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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. This appendix provides information on the distribution of processing time for our sample of Visas Mantis cases. The following are GAO’s comments on the State Department’s letter dated February 11, 2004. 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. The following are GAO’s comments on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s letter dated February 5, 2004. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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.