The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established DHS and gave the agency responsibility for visa policy. Specifically, the act granted DHS the authority to issue regulations on, administer, and enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act and other immigration and nationality laws relating to the functions of U.S. consular officers in connection with the granting and denial of visas. Section 428 of the act also authorized DHS to immediately assign personnel to Saudi Arabia to review all visa applications prior to final adjudication, and authorized DHS to assign officers to other locations overseas to review visa applications. Section 428 designated the following functions for DHS officers assigned overseas: 1. provide expert advice and training to consular officers regarding specific security threats relating to the adjudication of individual visa applications or classes of applications, 2. review visa applications either on the initiative of the employee of the department or at the request of a consular officer, or other persons charged with adjudicating such applications, and 3. conduct investigations with respect to consular matters under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Homeland Security. DHS designated ICE to handle the operational and policy-making responsibilities outlined in section 428 in January 2004. Subsequently, ICE established the Office of International Affairs and gave it responsibility for overseeing the Visa Security Program. Figure 1 shows the organization of the Visa Security Program within DHS. Since the establishment of the Visa Security Program, ICE and State have issued four primary forms of guidance governing VSP operations overseas: (1) a 2003 memorandum of understanding (MOU) concerning implementation of the Homeland Security Act; (2) a 2004 MOU on administrative aspects of assigning personnel overseas; (3) a 2008 cable directing State Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) officers, VSP agents, and the senior consular officer at each post to develop standard operating procedures; and (4) a 2011 MOU delineating the roles and responsibilities of VSP agents, consular officers, and diplomatic security officers in daily operations of VSP at posts overseas. 2003 MOU. In 2003, DHS and State issued a memorandum of understanding to govern the implementation of section 428. In accordance with the legislation, the memorandum outlined the following responsibilities of DHS officers assigned to posts overseas to perform visa duties: Advising and training consular officers. DHS employees are to provide expert advice to consular officers regarding specific security threats relating to visa adjudication and provide training to consular officers on terrorist threats and detecting applicant fraud. Reviewing visa applications. DHS employees have the authority to review visa applications on their own initiative or at the request of consular officers, and provide input on or recommend security advisory opinion requests. Conducting investigations. DHS employees are authorized to conduct investigations on consular matters under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, as well as conduct and support investigations under other DHS authorities. 2004 MOU. In 2004, ICE and State signed a MOU on administrative aspects of assigning personnel overseas. Among other things, this MOU described administrative support, security, facilities, security awareness training, and information systems for VSP personnel. 2008 cable. In 2008, State issued a cable in which ICE and State directed VSP posts to develop standard operating procedures. The cable stated that these standard operating procedures should include, but not be limited to, clearance procedures for cables and other correspondence; dispute resolution practices; specific coordination procedures among the fraud prevention unit, VSP agents, and the regional security officer; procedures for determining case selection; specific hours of operation and other coordination issues; stating how electronic reviews will be conducted and documented; stating how physical reviews will be conducted and documented; coordination of procedures for handling expedited or exceptional visa procedures for sharing and documenting applicant information constituting grounds for ineligibility; and procedures for VSP applicant interviews and re-interviews. 2011 MOU. On January 11, 2011, ICE and State issued a MOU that explains the roles, responsibilities, and collaboration of VSP agents, consular officers, and diplomatic security officers in daily operations of VSP at posts overseas. The MOU outlines the following, among other things: general collaboration between ICE and State for VSP operations; roles and responsibilities of VSP agents and consular officers and routine interaction between the officers and agents; development of formal, targeted training and briefings by VSP agents for consular officers and other U.S. government officials at post; clarification of the dispute resolution process; and collaboration between diplomatic security officers and VSP agents on visa and passport fraud investigations. The review of visa applications by VSP agents is incorporated into the visa process at overseas posts where the VSP is located. After consular officers interview an applicant and review the relevant supporting documentation, they make a preliminary determination about whether to issue or refuse the visa or refer the case to Washington for additional security clearances. The VSP agents screen the applicant information against DHS’s Treasury Enforcement and Communications System (TECS) database to identify applicants that potentially match records of individuals who are known threats to the United States. The VSP age nts then perform a vetting process on a smaller number of applications, base upon a threat-based targeting plan. During vetting, the VSP agents perf checks against additional law enforcement and other databases, a review the applications and supporting documentation for evidence o fraud or misrepresentation, indicators of potential national security risks, criminal activity, and potential illegal immigration risks. During the review, the VSP agents may also consult consular officers and other la enforcement officials as needed. On the basis of these reviews, the VSP agents will either agree with the consular officer’s original decision or recommend refusal of the visa. The consular officer decides to issue or deny the visa. a case, a dispute resolution process is started to render a final determinatio If the consular section chief and the VSP agents disagre n of the application. Several other agencies stationed overseas have roles in the visa process. For example, State regional security officers assist the consular section by investigating passport and visa fraud detected through the consular officers’ reviews of visa applications and supporting documents. In addition, officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation overseas can assist consular officers when questions about an applicant’s potential criminal history arise during adjudication. DHS’s Bureaus of Citizenship and Immigration Services and Customs and Border Protection have responsibility for some immigration and border security programs overseas. For example, consular officers may seek advice from these officials on issues such as DHS procedures at U.S. ports of entry. Prior to adjudication, every visa application undergoes biometric and biographic clearances against several databases, including Facial Recognition, Consular Lookout and Support System, and Terrorist Screening databases. ICE’s 5-year plan for expanding the VSP, which ICE released in consultation with State in 2007, states that global visa risk is substantial and that the VSP must be expanded in order to mitigate threats identified through the visa process and to address visa risk. The plan also includes the following principles to guide the program’s expansion: concentrate expansion on risk by deploying personnel sooner to the develop a global capacity by expanding to select high-risk posts in diverse cover the highest-risk visa activity while incorporating dynamic conditions such as funding, personnel, and logistical issues such as the availability of space. The 5-year plan also includes the following site selection methodology to inform the expansion process: Initial quantitative risk analysis. ICE and State developed a list of 216 visa-issuing locations that are ranked according to risk. The underlying analysis incorporates information on terrorist activity, DHS enforcement and removals, host government circumstances, corruption, visa activity, and several other factors. Interagency and interdepartmental consultation. Throughout the site selection process, ICE coordinates with State, law enforcement and intelligence communities, and other components of DHS. This coordination helps to establish mutual understanding among interested parties and to inform and refine the decision-making process. Site assessments. ICE selects a smaller number of locations for on-site assessments to further improve communication and gather information about local conditions at post. Final evaluation and selection. Using all of the information gathered, ICE makes a final evaluation and selection for new VSP unit locations. Figure 2 shows a timeline for the establishment of the VSP and the expansion of the program. As of December 2010, ICE had established VSP units at 19 posts in 15 countries. For fiscal years 2007 through 2010, ICE reported that approximately $94 million in appropriated funds was allotted for the Visa Security Program. Of these amounts, in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, Congress specified that $6.8 million and $7.3 million, respectively, would remain available for 1 additional year. In fiscal year 2010, the Visa Security Program received $30.7 million in appropriated funds, and the agency requested $30.7 million in the fiscal year 2011 budget request. ICE does not maintain comprehensive performance data to accurately evaluate progress toward all VSP mission objectives. In 2007, ICE outlined three primary objectives of the Visa Security Program in its 5-year expansion plan and identified and established performance measures intended to assess performance toward the stated objectives. However, the initial VSP tracking system did not gather data on all the performance measures and mission objectives identified in the VSP expansion plan. Although ICE upgraded the VSP tracking system in April 2010 to collect additional performance data, the system still does not collect data on all the performance measures, hampering ICE’s efforts to comprehensively evaluate the performance of the VSP. While ICE can provide some examples demonstrating the success of VSP operations, ICE has not produced reports identifying the progress made toward achieving VSP objectives. In addition, data collected by ICE on VSP activities prior to 2010 were limited by inconsistencies. From 2003 to 2010, ICE did not maintain comprehensive data on its identified performance measures to fully assess progress toward VSP objectives. As we reported in 2005, ICE did not maintain data on VSP activities in order to assess the program’s performance since its establishment in 2003.