequacy of our evidence in some cases. In  responding to CNMI’s comments and after considering technical comments  from DHS, we modified our discussion of CBP’s effort to acquire operational  space at the Saipan airport. In addition, we added information from ICE  tracking logs to our discussion of DHS’s interest in obtaining direct access to  the CNMI’s immigration-related databases, and we clarified other sections as  appropriate. (See app. IV for more details of our responses to the CNMI’s  comments.)
Guam government. The government of Guam made several  observations about the interim final rule for the Guam-CNMI visa waiver  program. First, Guam stated that the DHS Secretary's decision to use her  authority to parole tourists from China and Russia into the CNMI, but not  to use her authority similarly for such tourists seeking to enter Guam,  contravenes Congress's intent that a unified visa waiver program operate  in Guam and the CNMI. Second, Guam stated that CNRA was designed to  expand tourism to the islands and that China and Russia must be added  to the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program to achieve that result. Third,  Guam concluded that the interim final rule makes the eligibility  requirements for the Guam-CNMI program more stringent than those of  the U.S. visa waiver program. The Governor’s office asked for the  immediate issuance of a final rule for the Guam-CNMI visa waiver  program that is consistent with congressional intent, unifies the program,  and provides both Guam and the CNMI with access to China’s and  Russia’s tourist markets.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees. We also will provide copies of this report to the U.S.  Secretaries of Homeland Security, the Interior, Labor, and State and to the  Governors of Guam and the CNMI. In addition, the report will be available  at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-3149 or gootnickd@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 key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix VII.
section_title: Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: In this report we describe (1) the steps that have been taken to establish  federal border control in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana  Islands (CNMI) and (2) the status of efforts to implement the Consolidated  Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA) provisions with regard to workers,  visitors, and investors. We plan to issue a subsequent report regarding the  impact of implementation of the CNRA on foreign workers, the tourism  sector, and foreign investors in the CNMI.
In conducting our work, we reviewed legislation that applies U.S.  immigration laws to the CNMI, namely, CNRA, the U.S. Immigration and  Nationality Act (INA), and related regulations. To examine the  relationship between the CNMI and the United States, we reviewed the  CNMI-U.S. Covenant, the lawsuit between the CNMI and the United States  to overturn specific provisions of the CNRA, and the CNMI protocol for  implementing U.S. immigration law. We also reviewed related studies by  GAO and the Congressional Research Service. We interviewed officials in  Washington, D.C., from U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  components Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and  Immigration Services (USCIS), and Immigration and Customs  Enforcement (ICE), as well as officials from the U.S. Departments of the  Interior (DOI), Labor (DOL), and State.
To describe the steps that have been taken to secure the border in the  CNMI, we visited the commonwealth, where we interviewed officials in  the CNMI Office of the Governor, Department of Labor, and the Marianas  Visitors Authority. We also interviewed representatives of the CNMI  private sector, including the Saipan Chamber of Commerce. In addition,  we observed CBP operations at the Saipan and Rota airport facilities. We  reviewed U.S. agreements with the CNMI regarding airport occupancy and  detention space at the local correctional facility. In addition, we reviewed formal letters between DHS and the CNMI government, as well as the  CNMI Department of Labor’s 2008 and 2009 Annual Report to the  Legislature. In general, to establish the reliability of the data that CBP uses  to document arrivals, that ICE uses to document aliens, and that USCIS  uses to document benefits in the CNMI, we systematically obtained  information about the ways that the components collect and tabulate the  data. When possible, we checked for consistency across data sources.  Although the data provided by CBP, ICE, and USCIS have some  limitations, we determined that the available data were adequate and  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. We did not include the  U.S. Department of Justice in our review, because the department has a  limited role in implementing CNRA. We also did not assess the validity of  federal agencies’ expected costs or operational needs in implementing the  legislation. We did not review the extent to which U.S. laws were properly  enforced.
To describe the steps that DHS has taken to implement the CNRA  provisions with regard to workers, visitors, and investors, we reviewed  comments provided by the CNMI and Guam governments and organized  private sectors regarding federal regulations. Specifically, we reviewed  DHS’s interim rule for CNMI-only worker permits, the interim final rule for  the Guam-CNMI visa waiver program, and the proposed rule for CNMI- only nonimmigrant treaty investor status. We also reviewed documents  provided by agency officials that describe the operation of the parole  authority used to allow Chinese and Russian nationals to visit the CNMI  for pleasure on a case-by-case basis. We interviewed the Governor of  Guam and representatives of the private sector regarding the differences  between the Guam visa waiver program and the Guam-CNMI visa waiver  program.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments to the CNMI government’s letter,  dated April 21, 2010.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: see GAO-08-791 and GAO-10-333. under way for 10 months. On the basis of the CNMI’s comments as  well as DHS technical comments, we revised our description of DHS’s effort to acquire space at the airports, focusing on the current lack of  space rather than describing DHS’s process for seeking space.  22. The CNMI government states that CBP has not presented any spec requests for airport space to the responsible CNMI official. We  followed up with CBP officials to discuss this point. CBP officials  stated that the agency was working to define its space requirements  and that it agreed with the CNMI regarding the need for discussion of identified options. We modified the report as appropriate.  23. The CNMI government states that it is not prepared to enter into  negotiations unless it is assured that the request for space has been  cleared at least at the assistant secretary level at DHS and that the  department has received the necessary assurances from Congres the funds necessary to fulfill CBP’s space needs will be available. We  modified the report as appropriate.  24. The CNMI government notes that the CNMI cannot responsibly give  away public lands to a federal agency without a specific and  demonstrated need and the availability of federal funds to achieve the  agency’s objectives in seeking the land. The CNMI further observes  that the Covenant imposes certain restraints on the ability of the  federal government to acquire land for public purposes in the  commonwealth. We modified the text in our report to convey more   CBP is seeking an agreement with the CNMI to provide  clearly that space for CBP operations but is not seeking to acquire land.  25. The CNMI govern ment comments that no CNMI government official  could have stated in March 2010 that DHS was unwilling to share  airline flight data, because CBP’s letter of March 31, 2010, was not  received in the commonwealth un the text in our re information that officials. We also Governor of the CNMI’s letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security  on February 18,  in an interview in March 2010, said that DHS was unwilling to share  airline flight data with the CNMI.  til about April 10, 2010. We modified  port to state that the CBP’s letter reiterated   DHS officials had previously provided to CNMI   modified the text in our report to state that the  2010, as well as the Governor’s Special Legal Counsel  26. The CNMI government states that our discussion of the issues rela to BMS and LIDS reflects a lack of understanding of the characteristics  and limitations of both databases. In February 2010, we issued a report  on the two databases that incorporated information from prior work  and relevant documents from the CNMI government, DHS, and DOI .  Our February 2010 report also incorporated technical comments that  the CNMI provided on a draft of the report; however, the report notes  ing to  that the CNMI did not provide certain requested information ow insufficient staff resources. Subsequent to publication of the February 2010 report, the CNMI sent us additional technical commentary, which we incorporated in this report’s descriptions of the databases.  27. The CNMI government observes that we have reported elsewhere tha DHS does not have an effective digital exit control system. We have  added references to several prior GAO reports that highligh concerns regarding the capacity of DHS to identify overstaying  visitors.  28. The CNMI government describes as unacceptable the CBP decision not supply airline passenger data to the CNMI and states that it intends  e  to appeal the CBP decision to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Th report notes that CNRA requires, am government provide DHS with all commonwealth immigration record CNRA does not require DHS to share data with the CNMI and also do not preclude such data sharing. We modified the text of our report to  reflect the CNMI’s stated intention to appeal the CBP decision.  ong other things, that the CNMI  29. The CNMI government states that access to the CNMI point of con ect  gives ICE access to more definitive information than would dir access to LIDS, because LIDS is not yet completely an online operation. The CNMI adds that we would have learned this if we had ng field  spoken with operational personnel in Saipan. While conducti work in Saipan in January we attempted to speak with the individual  designated as ICE’s point of contact; however, he said that he was no t  allowed to speak with us unless authorized by the CNMI Departmen of Labor. We sought interviews through the CNMI Department of  Labor and were granted one interview with a senior official. Although   the  that official agreed to provide answers to our questions regarding  not  LIDS system, we were later told that additional information could be provided owing to insufficient staff resources.  30. The CNMI government states that we did not examine ICE’s records of its transmission of inquiries to, and receipt of replies from, the CNMI We examined one ICE unit’s log of e-mail requests for CNMI  immigration data, covering late December 2009 through March 2010,  and found that CNMI response times ranged from 16 minutes to 23  hours and 19 minutes, averaging 4 hours and 24 minutes. The CNMI  .  government also notes that its Department of Labor has no record of  any ICE request emanating from an after-hours operation. ICE officials  told us that they recognize that the CNMI official responsible for  answering their inquiries works normal business hours and that they  limit their inquiries to that time period. However, the ICE unit’s log  shows one inquiry sent at 10:54 PM and the CNMI response received in  16 minutes.  31. The CNMI government infers that our report claims that DHS has  proceeded expeditiously to remove illegal aliens from the CNMI. The CNMI’s inference is not accurate; our report neither states nor im that DHS has proceeded expeditiously in this regard. Our report  of the 72 aliens being processed for removal has been  that none deported and that federal immigration hearings take place during 1  week of every month.
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Government of Guam
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the person named above, Emil Friberg, Assistant Director;  Michael P. Dino, Assistant Director; R. Gifford Howland; Julia A. Roberts;  Ashley Alley; and Reid Lowe made key contributions to this report.  Technical assistance was provided by Martin De Alteriis, Ben Bolitzer,  Etana Finkler, Marissa Jones, and Eddie Uyekawa.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: American Samoa and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands:  Wages, Employment, Employer Actions, Earnings, and Worker Views  Since Minimum Wage Increases Began. GAO-10-333. Washington,  D.C.: April 08, 2010.
U.S. Insular Areas: Opportunities Exist to Improve Interior’s Grant  Oversight and Reduce the Potential for Mismanagement. GAO-10-347.  Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2010.
CNMI Immigration and Border Control Databases. GAO-10-345R  Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2010.
Poverty Determination in U.S. Insular Areas. GAO-10-240R. Washington,  D.C.: November 10, 2009.
Medicaid and CHIP: Opportunities Exist to Improve U.S. Insular Area  Demographic Data That Could Be Used to Help Determine Federal  Funding. GAO-09-558R. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2009.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Coordinated Federal  Decisions and Additional Data Are Needed to Manage Potential  Economic Impact of Applying U.S. Immigration Law. GAO-09-426T.  Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2009.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Coordinated Federal  Decisions and Additional Data Are Needed to Manage Potential  Economic Impact of Applying U.S. Immigration Law. GAO-08-791.  Washington, D.C.: August 4, 2008.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Pending Legislation  Would Apply U.S. Immigration Law to the CNMI with a Transition  Period. GAO-08-466. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2008.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Serious Economic,  Fiscal, and Accountability Challenges. GAO-07-746T. Washington, D.C.:  April 19, 2007.
U.S. Insular Areas: Economic, Fiscal, and Financial Accountability  Challenges. GAO-07-119. Washington, D.C.: December 12, 2006.
U.S. Insular Areas: Multiple Factors Affect Federal Health Care Funding.  GAO-06-75. Washington, D.C.: October 14, 2005.