Border Security: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered Burden on Foreign Science Students and Scholars, but Further Refinements Needed
Published: 2005-02-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In February 2004, GAO reported that improvements were needed in the time taken to adjudicate visas for science students and scholars. Specifically, a primary tool used to screen these applicants for visas (the Visas Mantis program) was operating inefficiently. We found that it took an average of 67 days to process Mantis checks, and many cases were pending for 60 days or more. GAO also found that the way in which information was shared among agencies prevented cases from being resolved expeditiously. Finally, consular officers lacked sufficient program guidance. This report discusses the time to process Mantis checks and assesses actions taken and timeframes for improving the Mantis program.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Mantis processing times have declined significantly. In November 2004, the average time to process a Mantis check was about 15 days, far lower than the average of 67 days we reported previously. The number of Mantis cases pending more than 60 days has also dropped significantly. Although an action plan that the State Department (State) drafted was not fully implemented, State and other agencies took several actions in response to our recommendations to improve Visas Mantis and to facilitate travel by foreign students and scholars. These actions included (1) adding staff to process Mantis cases, (2) providing additional guidance to consular officers, (3) developing an electronic tracking system, (4) clarifying roles and responsibilities of agencies involved in the Mantis program, (5) reiterating State's policy of giving students and scholars priority interviews, and (6) extending the validity of Mantis clearances. Nonetheless, some issues remain unresolved. Consular officers at posts we visited continue to need guidance on the Mantis program, particularly through direct interaction with State officials knowledgeable about the program. Several agencies that receive Mantis cases are not fully connected to State's electronic tracking system. This can lead to unnecessary delays in the process. Finally, students and scholars from China are limited to 6-month, two-entry visas. The Chinese government has rejected a proposal by the United States to extend visa validities, on a reciprocal basis, for students and scholars.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Each year thousands of international science students and scholars apply  for visas to enter the United States to participate in education and  exchange programs. Foreign science students and scholars offer our  country diversity and intellectual knowledge and are also an economic  resource. At the same time, the United States has important national  security interests in carefully screening science students and scholars who  apply for visas. A primary tool that the U.S. government uses to conduct  this screening is the Visas Mantis program, a security review procedure  involving multiple U.S. government agencies, which aims to identify those  visa applicants who may pose a threat to our national security by illegally  transferring sensitive technology. Visa applicants from China account for  more than half of all Visas Mantis security reviews.
In February 2004, we reported and testified that there were delays in the  Visas Mantis program and interoperability problems between the State  Department (State) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that  contributed to these delays and allowed cases to get lost. We determined  that in the spring of 2003, it took an average of 67 days for Visas Mantis  checks to be processed and for State to notify consular posts of the results.  Further, we reported that visa officers at posts lacked clear guidance and  sufficient feedback regarding when to apply the Visas Mantis program and  the amount of information to include in Mantis requests sent to  headquarters. We recommended that the Secretary of State, in coordination  with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the FBI,  develop and implement a plan to improve the Visas Mantis process.  Specifically, we recommended that, in developing this plan, the Secretary  should consider several actions, including establishing milestones;  providing additional guidance to consular posts on the Mantis program;  and working to achieve interoperable systems and expedite transmittal of  data between agencies.
At your request, we (1) determined the length of time taken to process a  Mantis check; and (2) assessed actions taken to implement our  recommendation to improve the Mantis program and to address other  issues that may affect science students’ and scholars’ efforts to obtain  visas. To determine the length of time it takes to process a Mantis check,  we obtained and analyzed data from the State Department’s electronic  tracking system for Mantis cases. To fulfill our second objective, we  analyzed policies and procedures put in place to improve the Visas Mantis  program and interviewed key State, Department of Homeland Security  (DHS), and FBI officials. We also observed visa operations and interviewed  officials responsible for maintaining Visas Mantis data at three consular  posts in China and the U.S. embassies in Russia and Ukraine. We chose  these five posts because they account for almost 71 percent of all Mantis  requests. Appendix I provides more information on our scope and  methodology. We conducted our evaluation in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Foreign science students and scholars generally begin the visa process by  scheduling a visa interview. On the day of the appointment, a consular  officer reviews the application, checks the applicant’s name in the Consular  Lookout and Support System (CLASS), takes the applicant’s digital  fingerprints and photograph, and interviews the applicant. Based on the  interview and a review of pertinent documents, the consular officer  determines if the applicant is eligible for nonimmigrant status under the  1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). If the consular officer  determines that the applicant is eligible to receive a visa, the applicant is  notified right away and he or she usually receives the visa within 24 hours.
In some cases, the consular officer decides that the applicant will need a  Security Advisory Opinion (SAO), a response from Washington on whether  to issue a visa to the applicant. SAOs are required for a number of reasons,  including concerns that a visa applicant may engage in illegal transfer of  sensitive technology. An SAO based on sensitive technology transfer  concerns is known as Visas Mantis and, according to State officials, is the  most common type of SAO applied to science applicants. It is also the most  common type of SAO sent from the posts we visited in China, as well as in  Kiev, Ukraine.
The Visas Mantis process is designed to further four important national  security objectives:  prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their   restrain the development of destabilizing conventional military  capabilities in certain regions of the world;  prevent the transfer of arms and sensitive dual-use items to terrorists  and states that sponsor terrorism; and  maintain U.S. advantages in certain militarily critical technologies.
The Visas Mantis process has several steps and involves multiple U.S.  agencies (see fig. 1). In deciding if a Visas Mantis check is needed, the  consular officer determines whether the applicant’s background or  proposed activity in the United States could involve exposure to  technologies on the Technology Alert List (TAL). The list, published by the  State Department in coordination with the interagency community and  based on U.S. export control laws, includes science and technology-related  fields where, if knowledge gained from research or work in these fields  were used against the United States, it could potentially be harmful. If a  Visas Mantis is needed, the consular officer generally informs the applicant  that his or her visa is being temporarily refused under Section 221(g) of the  INA, pending further administrative processing.
After a consular officer decides that a Visas Mantis is necessary for an  applicant, several steps are taken to complete the process. The officer or a  Foreign Service National drafts a Visas Mantis SAO request, which contains  information from the applicant’s application package and interview. The  case is then generally reviewed and approved by a consular section chief or  other consular official at post before it is transmitted both electronically  and through State’s traditional cabling system. Once the request is sent, the  State Department’s Bureau of Nonproliferation and other agencies review  the information in the cable and respond within 10 working days to State’s  Bureau of Consular Affairs. Several agencies, such as the Departments of  Commerce and Energy, receive Mantis cases but do not routinely respond  to Consular Affairs.
State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs receives all responses pertaining to an  applicant, summarizes them, and prepares a security advisory opinion. This  SAO is then transmitted to the post electronically indicating that State does  or does not have an objection to issuing the visa, or that more information  is needed. A consular official at post reviews the SAO and, based on the  information from Washington, decides whether to deny or issue the visa to  the applicant. The officer then notifies the applicant that the visa has been  denied or issued, or that more information is needed.
Last year, consular officers submitted roughly 20,000 Mantis cases.  According to consular officials, the visa is approved in the vast majority of  cases. Data provided show that less than 2 percent of all Mantis requests  result in visa denial. However, even when the visa is issued, the information  provided by the consular posts on certain visa applicants is useful to  various U.S. government agencies in guarding against illegal technology  transfer. According to State, the Visas Mantis program provides State and  other interested agencies with an effective mechanism to screen out those  individuals who seek to evade or violate laws governing the export of  goods, technology, or sensitive information. This screening, in turn,  addresses significant issues of national security.
section_title: Mantis Processing Times Have Declined
paragraphs: Mantis processing times and the number of cases pending more than 60  days have declined significantly. In February 2004, we reported that the  average length of time it took to process Mantis checks in Washington and  for State to notify posts was 67 days for Mantis cases initiated from April— June 2003. State reported that the average Mantis processing time in  October 2003 was 75 days. However, by November 2004, the processing and  notification time for Mantis cases submitted was only about 15 days. Figure  2 demonstrates how the average Mantis processing time for cases  submitted by all consular posts has declined since October 2003.
State Department data also show significant improvement in the number of  Mantis cases pending more than 60 days. In February 2004, we reported  that 410 Visas Mantis cases submitted by seven posts in China, India, and  Russia had been pending more than 60 days. However, recent data provided  by the State Department show that, as of October 2004, only 63 cases (or 9  percent of all pending Mantis cases) had been pending for more than 2  months. Figure 3 shows a breakdown of all pending Mantis cases, sorted by  the length of time they have been pending.
Consular officials at the posts we visited confirmed that they were  receiving faster responses from Washington and that the number of Mantis  cases pending more than 60 days had declined.
section_title: Actions Taken to Improve the Mantis Process, but Some Issues Are Unresolved
paragraphs: In response to our February 2004 report, State, DHS, and the FBI took  several steps to achieve this reduction in Mantis processing times. State  submitted a Visas Mantis action plan to DHS in May 2004. Although this  plan remained a draft and was not fully implemented, State and other  agencies acted on many of the steps called for in the plan and undertook  other efforts to address difficulties that students and scholars face in  obtaining visas. These actions included establishing a stand-alone Mantis  team; providing additional guidance to consular officers; creating an  electronic tracking system for Mantis cases; clarifying the roles and  responsibilities of agencies involved in the Mantis process; reiterating a  policy to give students and scholars priority interviews; and extending the  validity period for Mantis clearances. These actions contributed to a  decline in overall Mantis processing times.
Despite these improvements, some issues remain that, if resolved, could  further refine the Mantis process. Consular officers in key Mantis posts  continue to have questions about how to implement the Mantis program.  Several agencies that participate in the Mantis process are not fully  connected electronically to State’s tracking system. In addition, the U.S.  visa reciprocity schedule with China (which accounts for more than half of  all Mantis cases) limits students and scholars to 6-month, two-entry visas.  In order to facilitate travel, State Department officials proposed to extend  visa validities for students and scholars on a reciprocal basis. However, the  Chinese government did not agree to do so. Table 1 outlines the actions  taken to improve Visas Mantis and the outstanding issues that need to be  addressed.
subsections: section_title: State Added Staff and Created Processes for Expediting Cases
paragraphs: On February 25, 2004, the Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services  testified before the House Science Committee that the agency had taken  steps to increase efficiency in the Visas Mantis process. These steps  included creating a stand-alone Mantis team composed of five full-time  employees dedicated to processing only Mantis cases. A key State official  told us that he believed this action contributed significantly to the decline  in Mantis processing times. The Assistant Secretary of State also testified  that the agency had established procedures for expediting individual  Mantis cases, when appropriate. These procedures involved faxing  requests for expedition to the appropriate clearing agencies. Again, a key  State official told us that closer cooperation with other agencies had led to  faster Mantis processing times.
section_title: State Provided Additional Guidance and Feedback
paragraphs: In February 2004, we reported that consular staff at posts we visited said  they were unsure whether they were contributing to lengthy waits because  they lacked clear guidance on when to apply Visas Mantis checks and did  not receive feedback on whether they were providing enough information  in their Visas Mantis requests. As a result, State undertook a number of  initiatives to provide guidance and feedback to the consular officers  responsible for adjudicating cases that require Mantis checks. In 2004, the  State Department:  Added a special presentation on Visas Mantis to the nonimmigrant visa  portion of the Basic Consular Training course.
Funded a trip by Nonproliferation (NP) and Consular Affairs (CA)  officials to a regional consular conference in China to make  presentations and hold discussions with consular officers on specific  Mantis issues.
Organized a series of videoteleconferences with posts that submit large  numbers of Visas Mantis SAO requests to provide direct feedback to  embassy and consular officers on the quality of their Visas Mantis  requests.
Began issuing quarterly reports to the field about Visas Mantis policy  and procedural issues to “help consular officers understand the Visa  Mantis program better, provide guidance on what cases should be  submitted as Visas Mantis SAO requests and what information should be  included in requests, and to give feedback on the quality of those  requests.” The first quarterly report was issued in March 2004, followed  by two more in July and October.
Arranged one-on-one meetings with the CA and NP offices for new  junior officers assigned to posts with high Mantis volumes.
Provided feedback to individual consular officers on the Mantis SAOs  they have submitted. This initiative is designed both to recognize  consular officers who are submitting well-documented requests that  correctly target applicants of concern and to guide officers on what kind  of information should be included in requests, depending on the type of  visit the applicant plans to make. The direct feedback program also  allows State to guide officers as to whether they are submitting SAO  requests on the correct applicants.
Established a classified webpage through the State Department’s  intranet for consular officers to gain access to country-specific and  other useful information related to the Mantis program. For example, it  identifies websites that officials in NP use when determining how to  respond to a Mantis case.
Officers at the posts we visited stated that some of these steps were  extremely useful, especially those initiatives that allowed for direct  interaction with officials from Consular Affairs and Nonproliferation. For  example, a junior officer in Guangzhou who had attended the new Mantis  presentation in consular training and had held a one-on-one meeting with  Consular Affairs stated that these initiatives were useful for understanding  how the SAO process works and why it is necessary. Another junior officer  in Shanghai stated that a videoteleconference his post held with NP was  invaluable for addressing his questions about the Visas Mantis program.  Consular officials in China who met with representatives from NP and CA  at the consular conference in February 2004 said that they found the  opportunity helpful in addressing some of their Mantis-related questions.
section_title: State Implemented an Electronic Tracking System
paragraphs: State developed and implemented an electronic system to track Mantis  cases. Beginning in early 2003, State invested about $1 million to upgrade  its Consular Consolidated Database to allow for electronic processing and  tracking of all SAOs, including Visas Mantis requests, and to eliminate use  of its traditional cabling system. This upgrade, called the “SAO  Improvement Project” (SAO IP), resulted in a computer-based system that  allows posts to send Mantis requests electronically. Previously, consular  officers relied solely on the cabling system to transmit Mantis cases to  Consular Affairs. As we found in our February 2004 report, this system  resulted in Mantis cases getting lost due to cable formatting errors and  duplicate cases being rejected by the FBI database. By attaching a unique  identifier to each Mantis case, the SAO IP ensures that cases can be easily  tracked. As an added measure, a block is built into the system that prevents  consular officers from resubmitting Mantis requests on the same visa  application.
The SAO IP allows the State Department to more easily produce and track  important statistics. For example, it enables State to follow average Mantis  processing times, the number of Mantis cases submitted by each post, and  the amount of time each step in the Mantis process is taking.
Officials at posts we visited told us that they like being able to track  individual cases as they go through the interagency process in Washington.  In both Moscow and Kiev, for example, the SAO IP institutionalizes and  expands upon tracking efforts that posts had begun on their own. Officials  in Beijing told us that when they receive a public inquiry on a pending  Mantis case, they can use the tracking system to determine the status of the  case.
section_title: FBI No Longer Routinely Clears Mantis Cases
paragraphs: In July 2004, the FBI, State, and DHS reached an agreement that  fundamentally changed the FBI’s role in the Visas Mantis process. Officials  from these agencies had determined that the FBI could fulfill its law  enforcement role in the Mantis process without routinely clearing Mantis  cases. Under the new “no objections policy,” the State Department does not  have to wait for an FBI response before processing Mantis cases, but the  FBI continues to receive information on visa applicants subject to Mantis  checks.
Prior to this change, State’s policy was to wait for a response from the FBI  before proceeding with each Visas Mantis case. If the FBI requested that  State “put a hold” on an individual Mantis case, State could not provide a  response to post on the case until the hold was removed. This policy  resulted in a backlog of almost 1,000 cases and contributed to lengthy wait  times for visa applicants. As we reported in February 2004, it took the FBI  an average of about 29 days to complete clearances on Mantis cases. In  fact, FBI clearance often took longer than any other step in the Mantis  process. Once cases had been cleared by the FBI, it could take another 6  days before State was informed. Some of the Mantis cases in the random  sample we reviewed took more than 100 days to be processed at the FBI.
The FBI’s new role allows State to process Mantis cases more easily. As the  Bureau of Consular Affairs reported to consular posts in October 2004, “the  change in the FBI’s role has made it easier for us to respond to most Mantis  SAO requests more expeditiously.” The new agreement also allowed State  to clear about 1,000 Mantis cases that the FBI had maintained on hold,  many of them for a “very long time,” according to State officials. Consular  officers we spoke to in China, Russia, and Ukraine confirmed that they  were beginning to receive clearances on Mantis cases that had been  pending for long periods of time.
section_title: Agencies Agreed to Clear Mantis Cases in 10 Working Days
paragraphs: In November 2004, the remaining agencies responsible for clearing Mantis  cases agreed to respond to the Bureau of Consular Affairs within 10  working days. Before this agreement, the agencies had 15 working days to  respond to State. As a result, the total Mantis processing time could not be  lower than about 20 calendar days (to account for weekends). According to  Consular Affairs, under the new rule, State should be able to achieve total  Mantis processing times of about 15 to 17 calendar days.
section_title: State Reiterated Its Policy of Giving Students and Scholars Priority
paragraphs: In July 2004, the Secretary of State reminded posts via cable that they  should give priority scheduling to persons applying for F, J, and M visas.  As explained in the cable, students and exchange visitors are often subject  to deadlines, so posts must have well-publicized and transparent  procedures in place for obtaining priority appointments for them. Data  show that this policy is critical for ensuring that students and scholars  obtain their visas in time to meet their deadlines. For example, between  January and September 2004, non-student, nonimmigrant visa applicants  applying in Shanghai could expect to wait between 1 and 2 months to  obtain an interview. Data provided by the State Department also point to  long interview wait times for non-student or scholar visa applicants at  other posts. As of October 7, 2004 (when visa demand has usually declined  from summer levels), the nonimmigrant visa interview wait time was 32  days in Beijing, 49 days in Guangzhou, and 34 days in Kiev. Post-specific  data show that interview wait times for students are much shorter. For  example, on June 15, 2004 (when visa demand is typically high), students  and scholars in Shanghai could get an interview within 13 days, while other  nonimmigrant visa applicants had to wait 56 days. Figure 4 illustrates that,  in June 2004, a peak visa application period, non-student visa applicants  could wait as long as 87 days to receive visas, while student applicants  could receive visas in as few as 44 days.
section_title: State, DHS, and the FBI Agreed to Extend the Validity of Visas Mantis Clearances
paragraphs: On February 11, 2005, State issued a cable to consular posts establishing  new maximum validities for Mantis clearances, thereby allowing students  and others to reapply for visas without undergoing frequent Mantis checks.  Previously, Mantis clearances were valid for 1 year. Under that rule, if an  applicant reapplied for a visa more than 1 year after the processing of the  original Mantis check, he or she would have to undergo another Mantis  check before receiving the new visa. Organizations representing the  international scientific community argued that this validity period was too  short. For example, foreign students attending 4-year college programs had  to renew their Mantis clearances each year.
Under the new validity periods, students can receive Mantis clearances  valid for the length of the approved academic program up to 4 years, and  temporary workers, exchange visitors, and intracompany transferees can  receive clearances for the duration of an approved activity for up to 2  years. State estimates that this change will allow the agency to cut in half  the total number of Mantis cases processed each year.
The new validity periods are the result of negotiations between State, DHS,  and the FBI. Although State and DHS proposed extending Mantis  clearances in the summer of 2004, the FBI argued that an extension in  Mantis clearances would significantly reduce its capability to track and  investigate individuals subject to the Visas Mantis program. The FBI  informed us that without the same frequency of automatic Mantis  notifications, it would have far less knowledge of when these individuals  enter the country, where they go, and what they are supposed to do while  here. As a result, the FBI made its agreement to State’s and DHS’s proposal  conditional on receiving access to the US-VISIT system and the Student and  Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). US-VISIT is housed in DHS  and is a governmentwide program for collecting, maintaining, and sharing  information on certain foreign nationals who enter and exit the United  States. SEVIS is a system that maintains information on international  students and exchange visitors and their dependents in the United States.  In February 2005, the FBI and DHS reached agreement on the terms of the  FBI’s access to these two systems, allowing the proposed extension of  Mantis clearances to take effect.
section_title: Consular Officers at Key Posts Still Need Additional Guidance
paragraphs: China and Russia account for roughly 76 percent of all Mantis cases.  However, we found that some consular officers at these posts remain  confused about how to apply the Mantis program. For example, Beijing  consular officers, some of them new to the post, consistently told us that  they needed more clarity and guidance regarding how to use the  Technology Alert List (TAL). According to a key consular official in Beijing,  because these officers generally do not have scientific or technical  backgrounds, they often do not understand what entries on the TAL mean  or whether the visa applicant has advanced knowledge about the subject he  or she plans to study in the United States. They are also confused about  how to apply vague, seemingly benign categories. For example, officers in  Beijing did not know whether to continue submitting Mantis requests for all  individuals that fall under the category of “Communications – wireless  systems, advanced,” even if the visa applicant works for a foreign  multinational corporation that is not a Chinese government-owned telecom  enterprise. Few of the consular officers we spoke with in China, Russia, or  Ukraine were familiar with the quarterly reports issued by Consular Affairs  on Mantis issues. The only officer aware of the classified webpage  maintained by the Consular Affairs Bureau told us that he did not find it  useful because it had very little information on it and because it was hard  for him to access the classified computer system, which is housed in a  separate building far from the consular section.
We found that consular officers at the consular posts we visited did not  have regular opportunities to interact directly with officials from the  Nonproliferation Bureau or the Consular Affairs Bureau knowledgeable  about the Mantis program. For example, representatives from State’s  Nonproliferation Bureau and Consular Affairs Bureau have visited just one  consular conference—the February 2004 conference in China. Although  new consular officers are given the option to meet with NP and CA officials  before traveling to post, State does not require these one-on-one meetings  for officers assigned to key Mantis posts. Although China accounts for  more than half of Mantis requests submitted, only one of the country’s six  consular posts has held a videoteleconference. Kiev requested a  videoteleconference in early 2004, but had been unable to schedule one, as  of December. Finally, in Beijing, only one of the officers who had attended  the consular conference in February was still at post.
section_title: Agencies Are Not Connected to State’s Electronic Tracking System
paragraphs: Several law enforcement, intelligence and non-intelligence agencies that  receive Mantis cases, including the Departments of Commerce and  Treasury, are not fully connected to State’s electronic tracking system. This  system, in addition to allowing State to track individual cases, was  designed to eliminate the use of cables for the transmission of SAO cases  because, according to State, they were “the source of garbled information  and other errors that resulted in lost or delayed cases that required human  intervention.” For example, as we found in our February 2004 report, 700  Mantis cables that were sent from Beijing in fall 2003 did not reach the FBI.  It took Consular Affairs about a month to identify that there was a problem  and to provide the FBI with the cases.
However, since several of the agencies that receive Mantis cases are not yet  fully connected electronically to the system they continue to receive Mantis  cases through State’s traditional cabling system. For the time being,  consular officers send Mantis cases both electronically and by cable. Those  agencies that are responsible for routinely clearing Mantis cases provide  responses to State on compact discs that must be hand-carried between the  agencies. As we found previously, this use of cables and couriers can lead  to unnecessary delays in the process.
State officials informed us that they are working to establish full  connectivity with other agencies. However, State’s goals for fully  connecting certain agencies to the system have not been met. Further, State  has not set milestones for connecting the remaining agencies to the system.  In July 2004, State’s Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations wrote  in a letter to the House Science Committee and other House and Senate  committees that he expected the FBI to begin relying on the network on a  regular basis by the end of that month. State and the FBI also signed a  memorandum of understanding in July outlining the terms of the FBI’s  electronic connectivity to the system. However, it was not until December  2004 that the FBI had developed the ability to gain access to State’s  electronic tracking system to test the connection and discontinue using the  cabling system. Although the FBI no longer actively clears Mantis cases, all  agencies and bureaus that receive Mantis cases, regardless of whether they  routinely clear cases, must be connected electronically to the system  before use of the cabling system can be eliminated. State’s goal was to  establish connectivity with another intelligence agency responsible for  clearing Mantis cases by the end of 2004, but an agency official told us that  a deadline of February 2005 was more realistic. State has not set milestones  for connecting the remaining agencies that receive Mantis cases to the  tracking system. A key agency official told us that providing full electronic  connectivity to all agencies that receive Mantis cases will be a gradual  process.
section_title: Students and Scholars from China Are Limited to 6- Month, Two-Entry Visas
paragraphs: China has one of the strictest visa reciprocity schedules for students and  scholars. Under the United States’ reciprocity agreement with China, visas  for F-1 and J-1 visa holders are only valid for up to 6 months, with two  entries into the United States allowed. According to a key State official,  the agency’s instructions to consular officers are to give single-entry, 3- month visas for applicants who undergo Mantis checks. This reciprocity  schedule is one of the primary concerns of the international scientific  community. Under the reciprocity schedule, if a Chinese citizen in the  United States on an F or J visa leaves the United States, he or she will have  to reapply for a visa.
In 2004, State Department officials entered negotiations with the Chinese  government to revise the visa reciprocity schedule for business travelers,  tourists, and students. However, in December, State officials informed us  that, while the Chinese government agreed to extend visa validities for  business travelers and tourists, it did not agree to do so for students and  scholars. While the new agreement with the Chinese government may  address some of the concerns that the business community and tourism  industry hold about travel to the United States, students and scholars will  still need to reapply for visas frequently.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: In 2004, State, DHS, and the FBI collaborated successfully to reduce Mantis  processing times. However, opportunities remain to further refine the Visas  Mantis program and facilitate legitimate travel to the United States. As we  reported in 2004, the use of the cabling system to transmit Mantis cases can  lead to unnecessary delays in the process. The State Department has also  noted that the cabling system is the source of garbled information and  other errors. However, agencies continue to receive cases via cable  because they are not yet fully connected electronically to State’s computer  database. State has not established milestones for connecting these  agencies to the electronic tracking system. Additionally, because consular  officers have only a few minutes to determine whether a visa applicant who  appears at their interview window needs to undergo a Mantis check, it is  critical that they fully understand the purpose of the Mantis program. Our  work suggests that consular officers learn best through direct interaction  with those agency officials responsible for implementing the Mantis  program in Washington. However, because consular officers at key Mantis  posts do not routinely have opportunities for such interaction, there is a  risk that they may submit Mantis cases on applicants who do not need them  or fail to submit cases when appropriate. Further, officers may fail to  include information in their Mantis requests that is most useful to agencies  in Washington.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: In order to further streamline the Visas Mantis process, we recommend that  the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland  Security, take the following two actions.
In order to eliminate use of the cabling system in the Mantis process,  establish milestones for fully connecting all necessary U.S. agencies and  bureaus to the computer system used to track and process Mantis cases.
Provide more opportunities for consular officers at key Mantis consular  posts to receive guidance and feedback on the Visas Mantis program  through direct interaction with agency officials knowledgeable about  the program. These opportunities could include, among other initiatives,  mandatory one-on-one meetings with officials from the Bureaus of  Consular Affairs and Nonproliferation for new consular officers before  they travel to post; additional visits by State officials to consular  conferences; and more frequent videoteleconferences with posts that  submit large numbers of Mantis requests.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of State, Homeland  Security, and Justice for their comments. State, DHS, and Justice provided  written comments on the draft (see appendixes II, III, and IV, respectively).  State commented that it had already made considerable progress with  regard to the report’s recommendations and outlined the actions it had  taken to do so. For example, State has committed to sending  representatives from its Consular Affairs and Nonproliferation Bureaus to  India, China, and Russia to engage in on-site discussions of Mantis issues  with consular officers. In addition, State is in the process of negotiating and  signing memoranda of understanding with five U.S. agencies to share  Mantis data electronically. DHS expressed appreciation for our work to  identify actions to improve the Visas Mantis process and stated that it will  pursue completion of GAO’s recommendations.
Justice responded to a recommendation included in the draft report that  directed the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to  set a formal timeframe for completing negotiations on FBI access to US- VISIT and SEVIS. Because the two agencies reached agreement prior to  publication of the final draft, the recommendation is not included in this  report. The Department of Justice also provided technical comments,  which we have incorporated where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of  Congress. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of State and the  Secretary of Homeland Security. We also will make copies available to  others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge  on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any  questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4128 or  fordj@gao.gov. Staff contacts and other key contributors to this report are  listed in Appendix V.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The scope of our work covered improvements to and implementation of  the Visas Mantis program between February 2004 and February 2005. To  determine how long it takes to process Visas Mantis checks, we obtained  and analyzed data from the State Department’s electronic tracking system  for Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs). Specifically, we reviewed “SAO  Processing Statistics” reports for all Mantis requests submitted to the State  Department between April 1, 2004, and August 31, 2004, as well as other  Mantis statistics produced by the State Department. These reports showed  the average total processing time (in calendar days) for Mantis cases  worldwide. To assess the reliability of State’s data on Visas Mantis cases,  we (1) interviewed State officials responsible for creating and maintaining  the electronic tracking system used for Mantis cases, (2) observed use of  the tracking system, and (3) examined data collected through the tracking  system. We noted in our report that average Mantis processing times, as  calculated through State’s tracking system, do not take into account Mantis  cases that are still pending. As a result, reported average Mantis processing  times can change as cases that have been pending are cleared. State may  also calculate average Mantis processing times based on the date on which  a consular post initially drafted a Mantis case, rather than the date on  which the consular post submitted the final draft to Washington. As a  result, total Mantis processing times can seem longer than they really are.  Despite these limitations, we determined that the data were sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of identifying trends in Mantis processing.
To identify and assess actions taken to implement our recommendation to  improve the Visas Mantis program, we obtained documentation from key  U.S. agencies, primarily the State Department, interviewed officials from  these agencies, and observed training classes for new consular officers at  the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute. We reviewed the  Immigration and Nationality Act, the Foreign Affairs Manual, the Bureau of  Consular Affairs’ quarterly reports on Visas Mantis, and other cables and  related documents from that bureau. In Washington, we interviewed  officials from the Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Justice. At  State, we met with officials from the Bureau of Consular Affairs and the  Bureau of Nonproliferation. At the Department of Homeland Security, we  met with officials from the Directorate of Border Transportation and  Security. At the Department of Justice, we met with officials from the  Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Name Check Unit. We requested a  meeting with Department of Justice and FBI officials to discuss  negotiations with DHS regarding access to US-VISIT and SEVIS; they  agreed to answer questions in writing. In August 2004, we observed classes  at the Foreign Service Institute for newly assigned consular officers. As  part of that training, we attended the Visas Mantis briefing that had been  added to the curriculum for new officers in response to our  recommendation in the February 2004 report.
To identify whether there were any remaining issues that affect the total  amount of time it takes for science students and scholars to obtain visas,  we analyzed data on interview wait times, spoke with representatives of  various educational organizations, and observed a roundtable discussion  on Mantis issues sponsored by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  We obtained data on interview wait times at consular posts worldwide from  State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs. We also obtained information on  interview wait times from the consular posts in China and Russia. We met  with representatives from the National Academies of Science, NAFSA:  Association of International Educators, and the Alliance for International  Education. The roundtable discussion we attended involved officials from  the Departments of State and Homeland Security, as well as representatives  from the International Institute for Education; the Association of American  Universities; the National Institutes of Health; the National Academies of  Science; NAFSA: Association of International Educators; and others.  Representatives from various colleges and universities were also in  attendance.
We conducted fieldwork at five visa-issuing posts in three countries— China, Russia, and Ukraine. We chose these countries because they are  leading places of origin for international science students and scholars  visiting the United States and because they account for 78 percent of all  Mantis cases. During our visits to these posts, we observed visa operations,  reviewed selected Visas Mantis data, and interviewed consular staff about  the Visas Mantis program. In China, we met with consular officers at the  U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the consulates in Shanghai and Guangzhou. We  also met with the Deputy Chief of Mission, as well as officials from the  Office of the Defense Attaché; the Office of Environment, Science,  Technology, and Health; the Office of Public Diplomacy; and the Foreign  Commercial Service. In Beijing, we observed a meeting of the American  Chambers of Commerce in China, where they discussed their experience  with the Visas Mantis program. In both Shanghai and Guangzhou, we met  with the Consul General. In Russia, we met with consular officers at the  U.S. Embassy in Moscow. We met with the Consul General and his Deputy,  as well as officials from the Department of Energy; the Office of  Environment, Science, Technology, and Health; and Public Affairs. In  Ukraine, we met with consular officers at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev. We met  with the Deputy Chief of Mission, the Consul General and her Deputy, as  well as officials from the Department of Energy; the Office of Public  Affairs; and the Office of the Defense Attaché. Furthermore, in both Russia  and Ukraine we held meetings with various organizations that sponsor  summer work/travel exchanges, and they expressed their opinions and  observations about the effects of U.S. visa policy on their programs.
We conducted our work from July 2004 through February 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Homeland  Security’s letter dated January 28, 2005.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comment
paragraphs: 1. We have revised the report to reflect the fact that the FBI requested  access to both US-VISIT and the Student and Exchange Visitor  Information System and that US-VISIT does not contain SEVIS.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Justice
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Justice’s letter  dated February 7, 2005.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comment
paragraphs: 1. Because the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice reached  agreement on the FBI’s access to US-VISIT and SEVIS prior to  publication of the final draft, we did not include the recommendation in  this report. The validity period for certain Visas Mantis clearances was  extended on February 11, 2005.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Elizabeth Singer, Carmen Donohue,  Maria Oliver, Judith Williams, Mary Moutsos, Joe Carney, Martin de Alteriis,  and Etana Finkler made key contributions to this report.