Immigration Benefits: Internal Controls for Adjudicating Humanitarian Parole Cases Are Generally Effective, but Some Can Be Strengthened
Published: 2008-02-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Immigration and Nationality Act requires that most visitors and immigrants to the United States obtain a visa. Aliens unable to obtain a visa, and with a compelling humanitarian need, may apply to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be granted humanitarian parole. This permits an alien to enter the United States on a temporary basis. Parole responsibility rests with DHS's Humanitarian Assistance Branch (HAB), which was transferred to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in August 2007. In response to congressional requesters, GAO examined (1) the characteristics of those who applied for humanitarian parole since October 1, 2001, and (2) internal controls HAB designed to adjudicate applications along with the extent to which HAB adhered to them. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed HAB documents and data, such as its protocols and database of all parole applications since October 1, 2001; interviewed HAB officials about adjudication processes; and interviewed attorneys who had helped individuals file for parole.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The 8,748 humanitarian parole applications that HAB adjudicated from October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, displayed various characteristics--54 percent of the applicants were female and 46 percent, male; 45 percent of the applicants came from 11 countries, with the largest number from Mexico. Sixty-four percent of the requests for humanitarian parole were for family reunification or medical emergency. Persons under age 18 had a 35 percent grant rate--higher than the rate for applicants over 18 and consistent with the stated purposes of humanitarian parole. Seventy-six percent of applications were denied; 24 percent were granted. Among multiple reasons cited for denial by adjudicators in a projectible sample of cases we analyzed, an estimated 57 percent of applicants had not exhausted other avenues of immigration available to them before applying for humanitarian parole, as generally is required. Data analysis revealed few differences in parole denial rates with regard to gender or, with two exceptions, country of residence. While denial recommendation rates for individual adjudicators varied, HAB officials stated that this is expected because the facts and circumstances of cases vary and adjudicators have different backgrounds and experiences that might affect their reviews of an application. HAB has designed internal controls to help ensure that requests for humanitarian parole are decided in accordance with applicable guidelines; these controls have been functioning as intended. Specifically, HAB has, among other controls, clear and detailed written policies and procedures, including a requirement that every application be reviewed by two adjudicators and that if they disagree, a third is to make a "tie-breaking" recommendation. A final decision is then made by the HAB Branch Chief or a designee, but if the Branch Chief decides to override the adjudicators' recommendations, the case is first discussed with higher-level officials. A computerized data system also records key information in every case. While HAB's controls are generally effective, three areas can be strengthened. First, following a transfer of HAB to USCIS, HAB may no longer have a sufficient number of permanent staff to ensure it continues to follow policies and procedures, since two adjudicators are insufficient to provide independent reviews of requests for reconsideration--HAB guidance recommends that such requests be reviewed by two additional adjudicators not previously involved. Second, HAB does not have a formal training program for new staff who may be detailed to help process applications. Such training is essential to ensure that criteria for granting and denying parole are applied consistently and fairly by the adjudicators. Third, USCIS's Web site has limited information about the circumstances under which a person may apply for humanitarian parole. More information and clearer instructions could reduce the number of applications from those who had not taken the steps generally required before applying for humanitarian parole, such as exhausting other available avenues for entry into the United States.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) generally requires that most  aliens wishing to visit or immigrate to the United States obtain a  Department of State-issued visa. As a method of last resort, foreign  nationals normally required to have a visa may be allowed to enter the  United States without one—with the approval of the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS)—on a temporary, case-by-case basis for urgent  humanitarian reasons. This process is called humanitarian parole and may  be used for such reasons as to allow aliens to obtain urgent medical  treatment in the United States or to reunify young children with relatives.   Humanitarian parole does not constitute permanent admission of the alien  into the country; once the purpose of the parole is fulfilled, the alien is to  leave the United States.
Prior to the creation of DHS in March 2003, the authority to parole  individuals into the United States rested within the Department of Justice’s  U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Parole authority was  transferred to DHS upon the agency’s creation and administered by the  Humanitarian Assistance Branch (HAB) within U. S. Immigration and  Customs Enforcement (ICE).  In August 2007, DHS transferred HAB from  ICE to its U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
In response to several news articles citing delays and denials of  humanitarian parole to young children, you asked us to review DHS’s  policies and procedures for adjudicating humanitarian parole applications.  This report addresses the following questions: (1) What are the  characteristics of those who applied for and were either granted or denied  humanitarian parole since fiscal year 2002 and did approval and denial  rates differ according to these characteristics or the adjudicator assigned?  (2) What internal controls has HAB designed to adjudicate humanitarian  parole applications and to what extent did HAB adhere to these internal  controls when processing humanitarian parole applications?
To determine the characteristics of those who applied for and were either  granted or denied humanitarian parole, we analyzed data on 8,748  humanitarian parole applications adjudicated from October 1, 2001,  through June 30, 2007, contained in DHS’s automated Parole Case  Tracking System (PCTS). The system contains various applicant  demographic characteristics such as age; gender; and country of  residence; the reason why the applicant requested humanitarian parole  (e.g., medical emergency or family reunification); the recommendations by  individual adjudicators involved in adjudicating the application; and the  adjudication decision. To determine whether approval and denial rates  differed according to applicants’ demographic characteristics (e.g., gender,  country of residence, age) and whether these rates differed by adjudicator,  we analyzed PCTS data on the outcomes of adjudication decisions by  these characteristics and by the recommendations made by adjudicators.  We did not review the underlying merits of these decisions to identify  possible reasons for any similarities or differences.
Hard copy application files (for both granted and denied cases) were only  available for the March 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007, time period. To  determine the reliability of the PCTS data, we compared selected data   from a stratified probability sample of 145 hard-copy application case files  from this time period with the PCTS data for those cases, reviewed  relevant documentation such as HAB protocols for adjudicating  humanitarian parole applications, and met with knowledgeable officials.  We determined that the PCTS data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of our review.
Each adjudication case in PCTS has two text boxes into which two  different adjudicators each enter information about the reason for the  request, and their explanation for their recommendation for or against  granting humanitarian parole. To examine the reasons for requests for  humanitarian parole, we selected a stratified probability sample of 462  cases from fiscal year 2002 through June 30, 2007, and performed a  content analysis of the reasons for the requests contained in the text  boxes. We categorized the explanations in the text boxes for requesting  humanitarian parole into the four major categories defined by HAB: (1)  life-threatening medical emergencies; (2) family reunification for  compelling humanitarian reasons; (3) emergent, defined by the HAB as  including the need to visit an ill family member or to resolve matters  associated with the death of a relative or to attend a funeral; and (4)  “other,” such as a caregiver needed to care for someone in the United  States. To determine the reasons for which applicants were denied  humanitarian parole, we reviewed the cases in our sample in which the  applicant was denied humanitarian parole and performed a content  analysis of the reasons for the denials of parole contained in the text  boxes. We then categorized the explanations for denials into 10 categories;  HAB officials confirmed these categories. These included, for example,  that the applicant had not first exhausted alternative immigration  processes that might have been available, such as obtaining a visa, absent  urgent circumstances that made it impractical to do so, or had not  provided sufficient evidence of a claimed medical emergency, or that the  applicant had committed a prior immigration violation or crime.
To determine what internal controls HAB designed to adjudicate  humanitarian parole applications and the extent to which HAB adhered to  these internal controls, we obtained HAB policies and procedures and  compared them with standards for internal control in the federal  government and other internal control guidance related to control  activities, staffing levels, training, and communication with external  clients. We also interviewed HAB officials regarding how HAB internal  controls are interpreted and followed. To determine the extent to which  internal controls were adhered to, we reviewed our sample of cases  selected to assess the reliability of the PCTS data to determine whether  the case files contained documentation that a required control, (e.g.,  supervisory review), had been followed. Our probability sample allowed  us to conclude that this control was effective for PCTS applications in the  March 1, 2007, to June 30, 2007, time period.
We also interviewed attorneys and accredited representatives who had  helped individuals file humanitarian parole applications to obtain their  views on the humanitarian parole process. We interviewed 10 immigration  attorneys who belonged to the American Immigration Lawyers Association  (AILA) as well as 2 accredited representatives from 2 non-profit  organizations that offer legal assistance to immigrants. The attorneys  whom we interviewed responded to a request from the organization that  invited its members to contact us regarding their experiences with  humanitarian parole issues. Because we selected the attorneys and  accredited representatives using nonprobabilistic methods, their views  cannot be generalized to the immigration law community. Additional  details on our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2007 through January  2008 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 our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Humanitarian parole—in the context of immigration—refers to official  permission for an otherwise inadmissible alien to legally enter the United  States temporarily. This includes aliens required to have a visa to visit or  immigrate to the United States who are unable to obtain one, either due to  ineligibility or urgent circumstances that make it impractical to apply for  one. Specifically, the Immigration and Nationality Act grants the Secretary  of Homeland Security discretionary authority to parole an alien into the  United States temporarily on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian  reasons, such as to obtain medical treatment not available in his or her  home country, visit a dying relative, or reunify young children with  relatives. Granted for a maximum of 1 year, humanitarian parole does not  constitute permanent admission of the alien into the country. Once the  purpose of the parole is fulfilled, the alien is to leave the United States.  According to the associated HAB protocols for adjudicating humanitarian  parole applications, humanitarian parole is an extraordinary measure, to  be used sparingly and not to circumvent normal visa-issuing procedures.
The humanitarian parole application process begins when HAB receives  an application and supporting evidence (e.g., a doctor’s statement  regarding a physical ailment or a death certificate for a family member)  from the requester, who may be the applicant, the applicant’s attorney, or  someone applying on the applicant’s behalf. Upon receiving an  application, a HAB staff member checks to ensure that the applicant is  seeking humanitarian parole, the required information is entered on the  application form (Form I-131), and the package includes the $305  application processing fee. If the application is complete, the HAB staff  member enters the information from the Form I-131 into the PCTS  database. In turn, the PCTS generates a letter to confirm receipt of the  application and assigns a case number. The adjudicator then runs a  security check on both the applicant (called the beneficiary) and the  person requesting humanitarian parole, if different from the applicant,  against two federally operated security databases.
If there is no match with immigration or national security databases  indicating a security issue with the person(s) applying for humanitarian  parole, the HAB Chief (or designee) signs the confirmation-of-receipt  letter, which is sent to the applicant or the person applying on his or her  behalf. The HAB staff then create a working case file. Urgent cases, such  as those related to medical treatment, are placed in red folders and given  higher priority over less urgent cases, which are placed in green folders.  HAB officials told us that urgent cases are processed immediately. Figure  1 illustrates the process for adjudicating applications for humanitarian  parole.
section_title: About Three-Fourths of Humanitarian Parole Applications Were Denied with Few Differences in Denial Rates by Demographic Characteristic and Some Differences in Adjudicator Recommendations
paragraphs: The 8,748 humanitarian parole applications that HAB adjudicated from  October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, displayed various characteristics,  and grant and denial rates did not differ for most of them, although there  were some differences in adjudicator recommendations. Specifically, 54  percent were female; 46 percent, male. Forty-five percent of the applicants  came from 11 countries, with Mexico having the greatest number of  applicants. Most, 68 percent, were under the age of 40. Sixty-four percent  of the requests for humanitarian parole were for two reasons—family  reunification (49 percent) and medical emergency (15 percent). Of the  8,748 adjudicated applications, 6,615, or about 76 percent, were denied.
We estimate that 57 percent of the denials specified as a reason that the  applicant had not first exhausted all other avenues of immigration, such as  applying for a visa, and that in 13 percent of the denials, applicants had  committed an infraction of immigration law or other crime—both of which  are generally disqualifying factors, absent what the USCIS Web site on  humanitarian parole describes as “a very compelling emergency.” We  found few differences in the granting or denial rates with regard to the  demographic characteristic of gender and, with two exceptions, with  regard to country of residence. However, we did find a difference in  adjudication decisions for applicants under age 18, who had a higher grant  rate than other age groups. This is consistent with the stated purposes of  humanitarian parole and the HAB protocols that facilitate family  reunification of minors in circumstances of compelling humanitarian need.   There were some differences in grant/denial recommendation rates among  adjudicators, with a denial recommendation rate of 66 to 84 percent for  the 6 adjudicators with the greatest workload who made 15,000  adjudication recommendations from fiscal year 2002 through June 30,  2007, or 84 percent of all adjudicator recommendations. However, there  was considerably greater variation among those who adjudicated fewer  cases, with denial rates ranging from 43 percent to 93 percent of total  recommendations among 18 other adjudicators who made 2,957  recommendations, or 16 percent of the total.
subsections: section_title: HAB Approved Humanitarian Parole for 24 Percent of Applicants
paragraphs: From October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, HAB adjudicated 8,748  applications for humanitarian parole; of these, 24 percent were granted  humanitarian parole, while 76 percent were denied parole. Table 1  displays data on humanitarian parole adjudication decision outcomes from  fiscal years 2002 through 2007.
Fifty-four percent of the humanitarian parole applicants were female and  46 percent were male. The gender ratios were generally consistent year to  year, with the exception of fiscal year 2005 when 51 percent of applicants  were male and 49 percent were female. Table 2 shows the number of  humanitarian applicants by gender for fiscal years 2002 through 2007.
Individuals from 167 different countries applied for humanitarian parole.  Of the 8,748 applicants, 3,933 or 45 percent, were from 11 countries; 4,632  applicants or 53 percent, were residents of 156 other countries, and no  country of residence was listed in PCTS for 183 applicants (2 percent).  Residents of Mexico constituted the largest number of humanitarian  parole applicants, about 9 percent. Table 3 provides data on the number of  final adjudications by country of residence for the top eleven countries.
Most of the applicants for humanitarian parole were under age 40. Of the  8,692 applicants for whom the application contained data on their age in  PCTS, 5,966, or 68 percent, were under age 40.  Twenty-seven percent of  all applicants were under the age of 18. Table 4 shows the number of  humanitarian parole applicants by age group.
HAB officials identified four broad reasons for humanitarian parole  applications: (1) life-threatening medical emergencies; (2) family  reunification for compelling humanitarian reasons; (3) emergent, such as  to visit an ill family member, or to resolve matters associated with the  death of a relative; and (4) “other,” such as a caregiver needed to care for  someone in the United States. We estimated that 64 percent of the requests  for humanitarian parole were for two reasons—family reunification for  compelling humanitarian reasons (49 percent) and medical emergency (15  percent). Figure 2 shows the percentage of applications adjudicated by  reason for the request for fiscal years 2002 through 2007, based on a  probability sample of 462 cases that we reviewed.
section_title: Several Reasons Were Cited for HAB’s Denying Humanitarian Parole Applications
paragraphs: The PCTS database shows that since fiscal year 2002, 76 percent of all  applicants were denied humanitarian parole. Based upon our review of the  narrative summaries in our sample of denied applications, we identified 10  reasons adjudicators cited when recommending a humanitarian parole  application be denied. HAB officials agreed that these categories  represented the reasons for denial; they noted that because their decisions  are discretionary, none of these reasons are in and of themselves  automatically disqualifying. Rather, these are the reasons cited in the  probability sample as the basis of the reasoning by the HAB adjudicators  as leading to their denial recommendation. The 10 categories were:
The applicant had not exhausted alternative immigration processes  available to them for which they might have been eligible, such as  obtaining a visa, absent urgent circumstances that made it  impractical to do so.
The applicant provided no evidence supporting an emergent  condition, such as a death certificate in the case where the request  was to attend a funeral.
The applicant provided no or inadequate evidence to support the  reason for the request for humanitarian parole, such as a claimed  medical emergency.
The applicant had committed a prior immigration violation or other  criminal violation.
The purpose of the parole was not temporary in nature.  That is,  HAB believed that the applicant intended to stay in the United  States beyond the duration of a parole period.
Other family members already in the United States could provide  care to the person intended to benefit from the presence of the  applicant.
The needed medical treatment was available outside the United  States.
There was insufficient evidence of adequate financial support to  prevent the applicant from becoming a public charge while in the  United States.
The applicant provided no proof of familial relationship in cases  where a family relationship was claimed as the basis of the  application.
Other: This was for applications that did not fall into the other  categories. For example, other cases included when persons  already approved for humanitarian parole mistakenly applied to  HAB for an extension of their parole period rather than apply with  a local USCIS district office. Another example was when an  applicant for lawful permanent residency departed the United  States without first obtaining the needed permission from USCIS  and then applied for humanitarian parole to re-enter the United  States, a situation that is not valid grounds for humanitarian parole.
In recommending that an application be denied, adjudicators sometimes  cited more than one reason in explaining their recommendation. For  example, an adjudicator may have cited both that the applicant had not  exhausted alternative immigration processes available and that the  applicant provided no evidence supporting an emergent condition. Table 5  below shows the estimated percentage of applications where a particular  reason for denial was cited.
Table 5 shows that an estimated 57 percent of the denials had as a reason  that the applicant had not first exhausted other avenues of immigration,  such as applying for a visa, absent urgent circumstances that made it  impractical to do so. Table 5 also shows that an estimated 46 percent of all  the denied applicants had not provided evidence of an emergent condition  and that an estimated 13 percent of denied applicants had committed an  infraction of immigration law or other crime. These and the other reasons  cited are generally disqualifying factors in applications for humanitarian  parole.
section_title: Humanitarian Parole Decision Outcomes Show Few Differences by Gender and Country of Residence, but Grant Rates Were Higher for Applicants under Age 18
paragraphs: HAB has considerable discretion in adjudicating humanitarian parole  applications. According to HAB’s guidance on adjudicating humanitarian  parole applications, exercising discretion involves the ability to consider  all factors in making a decision on whether a parole request rises to the  level of an urgent humanitarian reason. The exercise of discretion requires  that an adjudicator take into account applicable immigration law,  regulations, policy and a consideration of the totality of the circumstances  of the case including any significant mitigating factors. Most importantly,  according to the guidance, discretionary decisions on humanitarian parole  applications should be reached in a fair, equitable, and objective manner.
We analyzed the PCTS data to determine whether there were differences  in grant and denial rates according to applicants’ gender, country of  residence, age, and by adjudicators. The latter factor—the adjudicator  involved—must be considered in the context of the adjudication process,  which requires that each application be reviewed by two different  adjudicators and that if the first two adjudicators disagree in their  recommendation, a third adjudicator then reviews the application and  makes a recommendation. Then, the HAB Branch Chief or a designee is  required to provide supervisory review and make the final decision.  Therefore, while individual adjudicators could vary in their  recommendations, the internal control system is set up to ensure that no  single adjudicator has a decisive role in the outcome decision. (We discuss  these internal controls later in this report.).
Our analysis showed virtually no difference in the grant and denial rates  according to applicants’ gender. With regard to country of residence, of  the 11 foreign nations from which most applicants applied, applicants  from Haiti had a lower rate of approval than the others while those from  Cuba, El Salvador, India, Iran, Iraq, and Mexico had almost identical rates,  and applicants from Lebanon had the highest grant rate. HAB officials  attributed the lower rate for Haitians to special immigration eligibility  rules for Haitians that were not well understood by applicants and the  higher rate for Lebanese residents to special humanitarian circumstances  resulting from evacuations associated with the July 2006 conflict in  southern Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah.
Humanitarian parole-granting rates were higher for applicants under age  18 than they were for adults, consistent with HAB protocols and practices  that favor reunification of children under age 18 with parents or close  relatives. Grant and denial recommendation rates by individual  adjudicators varied, with greater variation among those who adjudicated  fewer cases. According to HAB officials, variations were expected in the  grant/denial recommendation rates among adjudicators, since the facts  and circumstances of each application varied and adjudicators do not all  review the same applications. However, these officials stated that the  application process had been designed with multiple checks to ensure that  no single person would be able to unfairly influence the decision outcome,  and that informal roundtable discussions among many staff were also used  to deal with particularly difficult cases. As a result, they said, while  grant/denial recommendation rates could vary by adjudicator, the process  had been set up to achieve outcomes based on what amounts to a  consensus, rather than being the product of a single adjudicator’s  recommendation.
subsections: section_title: Decision Outcomes Were Similar for Male and Female Applicants
paragraphs: For fiscal years 2002 to 2007, there were few differences in the annual  grant/denial rates for male and female applicants, in adjudicated  humanitarian parole decisions, with the exception of fiscal year 2005,  when the grant rate for females was 21 percent and the grant rate for  males was 24 percent. Table 6 shows the yearly approval and denial rates  by gender.
With two exceptions, there were few differences in the adjudication  outcomes for grant or denial of humanitarian parole applications by  country of residence. With the exception of applicants from Haiti and  Lebanon, denial rates for the 11 countries that had the most applicants  ranged from 68 percent to 82 percent, compared to the overall denial rate  of 76 percent. The denial rate for Haitian applicants was 92 percent; in  contrast, applicants from Lebanon had the lowest denial rate—45 percent.  According to HAB officials, the higher denial rate for Haitians may be in  part a result of a high number of applications made by Haitians applying  for humanitarian parole on behalf of relatives who did not qualify as  derivative beneficiaries (spouses and dependent children) under the  Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA) of 1998. For example,  an applicant might have applied on behalf of a sibling or extended relative  who did not meet the requirements of the Act or those of the humanitarian  parole program. With respect to applicants from Lebanon, HAB officials  told us that the July 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah had  generated applications for humanitarian parole under special urgent  circumstances that probably produced a high grant rate. Table 7 shows the  percentage of humanitarian parole applications granted and denied by the  11 countries from which the most applicants originated as well as for the  total program for fiscal years 2002 through 2007.
One of the reasons individuals can request humanitarian parole is to  reunite young children with family members. HAB officials told us that  they have followed a practice of applying this policy to those who are  under age 18, since 18 is the age of majority in many countries. Consistent  with this program goal, HAB granted humanitarian parole to 35 percent of  the applicants under 18, a higher rate than those for other age groups and  11 percentage points higher than the overall grant rate of 24 percent. Table  8 shows the grant and denial rates by age distribution.
HAB’s process for adjudicating humanitarian parole requests requires that  at least two adjudicators review the application and make a  recommendation to grant or deny the request. For the 8,748 applications  adjudicated from October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, 27 adjudicators  made a total of 17,963 recommendations. Our analysis of PCTS data  showed that of the 17,963 recommendations, 13,480 (75 percent) were to  deny the application. The grant/denial recommendation rates by  adjudicators varied to some extent among adjudicators, with a denial rate  of 66 to 84 percent for the 6 adjudicators with the greatest workloads, who  made 15,000, or 84 percent, of all adjudicator recommendations from fiscal  year 2002 through June 30, 2007. Collectively, these six adjudicators had a  recommendation denial rate of 77 percent, slightly higher than the overall  75 percent recommendation denial rate for the period.  Of these six  adjudicators, the four who had the highest number of humanitarian parole  cases-–accounting for just over 69 percent of all adjudicator  recommendations—had recommendation denial rates that ranged from  just over 76 percent to just under 84 percent. However, there was  considerably greater variation among those who adjudicated fewer cases,  with denial recommendation rates ranging from 43 percent to 93 percent  of total recommendations among 18 other adjudicators who each made 15  or more recommendations, and a total of 2,957 recommendations, or 16  percent of the total, from fiscal year 2002 through June 30, 2007. Table 9  shows the approval and denial rates for all 27 adjudicators.
In discussing these data with HAB officials, they noted that three factors  should be taken into consideration. First, the facts and circumstances of  each application varied, and it is not expected that the grant/denial  recommendation rate would be the same for all adjudicators because they  do not all review the same applications. Second, each adjudicator brings a  different background and work experience to the position. Thus, the  adjudicators might judge the facts and circumstances of the same  application somewhat differently. Third, no individual adjudicator has sole  authority to make the final adjudication decision. Each adjudication  outcome requires at least two adjudicators’ recommendations and  sometimes a “tie breaker” recommendation by a third adjudicator before a  final decision is made by the HAB Branch Chief or a designee.
section_title: HAB Generally Had Effective Internal Controls, but Those Related to Staffing, Training, and Communication with Stakeholders Could Be Strengthened
paragraphs: HAB has designed internal controls to help ensure that requests for  humanitarian parole are decided in a fair, equitable, and objective manner,  and our review of case files and the PCTS database found that these  controls have been generally effective, that is, functioning as intended.  However, three areas could be strengthened to improve HAB’s ability to  adhere to internal control standards. First, following HAB’s transfer from  ICE to USCIS, HAB may no longer have a sufficient number of permanent  staff to ensure continued compliance with its policies and procedures.  Second, HAB does not have a formal training program for staff unfamiliar  with humanitarian parole who may be detailed to its office to help process  applications thereby increasing the risk that these adjudicators may not  have the expertise to make decisions in accordance with applicable  guidelines. Third, USCIS’s Web site—the primary means of communicating  program criteria to potential applicants—has limited information about  the circumstances under which a person may apply for humanitarian  parole and therefore may be of limited use to those who seek information  about the program.
subsections: section_title: HAB’s Internal Controls Were Generally Effective
paragraphs: HAB designed internal controls to help ensure requests for humanitarian  parole were decided in a fair, equitable, and objective manner and our  review of case files and PCTS data found these controls were generally  effective, that is, functioning as intended. For example, our standards for  internal control in the federal government require that programs have  policies and procedures to help ensure management’s directives are  carried out. HAB has two documents—the Protocol for Humanitarian  Parole Requests and the Standard Operating Procedures for  Humanitarian Paroles—that provide detailed instructions on how to  adjudicate and process humanitarian parole applications. The protocols  list the major reasons for humanitarian parole and the factors adjudicators  are to consider given the type of humanitarian parole request. For  example, in considering medical requests, HAB adjudicators are to  consider, among other things, the nature and severity of the medical  condition for which treatment is sought and whether or not the requested  treatment is available in the applicant’s home or neighboring country.  Regarding family reunification, HAB adjudicators are to consider, among  other things, whether the request is designed to circumvent the normal  visa issuance procedures. Appendix II contains more information on  factors HAB adjudicators are to consider when adjudicating humanitarian  parole applications. The procedures call for two adjudicators to review  each application and make a recommendation regarding whether the  application should be approved or denied. Adjudicators are to provide a  short summary explaining their reasoning behind their recommendation in  a text box in PCTS.  Should the two adjudicators disagree, a third  adjudicator, or “tie-breaker,” is asked to review the application and make a  recommendation. The protocols also require the HAB Branch Chief or a  designee to review the application and make a final decision. According to  the HAB Branch Chief, the process of having two adjudicators review each  case, including a third adjudicator if needed, as well as the Branch Chief’s  review and final decision on approval or disapproval, is intended to  provide consistency in applying the decision criteria. The Branch Chief   also told us that in difficult cases it was not uncommon for all the  professional staff in the office to have an informal roundtable discussion  to ensure that all the factors and complexities of the application were  adequately and fairly considered. He also told us that if he decides to  override adjudicators’ recommendations in a case, he does not finalize  such a decision until he has first discussed the case with at least one of his  two supervisors.
HAB also maintains information in PCTS that is contained in the  application as well as data such as the HAB adjudicator summary  explanation of the case, the adjudication recommendations made by the  various adjudicators, and the decision reached. The system also contains  built-in checks to help ensure internal controls are followed. For example,  the PCTS database will not allow a grant or denial letter to be printed  unless the system contains information that two adjudicators reviewed the  application, as evidenced by their having filled in the appropriate text  boxes.
Our review of a sample of humanitarian parole application case files and  associated data in PCTS showed that HAB staff followed established  policies and procedures. For example, in all cases the PCTS database  showed that at least two adjudicators reviewed each application and had  written an explanation in the designated text box explaining the reasoning  behind their adjudication recommendation. Our direct observation of  PCTS in use confirmed that the edit checks built into PCTS to ensure that  all required steps are taken before an applicant grant or denial letter could  be printed were working. In addition, all hard copy files we reviewed  contained a letter notifying the applicants or their representative of HAB’s  decision and signed by a HAB official. The letters in the files were signed  by the HAB Branch Chief or a designee, indicating that supervisory review  was performed. Our probability sample allowed us to conclude that this  control was effective for PCTS applications in the March 1, 2007, to June  30, 2007, time period.
HAB has a goal of adjudicating humanitarian parole applications within 60  to 90 calendar days, although HAB officials told us that decisions in the  most urgent cases are sometimes made almost immediately. As shown in  figure 3, from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2006, HAB achieved this  goal, with the median processing time for grants ranging from 8 to 18 days  and the median time for denials ranging from 10 to 22 days in this period.  Processing some applications took longer than these times, for various  reasons. For example, HAB officials cited delays in obtaining the results of  DNA testing to confirm a family relationship. For fiscal year 2007 through  June 30, 2007, the median time to adjudicate cases increased to 53 days for  grants and 36 days for denials. HAB officials told us that they had  increased the number of security databases against which applicants  provisionally approved for humanitarian parole are checked, prior to  granting final approval. As a result, the median number of days to process  applications increased in fiscal year 2007 compared to previous years.
All 10 immigration attorneys we interviewed, as well as both accredited  representatives of two non-profit organizations that offer legal assistance  to immigrants, including sometimes helping humanitarian parole  applicants, told us that they were generally satisfied with the speed of the  adjudication of applications and had no complaints about the time HAB  took to adjudicate their client applications. Five of the 12 attorneys and  accredited representatives also told us that HAB decided their cases  within 30 to 45 calendar days of the submission of the application. Ten of  the 12 attorneys and accredited representatives with whom we spoke were  generally satisfied with the responsiveness of the HAB staff, including  their willingness to grant applicants more time to provide additional  evidence to support applications for humanitarian parole.
section_title: Controls Related to Staffing, Training, and Communication with Stakeholders Could be Strengthened
paragraphs: Our work showed that controls related to staffing, training, and  communication with stakeholders could be strengthened to enable HAB to  carry out its mission and to more fully comport with internal control  standards. These areas relate to the number of HAB staff needed to ensure  it continues to follow its policies and procedures, a training program for  new staff not familiar with humanitarian parole and/or staff who may be  detailed to the HAB to help process applications, and whether USCIS’s  Web site—the primary means of communicating program criteria to  potential applicants—has sufficient information about the circumstances  under which a person may apply for humanitarian parole.
subsections: section_title: Staffing
paragraphs: Prior to the transfer of HAB from ICE to USCIS, HAB had 11 permanent  staff, including the Branch Chief, for processing requests for both  humanitarian and other types of parole. According to the HAB Branch  Chief, this staffing level helped ensure that HAB (1) adhered to its policies  and procedures of having two adjudicators, a third adjudicator when  necessary to break ties, different adjudicators to review applications  submitted for reconsideration, and supervisory review of each application;  (2) performed data entry requirements; and, (3) could meet its goal of  adjudicating applications within 60 to 90 calendar days. However, the  memorandum of agreement that transferred the humanitarian parole  program from ICE to USCIS in August 2007 provided for the reassignment  of only the Branch Chief and two adjudicators to administer the  humanitarian parole program.
Standards for internal controls in the federal government state that an  agency must have sufficient staff, including supervisors, to effectively  carry out its assigned duties. Having only a Chief and two adjudicators to  administer the humanitarian parole program may not be a sufficient  number of staff to ensure HAB can continue to comply with its policies  and procedures. For example, as noted above and according to HAB  policies and procedures, two adjudicators are to review each application.  Should the two adjudicators disagree, a third adjudicator, a tie-breaker, is  needed to review the application and make a recommendation. The HAB  Branch Chief or a designee is to review each application and make a final  decision. With only two adjudicators, there is no one to act as a “tie- breaker” because the Branch Chief normally does not assume this role. In  addition, if an applicant’s request for humanitarian parole is denied, he or  she has the opportunity to provide additional information and have HAB  reconsider the application. HAB protocols recommend that in these  situations, two different adjudicators—and a third adjudicator when  necessary to break a tie—review the reconsidered application. However,  having only two adjudicators could put a strain on the program’s ability to  continue to meets its goal of processing applications within 60 to 90 days.  According to the HAB Branch Chief, based on HAB’s current workload, at  least nine staff members are needed to administer the humanitarian parole  program—a branch chief, a senior adjudications officer, four adjudications  officers, two data entry and case management clerks to enter application  information into PCTS and to create and maintain the hardcopy folders of  the cases, and one case manager to respond to the 400 to 500 associated  inquiries that the branch receives each year. Until permanent staff are  requested, approved, and assigned, HAB plans to use adjudications  officers detailed from other parts of USCIS to help adjudicate  humanitarian parole applications.
In addition to having a limited number of staff transferred with the  humanitarian parole program, staff members who transferred were those  who had relatively less experience processing humanitarian parole  applications. The two permanent adjudicators now at HAB accounted for  11 percent of the cases adjudicated between October 1, 2001, and June 30,  2007. None of the top three adjudicators who decided a total of 61 percent  of the cases during that period transferred to USCIS.  HAB officials also  told us that when the program had 11 staff (including the Branch Chief), if  a backlog of cases began to develop, they could have everyone work to  reduce it. With only two permanent adjudicators and the Branch Chief,  HAB does not have the staff needed to address backlogs that might  develop or to provide backup in the event of staff require leave for illness,  training, or vacations.
section_title: Training
paragraphs: Although HAB plans to use detailed adjudicators as necessary, HAB  officials told us that they have no formal training curriculum on how to  adjudicate humanitarian parole applications. Officials told us that to date,  adjudicators have come from the ranks of those who have considerable  experience in immigration-related issues and that this enabled  adjudicators to know how to adjudicate humanitarian parole applications  after brief on-the-job instruction. Officials also told us that they intend to  develop training curriculum on adjudication of humanitarian parole cases.  Internal control standards in the federal government state that providing  formal training is a method by which an agency can address expertise and  experience issues. Until a training program is in place, staff detailed to  HAB and new permanent staff not familiar with adjudicating humanitarian  parole applications may not get the training they need. Having untrained  staff increases the risk that they may not have the expertise to make  humanitarian parole decisions in accordance with applicable guidelines.
section_title: Communication with Stakeholders
paragraphs: Internal control standards in the federal government state that agencies  should establish open and effective communications channels with  customers and other groups that can provide significant input on agency  products and services. This is particularly important with respect to  humanitarian parole applications where the applicant pays a $305 fee for a  government service. Our standards for internal controls offer guidelines  for communication between an agency and both its internal and external  customers. These guidelines state that an agency should provide sufficient  information so that clients can understand the rules and processes and can  make effective use of the services the agency is supposed to offer.
However, those seeking humanitarian parole may not fully understand the  rules for applying. As noted earlier in this report, an estimated 57 percent  of those denied humanitarian parole were denied, in whole or in part,  because the requester had not exhausted alternative immigration  processes, such as requesting a visa, a process that generally must be used  prior to requesting a humanitarian parole visa absent urgent  circumstances that made it impractical to do so. We also found that an  estimated 13 percent of those denied humanitarian parole had committed  an infraction of immigration law or other crime, which is also generally a  disqualifying factor.
USCIS uses its Web site as the primary tool to communicate information  about the humanitarian parole process to the public. The U.S. Department  of Health and Human Services has developed Research Based Web Design  and Usability Guidelines. The 2006 guidelines state that Web sites should  be designed to facilitate effective human-computer interaction and that if  the content of the Web site does not provide the information needed by  users, it will provide little value no matter how easy it is to use. The  instructions included on the USCIS Web site for how and under what  circumstances to apply for humanitarian parole were limited. For  example, the Web site does not state that to be eligible for humanitarian  parole, applicants must generally have first exhausted other available  avenues of relief, other than in circumstances of compelling humanitarian  emergency or when urgency makes it impractical to do so. The  instructions state that the applicant is to submit a statement on “why a  U.S. visa cannot be obtained instead of having to apply for humanitarian  parole” but does not state that an application for a visa generally should  have been made and rejected, again absent urgent circumstances that  make it impractical to do so.
Further, the written instructions may be confusing to some applicants. For  example, the instructions state that “anyone can file an application for  humanitarian parole,” including “the prospective parolee, a sponsoring  relative, an attorney, or any other interested individual or organization.”  While technically true, the language could lead persons to file and pay the  $305 application fee when they first should have exhausted other  immigration alternatives (such as filing for a visa), except when there are  circumstances that constitute an emergency. This potential lack of  information about the need for most applicants to first exhaust other  immigration alternatives, absent an emergency, leaves open the possibility  that some applicants might not realize that they generally have to have  been denied a visa to request humanitarian parole. As a result, applicants  may be losing time, as well as the $305 application fee required to apply  for humanitarian parole. In addition, HAB’s workload could be increased  unnecessarily, therefore putting additional strains on its limited staff.
Although HAB has extensive protocols on what to consider when  adjudicating humanitarian parole applications, there is little information  on USCIS’s Web site regarding what HAB considers when adjudicating  these applications and finding such information can be difficult. Six of the  12 attorneys and accredited representatives we interviewed said that they  and their clients would have benefited from more guidance on the  application process, including an explanation of what supporting  documentation and evidence to include in the application, adjudication  criteria, and examples of circumstances warranting humanitarian parole.  Clearer and more explicit information about the humanitarian parole  process could better inform potential applicants and their attorneys and  representatives. Six of 12 attorneys and accredited representatives stated  that having either a phone number or an e-mail address on the Web site to  contact HAB would help facilitate communication. Two attorneys  suggested that using e-mail could speed correspondence with HAB as well  as the submission of application materials.
Four attorneys who had represented clients who were denied parole told  us that HAB should include more information on the grounds for denial in  the decision letter. Specifically, four of the seven attorneys who had at  least one client denied parole were dissatisfied with the brief form  language included with the notification letter. Two attorneys stated that  the brief letters gave them the impression that the applications had not  received sufficient or serious consideration. HAB officials, however,  expressed concern that providing detailed explanations of denials would  lead to reapplications of denials tailored to overcome the original grounds  for the denial, even when the underlying facts of the case had not changed.  This, in their view, would increase the number of potentially frivolous  applications and add to the agency’s overall workload from persons who  were ineligible for humanitarian parole—and slow down the processing  times for genuinely urgent cases. Finally, two attorneys who received  approvals for their clients stated they would have appreciated clearer  instructions about how to obtain the necessary travel documents from an  embassy or consulate. HAB officials told us that the letters they provide to  applicants or to their representatives can at most tell them whether they  have been granted or denied parole and, if granted, which embassy or  consulate they need to contact to obtain the travel documents. The  officials stated that information regarding embassy and consulate  locations and hours of operations is available on the Department of State  Web site at www.travel.state.gov.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: HAB has instituted internal controls that are designed to help ensure that  humanitarian parole applications are decided in a fair, equitable, and  objective manner, and these controls were generally effective, that is,  functioning as intended. With the move to USCIS resulting in the transfer  of only the HAB Branch Chief and two permanent adjudicators, HAB does  not have sufficient staff for two independent reviews of an application and  a possible tie breaker—a key internal control mechanism. Until an  adequate staffing level is decided and implemented, HAB may face  challenges in adhering to its policies and procedures on adjudication.  Without a formal training program for potential new staff and those who  might be detailed to HAB, the agency cannot ensure that these staff will be  properly trained to make recommendations in accordance with applicable  guidelines. Lastly, additional information on USCIS’s Web site about the  need for applicants to first exhaust other immigration avenues before  applying for humanitarian parole and more information about the criteria  HAB uses to adjudicate humanitarian parole applications could help  applicants decide whether the expenditure of time and the $305  application fee would be appropriate and what types of evidence are  needed to help ensure HAB makes an informed decision. Without this  additional information, applicants may lose time and money applying for  humanitarian parole and HAB’s workload may be increased unnecessarily,  straining its already limited staff.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help ensure that HAB is able to process applications for humanitarian  parole consistent with its own policies and procedures and to help ensure  applicants understand the humanitarian parole rules and processes, we  recommend that the Secretary of DHS direct the Director of USCIS to take  the following three actions coordinate with the HAB Branch Chief to determine the number of  staff HAB needs to process humanitarian parole applications in  accordance with its policies and procedures and assign them to  HAB; develop a formal training program curriculum on adjudication of  humanitarian parole cases for new and detailed staff; and  revise USCIS’s Web site instructions for humanitarian parole to  help ensure that applicants understand the need to first exhaust all  other immigration avenues and the criteria HAB uses to adjudicate  humanitarian parole applications.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a copy of a draft of this report to DHS for comment.  In  commenting on our draft report, DHS stated that it concurred with our  recommendations and that it has begun taking actions to implement each  of them.  DHS stated that the HAB is finalizing a comprehensive staffing  assessment for review by USCIS and that, in the short-term, HAB has made  interim arrangements to have experienced USCIS staff assist its staff.  DHS  stated that USCIS intends to implement a formal humanitarian parole  training program during fiscal year 2008 and that the program would offer  an orientation process for all staff members responsible for processing  humanitarian parole applications.  Last, DHS stated that USCIS will  undertake a thorough review of the Web site and make appropriate  modifications, including but not limited to the development of a  frequently-asked-questions section, and that these modifications would be  implemented during fiscal year 2008.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland  Security, the Secretary of State, the Director of the Office of Management  and Budget, and interested congressional committees. We will also make  copies available to others on request. In addition, this 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 concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-8777 or by e-mail at stanar@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 IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report addresses U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (USCIS)  Humanitarian Assistance Branch’s (HAB) policies and procedures for  adjudicating applications for humanitarian parole. Specifically, we  answered the following questions: (1) What are the characteristics of those  who applied for and were either granted or denied humanitarian parole  since fiscal year 2002 and did approval and denial rates differ according to  these characteristics or the adjudicator assigned? (2) What internal  controls has HAB designed to adjudicate humanitarian parole applications  and to what extent did HAB adhere to these internal controls when  processing humanitarian parole applications? We performed our work at  HAB’s office in Washington, D.C.
To determine the characteristics of those who applied for and were either  granted or denied humanitarian parole since fiscal year 2002 and what  differences, if any, there were in grant or denial rates according to these  characteristics or the adjudicator assigned, we obtained and analyzed data  from DHS’s Parole Case Tracking System (PCTS), a database that contains  computerized records of all individuals whose applications for  humanitarian parole have been approved, denied, suspended, terminated,  or are pending. We analyzed the data on the 8,748 cases that were either  approved or denied from October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, the cutoff  date necessary to ensure that the cases under review had been fully  adjudicated and closed. PCTS is a database that was carried over from the  (former) Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to DHS, when the  latter was formed and absorbed the INS. The PCTS is now maintained by  HAB. PCTS contains no interfaces to any external computer or  communication systems.
To determine the reliability of PCTS data, we compared the data in PCTS  with the information contained in a sample of hard-copy humanitarian  parole applications. While the HAB keeps indefinitely humanitarian parole  applications that were approved, the HAB only keeps for 6 months those  that were denied. Therefore, to include both approvals and denials in our  sample, we selected a stratified probability sample of 145 cases from the  544 cases that were either approved or denied from March 1, 2007, through  June 30, 2007, to evaluate data reliability for this period.
The results of our data verification were as follows:
We sampled 74 denied cases from the population of 378 denied cases  and found no errors.
We sampled 71 granted cases from the population of 166 granted cases  during this period and found no errors.
Because we found no instances of error between the data in PCTS and the  underlying hard-copy applications, we are 95 percent confident that the  frequency of these errors would be less than 4 percent for both the granted  and the denied cases for the time period we reviewed. Therefore, we  consider the results of our analyses using data from DHS’s PCTS to yield  accurate representations of the distribution of humanitarian parole grant  and denial decisions by applicant characteristics and by adjudicator. We  also consider the results of our analyses using PCTS data to yield accurate  representations of time frames for adjudicating humanitarian parole  applications and of reasons for denial of humanitarian parole applications.
subsections: section_title: Data Analysis
paragraphs: We performed comprehensive analyses on PCTS data covering the period  from October 1, 2001 through June 30, 2007. Our analyses included   the distribution of humanitarian parole grant and denial decisions by  applicant age, gender, and country of residence; distribution of grant and denial decisions by reason for request and distribution of grant and denial recommendations by adjudicator; and time frames required for adjudication (calendar days).
Specifically, we summarized data on the number of applications approved  or denied humanitarian parole from October 1, 2001, through June 30,  2007.  To determine whether there were any differences in the  demographic characteristics among those granted or denied humanitarian  parole, we analyzed key demographic characteristics of the applicants  (i.e., age, gender, and country of origin). We also examined whether there  were any differences in the approval and denial rates between specific  adjudicators   To examine the reasons for requesting humanitarian parole and the  reasons for which applicants were denied, we selected a stratified  probability sample of 462 cases from fiscal year 2002 through June 30,  2007, and performed content analyses on these cases.  The sample strata  were defined in terms of time period and whether the request was denied  or granted. Table 10 summarizes the population of humanitarian parole  cases and our sample selected for the content analyses.
We performed a content analysis of the reasons for the requests contained  in the text boxes on all 462 applications. We then categorized the  explanations in the text boxes for requesting humanitarian parole into four  major categories: (1) life-threatening medical emergencies; (2) family  reunification for compelling humanitarian reasons; (3) emergent, defined  by the HAB guidelines as including the need to visit an ill family member,  or to resolve matters associated with the death of a relative, or to attend a  funeral; and (4) “other,” such as a caregiver needed to care for someone in  the United States. These categories are in the protocols that HAB  adjudicators use in making their recommendations. We confirmed these  categories with HAB.
To determine the reasons for which applicants were denied humanitarian  parole, we reviewed the 280 cases in our sample in which the applicant  was denied humanitarian parole and performed a content analysis of the  explanations for denial of parole contained in the text boxes. We then  categorized the explanations for denials contained in these text boxes into  10 categories. HAB officials agreed that these 10 categories represented  the reasons for denial. They noted that because their decisions are  discretionary, none of these reasons are in and of themselves  automatically disqualifying. Rather, these are the reasons cited in the text  boxes found in the probability sample as the basis of the reasoning by the  HAB adjudicators as leading to their denial recommendation. The 10  categories were:
The applicant had not exhausted alternative immigration processes  available to them and for which they might have been eligible, such as  obtaining a visa, absent urgent circumstances that made it impractical  to do so.
The applicant provided no evidence supporting an emergent condition,  such as a death certificate in the case where the request was to attend  a funeral.
The applicant provided no or inadequate evidence to support the  reason for the request for humanitarian parole, such as a claimed  medical emergency.
The applicant had committed a prior immigration violation or other  criminal violation.
The purpose of the parole was not temporary in nature. That is, HAB  believed that the applicant intended to stay in the United States  beyond the duration of a parole period.
Other family members already in the United States could provide care  to the person intended to benefit from the presence of the applicant.
The needed medical treatment was available outside the United States.
There was insufficient evidence of adequate financial support to  prevent the applicant from becoming a public charge while in the  United States.
The applicant provided no proof of familial relationship in cases where  a family relationship was claimed as the basis of the application.
Other: This was for applications that did not fall into the other  categories. For example, other cases included when a person already  approved for humanitarian parole mistakenly applied to HAB for an  extension of the parole period rather than apply with a local USCIS  district office. Another example was when an applicant for lawful  permanent residency left the United States without first obtaining the  needed permission from USCIS and then applied for humanitarian  parole to re-enter the United States, a situation that is not valid  grounds for humanitarian parole.
In recommending that an application be denied, adjudicators sometimes  cited more than one reason in explaining their recommendation.  Therefore, we counted all reasons cited by the adjudicators in the PCTS  text boxes.
Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections,  our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have  drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we  express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results  as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 8 percentage  points). This is the interval that would contain the actual population value  for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we are 95  percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report will  include the true values in the study population. For example, we estimate  that 49 percent of requests were for family reunification for compelling  humanitarian reasons, so we are 95 percent that for the entire population  of requests, between 41 and 57 percent of the time family reunification for  compelling humanitarian reasons was the reason for requesting  humanitarian parole.
Estimates from this sample are to the population of humanitarian parole  cases processed by DHS (or its precursor, the Immigration and  Naturalization Service) from October 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. The  8,748 applications contained in the PCTS data through June 30, 2007,  provided by DHS represent 100 percent of the application cases either  granted or denied within the Humanitarian Parole program at the time of  our analysis.
To determine what internal controls HAB designed to adjudicate  humanitarian parole applications and to what extent HAB adhered to  these internal controls when processing humanitarian parole applications,  we obtained HAB policies and procedures and compared them with  standards for internal control in the federal government and other internal  control guidance related to control activities, staffing levels, training, and  communication with external clients. In assessing the adequacy of internal  controls, we used the criteria in GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in  the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD 00-21.3.1, dated November 1999.  These standards, issued pursuant to the requirements of the Federal  Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), provide the overall  framework for establishing and maintaining internal control in the federal  government. Also pursuant to FMFIA, the Office of Management and  Budget issued Circular A-123, revised December 21, 2004, to provide the  specific requirements for assessing the reporting on internal controls.  Internal control standards and the definition of internal control in Circular  A-123 are based on GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government. We also used the guidance contained in Internal Control  Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G, dated August 2001. In  addition, we tested compliance with two internal controls—that at least  two adjudicators reviewed each case, and that a signature of the HAB  Branch Chief or a designee existed—for each of the 145 cases selected for  our validation sample. From this review, we found no instances of  noncompliance with the internal controls. This means that we are 95  percent confident the frequency of this type of noncompliance would be  less than 4 percent for the both the granted and the denied cases for the  time period we reviewed. Based on this review, we concluded that these  internal controls are effective.
section_title: Structured interviews with Attorneys and Representatives
paragraphs: To obtain a more complete understanding of the humanitarian parole  process, we interviewed accredited representatives (non-attorneys  accredited to represent aliens before immigration courts) of 2 non-profit  groups that have handled humanitarian parole cases—Catholic Charities  USA and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)—as well as 10 private  attorneys who are members of the American Immigration Lawyers  Association (AILA). The 12 individuals we interviewed collectively had  assisted with 20 humanitarian parole applications since 2000. We asked  each of these individuals a similar set of questions about their experiences  with the application process. Additionally, we asked them to describe  aspects of that process that worked well and to identify areas where they  felt it could be improved. Because these individuals and groups were  selected using nonprobabilistic methods, conclusions drawn from these  interviews cannot be generalized to the immigration law community.
section_title: Appendix II: Major Reasons for Humanitarian Parole Requests and Factors HAB Considers when Adjudicating Applications
paragraphs: The HAB has a protocol document that states in general, that HAB looks at  the totality of the circumstances when reviewing requests for  humanitarian parole. The protocol also describes broad reasons for  humanitarian parole applications and lists factors within these that HAB  may consider in determining parole eligibility. According to its protocols,  HAB determines whether the reasons given in the requests are urgent or  an emergency compared to other seemingly similar requests.
The following information does not constitute a comprehensive list of  factors included in the protocol, but rather provides examples of the types  of factors HAB considers.
Medical Requests: In considering medical requests, HAB adjudicators are  to carefully review the application, supporting documentation, and other  resources to determine among other factors the nature and severity of the medical condition for which treatment is  sought;    whether or not the requested treatment is available in the home or  neighboring country; and  the medical verification of the need of the prospective parolee.
Family Reunification: Regarding family reunification, HAB will consider  many elements, such as   whether the request is designed to circumvent the normal visa issuance    evidence of a bona fide relationship between the applicant and claimed  relatives in the United States; and  the age and mental and/or physical limitations of the family member  who is seeking to be paroled into the United States.  “Emergent” requests: Emergent conditions that the HAB considers  include: humanitarian situations, such as visiting dying family member; the  need to attend a funeral; or resolution of matters associated with the death  of a family member. In addition, according to PHAB protocols, the agency  considers    evidence of a bona fide relationship;    Medical documentation supporting the prognosis of the family  member, or death certificate (when a relative has died); and    whether there are no other next of kin residing in the United States  who can provide emotional support or settle an estate.
Other Humanitarian Requests: Humanitarian parole is a discretionary  decision that inherently permits the HAB to consider any circumstances  brought to its attention by the applicant. HAB protocols note that while  every situation is “emergent” to the applicant and/or sponsor, many  requests for humanitarian parole are for the convenience of the applicant  and/or sponsor.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact listed above, Michael P. Dino, Assistant Director;  David P. Alexander; Richard J. Ascarate; Frances Cook; Michelle Cooper;  Shawn Mongin; Mark Ramage; Jerome T. Sandau; John G. Smale, Jr.;  Jonathan R. Tumin; and Derek Updegraff made key contributions to this  report.