Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and Scholars
Published: 2004-02-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Each year thousands of international science students and scholars apply for visas to enter the United States to participate in education and exchange programs. They offer our country diversity and intellectual knowledge and are an economic resource. At the same time, the United States has important national security interests in screening these individuals when they apply for a visa. At a hearing held by the House Committee on Science on March 26, 2003, witnesses raised concern about the length of time it takes for science students and scholars to obtain a visa and about losing top international students to other countries due to delays in the visa process. GAO reviewed 1) how long it takes a science student or scholar from another country to obtain a visa and the factors contributing to the length of time, and 2) what measures are under way to improve the process and decrease the number of pending cases.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: State Department (State) data are not available on how long it takes for a science student or scholar to obtain a visa. While State has not set specific criteria or time frames for how long the visa process should take, its goal is to adjudicate visas as quickly as possible, consistent with immigration laws and homeland security objectives. During this review, GAO found that the time it takes to adjudicate a visa depends largely on whether an applicant must undergo a security check known as Visas Mantis, which is designed to protect against sensitive technology transfers. Based on a random sample of Visas Mantis cases for science students and scholars sent from posts between April and June 2003, GAO found it took an average of 67 days for the security check to be processed and for State to notify the post. In addition, GAO's visits to posts in China, India, and Russia in September 2003 showed that many Visas Mantis cases had been pending 60 days or more. GAO also found that the way in which Visas Mantis information was disseminated at headquarters made it difficult to resolve some of these cases expeditiously. Furthermore, consular staff at posts GAO visited said they were unsure whether they were contributing to lengthy waits because they lacked clear guidance on when to apply Visas Mantis checks and did not receive feedback on whether they were providing enough information in their Visas Mantis requests. Another factor that may effect the time taken to adjudicate visas for science students and scholars is the wait for an interview. The wait time at posts GAO visited was generally 2 to 3 weeks but could be longer depending on the time of the year. While State and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials acknowledged there have been lengthy waits, they report having measures under way that they believe will improve the process and that they are collaborating to identify and resolve outstanding Visas Mantis cases. In addition, State officials told GAO they have invested about $1 million to upgrade the technology for sending Visas Mantis requests. According to State officials, the new system will help to reduce the time it takes to process Visas Mantis cases. But despite State's plans to improve the Visas Mantis process, challenges remain. For example, the FBI's systems will not immediately be interoperable with State's. GAO was unable to assess State's new system since it was not yet functioning at the time of the review.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Each year thousands of international science students and scholars apply  for visas to enter the United States to participate in education and  exchange programs. Foreign science students and scholars offer our  country diversity and intellectual knowledge and are also an economic  resource. At the same time, the United States has important national  security interests in carefully screening science students and scholars who  apply for visas. At a hearing held by the House Committee on Science on  March 26, 2003, various witnesses raised concerns about the length of time  it takes for a science student or scholar to obtain a visa. Moreover,  university officials in the United States have expressed concern about  losing top international students to other countries due to delays in the  visa process. Visa decisions need to be made as quickly as possible to  ensure that the United States remains a viable place for study and  scientific exchanges; at the same time, visa decisions must be consistent  with immigration laws and homeland security objectives.
You requested that we (1) determine how long it takes a science student or  scholar from another country to obtain a visa and the factors that  contribute to the length of time and (2) review what measures are under  way to improve the visa issuance process and decrease the number of  pending cases.
Based on our review of State Department (State) data systems regarding  visas, we determined that visa data are collected for students (F visas) and  for exchange visitors (J visas), but State’s data systems do not track  science applicants within these categories. Thus, data are not available to  report how long it takes science applicants to obtain a visa. However, we  identified a security review procedure as the factor most likely to affect  the timeliness of science student and scholar applicant visas.  Consequently, we focused our review on the length of time it takes an  applicant to acquire a visa if he or she must undergo a security review.  Using State documents, we were able to compile data on science  applicants for this analysis. We also reviewed relevant documents and  interviewed officials at the Departments of State and Homeland Security  and at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Washington, D.C. In  addition, we observed visa operations and analyzed data obtained at seven  consular posts in three countries—China, India, and Russia. We chose  these countries in consultation with your office because they are a major  source of science students and scholars visiting the United States.  Appendix I provides more information on our scope and methodology,  including limitations to State data we reviewed.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, is the  primary body of law governing immigration and visa operations. Among  other functions, the INA defines the power given to the Attorney General,  the Secretary of State, immigration officers, and consular officers;  delineates the categories of and qualifications for nonimmigrant visas; and  provides a broad framework of operations through which foreign citizens  are allowed to enter the United States. The Homeland Security Act of 2002  establishes the role of the Department of Homeland Security in the visa  process, and a subsequent Memorandum of Understanding between the  Secretaries of State and Homeland Security further outlines the visa  issuance authorities. According to the memorandum, the Department of  Homeland Security is responsible for establishing visa policy, reviewing  implementation of the policy, and providing additional direction, while the  State Department is responsible for managing the visa process and  carrying out U.S. foreign policy.
subsections: section_title: Process for Adjudicating Visas
paragraphs: The visa adjudication process has several steps (see fig. 1). Visa applicants  generally begin the visa process by scheduling a visa interview. On the  day of the appointment, a consular officer reviews the application, checks  the applicant’s name in the Consular Lookout and Support System  (CLASS), and interviews the applicant. Based on the interview and a  review of pertinent documents, the consular officer determines if the  applicant is eligible for nonimmigrant status under the Immigration and  Nationality Act. If the consular officer then determines that the applicant  is eligible to receive a visa, the applicant is notified right away and he or  she usually receives the visa within 24 hours.
In some cases, the consular officer decides that the applicant will need a  Security Advisory Opinion (SAO), which provides an opinion or clearance  from Washington on whether to issue a visa to the applicant. SAOs are  required for a number of reasons, including concerns that a visa applicant  may engage in the illegal transfer of sensitive technology. An SAO based  on sensitive technology transfer concerns is known as a Visas Mantis and,  according to State officials, is the most common type of SAO applied to  science applicants. It is also the most common type of SAO sent from  most of the posts we visited in China, Russia, and India.
In deciding if a Visas Mantis check is needed, the consular officer  determines whether the applicant’s background or proposed activity in the  United States could involve exposure to technologies on the Technology  Alert List (TAL). The list includes science and technology-related fields  where, if knowledge gained from research or work in these fields were  used against the United States, it could potentially be harmful. If a Visas  Mantis is needed, the consular officer generally informs the applicant that  his or her visa is being temporarily refused under Section 221(g) of the  U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, pending receipt of security  clearance.
After a consular officer decides that a Visas Mantis is necessary for an  applicant, several steps are taken to resolve the process. The officer drafts  a Visas Mantis cable, which contains information from the applicant’s  application and interview. The cable is then generally reviewed by a  consular section chief or other consular official at post, who then  approves the Visas Mantis cable for transmission to Washington for an  interagency security check. Once the cable is sent, the State Department’s  Bureau of Nonproliferation, the FBI, and other agencies review the  information in the cable and provide a response on the applicant to the  Consular Affairs section of State headquarters. The Bureau of  Nonproliferation and other agencies are given 15 working days to respond  to State with any objections. However, State has agreed to wait for a  response from the FBI before proceeding with each Visas Mantis case.
State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs receives all agency responses pertaining  to an applicant, summarizes them, and prepares a response to the consular  posts. A cable is then transmitted to the post which indicates that State  does or does not have an objection to issuing the visa, or that more  information is needed. Generally, a consular official at post reviews the  cable and, based on the information from Washington, decides whether to  issue the visa to the applicant. The officer then notifies the applicant that  the visa has been issued or denied, or that more information is needed.  According to consular officials, in the vast majority of the cases the visa is  approved. However, even when the visa is issued, the information  provided by the consular posts on certain visa applicants is very useful to  certain agencies in guarding against illegal technology transfer. As a result,  according to the State Department, the Visas Mantis program provides  State and other interested agencies with an effective mechanism to screen  out those individuals who seek to evade or violate laws governing the  export of goods, technology, or sensitive information. This screening, in  turn, addresses significant issues of national security.
section_title: Availability of State Data
paragraphs: State Department data are not available on the number of visas that were  issued or denied to science students and scholars or the length of time it  takes to issue visas to these people. Consular Affairs officials told us that  State’s systems can track aggregate student or scholar data by F and J  visa categories, but they cannot narrow their query search to specifically  identify science students or scholars. Table 1 shows the number of visas  issued and denied for students and scholars seeking visas by selected  nationalities in fiscal year 2003.
In addition, State data are not available on the overall number of Visas  Mantis cases in fiscal year 2003 or on the Visas Mantis cases by visa  category. State’s systems can track the visa process for individual cases  but do not allow for aggregate queries of Visas Mantis cases. For example,  State does not have data on how many Visas Mantis cases involved student  visas. State also lacks data on the number of science students and  scholars that undergo a Visas Mantis security check. Furthermore, State  did not have aggregate data on the time frame for adjudicating a visa that  required a Visas Mantis security check.
section_title: Length of Time to Adjudicate Visas Is Unknown; Security Check Is Major Contributing Factor
paragraphs: The length of time for a science student or scholar to obtain a visa is not  known, but a key factor in the time frame can be attributed to whether an  applicant must undergo a Visas Mantis check. Since State could provide  information on individual cases, we conducted our own sample of Visas  Mantis cases that we obtained from State for the period between April and  June 2003 and found that for these applicants, it took an average of 67  days for the security check to be processed and for State to notify the post  of the results. Furthermore, our visits to posts showed that as of October  1, 2003, 410 Visas Mantis cases submitted by 7 posts in fiscal year 2003  were still pending after more than 60 days. We also found that  interoperability problems among the systems that State and FBI use  contributed to the time taken to process a Visas Mantis check. In addition,  officials at posts we visited told us they were unsure whether they were  adding to the lengthy waits by not having clear guidance on when to apply  the Visas Mantis process and not receiving feedback on the amount of  information they provided in their Visas Mantis requests. Aside from the  time it takes to process Visas Mantis checks, we found during our  fieldwork that an applicant also has to wait for an interview. Post officials  and representatives of higher education scientific and governmental  organizations indicated that delays in processing visas for science students  and scholars could negatively affect U.S. national interests.
subsections: section_title: Analysis of State Data Indicates Lengthy Waits
paragraphs: To obtain visa data on science students and scholars, and to determine  how long the visa process takes, we reviewed all Visas Mantis cables  received from posts between April and June 2003, which totaled  approximately 5,000. Of these cases, 2,888 pertain to science students and  scholars, of which approximately 58 percent were sent from China, about  20 percent from Russia, and less than 2 percent from India. Appendix II  provides additional information on the number of science student and  scholar cases sent from each post.
We drew a random sample of 71 cases from the 2,888 science student and  scholar visa applications to measure the length of time taken at selected  points in the visa process. The sample of 71 cases is a probability sample,  and results from the data in this sample project to the universe of the 2,888  science visa applications. We found that visas for science students and  scholars took on average 67 days from the date the Visas Mantis cable  was submitted from post to the date State sent a response to the post.  This is slightly longer than 2 months per application, on average. In the  sample, 67 of the visa applications completed processing and approval by  December 3, 2003. In addition, 3 of the 67 completed applications had  processing times in excess of 180 days. Four of the cases in our sample of  71 remained pending as of December 3, 2003. Of the 4 cases pending, 3 had  been pending for more than 150 days and 1 for more than 240 days as of  December 3, 2003.
In addition to our sample of 71 cases, State provided us with data on two  samples it had taken of Visas Mantis case processing times. Data on the  first sample was provided on December 11, 2003, and included 40 visa  cases taken from August to October 2003. Data on the second sample was  provided on February 13, 2004, and included 50 Visas Mantis cases taken  from November and December 2003. State indicated that both samples  show improvements in processing times compared to earlier periods in  2003. Based on the documentation of how these cases were selected, we  were unable to determine whether these were scientifically valid samples  and therefore we could not validate that processing times have improved.  For the first sample, the data show that 58 percent of the cases were  completed within 30 days; for the second sample, the data show that 52  percent were completed within this time frame. In addition, the data for  both samples show that lengthy waits remain in some cases. For example,  9 of the 40 cases had been outstanding for more than 60 days as of  December 3, 2003, including 3 cases that had been pending for more than  120 days. Also, 9 of the 50 cases were still pending as of February 13, 2004,  including 6 that had been outstanding for more than 60 days. State officials  commented that most of the outstanding cases from both samples were  still being reviewed by the agencies. Moreover, for one case sent in  December 2003, the FBI showed no record of the Visas Mantis request.
section_title: Post Data Show Lengthy Waits in Visas Mantis Cases
paragraphs: While Consular Affairs officials were not able to query their systems for  aggregate Visas Mantis data, we were able to obtain aggregate data from  the posts we visited. During our field visits, we found most posts track  Visas Mantis cases they send to State. Some posts designate a consular  official to track Visas Mantis cases while others had no designated officers  for this purpose. Overall, we found that most posts kept a spreadsheet on  the Visas Mantis cases, which generally contained Visas Mantis applicant  data such as when the cable was sent to State and when a response was  received at post. However, we found no standard method for data or  tracking. In addition, we found that most posts did not have accurate data  on the number of Visas Mantis cases they sent to headquarters in a fiscal  year. Posts could provide us with F and J visa category data but could not  break down the data by science students and scholars.
During our fieldwork at posts in China, India, and Russia, we obtained  data indicating that 410 Visas Mantis cases submitted by 7 posts in fiscal  year 2003 were still outstanding more than 60 days as of October 1, 2003.  In addition, we found numerous cases—including 27 from Shanghai—that  were pending more than 120 days as of October 16, 2003. The following  are examples of data we collected during our fieldwork regarding the  processing of Visas Mantis cases:  In September 2003, the three posts we visited in China had approximately  174 security checks for students and exchange visitors that had been  pending between 60 and 120 days, and 49 that had been pending for more  than 120 days. In Shanghai in fiscal year 2003, it took approximately 47  days for a Visas Mantis case for a student or scholar to be processed from  the time a cable was sent from post to the time the visa was issued.
Approximately 25 percent of Chennai’s Visas Mantis cases in fiscal year  2003 took between 60 and 120 days to process, and 58 percent took more  than 120 days to process from application date to the date a response was  received from Washington. Further, the average time for Visas Mantis  cases to be processed in Chennai in fiscal year 2003 was approximately 5  months or 144 days. Post officials told us that the processing time has  improved; however, the data show there are still lengthy waits in Chennai.  For example, of the 6 visa applications submitted in October 2003 that  required a Visas Mantis check, 4 were still pending as of January 9, 2004,  and the other 2 took an average of 55 days to process.
Of the Visas Mantis applications completed in Moscow in fiscal year 2003,  approximately 21 percent took between 60 and 120 days, and 10 percent  took more than 120 days to process. In September 2003, Moscow had 544  outstanding Visas Mantis cases. Of these cases, about 28 percent had been  pending more than 60 days. In addition, in fiscal year 2003, the average  time to adjudicate a visa for those requiring a Visas Mantis security check  was 53 days.
section_title: Systems Are Not Interoperable and Can Lead to Delays between Points in Process
paragraphs: Because many different agencies, bureaus, posts, and field offices are  involved in processing Visas Mantis security checks and each has different  databases and systems, we found that Visas Mantis cases can get delayed  or lost at different points in the process. We found that in fiscal year 2003,  some Visas Mantis cases did not always reach their intended recipient and,  as a result, some of the security checks were delayed. For example, we  followed up with the FBI on 14 outstanding cases from some of the posts  we visited in China in September 2003 to see if it had received and  processed the cases. FBI officials provided information indicating that  they had no record of 3 of the cases, they had responded to State on 8  cases, and they were still reviewing 3 cases. FBI officials stated that the  most likely reasons why they did not have a record of the 3 cases from  State were due to cable formatting errors and duplicate cases that were  rejected from the FBI database. State did not comment on the status of  the 14 cases we provided to the FBI for review. However, a Consular  Affairs official told us that in fall 2003, there were about 700 Visas Mantis  cases sent from Beijing that did not reach the FBI for the security check.  The official did not know how the cases got lost but told us that it took  Consular Affairs about a month to identify that there was a problem and  provide the FBI with the cases. As a result, several hundred visa  applications were delayed for another month.
Figure 2 illustrates some of the time-consuming factors in the Visas Mantis  process for our sample of 71 cases. While the FBI received most of the  cases from State within a day, 7 cases took a month or more, most likely  because they had been improperly formatted and thus were rejected by  the FBI’s system. In more than half of the cases, the FBI was able to  complete the clearance process the same day, but some cases took more  than 100 days. These cases may have taken longer because (1) the FBI  had to investigate the case or request additional information from State;  (2) the FBI had to locate files in field offices, because not all of its name  check files are electronic; or (3) the case was a duplicate, which the FBI’s  name check system also rejects. In most of the cases, the FBI was able to  send a response—which it generally does in batches of name checks, not  by individual case—to State within a week. The FBI provides the results of  name checks for Visas Mantis cases to State on computer compact disks  (CDs), which could cause delays. In December 2003, a FBI official told us  that these CDs were provided to State twice a week. However, in the past,  the CDs were provided to State on a less frequent basis. In addition, it  takes time for data to be entered into State’s systems once State receives  the information. In the majority of our sample cases, it took State 2 weeks  or longer to inform post that it could issue a visa. State officials were  unable to explain why it took State this long to respond to post. Officials  told us that the time frame could be due to a lack of resources at  headquarters or because State was waiting for a response from agencies  other than the FBI. However, the data show that only 5 of the 71 cases  were pending information from agencies other than the FBI. Appendix IV  provides additional information on the distribution of processing time for  our sample of Visas Mantis cases.
section_title: Post Officials Seek Clearer Guidance and Feedback on Visas Mantis Cases to Expedite Process
paragraphs: During our fieldwork, some consular officials expressed concern that they  could be contributing to the time it takes to process Visas Mantis requests  because they lacked clear guidance on determining Visas Mantis cases and  feedback on whether they were applying checks appropriately and  providing enough data in their Visas Mantis requests. According to the  officials, additional information and feedback from Washington regarding  these issues could help expedite Visas Mantis cases.
Currently, State provides some guidance to posts on Visas Mantis  requirements and processing, including how to use the TAL to determine if  a visa applicant should undergo a security check. However, consular  officers told us that they would like the guidance to be simplified—for  example, by expressing some scientific terms in more comprehensible  language. Several consular officers also told us they had only a limited  understanding of the Visas Mantis process, including how long the process  takes. They told us they would like to have better information on how long  a Visas Mantis check is taking so that they can more accurately inform the  applicant of the expected wait. Since our visits to posts, State has issued  additional updated guidance on applying the TAL. However, after  receiving the new guidance, consular officials at some posts told us that  although it was an improvement, the updated guidance is still confusing to  apply, particularly for junior officers without a scientific background.
Consular officers at most of the posts we visited also told us they would  like more feedback from State on whether the Visas Mantis cases they are  sending to Washington are appropriate, particularly whether they are  sending too many or too few Visas Mantis requests. They said they would  like to know if including more information in the security check request  would reduce the time to process an application in Washington. Moreover,  consular officers indicated they would like additional information on some  of the outstanding Visas Mantis cases, such as where the case is in the  process. State confirmed that it has not always responded to posts’  requests for feedback or information on outstanding cases. Officials at  State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs told us that their office facilitates the  Visas Mantis process but is not in a position to provide feedback to  consular posts on the purpose of Visas Mantis or how the information is  being used. However, officials from the FBI and State’s Bureau of  Nonproliferation told us that Consular Affairs should take the lead in  providing feedback to posts because it administers the program and  supervises the consular officers.
section_title: Wait for an Interview Can Add Significant Time
paragraphs: In addition to the time needed for Visas Mantis checks, another  contributing factor in the length of time it takes to adjudicate a visa is how  long an applicant must wait to get an interview appointment at post. State  does not have data or criteria for the length of time applicants at its  overseas posts wait for an interview, but at the posts we visited in  September 2003, we found that it generally took 2 to 3 weeks.  Furthermore, post officials in Chennai, India, told us that the interview  wait time was as long as 12 weeks during the summer of 2003 when the  demand for visas was greater than the resources available at post to  adjudicate a visa. Officials at some of the posts we visited indicated they  did not have enough space and staffing resources to handle interview  demands and the new visa requirement. Factors such as the time of year  an applicant applies for a visa, the appointment requirements, and the  staffing situation at posts generally affect how long an applicant will have  to wait for an interview.
All the posts we visited had high and low seasons in which the visa  application volume fluctuated. For example, June was the busiest month  in Chennai, India, in 2000, 2001, and 2002, with the average number of visa  applicants exceeding 18,000. By contrast, Chennai saw an average of  10,000 visa applicants in October during these same years. During the  summer months of 2003, the high demand for visas was compounded by  the new visa interview requirement State established in May 2003. The  new requirement, which went into effect on August 1, 2003, states that,  with a few exceptions, all foreign individuals seeking to visit the United  States need to be interviewed prior to receiving a visa. As a result,  interview volumes have increased at some posts we visited. For example,  in September 2002, consular officials in Chennai interviewed 25 percent of  visa applicants, but by August 2003, that number had increased to 75  percent and was projected to continue to rise. In addition, a consular  official in Moscow estimated that the volume of interviews increased from  about 60 percent before August 2003 to about 90 percent in December  2003. However, the interview requirement did not have a significant effect  on posts in China since the posts were already interviewing about 70  percent of the visa applicants.
In early summer 2003, Consular Affairs requested that posts give priority  to students and exchange visitors when scheduling visa interviews. Below  are the wait times at each post we visited and some of the initiatives the  posts have taken to accommodate applicants.
subsections: section_title: China
paragraphs: At the time of our field visit in September 2003, two of the three posts we  visited in China had a 2-week wait for an interview. However, applicants at  one post were facing waits of about 5 to 6 weeks. The extended waits for  interviews were due to an imbalance between demand for visas and the  number of consular officers available to interview applicants and staff to  answer phone lines. Consular officials told us that to reduce these waits,  they were relying on temporary duty help and also planned to request an  additional consular officer at post. To facilitate the issuance of visas to  students who underwent a Visas Mantis security check, one post in China  opened on one weekend to issue hundreds of visas and also allowed  students and scholars to fax in requests for expedited interviews. In such  cases, interviews were scheduled within a matter of days.
section_title: India
paragraphs: During our field visit in September 2003, consular officers in New Delhi  and in Chennai told us that the wait for an interview was 2 to 3 weeks at  each post. However, during the 2003 summer months, the wait was as long  as 12 weeks in Chennai. To help reduce lengthy waits, applicants were  allowed to interview at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi or at the U.S.  Consulate in Calcutta. In addition, the posts we visited instituted longer  interview hours, as well as overtime for consular staff and the use of  temporary staff to conduct interviews to reduce interview wait times for  all applicants. According to consular officials in Chennai and New Delhi,  some lengthy waits were attributed to staffing shortages. In a May 2003  assessment conducted by Consular Affairs, State officials concurred that  staffing levels in Chennai’s consular section are below what is necessary  to meet a rapidly increasing workload. Since late summer 2003, the  consulate in Chennai has reserved interview appointments on Fridays for  students and temporary workers. However, an official at the consulate in  Chennai told us that unless students who go through a Visas Mantis  security check apply 2 to 3 months in advance, a significant portion of  them will start school late.
section_title: Russia
paragraphs: Consular officials in Moscow told us that at the end of September 2003, the  wait for an interview was 1 week, while in St. Petersburg the wait  averaged 2 to 3 weeks. In Moscow the recent additions of new junior  officers and longer interviewing hours have helped officers keep up with  current visa demands. Both posts have also arranged for some visa  applicant groups, such as business applicants and official delegations, to  be interviewed separately. In addition, a consular official in Moscow told  us that the post is able to accommodate most requests for students or  scholars who need an expedited appointment. In St. Petersburg,  approximately 5 to 10 interview slots per day are reserved for students and  scholars.
section_title: Officials, Groups Note Impact of Visa Delays
paragraphs: Although we did not attempt to measure the impact of the time it takes to  adjudicate a visa, consular officials and representatives of several higher  education, scientific, and governmental organizations expressed concern  that visa delays could be detrimental to the scientific interests of the  United States. Although they provided numerous individual examples of  the consequences of visa delays, they were unable to measure the total  impact of such lengthy waits.
Embassy officials in Moscow told us that visa delays are hindering  congressionally mandated nonproliferation goals. Department of Energy  officials at post explained that former Soviet Union scientists have found it  extremely difficult getting to the United States to participate in U.S.  government-sponsored conferences and exchanges that are critical to  nonproliferation. Furthermore, many officials with whom we spoke cited  specific examples where scientific research and collaboration was delayed  or prevented due to delays in obtaining a visa. National Aeronautics and  Space Administration officials at post also noted that up to 20 percent of  their time is spent dealing with visa issues when they should be focusing  on program issues.
During our field visits, Beijing’s Deputy Chief of Mission and consular  officials at the embassy and consulates in China stated that visa delays  could have a negative impact on student and scholar exchanges. They told  us that the lengthy waits to obtain a visa might lead Chinese students and  scholars to pursue studies or research in countries where it is easier to  obtain a visa. A consular chief in Chennai, India, agreed, saying that  lengthy waits are also causing Indian students to decide to study in  countries where it is easier to get a visa and, therefore, the United States  could lose out on intellectual knowledge these visa applicants bring to our  country. Further, embassy officials in Beijing reported that visa delays in  nonproliferation cooperation and scientific exchange could have  enormous and lasting consequences.
Finally, research organizations and associations of American universities  have cited the difficulties their international students and faculty are  having in obtaining visas. According to a survey conducted by a national  scientific organization, applicants from 26 different countries, most  notably Russia and China, have been delayed or prevented from entering  the United States. Another survey conducted by a national educational  association reported that hundreds of students and scholars experienced  delays in receiving a visa or were denied a visa. According to several  surveys, scientific research was postponed, jobs were left unstaffed, and  conferences and meetings were missed as a result of the delays.
section_title: Agency Officials Cite Improvements
paragraphs: FBI and State officials acknowledged that lengthy visa waits have been a  problem, but said they are implementing improvements to the process and  working to decrease the number of pending Visas Mantis cases.  Improvements include implementation of customer service initiatives,  coordination between agencies to identify and resolve outstanding cases,  and upgrades in information systems. In addition, State and FBI officials  told us that the validity of Visas Mantis checks for students and scholars  has been extended to 12 months.
State, FBI, and consular officials at posts have made customer service  improvements related to Visas Mantis checks that allow them to address  questions and provide information to people inquiring about a status of a  visa case. For example, consular officials at some of the posts we visited  told us that they have established inquiry lines at post for visa applicants  to check the status of their case and remind consular officials that their  case is still pending. This also helps consular officers to monitor cases that  have been outstanding. In addition, State set up an inquiry desk at the  beginning of 2003, and the FBI set one up during the summer of 2003 to  accommodate calls from the public about the status of pending visa  applications that have been submitted for Visas Mantis checks. State has  set up a separate e-mail address for inquiries from agencies involved in  Visas Mantis processing. Consular Affairs officials also told us they have  set up an inquiry line where post officials can obtain additional  information on outstanding cases. However, some post officials told us  that they would still like more information on how long the Visas Mantis  check takes.
Officials from State’s Consular Affairs and the FBI told us they are  coordinating efforts to identify and resolve outstanding Visas Mantis cases.  For example, Consular Affairs officials have been working with FBI  officials on a case-by-case basis to make sure that cases outstanding for  several months to a year are completed. However, State officials said they  do not have a target date for completion of all the outstanding cases,  which they estimated at 1,000 in November 2003. According to these  officials, while about 350 of these outstanding cases required further  review or more information, State has not yet begun working to reconcile  them.
FBI officials also told us that to address some of the delays on their end,  such as those that occur due to problems with lost case files or inoperable  systems, the FBI has taken several actions to improve its Visas Mantis  clearance process. For example, the officials indicated that the FBI is  working on automating its files and setting up a common database  between the field offices and headquarters. FBI officials also told us that  they have set up a tracking system for all SAOs, including Visas Mantis  cases. In addition, they said the FBI has established new procedures to  deal with name check files the agency cannot locate within a certain  amount of time. In a July 2003 letter to State, the FBI said it would notify  State after 90 days that it could proceed with visa processing in the event  that the FBI could not locate relevant files and there were no security  concerns.
Consular Affairs officials told us that State has invested about $1 million  on a new information management system that it said would reduce the  time it takes to process Visas Mantis cases. They described the new  system as a mechanism that would help strengthen the accountability of  Visas Mantis clearance requests and responses, establish consistency in  data collection, and improve data exchange between State and other  agencies involved in the clearance process. In addition, officials said the  system would allow them to improve overall visa statistical reporting  capabilities and data integrity for Visas Mantis cases. The new system will  be paperless, which means that the current system of requesting Visas  Mantis clearances by cable will be eliminated. Through an  intergovernmental network known as the Open Source Information  System, the new system will allow most government agencies involved in  the Visas Mantis process, such as the FBI, to obtain visa applicant  information and coordinate Visas Mantis responses. State officials told us  that the system is on schedule for release early this year, and that the  portion relating to SAOs will be operational sometime later this year.  However, challenges remain. FBI officials told us that the name check  component of the FBI’s system would not immediately be interoperable  with State’s new system, but that they are actively working with State to  seek solutions to this problem. However, FBI and State have not  determined how the information will be transmitted in the meantime. We  were not able to assess the new system since it was not yet functioning at  the time of our review.
In addition to improvements to the Visas Mantis process, State officials  told us that they are taking some actions to continue to monitor the  resource needs at post. To alleviate concerns about staffing, Consular  Affairs officials told us that temporary adjudicating officers are sent to the  posts as needed. These officials also told us that State added 66 new  officers in 2003 and plans to add an additional 80 in 2004. However, the  decision to add these new officers was made before the new August 2003  interview requirements were implemented and thus it is unknown if there  are enough resources for the task at hand. In addition, post officials told  us that State plans to expand some consular sections, such as in Chennai,  India, where the consulate is scheduled to undergo an expansion in spring  2004.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Agency officials recognize that the process for issuing a visa to a science  student or scholar can be an important tool to control the transfer of  technology that could put the United States at risk. They also acknowledge  that if the process is lengthy, students and scholars with science  backgrounds might decide not to come to the United States, and  technological advancements that serve U.S. and global interests could be  jeopardized. Our analysis of a sample of Visas Mantis cases from April to  June 2003 show that some applicants faced lengthy waits. While the State  Department and the FBI report improvements in visa processing times,  our analysis of data from the posts we visited in September 2003 and our  contact with post officials in January 2004 show that there are still some  instances of lengthy waits. State’s and FBI’s implementation of the Visas  Mantis process still has gaps that are causing lengthy waits for visas.  Consular officers believe that if they receive clearer guidance and  feedback on Visas Mantis cases, they could help reduce the time it takes  for Washington to process applications and provide better information to  applicants. Finally, State and FBI do not have interoperable systems that  would help complete security checks of visa applicants more quickly.  State’s new information management system could improve the Visas  Mantis process. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the new system will  address all the current issues with the process.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help improve the process and reduce the length of time it takes for a  science student or scholar to obtain a visa, we are recommending that the  Secretary of State, in coordination with the Director of the FBI, and the  Secretary of Homeland Security, develop and implement a plan to improve  the Visas Mantis process. In developing this plan, the Secretary should  consider actions to    establish milestones to reduce the current number of pending Visas Mantis    develop performance goals and measurements for processing Visas Mantis    provide additional information through training or other means to  consular posts that clarifies guidance on the overall operation of the Visas  Mantis program, when Mantis clearances are required, what information  consular posts should submit to enable the clearance process to proceed  as efficiently as possible, and how long the process takes; and   work to achieve interoperable systems and expedite transmittal of data  between agencies.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the State Department, the Federal  Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Homeland Security. State’s  and FBI’s written comments are presented in appendix V and VI,  respectively. The Department of Homeland Security did not provide  official written comments, but provided technical comments that we have  incorporated in the report where appropriate.
The State Department commented that it is committed to providing the  best possible visa services while also maintaining security as its first  obligation. State indicated that it had taken a number of recent actions to  improve the Visas Mantis process that we believe are positive steps in  implementing our recommendation. For example, State said that it has  started to provide feedback to posts regarding the information contained  in Visas Mantis cables and is providing expanded briefings on the Visas  Mantis process to new consular officers at the National Foreign Affairs  Training Center. State also said that it would study our recommendation to  explore possibilities for further improvements to the Visas Mantis security  check process.
State emphasized the importance of the Visas Mantis clearance process in  protecting U.S. national security and acknowledged that in the past some  visa applicants have been required to wait long periods to obtain a visa.  However, as a result of recent improvements, State claims that most  security checks are now being completed within 30 days and therefore our  analysis of Visas Mantis cases from April to June 2003 does not represent  current processing times. State commented that it had recently conducted  two samples of Visas Mantis cases that show improvements in processing  times. However, we were unable to independently validate either sample.  In addition, the data for both samples show that lengthy waits remain for  some cases. Moreover, because State’s sample selection methods were  different from ours, and because its samples would have a wide margin of  error, its samples cannot demonstrate improvements in processing times.  Thus we are not in a position to conclude that the Visas Mantis processing  turnaround times have improved.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation did not comment on our  recommendation. The FBI acknowledged that the visa program was  overwhelmed in the summer of 2002. However, the FBI believes that it is  now processing the name checks more quickly and today only a few  applicants encounter a significant wait for the FBI to complete the  security review process. The FBI indicated that it is working closely with  State and other agencies to improve the Visas Mantis process.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 7 days from the  report date. At that time we will send copies of this report to interested  congressional committees and to the Secretary of State, the Director of the  FBI, and the Secretary of Homeland Security. We also will make copies  available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at  no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff has any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-4128. Additional GAO contacts and staff  acknowledgments are listed in appendix VII.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine (1) how long it takes a science student or scholar from  another country to obtain a visa and the factors that contribute to the  length of time and (2) what measures are under way to improve the visa  issuance process and decrease the number of pending cases, we collected  data from agencies in Washington, as well as at U.S. embassies and  consulates overseas, and conducted interviews with agency officials. We  reviewed the Immigration and Nationality Act and associated legislation,  the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual, and cables and other  related documents from State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs. In addition, we  reviewed State’s data on visa applications and issuances worldwide and  for selected posts. We also requested data from State to conduct a sample  of Visas Mantis cases to help us determine the number of science students  and scholars that were undergoing a Visas Mantis security check and how  long those applicants waited for a visa. In Washington, we interviewed  officials from the Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Justice.  At State, we met with officials from the Bureau of Consular Affairs, the  Bureau of Nonproliferation, the Office of the Science and Technology  Adviser to the Secretary, and the Office of Science and Cooperation in the  Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.  At the Department of Homeland Security, we met with officials from the  Directorate of Border Transportation and the Office of Policy and  Planning. At the Department of Justice, we met with officials from the  Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Name Check Unit and country desk  officers for China and Russia. We requested meetings with officials from  the Central Intelligence Agency and the White House Office of Science and  Technology Policy (OSTP), but they declined to meet with us. However,  OSTP provided us with written answers to questions pertaining to its  involvement in visa policies for science students and scholars.
Based on our review of State Department data systems regarding visas, we  determined that visa data are collected for students (F visas) and for  exchange visitors (J visas), but State’s data systems do not track science  applicants within these categories. Thus, data are not available to report  how long it takes science applicants to obtain a visa. However, agency  officials identified a special security review procedure known as Visas  Mantis as the factor most likely to affect the timeliness of science student  and scholar applicant visas. Consequently, we focused our review on the  length of time it takes an applicant to acquire a visa if he or she must  undergo a security review. Using State documents, we were able to  compile data on science applicants for this analysis.
To obtain data for our sample of Visas Mantis cases, we asked State in July  2003 to provide us all the incoming Visas Mantis cables for the first 6  months of 2003. State indicated that our request would yield  approximately 9,000 cables, and that such a large volume would be too  time consuming to compile. To address State’s concern, we requested  Visas Mantis cables from April 1 through June 30, 2003. We requested  these 3 months because they were the most recent months from our initial  request and would include some of the summer student visa applicants.  Because Consular Affairs did not have electronic, aggregated data on Visas  Mantis cases, they provided us with 5,079 hard copy cables submitted  during that time period. We reviewed the cables to determine which ones  pertained to a science student or scholar or other categories, including  business. The science student and research scholar category included  applicants studying at universities or conducting research at universities,  national laboratories, and medical centers. We included applicants  attending conferences, symposiums, workshops, and meetings hosted or  sponsored by universities, professional institutes, and other organizations.  We did not include in our sample universe business-related cables, cables  that were incomplete, and cables that were duplicates.
We entered all the data from the cables into an Excel spreadsheet, gave  each a GAO number for control and identification purposes, and verified  that there were no duplicates. We ended up with 2,888 Visas Mantis entries  in the Excel database. From these 2,888 Visas Mantis cases, we took a  computer-generated random sample of 124 cases and requested further  data on those cases and their time frames from State. State replied that our  request was too labor intensive and asked that we modify it. Therefore, we  took a smaller subsample of 71 cases from the 124.
Of the 71 cases we received from State, 67 were processed by December 3,  2003. Four cases were still pending. The 71 cases yielded an average  completion time of 67 days. This estimate is accurate to within plus or  minus 17 days at the 95 percent level of confidence. We assessed the  reliability of the sample data provided by State by tracing a statistically  random sample of data to source documents. We determined that the data  was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
State created its own two randomly selected samples of Visas Mantis  cases. However, based on the documentation of how these records were  selected, GAO was not able to determine whether these were scientifically  valid samples whose results project to the entire population of all science  student and scholar visa applications. As such, results reported by the  agency from these application records should be treated as testimonial  information from a judgmental sample rather than data from a probability  sample.
We conducted fieldwork at seven visa-issuing posts in three countries— China, India, and Russia. We chose these countries because they are  leading places of origin for international science students and scholars  visiting the United States. We limited our review to nonimmigrant visa  applicants. During our visits at all of these posts, we observed visa  operations, reviewed selected Visas Mantis data, and interviewed consular  staff about visa adjudication procedures. In China, we met with consular  officers at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the consulates in Shanghai and  Guangzhou. We also met with the Deputy Chief of Mission, as well as  officers from the Office of Environment, Science, Technology, and Health  in Beijing. In India, we visited the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi and the U.S.  consulate in Chennai. We met with consular officers at both posts as well  as the Consul General in Chennai and officials from the FBI and the Office  of Environment, Science, and Technology in New Delhi. In addition, we  met with three students who had outstanding visa applications in Chennai;  a Honeywell business representative; and administrators, professors, and  students at the Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research in  Chennai. In Russia, we visited the U.S. Embassy in Moscow and the U.S.  consulate in St. Petersburg and met with consular officials there. While in  Moscow, we also met with officials from the economic section of the  embassy, Office of Environment, Science, and Technology, the  Department of Energy, and the National Aeronautics and Space  Administration. In addition, we spoke with a representative of the  International Science and Technology Center in Moscow. While in the  field, we collected data and reviewed documents pertaining to the visa  process for science students and scholars at all posts. Because post  tracking and recording of Visas Mantis data varied, we could not make  post comparisons of Visas Mantis cases.
Finally, to gather information on the visa issues that science students and  scholars face, we spoke with representatives from educational  organizations, including the National Academies, the Association of  International Educators, the American Council on Education, and the  Association of American Universities. We also obtained information from  the American Physical Society and the International Institute for  Education.
We conducted our work from May 2003 through January 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Visas Mantis Cases for Science Students and Scholars
paragraphs: This appendix provides information on the Visas Mantis cables State  received from posts between April and June 2003. Table 2 shows the  breakdown of the 2,888 Visas Mantis cases we identified pertaining to  science students and scholars. In our sample, we identified a total of 57  posts that had sent one or more Visas Mantis cables to Washington.
section_title: Appendix III: Visa Statistics from Seven Posts
paragraphs: This appendix provides selected visa statistical information for the posts  we visited in China, India, and Russia. Table 3 shows the number of visas  issued, visa refusal rates, and interview wait times at posts.
section_title: Appendix IV: Distribution of Processing Time for Sample of Visas Mantis Cases
paragraphs: This appendix provides information on the distribution of processing time  for our sample of Visas Mantis cases.
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the State Department
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the State Department’s letter dated  February 11, 2004.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1.  The report does not assume that all nonimmigrant visa applicants are  qualified for a visa as indicated in footnote 6 on page 5 and discussion  on pages 5-6. To further clarify that some applicants are eligible for a  visa and some are not, we modified our discussion of the visa  adjudication process as presented in figure 1.  2.  We acknowledge the importance of the Visas Mantis screening process  in protecting U.S. national security. We discuss the utility and value of  the Visas Mantis process on pages 7-8. In addition, we modified  footnote 11 on page 7 to indicate State’s views on the importance of  the Visas Mantis process.  3.  On December 11, 2003, State provided us with a study of 40 randomly  selected Visas Mantis cases that posts submitted in August, September,  and October 2003. In addition, on February 13, 2004, State provided us  with another random study of 50 cases from November and December  2003. We discuss both samples on pages 11-12 and how the data was  developed.  4.  We added wording to footnote 22 on page 11 to acknowledge that in  some cases the length of time to process a Visas Mantis check is not  under the control of State.  5.  We modified the chart on the introductory page to clarify that the Visas  Mantis processing time begins when the post sends a Visas Mantis  cable request to Washington. The chart shows the total length of time  it could take an applicant to obtain a visa if a Visas Mantis security  clearance is needed.  6.  Our data for the 410 Visas Mantis cases pending after more than 60  days is based on information collected at 7 posts. We were not able to  determine the total number of Visas Mantis cases sent in fiscal year  2003 from these posts. In addition, at the time of our review State was  not able to provide data on the total number of Visas Mantis cases sent  from all posts in fiscal year 2003.  7.  We modified the text on page 13 of the report to reflect the number of  cases pending from Chennai, India. The information was provided by  consular officials at post. For our analysis of Visas Mantis processing  time frames, we used the date of application, not the date the Visas  Mantis request was submitted, as stated in footnote 28.
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Federal Bureau of  Investigation’s letter dated February 5, 2004.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1.  Because State’s new system is not currently operational, we did not  assess its technology improvements and therefore could not assess  whether the information in State’s new database is eliminating delays  attributable to format errors. We discuss that FBI is working together  with State to achieve interoperability between their systems on page  23 of the report.  2.  We modified the draft to reflect that State Department data are not  available on how long it takes for a science student or scholar to  obtain a visa.  3.  We discuss FBI’s improvements to its visa screening process, including  cooperation with State on pages 21-23.   4.  We modified the text in the footnote on page 14 to reflect that the FBI  has no way to ensure that its Visas Mantis security check results are  forwarded to the posts.  5.  We added a footnote on page 15 to reference the distribution of FBI’s  processing times.
section_title: Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the above named individuals, Jeanette Espinola, Heather  Barker, Janey Cohen, and Andrea Miller made key contributions to this  report. Martin de Alteriis, Carl Barden, Laverne Tharpes, and Mary  Moutsos provided technical assistance.