Each year, State issues A-3 and G-5 visas to individuals whose employers are foreign diplomats on official purposes in the United States. Most of these individuals are hired to work for foreign diplomats in the District of Columbia, Maryland, New York, or Virginia. For fiscal years 2000 through 2007, 207 U.S. embassies and consular posts overseas issued 10,386 A-3 visas and 7,522 G-5 visas. The number of A-3 visas decreased during this period by about 56 percent—from 1,780 in fiscal year 2000 to 999 in fiscal year 2007—and the number of G-5 visas issued increased by 21 percent— from 877 in fiscal year 2000 to 1,057 in fiscal year 2007 (see fig. 1). Figure 2 shows the 10 posts that issued the most A-3 and G-5 visas, combined, for fiscal years 2000 through 2007. These 10 posts issued 40 percent of the total number of A-3 and G-5 visas issued during this period. Manila issued the most A-3 and G-5 visas, accounting for almost 10 percent of the total number of these visas issued overseas during this period. U.S. laws provide certain protections for household workers, including individuals brought to the United States on A-3 or G-5 visas, and State, Justice, Homeland Security, and Labor work to respond to allegations of abuse, exploitation, or trafficking of household workers by foreign diplomats. (App. II lists the relevant offices within these departments and their respective responsibilities.) The U.S. government considers involuntary servitude of household workers, as defined under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, to be a severe form of trafficking in persons and a serious criminal offense. Specifically, the act defines severe forms of trafficking in persons, in part, as the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or maintaining of a person for labor or services through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery. Victims of severe forms of trafficking are offered certain accommodations under the act. Household workers also are subject to U.S. laws and covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is the law governing minimum wages and overtime pay. Homeland Security can provide special accommodations to individuals who show that their employers have abused, exploited, or trafficked them, allowing the workers to legally remain in the United States. These accommodations are continued presence—which permits an alien to be present legally in the United States and to seek work during the investigation—and T nonimmigrant status—which permits a visa holder to remain in the United States for up to 4 years, file for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence, and apply for benefits from the U.S. government such as food stamps and medical assistance. If they leave their employment situation without either of these accommodations, A-3 and G-5 visa holders lose their legal immigration status and could be deported. Under international and domestic law, the U.S. government, including its law enforcement authorities, extends privileges and immunities to certain foreign diplomats. Employers of A-3 and G-5 visa holders may be entitled to some degree of immunity (full or partial) or may have no immunity at all. An employer with full diplomatic immunity is generally immune from civil or criminal jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Certain employers with partial or “official acts” immunity, such as most individuals employed by international organizations, are immune from civil or criminal jurisdiction of U.S. courts for conduct performed under their official duties or functions. State and the United Nations publish lists of current foreign diplomats who hold diplomatic rank on their Web sites. Appendix III identifies the respective privileges and immunities to which various categories of foreign diplomats are entitled. We identified 42 individual A-3 and G-5 visa holders who have alleged abuse by foreign diplomats with some level of immunity in the United States from 2000 through June 2008. However, the total number of alleged incidents is likely to be higher for four reasons: household workers’ fear of contacting law enforcement authorities, NGOs’ protection of victim confidentiality, limited information on some allegations handled by the U.S. government, and federal departments’ difficulties in tracking household worker abuse allegations and investigations involving foreign diplomats. We identified 42 distinct A-3 or G-5 visa holders who, since 2000, have alleged that foreign diplomats with some level of immunity abused them. We confirmed that 17 of the incidents alleged by these A-3 or G-5 visa holders were handled by federal agencies. These 17 incidents can be categorized as follows: 10 alleged incidents of human trafficking, which resulted in eight human one investigation of alleged visa fraud; one investigation of an alleged wage and hour violation; and five alleged incidents identified by State, some of which may have resulted in investigations, including one human trafficking allegation; two allegations of physical or verbal abuse; and two alleged wage and hour violations. Most of the human trafficking investigations remain open. However, in one of the human trafficking investigations, Justice determined that, absent immunity, it would indict the foreign diplomat’s wife. State requested that the diplomat’s home government waive immunity, which would allow Justice to indict her. However, the diplomat’s home government declined to waive immunity; thus, Justice could not indict. The diplomat and his wife subsequently left the United States, and Justice has since closed this case. We identified the remaining 25 distinct alleged incidents through legal sources, such as Westlaw, and interviews with NGOs who provided services to the alleged victims, such as assistance in applying for T visas and filing lawsuits against their employers. According to NGOs, 4 of these 25 alleged victims applied for and received T visas. In addition, we determined that civil suits were filed in 9 of these 25 alleged incidents. In most of these lawsuits, household workers sought, in part, to recoup unpaid wages. According to NGOs, the courts dismissed three of the nine lawsuits on the basis that the foreign diplomats had immunity. Of the remaining six lawsuits, NGOs indicated that five were settled out of court, and one resulted in a default judgment because the defendants failed to respond. Although we could not confirm that any of these 25 alleged incidents were investigated or handled by the U.S. government, NGOs told us that they reported 12 of them to federal agencies. They did not report the other 13 alleged incidents. The total number of alleged incidents of household employee abuse by foreign diplomats with some level of immunity is likely to exceed the total we have identified for four reasons. First, as we have previously reported, trafficking victims are a hidden population because trafficking is a clandestine activity. Trafficking victims often are in a precarious position and may be unwilling or unable to report to, or seek help from, relevant authorities. Moreover, the Department of Health and Human Services reported that victims live daily with inhumane treatment, physical and mental abuse, and threats to themselves or their families back home. Victims of human trafficking may fear or distrust the government and police because they are afraid of being deported or because they come from countries where law enforcement is corrupt and feared. In such circumstances, reporting to the police or seeking help elsewhere requires courage and knowledge of local conditions, which the victims might not have. In addition, some victims may not be permitted to leave their employers’ residences, which makes it much more difficult to report their abuse to authorities. Second, NGOs have provided services to alleged victims who did not want to be identified or who did not want to identify their employers. NGOs we contacted told us that, since 2000, they have received allegations from 66 A-3 or G-5 visa holders stating that they were abused by their employers. However, in 31 of these alleged incidents, the worker and the diplomat involved were not identified either because the worker was too afraid to reveal his or her identity or because the organization agreed to protect the client’s confidentiality. Third, because of federal agencies’ need to protect sensitive information, we received limited data on some alleged incidents handled by the U.S. government, and thus did not include those incidents in our total count. In most instances, federal agencies did not reveal the names or countries of origin of the worker and foreign diplomat involved in alleged incidents they had investigated or otherwise handled. It is law enforcement policy not to disclose details of ongoing criminal investigations. Without this information, however, we could not fully reflect federal agencies’ data in our overall count of alleged incidents without potentially double counting ones that had already been reported to us by NGOs. For example, although Justice told us of 19 human trafficking investigations involving foreign diplomats with immunity, we could only confirm that 8 of them were included in our count of 42 distinct alleged incidents. Justice officials also told us that there are likely multiple victims in some of the 19 trafficking investigations they reported to us. Furthermore, while Homeland Security identified nine A-3 and G-5 visa holders who received T visas from Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Services, we did not learn the names of their employers, and therefore could not confirm if they held immunity. Fourth, federal officials said they could not determine definitively the total number of alleged incidents they had handled and could only estimate that number by reviewing specific case files and consulting with knowledgeable staff. Officials had difficulty identifying all alleged incidents or investigations in their records or databases for several reasons as explained below: Justice, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Diplomatic Security officials could not identify all investigations because their databases are not designed or meant to facilitate searches based on characteristics of the alleged perpetrators, such as whether they are foreign diplomats. Justice officials told us that the ongoing investigations they identified, primarily by canvassing knowledgeable staff, only went back as far as May 2005. In addition, Immigration and Customs Enforcement could not identify investigations before 2003, because it had difficulties capturing trafficking- in-persons data prior to its creation as part of Homeland Security in that year.