Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed to Fully Implement the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act
Published: 2014-12-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Enacted in January 2006, IMBRA was passed by Congress to address reports of domestic violence and abuse of foreign beneficiaries married or engaged to U.S. citizens who have petitioned for them to enter the United States on a K visa. As amended, IMBRA requires that the federal government collect and provide to beneficiaries information about petitioners' prior K visa petitions and criminal histories. USCIS is responsible for collecting this information and adjudicating petitions, State is responsible for disclosing information to beneficiaries, and DOJ is authorized to enforce IMBRA. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 mandates that GAO report on IMBRA implementation.
This report examines the extent to which (1) DHS, State, and DOJ have implemented processes to ensure compliance with IMBRA, and (2) DHS collects and maintains reliable data to manage the K visa process. GAO analyzed IMBRA, USCIS, and State policies, procedures, and guidance, and K visa petition data from March 2012 through March 2014. GAO also interviewed USCIS, State, and DOJ officials regarding their agencies' implementation of IMBRA.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Justice (DOJ), and State (State) have processes to help ensure compliance with the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA), as amended, but State could better document information on IMBRA disclosures. Specifically, consistent with IMBRA, DHS's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) collects information from petitioners—U.S. citizens who apply to bring noncitizen fiancé(e)s, spouses, and their children (beneficiaries) into the country—through I-129F petitions for K visas. DOJ is responsible for pursuing federal civil and criminal penalties for IMBRA violations. State has guidance on processes for providing IMBRA information to beneficiaries (referred to as disclosures), such as a pamphlet outlining for beneficiaries the K visa process and legal rights and resources available to immigrant crime victims. Specifically, State's guidance requires consular officers to document within case notes in State's database whether they made all of the IMBRA-required disclosures to the beneficiary during the visa interview. However, GAO's review of a sample of K visa applications showed that in about 52 percent of interview case notes (76 of 147), consular officers did not document that they had provided beneficiaries the IMBRA pamphlet as required by State's guidance. In October 2014, State drafted a guidance cable for consular officers on IMBRA implementation, including a reminder to follow guidance regarding IMBRA documentation. State's consular officer training courses, however, do not cover IMBRA-related documentation procedures outlined in its guidance. Incorporating IMBRA-related documentation requirements into training courses could help State better ensure that consular officers are aware of the requirements for documenting IMBRA disclosures.
Consistent with IMBRA, USCIS is to collect and maintain data on, among other things, eight elements in the K visa process for GAO reporting purposes; however, six of the eight elements are either not reliable or are not collected or maintained in a reportable (i.e., electronic) format. Thus, these elements were not readily available for GAO's review. For example, USCIS is to collect and maintain data on I-129F petitions where the petitioner had one or more criminal convictions. This information is maintained in hard copy in the petition file and thus was not readily available for GAO's review. USCIS has begun planning to electronically capture I-129F petition data under the agency's overarching transformation to an electronic immigration benefits system. However, this transformation has faced significant delays, and as of September 2014, the electronic I-129F petition design requirements have not been finalized. Consistent with federal internal control standards, ensuring that all of the IMBRA-related requirements will be captured with the release of the I-129F electronic petition would better position USCIS to collect and maintain complete data on petitioners for reporting purposes and management oversight. Further, USCIS officers have not consistently adjudicated I-129F petitions or recorded complete and accurate data. Specifically, GAO found that USCIS's data are not reliable for determining the number of I-129F petitions filed by persons who have previously filed I-129F petitions for a fiancé(e) or spouse or that required IMBRA waivers because of, among other things, officer error in recording data on petitions. Additional training for officers could help USCIS better ensure its officers are aware of IMBRA requirements to assist them in maintaining petitions data consistent with IMBRA.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that State provide training to consular officers on IMBRA documentation requirements. GAO also recommends, among other things, that USCIS ensure that all IMBRA-related data will be captured with the planned electronic release of the I-129F petition and that its officers receive additional training on IMBRA requirements. State and DHS concurred with our recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), U.S. citizens  (petitioners) may petition for noncitizen fiancé(e)s, spouses, and minor  children (beneficiaries) to apply for admission into the United States  under a K visa. As amended, the International Marriage Broker  Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA) seeks to address issues of domestic  violence and abuse against beneficiaries by petitioners, including those  who meet their foreign-born fiancé(e)s through an international marriage  broker (IMB). Among other things, IMBRA contains requirements  intended to ensure that a beneficiary is informed if his or her petitioner  has a criminal history or has filed multiple prior petitions for fiancé(e)s or  spouses (known as I-129F petitions) to travel to the United States. U.S.  Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), within the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for adjudicating petitions for K  visas. Within USCIS, the Service Center Operations Branch is  responsible for overseeing all activities performed at its four service  centers, which handle the filing, data entry, and adjudication of  applications for certain immigration services and benefits. Consequently,  USCIS is responsible for collecting, among other information, the  petitioners’ criminal and filing histories and, in accordance with IMBRA,  forwarding this information to the Department of State (State) for  disclosure to the beneficiary. State’s consular officers at U.S. embassies  and consulates overseas adjudicate K visa applications and are to  disclose information on petitioners’ criminal background, including any  convictions and protection orders, and any prior I-129F filings to the  beneficiary before adjudicating the K visa application (referred to as  disclosures). IMBRA also imposes disclosure and other requirements on  IMBs to help inform and provide greater assurance for the safety of  noncitizen fiancé(e)s who meet their petitioners through an IMB. IMBRA  further identifies the Department of Justice (DOJ) as responsible for  seeking civil and criminal penalties for violations of its provisions,  including, for example, instances where an IMB provides personal contact  information of a foreign client (generally, the beneficiary) to someone  other than the potential U.S. client (generally, the petitioner).
In 2008, we reported on the status of agencies’ implementation of  IMBRA. IMBRA, as amended by the Violence Against Women  Reauthorization Act of 2013, mandates that we review and report on the  continuing impact of the implementation of IMBRA. In support of our  reviews, IMBRA has required that DHS, State, and DOJ collect and  maintain the data necessary for GAO to conduct the required studies.  This report addresses the extent to which (1) DHS, State, and DOJ have  implemented processes to ensure compliance with IMBRA requirements,  and (2) DHS collects and maintains reliable data to manage the K visa  process.
To determine the extent to which DHS, State, and DOJ have  implemented processes to ensure compliance with IMBRA, we reviewed  IMBRA, relevant INA provisions, and the I-129F petition and its  instructions. We analyzed USCIS’s standard operating procedures (SOP)  for the adjudication of I-129F petitions and for conducting background  checks on petitioners. We also reviewed USCIS’s plans and efforts to  revise the I-129F petition and compared these plans and efforts against  project management standards. We reviewed State’s guidance for adjudicating K visa applications, including relevant sections of the Foreign  Affairs Manual (FAM), relevant cables to consular officers, and the  IMBRA pamphlet distributed to K visa applicants. We reviewed DOJ’s  July 2013 report to Congress describing steps that DOJ, DHS, and State  can take to develop policies and procedures for identifying, investigating,  and prosecuting IMBRA violations. We interviewed DHS, State, and  DOJ headquarters officials responsible for implementing IMBRA  provisions at each agency. In addition, we interviewed USCIS officers  who adjudicate I-129F petitions, supervisors, and fraud detection officials  at four USCIS service centers (California, Nebraska, Texas, and  Vermont) where the majority of I-129F petitions since fiscal year 2013  have been adjudicated.Centers. The information collected from interviews with USCIS officers at  these service centers cannot be projected to all USCIS officers. However,  the site visits and interviews provided us with the perspectives of USCIS  officers and supervisors responsible for adjudicating I-129F petitions in  these locations.
We visited the Vermont and California Service  In addition, we reviewed consular officers’ interview notes in State’s  Immigrant Visas Overseas (IVO) database for K visa applications  associated with 227 I-129F petitions submitted to USCIS from March  2012 through March 2014, for which USCIS’s data indicated petitioners  had multiple prior I-129F petitions (referred to as multiple filers) and  criminal histories. We selected this time frame because USCIS did not collect automated data on multiple filers with criminal histories prior to  March 2012. We analyzed the interview notes against IMBRA and FAM  requirements, and compared the guidance and training provided to  consular officers on IMBRA implementation with standards in Federal  Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government and GAO’s  guide for assessing strategic training and development efforts. We  found State’s consular notes data to be sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of determining whether, in accordance with IMBRA, consular  officers disclosed this information to beneficiaries based on our review of  FAM guidance regarding what consular officers should denote in IVO and  interviews with consular affairs officials. Later in this report, we discuss  limitations in USCIS’s data on multiple filers, but we determined that  USCIS data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of identifying I- 129F petitions where State was required to make disclosures to K visa  applicants based on our review of USCIS’s data, State guidance for  processing visa applications, and State officials’ descriptions of quality  controls and assurance checks. In addition, we interviewed consular  officers by telephone in five overseas consular posts because they had  adjudicated the highest number of K-1 visa applications in fiscal year   Although  2013 about processes for implementing IMBRA requirements.the information we obtained from these interviews cannot be generalized  to K-1 visa adjudication processes at all consular posts, our interviews  provided useful information on the K-1 visa process and officers’  perspectives on IMBRA requirements.
To determine the extent to which DHS has collected and maintained  reliable data to manage the K visa process, we analyzed summary data  and transaction-level data from USCIS’s Computer Linked Adjudication  Information Management System 3 (CLAIMS 3) database. Specifically, we analyzed CLAIMS 3 summary data on the number of I-129F petitions  filed, approved, and denied from fiscal year 2008 through March 31,  2014, and on the number of multiple filers and the number of petitions  that required a waiver under IMBRA from March 2012 through March  2014. We also analyzed CLAIMS 3 transaction-level data from March  2012 through March 2014 on more than 4,200 I-129F petitions for which  the data indicated the petitioners were multiple filers. We also analyzed  227 I-129F petitions approved during this same time period, for which the  data indicated the petitioner was a multiple filer with a record of violent  criminal offenses, and as such, required a waiver in order to have his or  her petition approved. We compared the data maintained within CLAIMS  3 with IMBRA’s information collection requirements and with standards in  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government for ensuring  that agency transactions are accurate and clearly documented and  GAO’s best practices for assessing strategic training and development  efforts. We assessed the reliability of these data by (1) reviewing  existing documentation on the controls in CLAIMS 3 and the policies for  ensuring data reliability; (2) interviewing USCIS Service Center  Operations and CLAIMS 3 officials about the data’s sources, the system’s  controls, and any quality assurance steps performed after data are  entered into the system; and, (3) reviewing the data for missing data,  outliers, or obvious errors. We determined that numbers of I-129F  petitions submitted, approved, and denied during this time period were  sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes. We discuss the limitations  of the other IMBRA-required data later in this report.
In addition to reviewing DHS data, we compared policies, procedures,  and practices for USCIS adjudication of I-129F petitions with standards in  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, which require  that agencies ensure staff have the needed skills to carry out their  duties. We also reviewed USCIS documentation regarding the status of USCIS’s plans to transition the hard copy I-129F petition into an  electronic form as part of USCIS’s multiyear Transformation Program,  and reviewed our prior reports on the Transformation Program, as well as  relevant reports from the DHS Office of Inspector General. We spoke  with relevant USCIS Transformation Program officials and reviewed initial  documentation describing how the electronic I-129F petition will facilitate  the collection and maintenance of IMBRA-required data.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2014 to December  2014 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
subsections: section_title: I-129F Petition and K Visa Adjudication Processes
paragraphs: Within DHS, USCIS is responsible for adjudicating immigration benefit  applications, including I-129Fs filed by U.S. citizens to bring a foreign  national fiancé(e) to the United States through a K-1 visa. If the K-1 visa  is issued, the INA provides that the petitioner and fiancé(e) must marry  within 90 days of the fiancé(e)’s admission into the country, after which  the K-1 visa expires. The I-129F petition can also be used to bring a  noncitizen spouse to the United States under a K-3 visa while awaiting  the approval of an immigrant petition and availability of an immigrant  visa.
Noncitizen fiancé(e)s, upon marriage to the petitioner, and  noncitizen spouses who are admitted to the United States must then  apply to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident by filing with  USCIS a Form I-485, called an Application to Register Permanent  Residence or Adjust Status.
In fiscal year 2013, USCIS approved 30,400 I-129F petitions and State  issued 30,290 K visas. general, has declined since fiscal year 2008, with the exception of fiscal  year 2011, during which there was a slight increase over the previous  fiscal year. USCIS approved the majority of I-129F petitions submitted  from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2013 (see fig. 1).
The number of I-129F petitions approved in a fiscal year will not equal numbers of K  visas issued in the same fiscal year because, for example, State may adjudicate the visa  applications in a subsequent fiscal year.
section_title: IMBRA Disclosure and Reporting Requirements
paragraphs: Both USCIS and State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs play key roles in  providing information about petitioners to beneficiaries. In accordance  with IMBRA, once a USCIS officer approves an I-129F petition, USCIS  must forward the approved I-129F petition and relevant information to  State, which mails to the beneficiary these materials and the IMBRA  pamphlet—an informational document that outlines the legal rights and  resources for immigrant victims of domestic violence. According to  State’s FAM, consular officers must also discuss the pamphlet and  petitioners’ criminal history information during the K visa applicant  interview to ensure that the beneficiary understands his or her legal rights  and access to victim services in the United States and has available  information about the petitioner.
IMBRA also establishes disclosure and other requirements for IMBs to  help inform and provide greater assurance for the safety of beneficiaries  who meet their potential U.S. citizen petitioners through an IMB. For  example, IMBRA requires that IMBs collect specified information, such as  criminal arrest and conviction information, from petitioners for disclosure,  and obtain written approval from beneficiaries before releasing  beneficiaries’ contact information to potential petitioners. DOJ is  responsible for pursuing civil and criminal penalties under IMBRA and,  pursuant to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013,  was required to report to Congress on, among other things, the policies  and procedures for consulting with DHS and State in investigating and  prosecuting IMBRA violations by petitioners and IMBs.
section_title: DHS, State, and DOJ Have Processes to Ensure IMBRA Compliance, but DHS and State Could Better Implement Disclosure Requirements
subsections: section_title: USCIS Has Processes to Collect Petitioner Information, but the I-129F Petition Has Errors
paragraphs: USCIS has implemented processes to collect information from petitioners;  however, USCIS is in the process of revising the current version of the I- 129F petition to address errors or limitations that may limit or otherwise  affect the accuracy of petitioners’ disclosure to USCIS of all information  required by IMBRA. The I-129F petition, along with any supporting  documentation submitted by the petitioner, is USCIS’s primary source for  information on petitioners’ prior I-129F petition filings and criminal  convictions—key information that the U.S. government is required under  IMBRA to obtain and disclose to beneficiaries. In particular, USCIS uses  the information disclosed through the I-129F petition to (1) inform its  criminal background checks of petitioners, and (2) determine if petitioners  have filed prior I-129F petitions and are requesting one of the three  IMBRA waivers, as appropriate.
Conducting background checks on petitioners. Pursuant to IMBRA,  USCIS conducts criminal background checks on each petitioner using the  information provided on the I-129F petition. Specifically, according to  USCIS’s standard operating procedures, USCIS officers are to conduct  background checks using petitioners’ names and dates of birth against  the TECS database within 15 days of receiving I-129F petitions. During  a background check, if a TECS query returns a “hit,” USCIS officers are  to forward this information to the background check unit located within  each service center for further review. According to USCIS service center  officials, the completeness of the criminal background information  contained within TECS is dependent on the extent to which state and  local law enforcement agencies enter complete information into the  Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Crime Information Center  database (NCIC). USCIS is to subsequently provide this information to  State, whose consular officers are to share this information with  beneficiaries during the K visa interview. When sharing this information  with the beneficiaries, consular officers must also inform them that the  criminal background information is based on available records and may  not be complete, something the IMBRA pamphlet also notes.
Consistent with IMBRA, the waivers for filing limits apply only to K-1 petitioners. See §  1184(d). officers are to request that the petitioner provide the aforementioned  waiver request letter and supporting evidence before deciding whether to  approve or deny the petition. USCIS may deny a waiver request if the  petitioner fails to provide sufficient documentation in support of the waiver  within 12 weeks, or if the documentation provided does not justify  granting a waiver. USCIS officers may also deny an I-129F petition if  they discover that a petitioner does not, for example, fully disclose an  IMBRA-specified offense conviction or protective order information.
According to USCIS’s standard operating procedures, USCIS officers are  to use the information obtained from the background check, CLAIMS 3  data on prior filings, and the I-129F petition and supporting evidence to  determine if petitioners have disclosed all of the information required by  IMBRA. However, the I-129F petition contains errors and omissions that  we, USCIS, and DOJ have identified and that may limit or affect the  accuracy of information disclosed by a petitioner. Specifically, the I-129F  petition inaccurately describes IMBRA’s filing limits and does not fully  address IMBRA’s disclosure requirements. In particular, the language on  the I-129F petition states that the filing limits apply to petitioners who  have filed three or more I-129F petitions, or who have filed three or more  I-129F petitions and the first I-129F petition was approved within the last  2 years, whereas the instruction accompanying the I-129F petition aligns  more closely with IMBRA and provides that a waiver is required if a prior  I-129F petition had been approved in the past 2 years. USCIS Service  Center Operations officials stated the I-129F petition does not accurately  describe the filing limits and therefore there is a risk that petitioners are  disclosing inaccurate information regarding their filing history on the I- 129F petition, which may affect how USCIS evaluates whether a  petitioner requires a waiver. In October 2014, in response to our audit  work, USCIS modified its website to inform petitioners that the petition is  inaccurate and provide them with instructions that clarify the  requirements. In addition, DOJ officials responsible for enforcing IMBRA  stated that they have been working with USCIS on revisions to the I-129F  petition to better ensure that IMBRA’s disclosure requirements are met.  For example, USCIS Service Center Operations officials noted that, in  consultation with DOJ, they plan to include questions on the I-129F  petition regarding whether petitioners have civil protective or restraining  orders, and prior arrests or convictions related to prostitution.
According to USCIS Service Center Operations officials, as of August  2014, USCIS has been in the process of revising the current version of  the I-129F petition. According to A Guide to the Project Management  Body of Knowledge, which provides standards for project managers,  specific goals and objectives should be conceptualized, defined, and  documented in the planning process, along with the appropriate steps,  time frames, and milestones needed to achieve those results. USCIS  Service Center Operations officials stated that there is no target time  frame for completing revisions to the I-129F petition within USCIS before  DHS and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) undertake their  respective reviews, in part because of the interagency review process  among DHS, State, and DOJ, which was ongoing for approximately 10  months as of August 2014. USCIS officials noted that until revisions to  the I-129F petition are complete, petitioners can refer to the Form I-129F  Instructions, which USCIS makes available as a separate document, or to  the clarifying instructions added to its website in October 2014, and  USCIS officers should follow the I-129F SOP, each of which more  accurately describe IMBRA’s filing limits and circumstances under which  a waiver must be requested. However, USCIS officials acknowledged  that petitioners may not use the instructions in completing the I-129F  petition since they are contained in a separate document and are not  referred to on the I-129F petition. Further, as we discuss later in this  report, our review of CLAIMS 3 data indicates that USCIS officers have  not consistently followed the I-129F SOP, which USCIS has modified  multiple times since the summer of 2013 to address, among other things,  inaccuracies in the language associated with the application of IMBRA  waivers.
USCIS has previously revised the I-129F petition. For example, in July  2007, USCIS revised the I-129F petition to require that petitioners  disclose criminal convictions, prior I-129F filings, and the use of IMBs.June 2013, USCIS further revised the I-129F petition by adding, among  other things, a section for USCIS officers to denote for State officials  whether the I-129F petition contains prior filing or criminal history  information that must be disclosed to the beneficiary. According to USCIS  Service Center Operations officials, including the time for public comment  and OMB’s review of the proposed revisions, it took nearly 2 years to  issue the revised I-129F petition (issued in June 2013). USCIS officials  noted that until the revisions to the I-129F petition are completed, the  agency is at risk of not collecting complete information from petitioners.  Establishing time frames for when USCIS will complete its review of the I- 129F petition would help the agency better monitor progress toward  finalizing revisions to the petition, which are intended to ensure that  IMBRA’s disclosure requirements are met.
section_title: State Has Processes to Disclose IMBRA Information to Beneficiaries, but Could Better Document that These Disclosures Occurred
paragraphs: State has established processes to disclose and provide IMBRA  information to beneficiaries, such as petitioners’ criminal history  information, prior I-129F filings, and the IMBRA pamphlet, in accordance  with IMBRA and agency guidance to consular officers. However, State’s  consular officers have not consistently documented that beneficiaries, at  the time of their in-person interviews, received all of the required  information. Relevant guidance to consular officers, found in State’s FAM,  outlines procedures consular officers are to follow, including requirements  for documenting that beneficiaries have received the required  information. State officials indicated that, in accordance with IMBRA,  beneficiaries are provided with IMBRA information and disclosures at two  points in the K visa application process—(1) in the mailing of the K visa  application package and (2) at the in-person visa interview, where  disclosure is to be documented.
Application package. State’s FAM requires that upon receipt of the  approved I-129F petition and other information from USCIS, consular  officers provide IMBRA-related disclosures and the IMBRA pamphlet to  beneficiaries by mail as part of an application package. In August 2008,  we recommended that DHS and State develop a mechanism to ensure  beneficiaries are notified of the number of previously filed I-129F petitions  by the petitioner. In response, in October 2008, State revised its guidance  to consular officers to require that the application package include the  approved petition.posts we interviewed, their respective posts mailed the IMBRA  disclosures, pamphlet, and approved petitions to beneficiaries in advance  of the in-person visa interview. Consular officials at one post we  interviewed in June 2014 stated that they did not mail IMBRA-related  disclosures, such as the I-129F petition containing criminal history  information, to beneficiaries in advance of their interviews because of  limitations in the post’s support contract for mail services. Rather, this  post provided the IMBRA-related disclosure information to beneficiaries  only during the K visa interview. As a result of our audit work, State’s  Consular Affairs Bureau officials in Washington, D.C., provided guidance  to this post to ensure that consular officers mail IMBRA-related disclosure  information and the IMBRA pamphlet to all beneficiaries prior to visa  interviews, in accordance with IMBRA and FAM requirements. Not all  beneficiaries who are sent an application package schedule a K visa  interview, according to Consular Affairs officials. Ultimately, consular  officers said there are various reasons an applicant might not apply for a  visa, and could not say to what degree the information provided in the  mailings in advance of the interviews was a factor in this decision.
According to consular officers at four of five consular  Applicant interview. Consular officers are to provide the beneficiary with  information about the petitioner’s criminal history and prior I-129F petition  filings and the IMBRA pamphlet in the beneficiary’s primary language  during the K visa interview, in accordance with IMBRA, and allow time for  beneficiaries to consider the information. State requires consular officers  to document within its IVO database whether they made all of these  disclosures to the beneficiary during the visa interview. For example,  State’s FAM requires consular officers to denote within IVO that the  “IMBRA pamphlet was received, read, and understood” for each K visa  beneficiary. According to Consular Affairs officials, other than this FAM  requirement for documentation in the consular notes in IVO, State does  not have other mechanisms by which it ensures that consular officers are  providing required information to K visa applicants during the in-person  interviews.
Regarding the remaining 80 of the 227 cases, State consular officials in Washington,  D.C., said that possible reasons the interview may not have taken place are that the  interview has yet to be conducted with the K visa applicant, or the case may not have  been sent from USCIS to State for adjudication. notations in accordance with FAM guidance. Specifically, we found that  consular officers fully documented that the IMBRA pamphlet was  received, read, and understood in 21 of the 84 cases (or about 25  percent); however, we found that in 15 of the 84 cases (or about 18  percent),consular officers partially documented that the IMBRA pamphlet  was provided to the beneficiaries. In the cases for which consular  officers provided partial notations, we found that the notes varied from  “IMBRA given” to “domestic violence brochure given.”
Moreover, in 63 of the 147 cases where State’s data indicated that  consular officers had interviewed beneficiaries (but for which there was  no corresponding USCIS record of the beneficiary requesting a change to  Lawful Permanent Resident status) we found in 28 (or about 44 percent)  of these 63 cases that consular officers did not document that the IMBRA  pamphlet was received, read, and understood by beneficiaries. Full  documentation regarding the IMBRA pamphlet was noted in 26 (or about  41 percent) of these 63 cases, and was partially noted in 9 (or about 14  percent) cases.
In our guide for assessing strategic training and development efforts, we  have reported that training is essential to developing the knowledge and  skills needed to administer agency programs properly.Consular Affairs officials, both the FAM and a relevant guidance cable on  IMBRA implementation clearly describe the documentation requirements  for the disclosure of information to beneficiaries during interviews, and  accordingly, these officials attributed the lack of documentation in IVO to  consular officer error. State last issued a cable on IMBRA  implementation, which covers the FAM’s IMBRA-related documentation  requirements, to consular posts in 2012. According to Consular Affairs  officials, State generally does not send frequent cables to overseas posts  to reiterate FAM requirements unless there are significant changes to  sections of the FAM that warrant additional guidance or explanation to  consular officers. However, these officials stated that they planned to   According to  send another cable to all overseas posts in the fall of 2014, given recent  revisions to the FAM on IMBRA implementation. In response to our work,  they said that they could include a reminder in that cable for consular  officers to follow the FAM’s IMBRA-related documentation requirements.  We reviewed a draft of that cable in October 2014, and it includes, among  other things, a reminder for officers to document in IVO that the IMBRA  pamphlet was received, read, and understood for all K visa applicants.
While the cable may be a helpful reminder for incumbent consular  officers, State’s consular officer training courses do not specifically  address the FAM’s IMBRA-related documentation requirements.  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government maintains that  federal agencies are to provide staff with the training necessary to carry  out assigned responsibilities and meet the organizations’ objectives.  According to Consular Affairs officials, State offers two key courses to  consular officers through its Foreign Service Institute on the adjudication  of immigrant visas, including K visas—mandatory basic training for entry- level officers and a voluntary course for midlevel consular officers offered  four times a year. However, these officials stated that the training courses  are generally broad and comprise many different types of nonimmigrant  visas and so do not cover as part of their curricula detailed procedures for  all visa types such as the FAM’s IMBRA-related documentation  requirements. For instance, State’s Foreign Service Institute officials  stated that the basic training course briefly covers State’s IMBRA-related  disclosure requirements in the instructor’s notes, but does not address  the FAM’s requirement for consular officers to document these  disclosures in IVO. Similarly, the voluntary course for midlevel consular  officers does not address the FAM’s documentation requirements.
A Consular Affairs official stated that there may be some variation in the  content of this course offered to midlevel consular officers, but when he  teaches the course, he chooses to cover the FAM’s IMBRA-related  documentation requirements in his oral remarks. Moreover, Consular  Affairs officials stated that midlevel consular officers are to provide  training to entry-level officers on a routine basis on the FAM’s IMBRA- related disclosure and documentation requirements. These officials  added that State has an internal website for consular training, which  includes a reminder for supervisory consular officers that orientation upon  arrival and continuing on-the-job training at post is vital to develop fully  proficient consular officers. Incorporating the FAM’s IMBRA-related  documentation requirements into State’s training courses for consular  officers could help State better ensure that consular officers are aware of  the requirements so that they can be better positioned to more  consistently document the disclosure of IMBRA information during  interviews with K visa applicants.
section_title: DHS and State Have Not Referred Any Potential IMBRA Violations to DOJ
paragraphs: Under IMBRA, DOJ is responsible for pursuing federal civil and criminal  penalties outlined in the law for IMBs and petitioners who violate IMBRA  provisions and for consulting with DHS and State in investigating and  prosecuting such violations. However, DHS and State have not  identified any potential IMBRA violations for referral to DOJ. As it has not  received any referrals of IMBRA violations, DOJ has not brought civil or  criminal cases against an IMB or petitioner under IMBRA.
USCIS requests information on the I-129F petition regarding whether  petitioners used an IMB and, if so, requests a copy of the signed consent  form the IMB obtained from the beneficiary authorizing the release of  contact information. However, USCIS officials at each of the four service  centers we interviewed stated that, in their experience, few petitioners  indicate the use of IMBs to facilitate relationships with their foreign  fiancé(e)s, and accordingly, the agency has not referred cases to DOJ for  further investigation and prosecution. In addition, DHS has a process for  referring and investigating potential violations within the department;  however, USCIS has not identified any potential violation for referral and  investigation.
In accordance with the FAM and consistent with IMBRA, if an IMB does  not provide the required IMBRA disclosures to the beneficiary, consular  officers are to note the lack of disclosure in IVO and refer the case to  State’s Consular Affairs Bureau at headquarters for further review.  Consular Affairs officials in headquarters are responsible for forwarding  cases involving potential IMBRA violations to DOJ. Consular officers at all  five consular posts we interviewed stated that they have not referred  cases involving violations by IMBs for review because beneficiaries  generally do not disclose the use of IMBs during the visa applicant  interviews.
In July 2013, DOJ reported to Congress on the status of DOJ, DHS, and  State’s efforts to develop processes to effectively identify, investigate, and  prosecute potential IMBRA violations. DOJ reported that it does not  have sufficient information about the nature and potential volume of  IMBRA violations necessary to develop a framework for prosecution.  DOJ’s report outlined a number of actions each agency could address to  more fully develop policies and procedures for identifying, investigating,  and prosecuting IMBRA violations, such as developing mechanisms to  better facilitate the sharing of IMBRA-related case notes among the  agencies. DHS and State officials told us that they are coordinating with  DOJ on ways to facilitate data collection and information sharing and that  it is too early to determine when these actions may be completed. DOJ  officials stated that the agency-specific actions will better position DHS  and State to identify cases warranting investigation and prosecution by  DOJ. For instance, as previously mentioned, DOJ proposed that USCIS  consider revising the I-129F petition to include a question for petitioners  about civil protective or restraining orders consistent with IMB disclosure  requirements under IMBRA. In addition, DOJ proposed that State  establish a mechanism for sharing IMBRA-related case notes from  beneficiary interviews with USCIS and DOJ. Moreover, DOJ is working  with State on the development of a checklist of questions for consular  officers to ask beneficiaries to assist in the identification of potential cases  involving IMBRA violations by IMBs. In October 2014, DOJ issued an  IMBRA bulletin to assist stakeholders, such as state and local law  enforcement entities and women’s and immigrants’ rights organizations,  in identifying and reporting IMBRA violations to DOJ for prosecution.
section_title: USCIS Does Not Collect and Maintain All Data in a Manner Consistent with IMBRA, and Additional Training Could Help to Ensure IMBRA Data Are Accurate and Reliable
subsections: section_title: USCIS Does Not Collect and Maintain All Data Consistent with IMBRA
paragraphs: IMBRA mandates that DHS collect and maintain data necessary for us to  review IMBRA’s impact on the process for granting K nonimmigrant  visas. In 2008, we reported that while USCIS had collected some data  necessary for our study, most of the eight data elements identified by  IMBRA and on which we reported were not maintained in a summary or  reportable (i.e., electronic) format. For this report, we reexamined these  eight data elements, which include information on the number of waiver  applications submitted and I-129F petitions denied, and the reasons for  the decisions. We found that data for two of the eight required elements  are available, at least partially, in an electronic format in CLAIMS 3 and  reliable for our purposes. The remaining six elements were either not  collected and maintained electronically or the electronic data collected are  not reliable. For example, consistent with IMBRA, USCIS is to collect  and maintain information annually on the number of IMBRA waivers  (general, criminal, or mandatory) submitted, the number granted or  denied, and reasons for such decisions, but this information is not  collected and maintained electronically. Rather, USCIS collects and  maintains information on whether a waiver is required (rather than  submitted), and the reasons for their decisions are handwritten by the  officer on the hard copy of the petition and thus were not readily available  for purposes of our review. Table 1 identifies the eight data elements  specified by IMBRA and the extent to which USCIS collects and  maintains reliable electronic data.
USCIS has taken or is planning to take steps to better collect and  maintain data from petitioners in an electronic format. For example, in  2008, we reported that USCIS was considering modifying its system to  electronically collect and maintain the required data, and in 2012, USCIS  updated CLAIMS 3 to address selected IMBRA requirements.  Specifically, USCIS updated CLAIMS 3 to include a field for officers to  note the number of I-129F petitions previously filed by the current  petitioner, as well as a field to denote whether petitioners require any of  the three IMBRA waivers, although these updates do not specifically  address the IMBRA requirement that annual data on the number of  waiver applications submitted, the number approved and denied, and  reasons why the waivers were approved or denied be collected and  maintained. These updates have helped USCIS collect and maintain  additional data on I-129F petitions in an electronic format. However,  USCIS did not update CLAIMS 3 to capture all of the data required by  IMBRA, including the number of concurrent I-129F petitions filed by  petitioners for other fiancé(e)s or spouses, or the extent to which  petitioners have criminal convictions. USCIS officials stated that they did  not include all elements in the 2012 system update because of resource  constraints and to avoid rework in anticipation of the larger transition  planned for all of USCIS’s immigration benefit processes. In 2006, USCIS  embarked on its multiyear Transformation Program to transform its paper- based immigration benefits process to a system with electronic  application filing, adjudication, and case management. As we reported in  November 2011, USCIS envisions that once the Transformation Program  is completed, new electronic adjudication capabilities will help improve  agency operations and enable greater data sharing and management of  information. USCIS expects the new system, the Electronic Immigration  System (ELIS), to have features, for example, that will allow applicants to  electronically view their benefit requests, or provide additional  documentation. Once ELIS is implemented, officers are expected to have  electronic access to applications, as well as relevant USCIS policies and  procedures to aid in decision making, and to have electronic linkages with  other agencies, such as State and DOJ, for data-sharing and security  purposes.
According to USCIS Service Center Operations officials, the agency will  be able to collect and maintain more complete data, in a manner  consistent with IMBRA, through the deployment of the electronic I-129F  petition in ELIS. However, USCIS has faced long-standing challenges in  implementing ELIS, which raise questions about the extent to which its  eventual deployment will position USCIS to collect and maintain more  complete data. In particular, in November 2011, we reported on USCIS’s  progress in implementing its Transformation Program and found that  USCIS had not developed reliable or integrated schedules for the  program, and as a result, USCIS could not reliably estimate when all  phases of the Transformation Program would be complete. We  recommended, among other things, that USCIS ensure its program  schedules are developed in accordance with GAO’s best practices  guidance. DHS concurred with our recommendations and outlined  actions USCIS would take to implement them, including developing an  integrated master schedule to depict the multiple tasks, implementation  activities, and interrelationships needed to successfully develop and  deploy the Transformation Program. Since our November 2011 report,  the Transformation Program schedule has encountered further delays.  The 2008 Acquisition Program Baseline for the program showed that  ELIS would be fully deployed by 2013; however, in July 2014, the Director  of USCIS testified that full deployment was expected to be completed by  2018 or 2019.the I-129F petition would be deployed in ELIS.
GAO/AIMD-00-21-3.1. purposes, or DOJ for investigating potential IMBRA violations once the  Transformation Program is complete.
section_title: Additional Training on IMBRA Requirements Could Help Ensure Consistent Adjudication and Reliable Data
paragraphs: USCIS officers have not consistently adjudicated I-129F petitions or  entered complete and accurate data into CLAIMS 3. On the basis of our  review of CLAIMS 3 data, and interviews with USCIS Service Center  Operations officials and USCIS officers at all four service centers, we  identified errors related to the IMBRA data that USCIS has maintained  since 2012 (see table 1). Specifically, our analysis indicates that USCIS’s  data are not reliable for determining (1) the number of I-129F petitions  filed by persons who have previously filed I-129F petitions (or multiple  filers), or (2) the number of IMBRA waivers required.
The May 2014 revisions also highlighted that the multiple filer field in CLAIMS 3 should  include the total number of K-1 and K-3 I-129Fs filed by the petitioner. The August 2013  SOP did not specify the type of I-129F (K-1 versus K-3) to include in determining the  number of prior petitions. officers were counting both K-1 and K-3 I-129F petitions in total for the  multiple filer field, or only the number of K-1 I-129F petitions. The May  2014 revision to the SOP emphasized that I-129F petitions for K-3 visas  are not to be included in determining whether a waiver is required.  However, at one service center we visited, officers we spoke to stated  that they had been uncertain about whether both types of I-129F petitions  should be considered for the waiver requirements. Accurate and complete  data in the multiple filer field are important for identifying potential abuse  by petitioners who file multiple I-129F petitions, and for officers to indicate  when a beneficiary should be notified of multiple filings, according to  USCIS officials.
Data on IMBRA waivers. We found instances of errors and  inconsistencies related to USCIS data on whether petitioners were  subject to IMBRA’s filing limits and required one of the three waivers.  Specifically:
According to IMBRA and the June 2014 SOP, petitioners may be  required to request one of three waivers, and the waiver requirements  are based, in part, on the number of I-129F petitions filed for K-1 visas  only (petitions for K-3 visas are not to be included). We reviewed  USCIS data on 227 I-129Fs filed from October 1, 2012, through  March 31, 2014, for which the record in CLAIMS 3 indicated that a  criminal waiver was required. We found that 18 of those 227 I-129F  petitions were for K-3 visas. USCIS Service Center Operations  acknowledged that these entries in CLAIMS 3 were incorrect and that  these errors raise questions about the reliability of the CLAIMS 3 data  and officers’ understanding of standard operating procedures and  IMBRA requirements.
According to the June 2014 I-129F SOP, USCIS officers are to  indicate in CLAIMS 3 whether a petitioner is required to have one of  the three filing limits waivers. Officers are required to note a “Y” in one  of three data fields if a waiver is required, or “N” if the waiver is not  required. Consistent with IMBRA, only one waiver could apply per  petition. However, on the basis of our analysis of CLAIMS 3 data, we  found I-129F petitions for which officers incorrectly determined that  more than one waiver was required. Specifically, of the 227 I-129F  petitions we reviewed, 11 indicated that both a general and a criminal  waiver were required, 14 indicated that both a criminal wavier and a  mandatory waiver were required, and 15 indicated that petitioners  required all three waivers. USCIS Service Center Operations officials  attributed the multiple waiver determinations to officers’ errors.  USCIS officers we interviewed at one service center stated that they  were uncertain about the requirements for the waivers in part because  the majority of petitions they adjudicate each year do not require any  waivers. The August 2013 SOP did not specifically contain guidance  to officers that a petitioner could receive only one waiver, if  appropriate. In June 2014, during the course of our audit work, USCIS  updated the I-129F SOP to clarify the filing limits and waiver  requirements and now explicitly states that only one waiver selection  per I-129F petition should be marked in CLAIMS 3, as applicable.  While this revision to the SOP is a positive step, additional training  could better position USCIS officers to be aware of petitioners’  potential filing limits and IMBRA waiver requirements, and USCIS  officials stated that such training could be provided to help ensure  officers understand the IMBRA requirements.
Consistent with IMBRA and the June 2014 I-129F SOP, a criminal  waiver is required for multiple filers who have been convicted of an  IMBRA-specified offense. However, our analysis of USCIS’s data  indicates that officers have required criminal waivers for petitioners  with no prior I-129F petition filings. Specifically, of the 227 I-129F  petitions filed between March 2012 and March 2014 for which officers  had indicated that a criminal waiver was required, 207 did not meet  the criteria requiring a criminal waiver because the petitioner had not  filed any previous petitions. USCIS officials said that officers were  likely confused regarding when a criminal waiver was required and  speculated that officers may be erring on the side of caution and  requiring a criminal waiver and additional documentation from the  petitioner in any instance of prior criminal convictions. For example,  an officer at one service center we visited stated that he sends the  petitioner a request for evidence for a criminal waiver if there is a  criminal history, regardless of how many I-129F petitions have been  filed. Ensuring that officers have a clear understanding of waiver  requirements in the SOP could help better position USCIS officers to  make USCIS adjudications more consistent with IMBRA  requirements.
Consistent with IMBRA and the June 2014 I-129F SOP, I-129F  petitions for K-3 visas are not subject to IMBRA waiver requirements.  However, USCIS officers have historically (prior to December 8, 2013)  not been required to indicate in CLAIMS 3 whether the I-129F petition  is in support of a K visa for a fiancé(e), or spouse. We found that  about 72 percent of the I-129F petitions submitted from fiscal years  2008 through March 2014 (238,288 of the 329,307) did not indicate  whether the I-129F petition was for a K-1 or K-3 visa. USCIS officials  stated that this was a technical issue that was likely overlooked during  the system change in 2008. USCIS officials indicated that beginning in  December 2013, officers could not approve an I-129F in CLAIMS 3  without noting which of the K visas the I-129F supports. Knowledge of  whether the I-129F petition is for a K-1 or K-3 beneficiary is important  because it is a key factor in determining whether a waiver is required,  according to USCIS officials. While USCIS officers can review the  hard copy I-129F petition to determine if it is an I-129F petition for a K- 1 or K-3 beneficiary, this information would not be readily available for  internal control purposes of ensuring I-129F petitions are adjudicated  according to the SOP and consistent with IMBRA.
According to USCIS Service Center Operations officials, USCIS performs  annual quality assurance reviews of I-129F petitions. USCIS’s Quality  Management Branch establishes the direction for the development and  administration of the quality assurance program, training, communication,  and coaching, and each service center has a quality manager and  personnel who ensure administration of the quality assurance program  within each center. Annual reviews include 3 months of submissions,  reviewed for adherence to USCIS procedures for petition approval,  denial, and requests for evidence. In 2014, USCIS’s quality assurance  reviews of selected I-129F petitions identified inconsistencies in their  adjudication. For example, USCIS conducted a review on a random  sample of I-129F petitions approved at the Texas Service Center in April  2014 (63 out of 796 total approved I-129F petitions). This quality  assurance reviewer found that 9 out of the 63 approved I-129F petitions  did not indicate for State’s consular officers, as required by USCIS’s  procedures, whether IMBRA disclosures applied. Consular officers we  spoke to at one post stated that they were providing information to  beneficiaries only if USCIS officers clearly indicated on the approved I- 129F petition that IMBRA requirements applied. The consular officers  stated that if USCIS officers did not clearly notate the approved I-129F  petitions, they returned the approved I-129F petition to USCIS. USCIS  officials attribute the errors in CLAIMS 3 data to officer error and  misunderstanding of the SOPs regarding IMBRA implementation. In  response to these reviews and our audit work, Service Center Operations  officials stated that, among other things, they revised the I-129F SOP in  May 2014 and again in June 2014. In particular, the May 2014 revision to  the I-129F SOP was intended to clarify, among other things, the IMBRA  filing limits, waiver requirements, and notations indicating whether IMBRA  disclosures apply. In June 2014, USCIS again revised the procedures to  further clarify the waiver requirements. To disseminate SOP revisions, a  Service Center Operations official stated that the revised SOP is e-mailed  to a point of contact in each service, with the revisions highlighted in the  SOP and e-mail. The official said that the point of contact generally  distributes the revised SOP to officers via e-mail, and will meet with staff  to discuss changes, if necessary.
While these are positive steps, additional training could help provide  USCIS with more reasonable assurance that its officers are aware of  IMBRA requirements to assist them in reviewing and maintaining data on  petitions consistent with USCIS’s procedures. As previously discussed,  our analysis of CLAIMS 3 data showed that USCIS officers have not  entered information into CLAIMS 3 consistent with USCIS’s SOPs.  USCIS Service Center Operations officials attributed the errors we  identified in the CLAIMS 3 data to officers’ misunderstandings of the  required procedures. Service Center Operations officials said in August  2014 that they had no plans to require the service centers to provide  additional training to officers on revisions made to the SOP, as USCIS  officials stated that officers receive initial training when they are hired and  on an ad hoc basis at the service centers, as necessary. USCIS Service  Center Operations does not require service centers to conduct additional  training for incumbent officers based on revisions to its SOPs to ensure  that changes are understood. Rather, these officials stated that service  centers determine when officers need additional training, which they may  provide to officers in the form of e-mails, briefings, or formal classroom  lessons. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  maintains that federal agencies are to provide staff with the training  necessary to carry out assigned responsibilities and meet the  organizations’ objectives. Moreover, in our guide for assessing strategic  training and development efforts, we have reported that training is  essential to developing the knowledge and skills needed to administer  agency programs properly. Given that the SOP has been revised three  times in less than 1 year and officers have not maintained data in  CLAIMS 3 consistent with the SOP, additional training for officers could  help USCIS better ensure its officers understand changes made to the  SOPs and collect and maintain reliable data on I-129F petitions as  required by USCIS’s SOP and consistent with IMBRA.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: In accordance with IMBRA, USCIS has been charged with mitigating the  risk posed to beneficiaries by violent or abusive petitioners by ensuring, to  the extent practicable, that petitioners disclose complete information,  including their filing history and criminal conviction information, on the I- 129F petition. USCIS has been revising the I-129F petition to address  inaccuracies and deficiencies for more than 10 months and has not set a  time frame for the planned completion of these changes. A time frame for  completion would help the agency better monitor progress toward  finalizing revisions to the petition. In addition, State could take additional  actions to ensure that its consular officers document that the IMBRA  pamphlet is provided and understood by the beneficiary, as internal State  guidance requires, by revising its curriculum to include training on the  FAM’s IMBRA-related documentation requirements. By incorporating  IMBRA-related documentation requirements in its training curricula, State  could also better provide reasonable assurance that its officers are aware  of the required procedures and are better positioned to inform  beneficiaries so they know their legal rights.
Although IMBRA was enacted in January 2006, USCIS does not yet  collect and maintain all data in a manner consistent with IMBRA. Ensuring  the data are available electronically would allow for more complete  reporting on IMBRA implementation, and also help USCIS management  to better ensure that I-129F petitions are being adjudicated in accordance  with IMBRA. USCIS has begun the process of transforming the I-129F  petition to an electronic format; however, it is uncertain what data will be  maintained in ELIS, based on the agency’s draft user stories to identify  data requirements, and based on prior USCIS efforts that did not fully  capture data in an electronic format consistent with IMBRA. Taking steps  to ensure that all data to be collected in accordance with IMBRA are  included with the release of the electronic I-129F petition, and providing  additional training, could help USCIS better ensure that IMBRA  requirements are properly implemented and that data on petitions are  collected and maintained consistent with USCIS procedures.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making four recommendations to improve the implementation of  IMBRA.
To better ensure the consistent application of IMBRA waiver requirements  and adjudication of I-129F petitions, we recommend that the Director of  USCIS set a target time frame for completing the agency’s review of  revisions to the I-129F petition.
To ensure that fiancé(e)s and spouses applying for K visas receive and  understand the information to be provided to them under IMBRA and that  consular officers adhere to documentation guidance in the FAM, we  recommend that the Secretary of State incorporate the FAM’s IMBRA- related documentation requirements into the Foreign Service Institute’s  training curriculum for entry-level and midlevel consular officers.
To ensure data required by IMBRA are collected, maintained, and  reliable, we recommend that the Director of USCIS take the following two  actions: ensure that IMBRA-required data elements will be collected in an  automated manner with the release of the electronic I-129F petition,  and provide additional training to officers who adjudicate I-129F petitions  on the IMBRA-related requirements in the adjudication process.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Homeland Security  and State, and the Attorney General. DHS and State provided written  responses, which are reproduced in full in appendixes III and IV,  respectively. DHS concurred with our three recommendations to that  agency and described actions under way or planned to address them.  With regard to our first recommendation to DHS that USCIS set a target  time frame for completing the agency’s review and revisions to the I-129F  petition, DHS concurred and stated that USCIS has drafted the revised  Form 129F and instructions and plans to distribute them for internal  review in December 2014. DHS stated that once the internal review is  completed, the revised form and instructions will undergo a public  comment period and the I-129F standard operating procedures will be  updated. DHS estimated a completion date of September 30, 2015. With  regard to our second recommendation to DHS that USCIS ensure that  IMBRA-required data elements will be collected in an automated manner  with the release of the electronic I-129F petition, DHS concurred and  stated that USCIS will identify all data that will be collected and estimated  a completion date of December 31, 2016. With regard to our third  recommendation to DHS that USCIS provide additional training to officers  who adjudicate I-129F petitions on the IMBRA-related requirements in the  adjudication process, DHS concurred and stated that USCIS has  developed a training presentation for officers on IMBRA-related  requirements and that all officers adjudicating the I-129F will be required  to complete the course by the end of January 2015. These actions should  address the intent of our recommendations. In addition, State concurred  with our recommendation that State incorporate the FAM’s IMBRA-related  documentation requirements in the Foreign Service Institute’s training  curriculum for entry-level and midlevel consular officers. State noted that  additional IMBRA-related training would be provided to entry-level and  midlevel consular officers. Specifically, State indicated that the Foreign  Service Institute’s 6-week mandatory training for entry-level consular  adjudicators, and two courses for midlevel consular officers would be  expanded to explicitly emphasize IMBRA-related requirements. When  implemented, these steps should help ensure that K visa beneficiaries  receive and understand information available to them under IMBRA.  Technical comments provided by DHS, State, and DOJ were  incorporated, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Homeland  Security and State, the Attorney General, and appropriate congressional  committees. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made significant  contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: I-129F Petition for Alien Fiancé(e), as of December 10, 2014
section_title: Appendix II: International Marriage Broker Regulation Act Information Pamphlet for K-Visa Applicants
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Kathryn Bernet (Assistant  Director), Frances Cook, Monica Kelly, Connor Kincaid, Stanley Kostlya,  Thomas Lombardi, Linda S. Miller, Jessica Orr, Michelle Woods, and Jim  Ungavarsky made significant contributions to this work.