Immigration Benefits: Additional Efforts Needed to Help Ensure Alien Files Are Located when Needed
Published: 2006-10-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: To document the interactions of aliens with the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and other government entities, USCIS creates alien files, or A-files. While deemed critical, especially in making citizenship decisions, A-files are sometimes missing during adjudications. In 2002, naturalization was granted to an alien whose A-file was missing and who was later found to be associated with a terrorist organization. GAO focused its review on (1) how often USCIS adjudicates naturalization applications without an A-file and why, (2) the effect that missing A-files can have on the adjudication process, and (3) steps taken to help mitigate the risk of missing A-files. To address these questions, GAO interviewed officials and staff from USCIS and reviewed relevant data, policies, and procedures related to processing naturalization applications and the automated file-tracking system DHS established to track the movement of A-files.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: A-files were not available to adjudicate naturalization applications in a small percentage of cases. GAO found that of the naturalization applications adjudicated in 2005, about 30,000--or about 4 percent of them--may have been adjudicated without A-files. However, this number may be less because USCIS staff are not required to record whether an A-file was available. USCIS officials said that a major reason A-files were not available for naturalization application adjudications is that staff are not using the automated file-tracking system. USCIS officials suggested that staff might not be using the automated file-tracking system for lack of sufficient training on how to use the system, while local management may not be adequately emphasizing the importance of complying with A-file tracking policies and procedures. Missing A-files can have an impact on the process of adjudicating naturalization applications in several ways. For example, when an A-file is not available at the location indicated in the automated file-tracking system, additional time is spent trying to locate the file, which slows the adjudication process and applicants may wait longer for USCIS to process their application. In addition, missing A-files can hinder USCIS's ability to uncover immigration benefit fraud and limit DHS' ability to take enforcement actions. USCIS has steps in place to help mitigate the risk of adjudicating a naturalization application without an A-file. These steps include verifying the applicant's lawful admission to the United States and conducting extra supervisory reviews to ensure that naturalization processing procedures have been followed.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), within  the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for processing  noncitizens’ applications (sometimes commonly referred to as benefit  applications) to live and in some cases work in the United States either  permanently or on a temporary basis or to become a United States citizen.  For certain noncitizens, such as immigrants, USCIS creates an alien file,  called an A-file, to serve as the one central file for all of the noncitizen’s  immigration-related applications and related documents. USCIS manages  over 55 million A-files. Not only do USCIS staff rely on an alien’s historical  A-file to determine eligibility for immigration benefits, but other DHS  components, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), use   A-files during criminal investigations and to determine, for example,  whether an alien should be removed from or allowed to stay in the United  States. Information and documents from A-files may also be shared with  other law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of  Investigation (FBI), to investigate individuals suspected of being involved  in terrorist activities. Consequently, it is critical that A-files be available  when needed. Because A-files are paper-based, they require physical  transfer from one location to another. USCIS has developed an automated  file-tracking system, called the National File Tracking System (NFTS), to  enable all DHS staff at numerous DHS locations around the country to  locate, request, receive, and transfer A-files. NFTS users are to access  USCIS’s NFTS intranet site via their personal computers to locate and  request an A-file and update NFTS when they receive an A-file or transfer  an A-file to another person or office.
Naturalization is the process whereby a noncitizen becomes a United  States citizen. An application for naturalization is both the last step in the  immigration process and the last opportunity for USCIS, through its  benefit-granting review procedures, to prevent ineligible noncitizens from  becoming citizens and hence remaining in the United States. In 2002,  USCIS’s predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, granted  naturalization to a noncitizen who was later identified to be associated  with a terrorist organization. In this case, the adjudicator had not obtained  the A-file in adjudicating the application for naturalization and deciding to  grant the benefit. Indeed, background checks conducted as part of  USCIS’s naturalization process continue to reveal instances where  individuals who pose a potential risk to national security have applied for  naturalization. Because naturalization is the final benefit that USCIS can  bestow upon a noncitizen, it is critical that USCIS staff have access to the  full and complete history of an applicant—which is contained only in the  A-file—before making a final eligibility decision.
Because of the importance of the naturalization decision, we focused our  review on the availability of A-files in adjudicating naturalization  applications. For this report we examined (1) the extent to which USCIS  records how often naturalization applications are adjudicated without an  A-file, as well as the reasons why an A-file might be missing; (2) the effect  that missing A-files can have on the adjudication of naturalization  applications; and (3) what steps USCIS takes to help mitigate the risk of  adjudicating naturalization applications without an A-file.
To address these objectives, we sent e-mail questionnaires and followed  up with phone calls to officials and staff from 13 USCIS district offices and  reviewed relevant documents, policies, and procedures on processing  naturalization applications. We also obtained written responses from  another district for a total of 14 district offices. We selected these offices  because they adjudicated most of the naturalization applications.  Specifically, USCIS data indicate that these 14 offices adjudicated nearly  two-thirds of the approximately 715,000 naturalization applications  adjudicated in fiscal year 2005. To examine the extent to which USCIS  records how often naturalization applications are adjudicated without an  A-file and why A-files might be missing, we obtained summary data from a  USCIS database containing information on whether an A-file was available  when adjudicating a naturalization application. We also obtained summary  data from NFTS on A-files indicated as lost and, as having been in transit  and yet to be recorded as received.  We also interviewed officials from  USCIS headquarters and obtained instructions and guidance about using,  locating, and requesting A-files. To determine the effect that missing   A-files can have on the adjudication process, we interviewed USCIS  district office officials and staff. To determine if USCIS has instituted  additional procedures to help mitigate the risk of adjudicating a  naturalization application without an A-file, we reviewed policies and  procedures related to processing these applications, interviewed USCIS  officials, and reviewed relevant documents. In a prior review we  determined how USCIS ensures the quality and consistency of adjudicator  decisions by examining USCIS’s two quality assurance programs and  resulting outcomes, and reviewed the findings and recommendations of an  independent study of USCIS’s quality assurance programs. To assess the  reliability of USCIS’s system for managing naturalization applications and  NFTS data we (1) reviewed summary data and specific data elements for  obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewed related  documentation, and (3) interviewed USCIS staff knowledgeable about  USCIS’s system for managing naturalization applications and NFTS. We  found the data from its system for managing naturalization applications  and its quality assurance database were sufficiently reliable for our  purposes. Regarding NFTS, we found that the summary data we used were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We conducted our  review from August 2005 through August 2006 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I presents  more details on our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Millions of noncitizens apply annually to enter the United States to live,  work, or study. USCIS creates alien files, more commonly called A-files,   to document the history of a person’s interaction with USCIS or any DHS  entity involved in immigration related actions. USCIS’s Records Operation  Handbook (ROH) provides instruction on when and how to create an   A-file as well as how to request files and transfer them from one office to  another. USCIS maintains A-files on certain individuals, including those  who    are immigrants or who apply for immigrant status,   have become citizens, or   have applied for asylum in the United States or refugee status overseas.
The A-file is to contain all of the relevant documents of an alien’s  interactions with USCIS or other DHS components. For example, the A-file  could contain an application for lawful permanent residency and petitions  for an alien relative as well as documents related to enforcement actions  such as an arrest warrant and the results of any immigration proceedings.  While USCIS is the main user of A-files and the official DHS custodian for  all of them, other DHS components, such as ICE and Customs and Border  Protection (CBP), also use A-files for investigations or other enforcement  actions. In addition, information and documents from A-files may be  shared with agencies such as the FBI and Department of State. According  to senior USCIS officials, USCIS spends about $13 million each year  transporting A-files within USCIS and to other components and agencies.  USCIS’s long-range plans call for eventually converting paper A-files into  electronic files, thus avoiding these transportation costs and making   A-files available to multiple users simultaneously. In August 2006, USCIS  awarded a 5-year $150 million contract to begin converting A-files.
USCIS adjudicates applications for immigration benefits through a  network of field offices that include 4 service centers, 33 district offices,  and 8 asylum offices. In fiscal year 2005, USCIS’s budget was about   $1.8 billion and USCIS adjudicated about 7.5 million applications, of which  over 715,000 were applications for naturalization. Naturalization  applications are adjudicated at USCIS district offices and require the  applicant to, among other things, undergo a security background check, be  interviewed by an adjudicator and, demonstrate proficiency in English and  a basic understanding of U.S. civics. As part of the adjudications process,  adjudicators are to review the applicant’s A-file to identify any information  that may disqualify the applicant for naturalization, including information  that may indicate potential fraud. Of the over 715,000 naturalization  applications adjudicated in fiscal year 2005, USCIS denied about 64,000.
All applications for an immigration benefit, including naturalization, are to  be filed in the applicant’s A-file. USCIS staff use USCIS’s Central Index  System to locate and request the A-file from the last known office location.  However, the Central Index System can only identify the office location  for the A-file; it does not provide precise information about where in an  office an A-file is located. USCIS has NFTS, a system designed to provide  more detailed information on the location of an A-file, down to a specific  individual or file drawer. USCIS’s predecessor, the Immigration and  Naturalization Service, began deploying NFTS in November 2002. The  system is now deployed to all records units in USCIS district and asylum  offices, the USCIS’s Texas Service Center and National Benefits Center,  and all ICE and CBP units. Tentative plans call for deploying NFTS to  USCIS’s three other service centers by March 2007. NFTS is a Web-based  system that is available to anyone in DHS who needs A-files. Users can  obtain a user identification code that allows them to request, receive, and  transfer A-files. Web-based training on how to use NFTS is available via  DHS component intranet sites, including USCIS’s EdVanatage Learning  University, ICE’s Virtual University, and the CBP Learning University. In  January 2004, USCIS, ICE, and CBP signed a Service Level Agreement in  which USCIS agreed to provide A-files to ICE and CBP, and ICE and CBP  agreed to follow the ROH.
USCIS’s ROH describes the procedures that are to be followed for  locating, sending, and receiving A-files. The ROH states that all DHS staff  with access to NFTS should use NFTS to, for example,  record the creation of an A-file,  request A-files from other offices,  record when an A-file is sent or transferred out to another office,  and   immediately record both when an A-file is received and the file’s  specific location.
USCIS uses the Computer-Linked Application Information Management  System (CLAIMS) 4, as the case management and tracking system for  naturalization applications. CLAIMS 4 contains information from the  naturalization application and other data, such as the results from security  background checks and whether or not the application was approved.  CLAIMS 4 can also track the status of a request for the A-file, indicating  whether the A-file has been requested, received by the district office  adjudicating the application, or deemed lost. Figure 1 shows the steps  involved in locating A-files for naturalization applications.
USCIS’s Adjudicator’s Field Manual provides adjudicators with guidance  on naturalization procedures and how to determine whether an applicant  meets the eligibility requirements for becoming a citizen. To improve the  quality and consistency of all naturalization application processing, USCIS  has issued Naturalization Quality Procedures (NQP) guidelines. The NQP  provides detailed checklists that clerical staff and adjudicators must  complete at each stage of the naturalization process. These completed  checklists must be included in an A-file, along with the naturalization  application and related documents. The NQP also requires that  adjudicators be certified as NQP trained once every 3 years.
section_title: Extent to Which Naturalization Cases Are Adjudicated without an A-file Appears Low, but Compliance with File- Tracking Procedures Is Lacking
paragraphs: Our analysis of USCIS data and interviews with USCIS district officials  indicate that A-files are missing in a relatively small percentage of  naturalization cases but that DHS staff may not always be updating NFTS  when files are moved, resulting in delays in locating A-files or in not  locating them at all. The CLAIMS 4 database contains a data field that  indicates the status of the A-file request, such as whether the file has been  received in the district office, requested but not yet received, or that the   A-file has been declared lost. According to data from the CLAIMS 4  database, of the approximately 715,000 naturalization applications  adjudicated in fiscal year 2005, the district office received the A-file in  685,000 of these cases (about 96 percent), indicating that A-files may not  have been available in about 4 percent (about 30,000) of them. However,  USCIS officials told us that this CLAIMS 4 data field is an optional field  that USCIS staff may complete at various times during the adjudications  process or not at all. USCIS officials told us that of the approximately  30,000 naturalization cases where the A-file status indicated something  other than received in the district office, A-files were probably available in  a number of them. However, because adjudicators may not always update  the A-file data field to indicate whether the A-file was eventually received,  how many is unknown. In about 13,000 of the approximately 30,000 cases,  the A-file status indicator was blank.
Data from USCIS’s quality assurance audit of the naturalization program  also indicate that the A-files are missing in a relatively small percentage of  cases. In fiscal year 2005, the USCIS Performance Management Division  sampled 28,575 naturalization applications adjudicated by district offices.  Staff found that A-files were available in all but 129 of 28,575 cases  sampled, about 0.5 percent. However, because of limitations in its  sampling methodology, USCIS said this percentage cannot be projected to  the universe of approximately 715,000 naturalization applications  completed that year. Although USCIS officials from the 13 district offices  we spoke with acknowledged that their offices do not track how often  naturalization applications are adjudicated without an A-file, they believed  the percentage was low. They estimated the percentage of naturalization  applications in fiscal year 2005 that were adjudicated without A-files  ranged from less than 1 percent to 10 percent.
GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states  that information needed to achieve an agency’s objectives should be  identified and regularly reported to management. According to USCIS’s  Naturalization Quality Procedures, having and reviewing an applicant’s   A-file is critical to confirming that the applicant is eligible for  naturalization and that no incidents have taken place that would disqualify  the applicant from naturalization. In a November 2005 memo, the Acting  USCIS Director of Domestic Operations stated that not having an A-file  should be a “rare” occurrence, but did not quantify what “rare” meant.  Since USCIS deems reviewing the A-file critical to the naturalization  adjudications process, the lack of precise data on when an A-file is not  available limits USCIS’s ability to determine compliance with this critical  step and whether additional actions are necessary to ensure A-files are  available when needed.
According to USCIS officials, adjudicators sometimes have difficulty  locating A-files or cannot find them at all because the locations shown in  NFTS are incorrect or not up to date. For example, according to a  summary of the results of an April 2005 file audit conducted by USCIS’s  San Diego district office records staff, nearly 21 percent of the district’s  files (11,731 of 56,092 files audited) were not in the location shown in  NFTS. Another 34,764 files shown to be under the control of the San Diego  district could not be immediately located during the audit. Some of these  files may have been in locked file cabinets that audit staff could not  access, while others may have been transferred to another location and  were no longer in the district. NFTS showed duplicate file locations for  464 files. Audit staff also found 281 of the files that NFTS indicated were  lost. About half of the lost files were found within the local ICE Office of  Investigations. The other half were found mostly within CBP. In addition,  in June 2006 the Los Angeles district office conducted a file audit of three  locations that had files. As shown in table 1, about 6 percent of the files  indicated by NFTS to be at these three locations could not be found.
For some A-files, the office location recorded in NFTS is not up to date.  NFTS procedures require that a person receiving an A-file should  “immediately” update NFTS. According to the Section Chief of the Records  Systems Services Section of USCIS’s Office of Records Management  Branch, once a file is sent (either via the U.S. Postal Service or a private  package delivery service) from one office to another, it should take no  longer than a month for the A-file to arrive at the receiving office and for  NFTS to be updated. During our review, USCIS checked NFTS and found  107,000 A-files that have been in transit over a month but had yet to be  recorded as received in NFTS. Nearly 63,000 had been in transit more than  3 months.
GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government also  states that transactions and other significant events should be promptly  recorded so that they maintain their relevance, value, and usefulness to  management in controlling operations and making decisions. Although  USCIS considers compliance with NFTS procedures critical to enabling it  to maintain control over A-files, DHS staff are not always complying with  these procedures.
According to USCIS officials, DHS staff are not always recording the  movement of an A-file in NFTS, resulting in inaccurate information on the  location of A-files. Officials from 10 of the 13 USCIS district offices we  spoke with claim that the failure to record the movement of files in NFTS  is a major reason for delays in locating an A-file, in not being able to locate  an A-file at all, and in an A-file being declared lost. One district director  stated that the cooperation of other DHS components in adhering to file  transfer procedures was imperative, especially since they maintained   A-files relating to national security investigations and other sensitive  issues. According to USCIS records officials, the USCIS Records Division  has not conducted a formal study or evaluation as to why NFTS users are  not complying with all NFTS and ROH procedures. This cooperation is  important, especially because USCIS has no authority to enforce  compliance with file-tracking procedures among the other DHS  components. The report summarizing the San Diego district’s April 2005  file audit cited above stated that the number of files, in the thousands, that  were not in the location shown in NFTS or could not be found was  “staggering” and attested to the need to ensure that all personnel in all  units and agencies use NFTS and follow procedures. According to the  report, several locations were not using NFTS although NFTS was  available. USCIS records officials stated that lack of compliance with  NFTS procedures was “very prevalent.” As of July 27, 2006, for the   14 district offices we included in our review, NFTS indicated that about  111,000 A-files were lost.
USCIS officials offered several reasons why some staff may not be  complying with NFTS file-tracking procedures. According to the report  summarizing the San Diego district’s April 2005 file audit, additional NFTS  training is needed and compliance with the NFTS procedures should be  mandated for all sites. The audit report recommended regular NFTS  workshops for USCIS, CBP, and ICE staff. USCIS records officials stated  that local management may not be emphasizing enough the importance of  using NFTS. ICE officials we spoke to commented that they believe some  of the NFTS file transfer procedures are cumbersome, resulting in some  ICE staff circumventing them and not recording the file movement in  NFTS. For example, whether sending or receiving A-files, the ROH  requires that they all be routed through the local USCIS records unit  whenever a file needs to be transferred from one ICE field location to  another. This is because members of USCIS staff are the only ones allowed  to transfer a file from one field location to another. However, according to  ICE officials, because of the urgency of the situation, ICE personnel may  send an A-file directly from one ICE office to another, bypassing the  USCIS records units. As a result, the file movement to the new location is  not recorded in NFTS. USCIS records officials stated that they do not  believe lack of compliance stems from any technical problems with using  NFTS because the system is Web-based and relatively easy to use.
section_title: Missing A-files Can Affect the Naturalization Adjudication Process in Several Ways
paragraphs: Missing A-files can cause delays in awarding immigration benefits, hinder  USCIS’s ability to uncover immigration fraud, and limit DHS’s ability to  take enforcement actions. According to USCIS’s ROH, lost or missing   A-files can cause delays or errors in awarding immigration benefits and  can hamper investigation and enforcement actions. For example, USCIS  procedures for processing naturalization applications allow USCIS to wait  up to 3 months to try to find an A-file, thereby delaying adjudicating the  application. According to several USCIS district officials, USCIS staff  spend additional time and effort trying to locate files that are not in the  location identified in NFTS, thus delaying their ability to process benefits  quickly. Officials from all of the district offices we spoke with told us that  USCIS faces an increased risk of granting naturalization to an ineligible  applicant when the adjudicator does not have the A-file available because  the file may contain potentially disqualifying information. Officials from  several district offices stated that the A-file is needed to look for any  inconsistencies between the naturalization application and other  applications that the applicant had submitted when applying for previous  benefits like legal permanent residency. For example, a naturalization  application may contain facts about the applicant’s marital or family  (children) status that are inconsistent with information in the A-file, a  possible indication of fraud that may not be uncovered without the A-file.  These types of inconsistencies cannot be checked without the A-file. In  addition, USCIS conducts background security checks on all naturalization  applicants via the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS). IBIS  guidance requires an IBIS name check on all names an applicant may have  used. According to several district officials, the A-file may contain other  names (aliases) the applicant may have used that should be checked  against IBIS. Therefore, without the A-file, any potentially damaging  information related to these other names may not be uncovered,  increasing the risk of granting naturalization to an ineligible applicant.  DHS’s ability to take an enforcement action against an applicant may also  be compromised. According to an ICE attorney, some immigration judges  may be reluctant to, for example, order an alien removed from the United  States without the complete A-file.
section_title: Naturalization Quality Procedures Help to Mitigate the Risk of Adjudicating a Naturalization Application without an A-file
paragraphs: Officials we spoke with stated that the steps contained in the  Naturalization Quality Procedures mitigate somewhat the risk of  naturalizing someone who is ineligible. For example, adjudicators must  take additional steps when adjudicating a naturalization application  without an A-file. Specifically, these steps include    verifying the applicant’s lawful admission to the United States and that  the applicant has lived in the United States as a lawful permanent  resident for the required amount of time—generally, 5 years—and lack  of disqualifying information in USCIS databases,    extra supervisory reviews to ensure that naturalization processing  procedures have been followed, and    not scheduling the oath ceremony on the same day that the  naturalization application is adjudicated to allow sufficient time for the  required supervisory reviews.
Data from USCIS’s quality assurance audit of the naturalization program  indicate that USCIS staff is following procedures nearly all of the time  when adjudicating a naturalization application without an A-file. Of the   129 quality assurance audit cases sampled in fiscal year 2005 where an   A-file was not available, USCIS staff did not follow all of the required  procedures in 5 cases.
Officials from several district offices told us that the standard  naturalization adjudication procedures (applicable when an A-file is either  available or missing), such as background security checks, somewhat  reduce the risk of granting naturalization to someone who is ineligible. For  example, as part of USCIS’s background security check, USCIS is to  conduct an IBIS name check as well as both a fingerprint and FBI name  check. In an April 2006 memorandum, the USCIS Director of Operations  directed that naturalization interviews should not be scheduled until all  background checks have been completed to ensure that all background  security issues are resolved before USCIS interviews the applicant.  According to officials from several district offices, the background  security checks mitigate, somewhat, the risk of naturalizing someone who  poses a potential national security or public safety threat.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Although USCIS deems having an A-file critical to adjudicating a  naturalization application, USCIS staff are not required to record whether  an A-file was used to adjudicate a naturalization application. Recording  whether an A-file was used to adjudicate a naturalization application could  help USCIS assess the extent of the risk posed by adjudicating  naturalization applications without an A-file and what actions may be  necessary to address the problem. DHS staff who have access to A-files  may not be consistently using NFTS to track the movement of A-files,  hindering the ability to locate A-files when needed. While officials offered  suggestions as to why staff may not be complying, such as the lack of  NFTS training, it is unclear to what extent staff are not complying and  why. Knowing the extent to which staff are not complying and why and  addressing these reasons would increase DHS’s ability to locate and  provide A-files for adjudicators and others, thereby reducing the risk  associated with adjudicating a naturalization application and other  immigration benefits without the A-file.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: In order to improve USCIS’s management information, prevent  unnecessary delay, and more efficiently adjudicate applications, we are  recommending that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Director  of USCIS to  require users to record or note whether an A-file was used to  adjudicate a naturalization application and    work together with other DHS users of A-files to    determine the extent to which staff may not be complying with  NFTS procedures for updating the system and why and    correct any identified deficiencies in file-tracking compliance.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review. On October 24, 2006  DHS provided written comments which are shown in appendix II. DHS  also provided technical comments which we incorporated as appropriate.  DHS agreed with both of our recommendations and stated that the report  generally provides a good overview of the complexities associated with  the process for ensuring adjudication officers have A-files when  adjudicating naturalization applications.
Regarding our recommendation to require users to record or note whether  an A-file was used to adjudicate a naturalization application, DHS stated  that it plans to modify its CLAIMS 4 system to make the data field related  to file status mandatory. USCIS plans to make this modification in early to  mid 2007.
Regarding our recommendation that USCIS work together with other DHS  users of A-files to determine the extent to which staff may not be  complying with NFTS procedures and why and to correct any deficiencies  in file-tracking procedures, DHS stated that information obtained from  recently completed visits to USCIS, CBP and ICE field offices will help  USCIS determine the level of compliance with file tracking procedures and  identify remediation efforts required by each agency. This information will  also serve as the basis for a planned joint policy on A-file management.  DHS also cited several efforts it has taken or is planning to take to improve  the management of A-files. For example, USCIS and CBP records  managers have formed a partnership and are working to improve  responsiveness to records management needs. USCIS established File  Control Offices at several sub-offices allowing these sub-offices to move  files to requesting offices as quickly as possible. USCIS’ Records  Management Branch will evaluate NFTS reports to track files that are not  transferred within a reasonable amount of time and notify appropriate  components to ensure compliance with policies and procedures. USCIS  will continue on-site training as NFTS continues to be deployed across  DHS.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its  issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary  of the Department of Homeland of Security and other interested  congressional committees. We will also make copies available to others  upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on  GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report or wish to discuss  it further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or by e-mail at  JonesPL@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To address all of our objectives, we interviewed United States Citizenship  and Immigration Services (USCIS) headquarters officials, reviewed  relevant documents, and sent e-mail questionnaires and followed up with  phone calls to officials and staff from 13 (Chicago, Dallas, Detroit,  Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York City, Philadelphia, San  Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C.) of USCIS’s 33 district  offices. We obtained written responses to our questionnaire from another  district office (Boston). We selected these offices because they  adjudicated most of the naturalization applications. Specifically, USCIS  data indicate that these 14 offices adjudicated nearly two-thirds, or about  497,000, of the approximately 715,000 naturalization applications  adjudicated in fiscal year 2005. In addition, to examine the extent to which  USCIS records how often naturalization applications are adjudicated  without an A-file, as well as the reasons why an A-file might be missing  and what steps USCIS takes to compensate for any lack of an A-file during  an adjudication process we obtained data related to    naturalization applications adjudicated in fiscal year 2005 contained in  the Computer-Linked Application Information Management System  (CLAIMS) 4 database that records information from the naturalization  application and related information,  the results from USCIS quality assurance audits of a sample of  naturalization applications reviewed in fiscal year 2005, and    A-files indicated as lost and, as having been in transit and yet to be  recorded as received in USCIS’s National File Tracking System (NFTS).
We also reviewed policies and procedures related to processing  naturalization applications and instructions and guidance about using,  locating, and requesting A-files. In a prior review, we determined how  USCIS ensures the quality and consistency of adjudicator decisions by  reviewing USCIS reports and data on accuracy rates related to its two  quality assurance programs, interviewing USCIS officials in the  Performance Management Division, reviewing the findings and  recommendations of an independent study on USCIS’s quality assurance  programs and, discussing supervisory review practices with senior  managers at the field offices we visited. However, we did not  independently verify the extent and quality of supervisory review.
We assessed the reliability of CLAIMS 4 and NFTS data by (1) reviewing  summary data and specific data elements for obvious errors in accuracy  and completeness, (2) reviewing related documentation, and   (3) interviewing USCIS staff knowledgeable about the CLAIMS 4 and  NFTS systems. For NFTS, we also observed how A-files are located,  transferred, and received. However, we did not independently evaluate  whether technical malfunctions may be a factor in the number of files with  improperly identified locations, although we have no reason to believe that  technical malfunctions have occurred. We found that information and  summaries of the NFTS, CLAIMS 4, and quality assurance data were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We conducted our  review from August 2005 through August 2006 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the above, Michael Dino, Assistant Director;   Richard Ascarate; Jenny Chanley; Frances Cook; Carlos Garcia;   Julian King; and Brian Lipman were key contributors to this report.