This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-15-3 
entitled 'Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed to Fully Implement 
the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act' which was released 
on December 10, 2014. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

December 2014: 

Immigration Benefits: 

Improvements Needed to Fully Implement the International Marriage 
Broker Regulation Act: 

GAO-15-3: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-15-3, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Enacted in January 2006, IMBRA was passed by Congress to address 
reports of domestic violence and abuse of foreign beneficiaries 
married or engaged to U.S. citizens who have petitioned for them to 
enter the United States on a K visa. As amended, IMBRA requires that 
the federal government collect and provide to beneficiaries 
information about petitioners' prior K visa petitions and criminal 
histories. USCIS is responsible for collecting this information and 
adjudicating petitions, State is responsible for disclosing 
information to beneficiaries, and DOJ is authorized to enforce IMBRA. 
The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 mandates that 
GAO report on IMBRA implementation. 

This report examines the extent to which (1) DHS, State, and DOJ have 
implemented processes to ensure compliance with IMBRA, and (2) DHS 
collects and maintains reliable data to manage the K visa process. GAO 
analyzed IMBRA, USCIS, and State policies, procedures, and guidance, 
and K visa petition data from March 2012 through March 2014. GAO also 
interviewed USCIS, State, and DOJ officials regarding their agencies' 
implementation of IMBRA. 

What GAO Found: 

The Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Justice (DOJ), and State 
(State) have processes to help ensure compliance with the 
International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA), as 
amended, but State could better document information on IMBRA 
disclosures. Specifically, consistent with IMBRA, DHS's U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) collects information from 
petitioners-—U.S. citizens who apply to bring noncitizen fiancé(e)s, 
spouses, and their children (beneficiaries) into the country-—through 
I-129F petitions for K visas. DOJ is responsible for pursuing federal 
civil and criminal penalties for IMBRA violations. State has guidance 
on processes for providing IMBRA information to beneficiaries 
(referred to as disclosures), such as a pamphlet outlining for 
beneficiaries the K visa process and legal rights and resources 
available to immigrant crime victims. Specifically, State's guidance 
requires consular officers to document within case notes in State's 
database whether they made all of the IMBRA-required disclosures to 
the beneficiary during the visa interview. However, GAO's review of a 
sample of K visa applications showed that in about 52 percent of 
interview case notes (76 of 147), consular officers did not document 
that they had provided beneficiaries the IMBRA pamphlet as required by 
State's guidance. In October 2014, State drafted a guidance cable for 
consular officers on IMBRA implementation, including a reminder to 
follow guidance regarding IMBRA documentation. State's consular 
officer training courses, however, do not cover IMBRA-related 
documentation procedures outlined in its guidance. Incorporating IMBRA-
related documentation requirements into training courses could help 
State better ensure that consular officers are aware of the 
requirements for documenting IMBRA disclosures. 

Consistent with IMBRA, USCIS is to collect and maintain data on, among 
other things, eight elements in the K visa process for GAO reporting 
purposes; however, six of the eight elements are either not reliable 
or are not collected or maintained in a reportable (i.e., electronic) 
format. Thus, these elements were not readily available for GAO's 
review. For example, USCIS is to collect and maintain data on I-129F 
petitions where the petitioner had one or more criminal convictions. 
This information is maintained in hard copy in the petition file and 
thus was not readily available for GAO's review. USCIS has begun 
planning to electronically capture I-129F petition data under the agency
's overarching transformation to an electronic immigration benefits 
system. However, this transformation has faced significant delays, and 
as of September 2014, the electronic I-129F petition design 
requirements have not been finalized. Consistent with federal internal 
control standards, ensuring that all of the IMBRA-related requirements 
will be captured with the release of the I-129F electronic petition 
would better position USCIS to collect and maintain complete data on 
petitioners for reporting purposes and management oversight. Further, 
USCIS officers have not consistently adjudicated I-129F petitions or 
recorded complete and accurate data. Specifically, GAO found that USCIS'
s data are not reliable for determining the number of I-129F petitions 
filed by persons who have previously filed I-129F petitions for a 
fiancé(e) or spouse or that required IMBRA waivers because of, among 
other things, officer error in recording data on petitions. Additional 
training for officers could help USCIS better ensure its officers are 
aware of IMBRA requirements to assist them in maintaining petitions 
data consistent with IMBRA. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that State provide training to consular officers on 
IMBRA documentation requirements. GAO also recommends, among other 
things, that USCIS ensure that all IMBRA-related data will be captured 
with the planned electronic release of the I-129F petition and that 
its officers receive additional training on IMBRA requirements. State 
and DHS concurred with our recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-3]. For more 
information, contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 or 
gamblerr@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

DHS, State, and DOJ Have Processes to Ensure IMBRA Compliance, but DHS 
and State Could Better Implement Disclosure Requirements: 

USCIS Does Not Collect and Maintain All Data in a Manner Consistent 
with IMBRA, and Additional Training Could Help to Ensure IMBRA Data 
Are Accurate and Reliable: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: I-129F Petition for Alien Fiancé(e), as of December 10, 
2014: 

Appendix II: International Marriage Broker Regulation Act Information 
Pamphlet for K-Visa Applicants: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

Table 1: Status of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
Data Collection and Maintenance Consistent with the International 
Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA), as Amended: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Number of I-129F Petitions Adjudicated by U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS), Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013: 

Figure 2: Number of K Visa Applications Adjudicated by the Department 
of State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013: 

Figure 3: I-129F Petition and K Visa Processes: 

Figure 4: International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 K-1 
Waiver Requirements: 

Abbreviations: 

CLAIMS 3: Computer Linked Adjudication Information Management System 3: 

CBP: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

ELIS: Electronic Immigration System: 

FAM: Foreign Affairs Manual: 

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

ICE: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

IMB: international marriage broker: 

IMBRA: International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005: 

INA: Immigration and Nationality Act: 

IVO: Immigrant Visas Overseas: 

NCIC: National Crime Information Center: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

SOP: standard operating procedures: 

USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

December 10, 2014: 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Chuck Grassley: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
House of Representatives: 

Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), U.S. citizens 
(petitioners) may petition for noncitizen fiancé(e)s, spouses, and 
minor children (beneficiaries) to apply for admission into the United 
States under a K visa.[Footnote 1] As amended, the International 
Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA) seeks to address issues 
of domestic violence and abuse against beneficiaries by petitioners, 
including those who meet their foreign-born fiancé(e)s through an 
international marriage broker (IMB).[Footnote 2] Among other things, 
IMBRA contains requirements intended to ensure that a beneficiary is 
informed if his or her petitioner has a criminal history or has filed 
multiple prior petitions for fiancé(e)s or spouses (known as I-129F 
petitions) to travel to the United States.[Footnote 3] U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), within the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for adjudicating petitions for 
K visas. Within USCIS, the Service Center Operations Branch is 
responsible for overseeing all activities performed at its four 
service centers, which handle the filing, data entry, and adjudication 
of applications for certain immigration services and benefits. 
Consequently, USCIS is responsible for collecting, among other 
information, the petitioners' criminal and filing histories and, in 
accordance with IMBRA, forwarding this information to the Department 
of State (State) for disclosure to the beneficiary. State's consular 
officers at U.S. embassies and consulates overseas adjudicate K visa 
applications and are to disclose information on petitioners' criminal 
background, including any convictions and protection orders, and any 
prior I-129F filings to the beneficiary before adjudicating the K visa 
application (referred to as disclosures).[Footnote 4] IMBRA also 
imposes disclosure and other requirements on IMBs to help inform and 
provide greater assurance for the safety of noncitizen fiancé(e)s who 
meet their petitioners through an IMB.[Footnote 5] IMBRA further 
identifies the Department of Justice (DOJ) as responsible for seeking 
civil and criminal penalties for violations of its provisions, 
including, for example, instances where an IMB provides personal 
contact information of a foreign client (generally, the beneficiary) 
to someone other than the potential U.S. client (generally, the 
petitioner).[Footnote 6] 

In 2008, we reported on the status of agencies' implementation of 
IMBRA.[Footnote 7] IMBRA, as amended by the Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act of 2013, mandates that we review and report on the 
continuing impact of the implementation of IMBRA.[Footnote 8] In 
support of our reviews, IMBRA has required that DHS, State, and DOJ 
collect and maintain the data necessary for GAO to conduct the 
required studies.[Footnote 9] This report addresses the extent to 
which (1) DHS, State, and DOJ have implemented processes to ensure 
compliance with IMBRA requirements, and (2) DHS collects and maintains 
reliable data to manage the K visa process. 

To determine the extent to which DHS, State, and DOJ have implemented 
processes to ensure compliance with IMBRA, we reviewed IMBRA, relevant 
INA provisions, and the I-129F petition and its instructions. We 
analyzed USCIS's standard operating procedures (SOP) for the 
adjudication of I-129F petitions and for conducting background checks 
on petitioners. We also reviewed USCIS's plans and efforts to revise 
the I-129F petition and compared these plans and efforts against 
project management standards.[Footnote 10] We reviewed State's 
guidance for adjudicating K visa applications, including relevant 
sections of the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), relevant cables to 
consular officers, and the IMBRA pamphlet distributed to K visa 
applicants.[Footnote 11] We reviewed DOJ's July 2013 report to 
Congress describing steps that DOJ, DHS, and State can take to develop 
policies and procedures for identifying, investigating, and 
prosecuting IMBRA violations.[Footnote 12] We interviewed DHS, State, 
and DOJ headquarters officials responsible for implementing IMBRA 
provisions at each agency. In addition, we interviewed USCIS officers 
who adjudicate I-129F petitions, supervisors, and fraud detection 
officials at four USCIS service centers (California, Nebraska, Texas, 
and Vermont) where the majority of I-129F petitions since fiscal year 
2013 have been adjudicated.[Footnote 13] We visited the Vermont and 
California Service Centers. The information collected from interviews 
with USCIS officers at these service centers cannot be projected to 
all USCIS officers. However, the site visits and interviews provided 
us with the perspectives of USCIS officers and supervisors responsible 
for adjudicating I-129F petitions in these locations. 

In addition, we reviewed consular officers' interview notes in State's 
Immigrant Visas Overseas (IVO) database for K visa applications 
associated with 227 I-129F petitions submitted to USCIS from March 
2012 through March 2014, for which USCIS's data indicated petitioners 
had multiple prior I-129F petitions (referred to as multiple filers) 
and criminal histories.[Footnote 14] We selected this time frame 
because USCIS did not collect automated data on multiple filers with 
criminal histories prior to March 2012. We analyzed the interview 
notes against IMBRA and FAM requirements, and compared the guidance 
and training provided to consular officers on IMBRA implementation 
with standards in Federal Standards for Internal Controls in the 
Federal Government and GAO's guide for assessing strategic training 
and development efforts.[Footnote 15] We found State's consular notes 
data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of determining 
whether, in accordance with IMBRA, consular officers disclosed this 
information to beneficiaries based on our review of FAM guidance 
regarding what consular officers should denote in IVO and interviews 
with consular affairs officials. Later in this report, we discuss 
limitations in USCIS's data on multiple filers, but we determined that 
USCIS data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of identifying 
I-129F petitions where State was required to make disclosures to K 
visa applicants based on our review of USCIS's data, State guidance 
for processing visa applications, and State officials' descriptions of 
quality controls and assurance checks. In addition, we interviewed 
consular officers by telephone in five overseas consular posts because 
they had adjudicated the highest number of K-1 visa applications in 
fiscal year 2013 about processes for implementing IMBRA 
requirements.[Footnote 16] Although the information we obtained from 
these interviews cannot be generalized to K-1 visa adjudication 
processes at all consular posts, our interviews provided useful 
information on the K-1 visa process and officers' perspectives on 
IMBRA requirements. 

To determine the extent to which DHS has collected and maintained 
reliable data to manage the K visa process, we analyzed summary data 
and transaction-level data from USCIS's Computer Linked Adjudication 
Information Management System 3 (CLAIMS 3) database.[Footnote 17] 
Specifically, we analyzed CLAIMS 3 summary data on the number of I-
129F petitions filed, approved, and denied from fiscal year 2008 
through March 31, 2014,[Footnote 18] and on the number of multiple 
filers and the number of petitions that required a waiver under IMBRA 
from March 2012 through March 2014.[Footnote 19] We also analyzed 
CLAIMS 3 transaction-level data from March 2012 through March 2014 on 
more than 4,200 I-129F petitions for which the data indicated the 
petitioners were multiple filers. We also analyzed 227 I-129F 
petitions approved during this same time period, for which the data 
indicated the petitioner was a multiple filer with a record of violent 
criminal offenses, and as such, required a waiver in order to have his 
or her petition approved. We compared the data maintained within 
CLAIMS 3 with IMBRA's information collection requirements and with 
standards in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government 
for ensuring that agency transactions are accurate and clearly 
documented and GAO's best practices for assessing strategic training 
and development efforts.[Footnote 20] We assessed the reliability of 
these data by (1) reviewing existing documentation on the controls in 
CLAIMS 3 and the policies for ensuring data reliability; (2) 
interviewing USCIS Service Center Operations and CLAIMS 3 officials 
about the data's sources, the system's controls, and any quality 
assurance steps performed after data are entered into the system; and, 
(3) reviewing the data for missing data, outliers, or obvious errors. 
We determined that numbers of I-129F petitions submitted, approved, 
and denied during this time period were sufficiently reliable for our 
reporting purposes. We discuss the limitations of the other IMBRA-
required data later in this report. 

In addition to reviewing DHS data, we compared policies, procedures, 
and practices for USCIS adjudication of I-129F petitions with 
standards in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
which require that agencies ensure staff have the needed skills to 
carry out their duties.[Footnote 21] We also reviewed USCIS 
documentation regarding the status of USCIS's plans to transition the 
hard copy I-129F petition into an electronic form as part of USCIS's 
multiyear Transformation Program, and reviewed our prior reports on 
the Transformation Program, as well as relevant reports from the DHS 
Office of Inspector General.[Footnote 22] We spoke with relevant USCIS 
Transformation Program officials and reviewed initial documentation 
describing how the electronic I-129F petition will facilitate the 
collection and maintenance of IMBRA-required data. 

We conducted this performance audit from January 2014 to December 2014 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

I-129F Petition and K Visa Adjudication Processes: 

Within DHS, USCIS is responsible for adjudicating immigration benefit 
applications, including I-129Fs filed by U.S. citizens to bring a 
foreign national fiancé(e) to the United States through a K-1 visa. If 
the K-1 visa is issued, the INA provides that the petitioner and 
fiancé(e) must marry within 90 days of the fiancé(e)'s admission into 
the country, after which the K-1 visa expires.[Footnote 23] The I-129F 
petition can also be used to bring a noncitizen spouse to the United 
States under a K-3 visa while awaiting the approval of an immigrant 
petition and availability of an immigrant visa.[Footnote 24] 
Noncitizen fiancé(e)s, upon marriage to the petitioner, and noncitizen 
spouses who are admitted to the United States must then apply to 
adjust their status to lawful permanent resident by filing with USCIS 
a Form I-485, called an Application to Register Permanent Residence or 
Adjust Status.[Footnote 25] 

In fiscal year 2013, USCIS approved 30,400 I-129F petitions and State 
issued 30,290 K visas.[Footnote 26] The number of I-129F petitions 
submitted, in general, has declined since fiscal year 2008, with the 
exception of fiscal year 2011, during which there was a slight 
increase over the previous fiscal year. USCIS approved the majority of 
I-129F petitions submitted from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 
2013 (see figure 1). 

Figure 1: Number of I-129F Petitions Adjudicated by U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS), Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Submitted: 55,456; 
Approved: 43,437; 
Denied: 4,792. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Submitted: 51,181; 
Approved: 46,134; 
Denied: 8,415. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Submitted: 49,179; 
Approved: 37,271; 
Denied: 4,900. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Submitted: 50,220; 
Approved: 37,312; 
Denied: 3,643. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Submitted: 49,028; 
Approved: 30,821; 
Denied: 3,642. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Submitted: 48,345; 
Approved: 30,400; 
Denied: 6,363. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
data. GAO-15-3. 

Note: The number of I-129F petitions submitted for a particular year 
does not equal the number of I-129F petitions approved or denied in 
that year because, for example, the adjudication process can span 
different years. 

[End of figure] 

The number of K visa applications submitted to State has generally 
declined since fiscal year 2008. State approved the majority of K visa 
applications submitted from fiscal years 2008 through 2013 (see figure 
2). 

Figure 2: Number of K Visa Applications Adjudicated by the Department 
of State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Applications submitted: 47,222; 
Visas Issued: 45,011; 
Visas Refused: 2,211. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Applications submitted: 43,308; 
Visas Issued: 40,645; 
Visas Refused: 2,663. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Applications submitted: 42,156; 
Visas Issued: 40,306; 
Visas Refused: 1,850. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Applications submitted: 29,952; 
Visas Issued: 29,016; 
Visas Refused: 936. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Applications submitted: 33,096; 
Visas Issued: 32,153; 
Visas Refused: 943. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Applications submitted: 30,809; 
Visas Issued: 30,290; 
Visas Refused: 519. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data. GAO-15-3. 

Note: Numbers shown represent the total number of K visa applications--
K-1 (fiancé[e]), K-2 (minor children of K-1 fiancé[e]s), K-3 
(spouses), and K-4 (minor children of K-3 spouses)--submitted, issued, 
and refused from fiscal years 2008 through 2013. The number of K visa 
applications submitted for a particular fiscal year does not equal the 
number of K visas issued or refused in that fiscal year because, for 
example, the visa adjudication process can span different years. 

[End of figure] 

The overarching purpose of the I-129F petition is to enable USCIS to 
verify the relationship between the U.S. petitioner and the potential 
beneficiary who wishes to travel to the United States.[Footnote 27] 
Figure 3 shows the key steps in the I-129F petition and K visa 
processes. 

Figure 3: I-129F Petition and K Visa Processes: 

[Refer to PDF for image: process illustration] 

U.S. citizen files I-129F petition with U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS); 
Criminal background check; 
Petition goes to USCIS adjudicator for review. 

Adjudication process: 

1. Eligibility requirements: 
* Met in person in last 2 years (and no waiver); 
* Bona fide intention to marry; 
* Able and willing to marry; 
Yes: continue; 
No: Denial notice sent to petitioner. 

2. Determine if any International Marriage Broker Regulation Act 
(IMBRA) waivers are required: 
Yes: continue; 
No: 
Approved petition sent to Department of State's National Visa Center; 
Consular post notifies beneficiary of receipt of petition, mails IMBRA 
disclosure packet; 
Consular officer conducts interview with beneficiary, makes any IMBRA 
disclosures; 
If approved by consular officer, visa issued and beneficiary able to 
travel to the United States. 

3. Request evidence, if necessary. Note waiver requirement in Computer 
Linked Application Information Management System 3 (CLAIMS 3). 

4. Petitioner provides sufficient evidence, which supports the 
approval of a waiver: 
Yes: Approved petition sent to Department of State's National Visa 
Center; 
Consular post notifies beneficiary of receipt of petition, mails IMBRA 
disclosure packet; 
Consular officer conducts interview with beneficiary, makes any IMBRA 
disclosures; 
If approved by consular officer, visa issued and beneficiary able to 
travel to the United States; 
No: Denial notice sent to petitioner. 

Source: GAO analysis of USCIS information. GAO-15-3. 

Note: USCIS may waive the requirement for the petitioner and 
beneficiary to have met in person during the previous 2 years, if the 
petitioner provides evidence that meeting in person would result in 
extreme hardship to the petitioner or would violate strict, long-
standing established customs of the beneficiary's culture or social 
practice. See 8 U.S.C. § 1184(d)(1). 

[End of figure] 

The I-129F petition instructs petitioners to disclose on the form, and 
provide documentation of, prior I-129F submissions (or filings), and 
convictions for any of the IMBRA-specified crimes.[Footnote 28] In 
addition, and in accordance with IMBRA, when USCIS adjudicates an I-
129F petition, it conducts a background check on the petitioner for 
any criminal history or protection orders, and searches USCIS records 
for any prior I-129F filings.[Footnote 29] IMBRA also authorizes the 
imposition of civil and criminal penalties against IMBs and 
petitioners as circumstances warrant. For example, IMBRA specifies 
that petitioners who fail to disclose or who make false or fraudulent 
disclosures to an IMB shall be fined, imprisoned for not more than 1 
year, or both.[Footnote 30] Criminal convictions alone, however, will 
not disqualify a petitioner from having his or her I-129F petition 
approved, except for certain crimes involving a minor.[Footnote 31] On 
the basis of this information, USCIS officers determine if a 
petitioner who has exceeded the IMBRA filing limits warrants one of 
three IMBRA-authorized waivers. Specifically, USCIS may grant a 
general waiver if the petitioner submits evidence in support of his or 
her request to the satisfaction of the reviewer, such as evidence 
regarding the death or incapacity of petitioner's previous fiancé(e) 
beneficiary. For petitioners with a criminal history, USCIS may grant 
a criminal waiver (referred to as the Extraordinary Circumstances 
Waiver on the I-129F petition) only in extraordinary circumstances, 
which may require the beneficiary to submit, for example, trial 
transcripts or other information reflecting the nature and 
circumstances of his or her violent offenses, ties to the community, 
or records demonstrating good conduct and exemplary service in the 
uniformed services in order to overcome a denial of his or her 
petition. The mandatory waiver is an exception to the criminal waiver 
and must be granted for a petitioner who meets criteria listed in the 
statute, for example, if the petitioner was battered or subjected to 
extreme cruelty and was acting in self-defense.[Footnote 32] Figure 4 
shows the requirements for each IMBRA waiver. 

Figure 4: International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 K-1 
Waiver Requirements: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Is the U.S. petitioner a multiple filer? 
Yes: continue; 
No: No waiver required. 

Does the U.S. petitioner have a record of violent criminal offenses? 
Yes: continue; 
No: General waiver required: for petitioners who previously filed two 
or more I-129F petitions, or had a I-129F petition approved within the 
last 2 years. 

Does the U.S. petitioner meet the criteria for mandatory waiver? 
Yes: Mandatory waiver required: where the petitioner was a victim of 
domestic violence who was acting in self-defense or was convicted of a 
crime connected to the abuse that did not result in serious bodily 
injury; 
No: Criminal waiver required: for multiple filers with a record of 
violent criminal offenses against a person or persons. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
information and the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act 
of 2005, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(d)(2). GAO-15-3. 

[End of figure] 

IMBRA Disclosure and Reporting Requirements: 

Both USCIS and State's Bureau of Consular Affairs play key roles in 
providing information about petitioners to beneficiaries. In 
accordance with IMBRA, once a USCIS officer approves an I-129F 
petition, USCIS must forward the approved I-129F petition and relevant 
information to State, which mails to the beneficiary these materials 
and the IMBRA pamphlet--an informational document that outlines the 
legal rights and resources for immigrant victims of domestic violence. 
[Footnote 33] According to State's FAM, consular officers must also 
discuss the pamphlet and petitioners' criminal history information 
during the K visa applicant interview to ensure that the beneficiary 
understands his or her legal rights and access to victim services in 
the United States and has available information about the petitioner. 
[Footnote 34] 

IMBRA also establishes disclosure and other requirements for IMBs to 
help inform and provide greater assurance for the safety of 
beneficiaries who meet their potential U.S. citizen petitioners 
through an IMB. For example, IMBRA requires that IMBs collect 
specified information, such as criminal arrest and conviction 
information, from petitioners for disclosure, and obtain written 
approval from beneficiaries before releasing beneficiaries' contact 
information to potential petitioners.[Footnote 35] DOJ is responsible 
for pursuing civil and criminal penalties under IMBRA and, pursuant to 
the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, was required 
to report to Congress on, among other things, the policies and 
procedures for consulting with DHS and State in investigating and 
prosecuting IMBRA violations by petitioners and IMBs.[Footnote 36] 

DHS, State, and DOJ Have Processes to Ensure IMBRA Compliance, but DHS 
and State Could Better Implement Disclosure Requirements: 

USCIS Has Processes to Collect Petitioner Information, but the I-129F 
Petition Has Errors: 

USCIS has implemented processes to collect information from 
petitioners; however, USCIS is in the process of revising the current 
version of the I-129F petition to address errors or limitations that 
may limit or otherwise affect the accuracy of petitioners' disclosure 
to USCIS of all information required by IMBRA. The I-129F petition, 
along with any supporting documentation submitted by the petitioner, 
is USCIS's primary source for information on petitioners' prior I-129F 
petition filings and criminal convictions--key information that the 
U.S. government is required under IMBRA to obtain and disclose to 
beneficiaries. In particular, USCIS uses the information disclosed 
through the I-129F petition to (1) inform its criminal background 
checks of petitioners, and (2) determine if petitioners have filed 
prior I-129F petitions and are requesting one of the three IMBRA 
waivers, as appropriate. 

Conducting background checks on petitioners. Pursuant to IMBRA, USCIS 
conducts criminal background checks on each petitioner using the 
information provided on the I-129F petition. Specifically, according 
to USCIS's standard operating procedures, USCIS officers are to 
conduct background checks using petitioners' names and dates of birth 
against the TECS database within 15 days of receiving I-129F 
petitions.[Footnote 37] During a background check, if a TECS query 
returns a "hit," USCIS officers are to forward this information to the 
background check unit located within each service center for further 
review. According to USCIS service center officials, the completeness 
of the criminal background information contained within TECS is 
dependent on the extent to which state and local law enforcement 
agencies enter complete information into the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation's (FBI) National Crime Information Center database 
(NCIC).[Footnote 38] USCIS is to subsequently provide this information 
to State, whose consular officers are to share this information with 
beneficiaries during the K visa interview. When sharing this 
information with the beneficiaries, consular officers must also inform 
them that the criminal background information is based on available 
records and may not be complete, something the IMBRA pamphlet also 
notes. 

Disclosures on I-129F petition and IMBRA waiver requirements. In 
accordance with IMBRA, petitioners are to disclose whether they have 
previously filed I-129F petitions, as shown in figure 4, and request a 
waiver should certain filing limits be exceeded. As implemented by 
USCIS, IMBRA's filing limits apply to petitioners who have either (1) 
previously filed an I-129F petition for two or more K-1 beneficiaries 
(fiancé[e]), or (2) previously had an I-129F petition approved for a 
fiancé(e) and less than 2 years has passed since the approved I-129F 
petition was filed.[Footnote 39] According to USCIS officials, these 
filing limits are intended to ensure that a petitioner is not a serial 
filer who brings unsuspecting noncitizen fiancé(e)s to the United 
States for nefarious reasons. Petitioners subject to a filing limit 
must then submit a waiver request and supporting documentation to 
USCIS, as appropriate, along with the I-129F petition. In requesting a 
criminal waiver, for example, the petitioner must submit a letter 
explaining why a waiver is appropriate and evidence that extraordinary 
circumstances exist in his or her case, such as police reports, court 
records, and records of good conduct. If the petitioner does not 
provide the supporting evidence with the initial I-129F petition, 
USCIS officers are to send a request for evidence to the petitioner. 
If, in the course of the background check or review of CLAIMS 3 data 
on prior filings, USCIS officers determine a petitioner's need for a 
waiver, and the petitioner had not otherwise requested a waiver, the 
officers are to request that the petitioner provide the aforementioned 
waiver request letter and supporting evidence before deciding whether 
to approve or deny the petition. USCIS may deny a waiver request if 
the petitioner fails to provide sufficient documentation in support of 
the waiver within 12 weeks, or if the documentation provided does not 
justify granting a waiver.[Footnote 40] USCIS officers may also deny 
an I-129F petition if they discover that a petitioner does not, for 
example, fully disclose an IMBRA-specified offense conviction or 
protective order information. 

According to USCIS's standard operating procedures, USCIS officers are 
to use the information obtained from the background check, CLAIMS 3 
data on prior filings, and the I-129F petition and supporting evidence 
to determine if petitioners have disclosed all of the information 
required by IMBRA. However, the I-129F petition contains errors and 
omissions that we, USCIS, and DOJ have identified and that may limit 
or affect the accuracy of information disclosed by a petitioner. 
Specifically, the I-129F petition inaccurately describes IMBRA's 
filing limits and does not fully address IMBRA's disclosure 
requirements. In particular, the language on the I-129F petition 
states that the filing limits apply to petitioners who have filed 
three or more I-129F petitions, or who have filed three or more I-129F 
petitions and the first I-129F petition was approved within the last 2 
years, whereas the instruction accompanying the I-129F petition aligns 
more closely with IMBRA and provides that a waiver is required if a 
prior I-129F petition had been approved in the past 2 years. USCIS 
Service Center Operations officials stated the I-129F petition does 
not accurately describe the filing limits and therefore there is a 
risk that petitioners are disclosing inaccurate information regarding 
their filing history on the I-129F petition, which may affect how 
USCIS evaluates whether a petitioner requires a waiver. In October 
2014, in response to our audit work, USCIS modified its website to 
inform petitioners that the petition is inaccurate and provide them 
with instructions that clarify the requirements. In addition, DOJ 
officials responsible for enforcing IMBRA stated that they have been 
working with USCIS on revisions to the I-129F petition to better 
ensure that IMBRA's disclosure requirements are met. For example, 
USCIS Service Center Operations officials noted that, in consultation 
with DOJ, they plan to include questions on the I-129F petition 
regarding whether petitioners have civil protective or restraining 
orders, and prior arrests or convictions related to prostitution. 

According to USCIS Service Center Operations officials, as of August 
2014, USCIS has been in the process of revising the current version of 
the I-129F petition. According to A Guide to the Project Management 
Body of Knowledge, which provides standards for project managers, 
specific goals and objectives should be conceptualized, defined, and 
documented in the planning process, along with the appropriate steps, 
time frames, and milestones needed to achieve those results.[Footnote 
41] USCIS Service Center Operations officials stated that there is no 
target time frame for completing revisions to the I-129F petition 
within USCIS before DHS and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
undertake their respective reviews, in part because of the interagency 
review process among DHS, State, and DOJ, which was ongoing for 
approximately 10 months as of August 2014.[Footnote 42] USCIS 
officials noted that until revisions to the I-129F petition are 
complete, petitioners can refer to the Form I-129F Instructions, which 
USCIS makes available as a separate document, or to the clarifying 
instructions added to its website in October 2014, and USCIS officers 
should follow the I-129F SOP, each of which more accurately describe 
IMBRA's filing limits and circumstances under which a waiver must be 
requested.[Footnote 43] However, USCIS officials acknowledged that 
petitioners may not use the instructions in completing the I-129F 
petition since they are contained in a separate document and are not 
referred to on the I-129F petition. Further, as we discuss later in 
this report, our review of CLAIMS 3 data indicates that USCIS officers 
have not consistently followed the I-129F SOP, which USCIS has 
modified multiple times since the summer of 2013 to address, among 
other things, inaccuracies in the language associated with the 
application of IMBRA waivers. 

USCIS has previously revised the I-129F petition. For example, in July 
2007, USCIS revised the I-129F petition to require that petitioners 
disclose criminal convictions, prior I-129F filings, and the use of 
IMBs.[Footnote 44] In June 2013, USCIS further revised the I-129F 
petition by adding, among other things, a section for USCIS officers 
to denote for State officials whether the I-129F petition contains 
prior filing or criminal history information that must be disclosed to 
the beneficiary. According to USCIS Service Center Operations 
officials, including the time for public comment and OMB's review of 
the proposed revisions, it took nearly 2 years to issue the revised I-
129F petition (issued in June 2013). USCIS officials noted that until 
the revisions to the I-129F petition are completed, the agency is at 
risk of not collecting complete information from petitioners. 
Establishing time frames for when USCIS will complete its review of 
the I-129F petition would help the agency better monitor progress 
toward finalizing revisions to the petition, which are intended to 
ensure that IMBRA's disclosure requirements are met. 

State Has Processes to Disclose IMBRA Information to Beneficiaries, 
but Could Better Document that These Disclosures Occurred: 

State has established processes to disclose and provide IMBRA 
information to beneficiaries, such as petitioners' criminal history 
information, prior I-129F filings, and the IMBRA pamphlet, in 
accordance with IMBRA and agency guidance to consular officers. 
However, State's consular officers have not consistently documented 
that beneficiaries, at the time of their in-person interviews, 
received all of the required information. Relevant guidance to 
consular officers, found in State's FAM, outlines procedures consular 
officers are to follow, including requirements for documenting that 
beneficiaries have received the required information.[Footnote 45] 
State officials indicated that, in accordance with IMBRA, 
beneficiaries are provided with IMBRA information and disclosures at 
two points in the K visa application process--(1) in the mailing of 
the K visa application package and (2) at the in-person visa 
interview, where disclosure is to be documented. 

Application package. State's FAM requires that upon receipt of the 
approved I-129F petition and other information from USCIS, consular 
officers provide IMBRA-related disclosures and the IMBRA pamphlet to 
beneficiaries by mail as part of an application package.[Footnote 46] 
In August 2008, we recommended that DHS and State develop a mechanism 
to ensure beneficiaries are notified of the number of previously filed 
I-129F petitions by the petitioner. In response, in October 2008, 
State revised its guidance to consular officers to require that the 
application package include the approved petition.[Footnote 47] 
According to consular officers at four of five consular posts we 
interviewed, their respective posts mailed the IMBRA disclosures, 
pamphlet, and approved petitions to beneficiaries in advance of the in-
person visa interview. Consular officials at one post we interviewed 
in June 2014 stated that they did not mail IMBRA-related disclosures, 
such as the I-129F petition containing criminal history information, 
to beneficiaries in advance of their interviews because of limitations 
in the post's support contract for mail services. Rather, this post 
provided the IMBRA-related disclosure information to beneficiaries 
only during the K visa interview. As a result of our audit work, 
State's Consular Affairs Bureau officials in Washington, D.C., 
provided guidance to this post to ensure that consular officers mail 
IMBRA-related disclosure information and the IMBRA pamphlet to all 
beneficiaries prior to visa interviews, in accordance with IMBRA and 
FAM requirements. Not all beneficiaries who are sent an application 
package schedule a K visa interview, according to Consular Affairs 
officials. Ultimately, consular officers said there are various 
reasons an applicant might not apply for a visa, and could not say to 
what degree the information provided in the mailings in advance of the 
interviews was a factor in this decision. 

Applicant interview. Consular officers are to provide the beneficiary 
with information about the petitioner's criminal history and prior I-
129F petition filings and the IMBRA pamphlet in the beneficiary's 
primary language during the K visa interview, in accordance with 
IMBRA, and allow time for beneficiaries to consider the information. 
State requires consular officers to document within its IVO database 
whether they made all of these disclosures to the beneficiary during 
the visa interview. For example, State's FAM requires consular 
officers to denote within IVO that the "IMBRA pamphlet was received, 
read, and understood" for each K visa beneficiary.[Footnote 48] 
According to Consular Affairs officials, other than this FAM 
requirement for documentation in the consular notes in IVO, State does 
not have other mechanisms by which it ensures that consular officers 
are providing required information to K visa applicants during the in-
person interviews. 

Our review of State's documentation of K visa interviews indicates 
that consular officers have not consistently denoted this information 
in accordance with the FAM. Specifically, of the 227 I-129F petitions 
submitted from March 2012 through May 2014, for which USCIS identified 
as requiring IMBRA disclosures, we analyzed the interview notes 
associated with 147 K visa applications for which in-person interviews 
took place, and thus FAM documentation requirements apply.[Footnote 
49] In consultation with Consular Affairs officials, according to 
USCIS records, 84 of the 147 cases show that beneficiaries later 
requested a change in status to Lawful Permanent Resident, which may 
indicate the beneficiary received a K visa, was admitted into the 
United States, and married the petitioner. In 48 (or 57 percent) of 
these 84 cases, consular officers did not document whether 
beneficiaries received, read, and understood the IMBRA pamphlet during 
the interview.[Footnote 50] Of the remaining 36 cases in which 
consular officers documented the provision of the IMBRA pamphlet, we 
found that consular officers did not consistently provide notations in 
accordance with FAM guidance. Specifically, we found that consular 
officers fully documented that the IMBRA pamphlet was received, read, 
and understood in 21 of the 84 cases (or about 25 percent); however, 
we found that in 15 of the 84 cases (or about 18 percent),consular 
officers partially documented that the IMBRA pamphlet was provided to 
the beneficiaries.[Footnote 51] In the cases for which consular 
officers provided partial notations, we found that the notes varied 
from "IMBRA given" to "domestic violence brochure given." 

Moreover, in 63 of the 147 cases where State's data indicated that 
consular officers had interviewed beneficiaries (but for which there 
was no corresponding USCIS record of the beneficiary requesting a 
change to Lawful Permanent Resident status) we found in 28 (or about 
44 percent) of these 63 cases that consular officers did not document 
that the IMBRA pamphlet was received, read, and understood by 
beneficiaries. Full documentation regarding the IMBRA pamphlet was 
noted in 26 (or about 41 percent) of these 63 cases, and was partially 
noted in 9 (or about 14 percent) cases. 

In our guide for assessing strategic training and development efforts, 
we have reported that training is essential to developing the 
knowledge and skills needed to administer agency programs properly. 
[Footnote 52] According to Consular Affairs officials, both the FAM 
and a relevant guidance cable on IMBRA implementation clearly describe 
the documentation requirements for the disclosure of information to 
beneficiaries during interviews, and accordingly, these officials 
attributed the lack of documentation in IVO to consular officer error. 
State last issued a cable on IMBRA implementation, which covers the 
FAM's IMBRA-related documentation requirements, to consular posts in 
2012. According to Consular Affairs officials, State generally does 
not send frequent cables to overseas posts to reiterate FAM 
requirements unless there are significant changes to sections of the 
FAM that warrant additional guidance or explanation to consular 
officers. However, these officials stated that they planned to send 
another cable to all overseas posts in the fall of 2014, given recent 
revisions to the FAM on IMBRA implementation. In response to our work, 
they said that they could include a reminder in that cable for 
consular officers to follow the FAM's IMBRA-related documentation 
requirements. We reviewed a draft of that cable in October 2014, and 
it includes, among other things, a reminder for officers to document 
in IVO that the IMBRA pamphlet was received, read, and understood for 
all K visa applicants. 

While the cable may be a helpful reminder for incumbent consular 
officers, State's consular officer training courses do not 
specifically address the FAM's IMBRA-related documentation 
requirements. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government 
maintains that federal agencies are to provide staff with the training 
necessary to carry out assigned responsibilities and meet the 
organizations' objectives.[Footnote 53] According to Consular Affairs 
officials, State offers two key courses to consular officers through 
its Foreign Service Institute on the adjudication of immigrant visas, 
including K visas--mandatory basic training for entry-level officers 
and a voluntary course for midlevel consular officers offered four 
times a year. However, these officials stated that the training 
courses are generally broad and comprise many different types of 
nonimmigrant visas and so do not cover as part of their curricula 
detailed procedures for all visa types such as the FAM's IMBRA-related 
documentation requirements. For instance, State's Foreign Service 
Institute officials stated that the basic training course briefly 
covers State's IMBRA-related disclosure requirements in the 
instructor's notes, but does not address the FAM's requirement for 
consular officers to document these disclosures in IVO.[Footnote 54] 
Similarly, the voluntary course for midlevel consular officers does 
not address the FAM's documentation requirements. 

A Consular Affairs official stated that there may be some variation in 
the content of this course offered to midlevel consular officers, but 
when he teaches the course, he chooses to cover the FAM's IMBRA-
related documentation requirements in his oral remarks. Moreover, 
Consular Affairs officials stated that midlevel consular officers are 
to provide training to entry-level officers on a routine basis on the 
FAM's IMBRA-related disclosure and documentation requirements. These 
officials added that State has an internal website for consular 
training, which includes a reminder for supervisory consular officers 
that orientation upon arrival and continuing on-the-job training at 
post is vital to develop fully proficient consular officers. 
Incorporating the FAM's IMBRA-related documentation requirements into 
State's training courses for consular officers could help State better 
ensure that consular officers are aware of the requirements so that 
they can be better positioned to more consistently document the 
disclosure of IMBRA information during interviews with K visa 
applicants. 

DHS and State Have Not Referred Any Potential IMBRA Violations to DOJ: 

Under IMBRA, DOJ is responsible for pursuing federal civil and 
criminal penalties outlined in the law for IMBs and petitioners who 
violate IMBRA provisions and for consulting with DHS and State in 
investigating and prosecuting such violations.[Footnote 55] However, 
DHS and State have not identified any potential IMBRA violations for 
referral to DOJ. As it has not received any referrals of IMBRA 
violations, DOJ has not brought civil or criminal cases against an IMB 
or petitioner under IMBRA. 

USCIS requests information on the I-129F petition regarding whether 
petitioners used an IMB and, if so, requests a copy of the signed 
consent form the IMB obtained from the beneficiary authorizing the 
release of contact information. However, USCIS officials at each of 
the four service centers we interviewed stated that, in their 
experience, few petitioners indicate the use of IMBs to facilitate 
relationships with their foreign fiancé(e)s, and accordingly, the 
agency has not referred cases to DOJ for further investigation and 
prosecution. In addition, DHS has a process for referring and 
investigating potential violations within the department; however, 
USCIS has not identified any potential violation for referral and 
investigation.[Footnote 56] 

In accordance with the FAM and consistent with IMBRA, if an IMB does 
not provide the required IMBRA disclosures to the beneficiary, 
consular officers are to note the lack of disclosure in IVO and refer 
the case to State's Consular Affairs Bureau at headquarters for 
further review. Consular Affairs officials in headquarters are 
responsible for forwarding cases involving potential IMBRA violations 
to DOJ. Consular officers at all five consular posts we interviewed 
stated that they have not referred cases involving violations by IMBs 
for review because beneficiaries generally do not disclose the use of 
IMBs during the visa applicant interviews. 

In July 2013, DOJ reported to Congress on the status of DOJ, DHS, and 
State's efforts to develop processes to effectively identify, 
investigate, and prosecute potential IMBRA violations.[Footnote 57] 
DOJ reported that it does not have sufficient information about the 
nature and potential volume of IMBRA violations necessary to develop a 
framework for prosecution. DOJ's report outlined a number of actions 
each agency could address to more fully develop policies and 
procedures for identifying, investigating, and prosecuting IMBRA 
violations, such as developing mechanisms to better facilitate the 
sharing of IMBRA-related case notes among the agencies. DHS and State 
officials told us that they are coordinating with DOJ on ways to 
facilitate data collection and information sharing and that it is too 
early to determine when these actions may be completed. DOJ officials 
stated that the agency-specific actions will better position DHS and 
State to identify cases warranting investigation and prosecution by 
DOJ. For instance, as previously mentioned, DOJ proposed that USCIS 
consider revising the I-129F petition to include a question for 
petitioners about civil protective or restraining orders consistent 
with IMB disclosure requirements under IMBRA. In addition, DOJ 
proposed that State establish a mechanism for sharing IMBRA-related 
case notes from beneficiary interviews with USCIS and DOJ. Moreover, 
DOJ is working with State on the development of a checklist of 
questions for consular officers to ask beneficiaries to assist in the 
identification of potential cases involving IMBRA violations by IMBs. 
In October 2014, DOJ issued an IMBRA bulletin to assist stakeholders, 
such as state and local law enforcement entities and women's and 
immigrants' rights organizations, in identifying and reporting IMBRA 
violations to DOJ for prosecution. 

USCIS Does Not Collect and Maintain All Data in a Manner Consistent 
with IMBRA, and Additional Training Could Help to Ensure IMBRA Data 
Are Accurate and Reliable: 

USCIS Does Not Collect and Maintain All Data Consistent with IMBRA: 

IMBRA mandates that DHS collect and maintain data necessary for us to 
review IMBRA's impact on the process for granting K nonimmigrant 
visas.[Footnote 58] In 2008, we reported that while USCIS had 
collected some data necessary for our study, most of the eight data 
elements identified by IMBRA and on which we reported were not 
maintained in a summary or reportable (i.e., electronic) format. 
[Footnote 59] For this report, we reexamined these eight data 
elements, which include information on the number of waiver 
applications submitted and I-129F petitions denied, and the reasons 
for the decisions. We found that data for two of the eight required 
elements are available, at least partially, in an electronic format in 
CLAIMS 3 and reliable for our purposes. The remaining six elements 
were either not collected and maintained electronically or the 
electronic data collected are not reliable.[Footnote 60] For example, 
consistent with IMBRA, USCIS is to collect and maintain information 
annually on the number of IMBRA waivers (general, criminal, or 
mandatory) submitted, the number granted or denied, and reasons for 
such decisions, but this information is not collected and maintained 
electronically. Rather, USCIS collects and maintains information on 
whether a waiver is required (rather than submitted), and the reasons 
for their decisions are handwritten by the officer on the hard copy of 
the petition and thus were not readily available for purposes of our 
review. Table 1 identifies the eight data elements specified by IMBRA 
and the extent to which USCIS collects and maintains reliable 
electronic data. 

Table 1: Status of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
Data Collection and Maintenance Consistent with the International 
Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA), as Amended: 

Information required to be collected and maintained consistent with 
IMBRA: 
1. Petitions (I-129Fs) filed for K nonimmigrant visas; 
Format in which data are collected and maintained (i.e., electronic, 
paper file, or neither): Electronic and paper file; 
Status of USCIS data collection and maintenance: Petitioners file 
paper forms with USCIS; USCIS maintains electronic data on the number 
of I-129F petitions filed for K nonimmigrant visas; 
Data are reliable for reporting purposes: Yes. 

Information required to be collected and maintained consistent with 
IMBRA: 
2. I-129F petitions denied because of multiple filing limits; 
Format in which data are collected and maintained (i.e., electronic, 
paper file, or neither): Electronic and paper file; 
Status of USCIS data collection and maintenance: USCIS maintains 
electronic data on whether an I-129F petition was denied, but not the 
reason for petition denial (filing limits versus other grounds for 
denial); 
Data are reliable for reporting purposes: Partial; The data are 
reliable for the numbers of petitions denied. The reason for petition 
denial is not maintained in an electronic format; therefore we could 
not assess the reliability of those data. 

Information required to be collected and maintained consistent with 
IMBRA: 
3. Filing limit waivers filed, approved, denied, and reason why the 
waivers were approved or denied; 
Format in which data are collected and maintained (i.e., electronic, 
paper file, or neither): Electronic and paper file; 
Status of USCIS data collection and maintenance: As of March 2012, 
USCIS officers are to note in CLAIMS 3 whether IMBRA waivers are 
required, rather than whether the waiver was filed for multiple 
filers. As of June 2014, USCIS officers are required to note in CLAIMS 
3 whether the waivers were granted or denied. Reasons for the decision 
are to be noted on the hard copy of the case file; 
Data are reliable for reporting purposes: No; The data are not 
reliable because of inconsistencies in how USCIS officers entered the 
data into CLAIMS 3. 

Information required to be collected and maintained consistent with 
IMBRA: 
4. I-129F petitions forwarded to State where petitioner had one or 
more criminal convictions; 
Format in which data are collected and maintained (i.e., electronic, 
paper file, or neither): Paper file; 
Status of USCIS data collection and maintenance: USCIS maintains 
criminal disclosure information from petitioners on the I-129F 
petition, and conducts criminal background checks. This information is 
held on the hard copy of the case files. USCIS sends paper copies of 
approved petitions and disclosure information to State's National Visa 
Center; 
Data are reliable for reporting purposes: Not applicable; USCIS does 
not collect or maintain the information in an electronic format; 
therefore, we could not readily assess the reliability of those data. 

Information required to be collected and maintained consistent with 
IMBRA: 
5. Petitioners with one or more convictions who were granted or denied 
waivers of multiple filing limits; 
Format in which data are collected and maintained (i.e., electronic, 
paper file, or neither): Electronic and paper file; 
Status of USCIS data collection and maintenance: As in the previous 
requirement, USCIS maintains criminal background information on 
petitioners in the hard copy case file. As of March 2012, USCIS 
officers are to note in CLAIMS 3 whether IMBRA waivers were required, 
and as of June 2014, officers are required to note in CLAIMS 3 whether 
the waivers were granted or denied; 
Data are reliable for reporting purposes: No; The electronic data on 
criminal waivers are not reliable because of inconsistencies in how 
USCIS officers entered the data into CLAIMS 3. 

Information required to be collected and maintained consistent with 
IMBRA: 
6. K nonimmigrant fiancé(e), spouse, or family-based immigration I-
129F petitions filed by prior filers (two or more filings); 
Format in which data are collected and maintained (i.e., electronic, 
paper file, or neither): Paper and electronic; 
Status of USCIS data collection and maintenance: Petitioners file 
paper forms with USCIS. As of March 2012, USCIS has maintained 
electronic data on the number of prior I-129F petitions filed by the 
current petitioner. Electronic data are not available for prior years; 
Data are reliable for reporting purposes: No; 
The data on number of I-129F petitions filed are not reliable because 
our analysis found a high percentage of missing values, as well as 
inconsistencies in how USCIS officers entered data into CLAIMS 3 on 
prior filings. 

Information required to be collected and maintained consistent with 
IMBRA: 
7. K nonimmigrant fiancé(e), spouse, or family-based immigration I-
129F petitions filed by petitioners who have concurrently filed other 
I-129Fs (two or more concurrent filings); 
Format in which data are collected and maintained (i.e., electronic, 
paper file, or neither): Not maintained in paper or electronic formats; 
Status of USCIS data collection and maintenance: While USCIS has 
information on individual petitions, USCIS officials said that they do 
not have mechanisms for tracking concurrently filed petitions; 
Data are reliable for reporting purposes: Specific data identified are 
not collected or maintained. 

Information required to be collected and maintained consistent with 
IMBRA: 
8. Annual and cumulative number of petitioners and applicants tracked 
in the multiple filing database[A]; 
Format in which data are collected and maintained (i.e., electronic, 
paper file, or neither): Not maintained in paper or electronic formats; 
Status of USCIS data collection and maintenance: While USCIS has 
information on individual petitions, USCIS officials said that they do 
not have mechanisms for tracking this information. USCIS officers are 
to note in CLAIMS 3 whether the petitioner on a current I-129F 
petition has submitted any prior fiancé(e) or spouse I-129F petitions, 
but does not maintain electronic data on the number of petitioners who 
had multiple I-129F petitions for fiancé(e)s or spouses; 
Data are reliable for reporting purposes: Specific data identified are 
not collected or maintained. 

Source: GAO analysis of USCIS data and the International Marriage 
Broker Regulation Act of 2005, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1375a(f)(1)(A). 
GAO-15-3. 

[A] IMBRA required that DHS create a database for the purpose of 
tracking petitioners who have filed multiple visa petitions (I-129Fs) 
for fiancé(e)s and spouses. See 8 U.S.C. § 1184(r)(4). 

[End of table] 

USCIS has taken or is planning to take steps to better collect and 
maintain data from petitioners in an electronic format. For example, 
in 2008, we reported that USCIS was considering modifying its system 
to electronically collect and maintain the required data, and in 2012, 
USCIS updated CLAIMS 3 to address selected IMBRA requirements. 
Specifically, USCIS updated CLAIMS 3 to include a field for officers 
to note the number of I-129F petitions previously filed by the current 
petitioner, as well as a field to denote whether petitioners require 
any of the three IMBRA waivers, although these updates do not 
specifically address the IMBRA requirement that annual data on the 
number of waiver applications submitted, the number approved and 
denied, and reasons why the waivers were approved or denied be 
collected and maintained. These updates have helped USCIS collect and 
maintain additional data on I-129F petitions in an electronic format. 
However, USCIS did not update CLAIMS 3 to capture all of the data 
required by IMBRA, including the number of concurrent I-129F petitions 
filed by petitioners for other fiancé(e)s or spouses, or the extent to 
which petitioners have criminal convictions. USCIS officials stated 
that they did not include all elements in the 2012 system update 
because of resource constraints and to avoid rework in anticipation of 
the larger transition planned for all of USCIS's immigration benefit 
processes. In 2006, USCIS embarked on its multiyear Transformation 
Program to transform its paper-based immigration benefits process to a 
system with electronic application filing, adjudication, and case 
management. As we reported in November 2011, USCIS envisions that once 
the Transformation Program is completed, new electronic adjudication 
capabilities will help improve agency operations and enable greater 
data sharing and management of information. USCIS expects the new 
system, the Electronic Immigration System (ELIS), to have features, 
for example, that will allow applicants to electronically view their 
benefit requests, or provide additional documentation. Once ELIS is 
implemented, officers are expected to have electronic access to 
applications, as well as relevant USCIS policies and procedures to aid 
in decision making, and to have electronic linkages with other 
agencies, such as State and DOJ, for data-sharing and security 
purposes. 

According to USCIS Service Center Operations officials, the agency 
will be able to collect and maintain more complete data, in a manner 
consistent with IMBRA, through the deployment of the electronic I-129F 
petition in ELIS. However, USCIS has faced long-standing challenges in 
implementing ELIS, which raise questions about the extent to which its 
eventual deployment will position USCIS to collect and maintain more 
complete data. In particular, in November 2011, we reported on USCIS's 
progress in implementing its Transformation Program and found that 
USCIS had not developed reliable or integrated schedules for the 
program, and as a result, USCIS could not reliably estimate when all 
phases of the Transformation Program would be complete. We 
recommended, among other things, that USCIS ensure its program 
schedules are developed in accordance with GAO's best practices 
guidance.[Footnote 61] DHS concurred with our recommendations and 
outlined actions USCIS would take to implement them, including 
developing an integrated master schedule to depict the multiple tasks, 
implementation activities, and interrelationships needed to 
successfully develop and deploy the Transformation Program. Since our 
November 2011 report, the Transformation Program schedule has 
encountered further delays. The 2008 Acquisition Program Baseline for 
the program showed that ELIS would be fully deployed by 2013; however, 
in July 2014, the Director of USCIS testified that full deployment was 
expected to be completed by 2018 or 2019.[Footnote 62] As of September 
2014, USCIS has not determined when the I-129F petition would be 
deployed in ELIS. 

A USCIS Transformation Program official stated in July 2014 that, in 
coordination with Service Center Operations and Office of Chief 
Counsel officials, they had begun to develop the requirements for the 
electronic I-129F petition. Transformation Program officials noted 
that they first became aware of all of the data required by IMBRA 
based on our audit work. They had not been made aware, for example, of 
the IMBRA data collection and maintenance requirements that are not 
specifically captured on the paper-based I-129F petition. Furthermore, 
in May 2014, we reviewed an initial draft of the design requirements 
for the electronic I-129F petition and found that not all IMBRA-
required elements were addressed, including the requirement that USCIS 
maintain data on the number of cases in which a petitioner's criminal 
background information contains one or more convictions. As of 
September 2014, Transformation Program officials were continuing to 
refine the I-129F petition requirements and it is too soon to 
determine if all of the IMBRA-required elements will be addressed. 
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government advises that 
transactions are to be properly executed and recorded to help validate 
the integrity of organization processes and individual performance. 
[Footnote 63] Reliable data on petitioners' prior I-129F petition 
filings, criminal convictions, and reasons for waiver approvals or 
denials are used by USCIS management to ensure that USCIS officers are 
adjudicating IMBRA waiver requests in accordance with the law. 
However, because of the significant and ongoing delays in USCIS's 
Transformation Program, it is unclear when USCIS will complete the I-
129F petition transformation, or whether all required IMBRA data will 
be captured in ELIS when it is complete. Ensuring that all of the 
IMBRA-related requirements will be electronically captured with the 
release of the I-129F electronic petition would better position USCIS 
to collect and maintain complete data on I-129F petitioners for IMBRA 
reporting purposes, as well as management oversight. Such action could 
also help USCIS to more easily share I-129F petition information with 
other government agencies, including with State for K visa 
adjudication purposes, or DOJ for investigating potential IMBRA 
violations once the Transformation Program is complete. 

Additional Training on IMBRA Requirements Could Help Ensure Consistent 
Adjudication and Reliable Data: 

USCIS officers have not consistently adjudicated I-129F petitions or 
entered complete and accurate data into CLAIMS 3. On the basis of our 
review of CLAIMS 3 data, and interviews with USCIS Service Center 
Operations officials and USCIS officers at all four service centers, 
we identified errors related to the IMBRA data that USCIS has 
maintained since 2012 (see table 1). Specifically, our analysis 
indicates that USCIS's data are not reliable for determining (1) the 
number of I-129F petitions filed by persons who have previously filed 
I-129F petitions (or multiple filers), or (2) the number of IMBRA 
waivers required.[Footnote 64] 

Data on multiple filers. According to the June 2014 SOP, for each new 
I-129F petition, USCIS officers are required to determine and denote 
in the CLAIMS 3 the total number of prior K-1 and K-3 I-129F 
petitions, including the current petition.[Footnote 65] We analyzed 
CLAIMS 3 data by fiscal year for fiscal year 2012 through March 2014 
on approximately 84,000 I-129F petitions and identified about 900 
cases in which the officer had indicated "zero" prior filings. 
According to USCIS Service Center Operations officials, when entering 
data on petitions into CLAIMS 3, the system allowed officers to leave 
the data field for prior filings blank or to use a "zero"; however, 
according to USCIS's SOP, that field should not have been left blank 
or filled in with a "zero." USCIS officials stated that a "zero" or 
blank should not have been considered as a valid response since a 
"one" would be the lowest number possible if the new I-129F petition 
was the first and only I-129F petition ever filed by the petitioner. 
In February 2014, USCIS modified CLAIMS 3 to no longer accept a zero 
or a blank entry from an officer in the prior filings. In addition, 
USCIS Service Center Operations officials stated that they were not 
certain whether officers were counting both K-1 and K-3 I-129F 
petitions in total for the multiple filer field, or only the number of 
K-1 I-129F petitions. The May 2014 revision to the SOP emphasized that 
I-129F petitions for K-3 visas are not to be included in determining 
whether a waiver is required. However, at one service center we 
visited, officers we spoke to stated that they had been uncertain 
about whether both types of I-129F petitions should be considered for 
the waiver requirements. Accurate and complete data in the multiple 
filer field are important for identifying potential abuse by 
petitioners who file multiple I-129F petitions, and for officers to 
indicate when a beneficiary should be notified of multiple filings, 
according to USCIS officials. 

Data on IMBRA waivers. We found instances of errors and 
inconsistencies related to USCIS data on whether petitioners were 
subject to IMBRA's filing limits and required one of the three 
waivers. Specifically: 

* According to IMBRA and the June 2014 SOP, petitioners may be 
required to request one of three waivers, and the waiver requirements 
are based, in part, on the number of I-129F petitions filed for K-1 
visas only (petitions for K-3 visas are not to be included).[Footnote 
66] We reviewed USCIS data on 227 I-129Fs filed from October 1, 2012, 
through March 31, 2014, for which the record in CLAIMS 3 indicated 
that a criminal waiver was required. We found that 18 of those 227 I-
129F petitions were for K-3 visas. USCIS Service Center Operations 
acknowledged that these entries in CLAIMS 3 were incorrect and that 
these errors raise questions about the reliability of the CLAIMS 3 
data and officers' understanding of standard operating procedures and 
IMBRA requirements. 

* According to the June 2014 I-129F SOP, USCIS officers are to 
indicate in CLAIMS 3 whether a petitioner is required to have one of 
the three filing limits waivers. Officers are required to note a "Y" 
in one of three data fields if a waiver is required, or "N" if the 
waiver is not required. Consistent with IMBRA, only one waiver could 
apply per petition. However, on the basis of our analysis of CLAIMS 3 
data, we found I-129F petitions for which officers incorrectly 
determined that more than one waiver was required. Specifically, of 
the 227 I-129F petitions we reviewed, 11 indicated that both a general 
and a criminal waiver were required, 14 indicated that both a criminal 
wavier and a mandatory waiver were required, and 15 indicated that 
petitioners required all three waivers. USCIS Service Center 
Operations officials attributed the multiple waiver determinations to 
officers' errors.[Footnote 67] USCIS officers we interviewed at one 
service center stated that they were uncertain about the requirements 
for the waivers in part because the majority of petitions they 
adjudicate each year do not require any waivers. The August 2013 SOP 
did not specifically contain guidance to officers that a petitioner 
could receive only one waiver, if appropriate. In June 2014, during 
the course of our audit work, USCIS updated the I-129F SOP to clarify 
the filing limits and waiver requirements and now explicitly states 
that only one waiver selection per I-129F petition should be marked in 
CLAIMS 3, as applicable. While this revision to the SOP is a positive 
step, additional training could better position USCIS officers to be 
aware of petitioners' potential filing limits and IMBRA waiver 
requirements, and USCIS officials stated that such training could be 
provided to help ensure officers understand the IMBRA requirements. 

* Consistent with IMBRA and the June 2014 I-129F SOP, a criminal 
waiver is required for multiple filers who have been convicted of an 
IMBRA-specified offense.[Footnote 68] However, our analysis of USCIS's 
data indicates that officers have required criminal waivers for 
petitioners with no prior I-129F petition filings. Specifically, of 
the 227 I-129F petitions filed between March 2012 and March 2014 for 
which officers had indicated that a criminal waiver was required, 207 
did not meet the criteria requiring a criminal waiver because the 
petitioner had not filed any previous petitions. USCIS officials said 
that officers were likely confused regarding when a criminal waiver 
was required and speculated that officers may be erring on the side of 
caution and requiring a criminal waiver and additional documentation 
from the petitioner in any instance of prior criminal convictions. For 
example, an officer at one service center we visited stated that he 
sends the petitioner a request for evidence for a criminal waiver if 
there is a criminal history, regardless of how many I-129F petitions 
have been filed. Ensuring that officers have a clear understanding of 
waiver requirements in the SOP could help better position USCIS 
officers to make USCIS adjudications more consistent with IMBRA 
requirements. 

* Consistent with IMBRA and the June 2014 I-129F SOP, I-129F petitions 
for K-3 visas are not subject to IMBRA waiver requirements. However, 
USCIS officers have historically (prior to December 8, 2013) not been 
required to indicate in CLAIMS 3 whether the I-129F petition is in 
support of a K visa for a fiancé(e), or spouse. We found that about 72 
percent of the I-129F petitions submitted from fiscal years 2008 
through March 2014 (238,288 of the 329,307) did not indicate whether 
the I-129F petition was for a K-1 or K-3 visa. USCIS officials stated 
that this was a technical issue that was likely overlooked during the 
system change in 2008. USCIS officials indicated that beginning in 
December 2013, officers could not approve an I-129F in CLAIMS 3 
without noting which of the K visas the I-129F supports. Knowledge of 
whether the I-129F petition is for a K-1 or K-3 beneficiary is 
important because it is a key factor in determining whether a waiver 
is required, according to USCIS officials. While USCIS officers can 
review the hard copy I-129F petition to determine if it is an I-129F 
petition for a K-1 or K-3 beneficiary, this information would not be 
readily available for internal control purposes of ensuring I-129F 
petitions are adjudicated according to the SOP and consistent with 
IMBRA. 

According to USCIS Service Center Operations officials, USCIS performs 
annual quality assurance reviews of I-129F petitions. USCIS's Quality 
Management Branch establishes the direction for the development and 
administration of the quality assurance program, training, 
communication, and coaching, and each service center has a quality 
manager and personnel who ensure administration of the quality 
assurance program within each center. Annual reviews include 3 months 
of submissions, reviewed for adherence to USCIS procedures for 
petition approval, denial, and requests for evidence. In 2014, USCIS's 
quality assurance reviews of selected I-129F petitions identified 
inconsistencies in their adjudication. For example, USCIS conducted a 
review on a random sample of I-129F petitions approved at the Texas 
Service Center in April 2014 (63 out of 796 total approved I-129F 
petitions). This quality assurance reviewer found that 9 out of the 63 
approved I-129F petitions did not indicate for State's consular 
officers, as required by USCIS's procedures, whether IMBRA disclosures 
applied. Consular officers we spoke to at one post stated that they 
were providing information to beneficiaries only if USCIS officers 
clearly indicated on the approved I-129F petition that IMBRA 
requirements applied. The consular officers stated that if USCIS 
officers did not clearly notate the approved I-129F petitions, they 
returned the approved I-129F petition to USCIS. USCIS officials 
attribute the errors in CLAIMS 3 data to officer error and 
misunderstanding of the SOPs regarding IMBRA implementation. In 
response to these reviews and our audit work, Service Center 
Operations officials stated that, among other things, they revised the 
I-129F SOP in May 2014 and again in June 2014. In particular, the May 
2014 revision to the I-129F SOP was intended to clarify, among other 
things, the IMBRA filing limits, waiver requirements, and notations 
indicating whether IMBRA disclosures apply. In June 2014, USCIS again 
revised the procedures to further clarify the waiver requirements. To 
disseminate SOP revisions, a Service Center Operations official stated 
that the revised SOP is e-mailed to a point of contact in each 
service, with the revisions highlighted in the SOP and e-mail. The 
official said that the point of contact generally distributes the 
revised SOP to officers via e-mail, and will meet with staff to 
discuss changes, if necessary. 

While these are positive steps, additional training could help provide 
USCIS with more reasonable assurance that its officers are aware of 
IMBRA requirements to assist them in reviewing and maintaining data on 
petitions consistent with USCIS's procedures. As previously discussed, 
our analysis of CLAIMS 3 data showed that USCIS officers have not 
entered information into CLAIMS 3 consistent with USCIS's SOPs. USCIS 
Service Center Operations officials attributed the errors we 
identified in the CLAIMS 3 data to officers' misunderstandings of the 
required procedures. Service Center Operations officials said in 
August 2014 that they had no plans to require the service centers to 
provide additional training to officers on revisions made to the SOP, 
as USCIS officials stated that officers receive initial training when 
they are hired and on an ad hoc basis at the service centers, as 
necessary. USCIS Service Center Operations does not require service 
centers to conduct additional training for incumbent officers based on 
revisions to its SOPs to ensure that changes are understood. Rather, 
these officials stated that service centers determine when officers 
need additional training, which they may provide to officers in the 
form of e-mails, briefings, or formal classroom lessons. Standards for 
Internal Control in the Federal Government maintains that federal 
agencies are to provide staff with the training necessary to carry out 
assigned responsibilities and meet the organizations' 
objectives.[Footnote 69] Moreover, in our guide for assessing 
strategic training and development efforts, we have reported that 
training is essential to developing the knowledge and skills needed to 
administer agency programs properly.[Footnote 70] Given that the SOP 
has been revised three times in less than 1 year and officers have not 
maintained data in CLAIMS 3 consistent with the SOP, additional 
training for officers could help USCIS better ensure its officers 
understand changes made to the SOPs and collect and maintain reliable 
data on I-129F petitions as required by USCIS's SOP and consistent 
with IMBRA. 

Conclusions: 

In accordance with IMBRA, USCIS has been charged with mitigating the 
risk posed to beneficiaries by violent or abusive petitioners by 
ensuring, to the extent practicable, that petitioners disclose 
complete information, including their filing history and criminal 
conviction information, on the I-129F petition. USCIS has been 
revising the I-129F petition to address inaccuracies and deficiencies 
for more than 10 months and has not set a time frame for the planned 
completion of these changes. A time frame for completion would help 
the agency better monitor progress toward finalizing revisions to the 
petition. In addition, State could take additional actions to ensure 
that its consular officers document that the IMBRA pamphlet is 
provided and understood by the beneficiary, as internal State guidance 
requires, by revising its curriculum to include training on the FAM's 
IMBRA-related documentation requirements. By incorporating IMBRA-
related documentation requirements in its training curricula, State 
could also better provide reasonable assurance that its officers are 
aware of the required procedures and are better positioned to inform 
beneficiaries so they know their legal rights. 

Although IMBRA was enacted in January 2006, USCIS does not yet collect 
and maintain all data in a manner consistent with IMBRA. Ensuring the 
data are available electronically would allow for more complete 
reporting on IMBRA implementation, and also help USCIS management to 
better ensure that I-129F petitions are being adjudicated in 
accordance with IMBRA. USCIS has begun the process of transforming the 
I-129F petition to an electronic format; however, it is uncertain what 
data will be maintained in ELIS, based on the agency's draft user 
stories to identify data requirements, and based on prior USCIS 
efforts that did not fully capture data in an electronic format 
consistent with IMBRA. Taking steps to ensure that all data to be 
collected in accordance with IMBRA are included with the release of 
the electronic I-129F petition, and providing additional training, 
could help USCIS better ensure that IMBRA requirements are properly 
implemented and that data on petitions are collected and maintained 
consistent with USCIS procedures. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We are making four recommendations to improve the implementation of 
IMBRA. 

To better ensure the consistent application of IMBRA waiver 
requirements and adjudication of I-129F petitions, we recommend that 
the Director of USCIS set a target time frame for completing the 
agency's review of revisions to the I-129F petition. 

To ensure that fiancé(e)s and spouses applying for K visas receive and 
understand the information to be provided to them under IMBRA and that 
consular officers adhere to documentation guidance in the FAM, we 
recommend that the Secretary of State incorporate the FAM's IMBRA-
related documentation requirements into the Foreign Service 
Institute's training curriculum for entry-level and midlevel consular 
officers. 

To ensure data required by IMBRA are collected, maintained, and 
reliable, we recommend that the Director of USCIS take the following 
two actions: 

* ensure that IMBRA-required data elements will be collected in an 
automated manner with the release of the electronic I-129F petition, 
and: 

* provide additional training to officers who adjudicate I-129F 
petitions on the IMBRA-related requirements in the adjudication 
process. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Homeland 
Security and State, and the Attorney General. DHS and State provided 
written responses, which are reproduced in full in appendixes III and 
IV, respectively. DHS concurred with our three recommendations to that 
agency and described actions under way or planned to address them. 
With regard to our first recommendation to DHS that USCIS set a target 
time frame for completing the agency's review and revisions to the I-
129F petition, DHS concurred and stated that USCIS has drafted the 
revised Form 129F and instructions and plans to distribute them for 
internal review in December 2014. DHS stated that once the internal 
review is completed, the revised form and instructions will undergo a 
public comment period and the I-129F standard operating procedures 
will be updated. DHS estimated a completion date of September 30, 
2015. With regard to our second recommendation to DHS that USCIS 
ensure that IMBRA-required data elements will be collected in an 
automated manner with the release of the electronic I-129F petition, 
DHS concurred and stated that USCIS will identify all data that will 
be collected and estimated a completion date of December 31, 2016. 
With regard to our third recommendation to DHS that USCIS provide 
additional training to officers who adjudicate I-129F petitions on the 
IMBRA-related requirements in the adjudication process, DHS concurred 
and stated that USCIS has developed a training presentation for 
officers on IMBRA-related requirements and that all officers 
adjudicating the I-129F will be required to complete the course by the 
end of January 2015. These actions should address the intent of our 
recommendations. In addition, State concurred with our recommendation 
that State incorporate the FAM's IMBRA-related documentation 
requirements in the Foreign Service Institute's training curriculum 
for entry-level and midlevel consular officers. State noted that 
additional IMBRA-related training would be provided to entry-level and 
midlevel consular officers. Specifically, State indicated that the 
Foreign Service Institute's 6-week mandatory training for entry-level 
consular adjudicators, and two courses for midlevel consular officers 
would be expanded to explicitly emphasize IMBRA-related requirements. 
When implemented, these steps should help ensure that K visa 
beneficiaries receive and understand information available to them 
under IMBRA. Technical comments provided by DHS, State, and DOJ were 
incorporated, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Homeland 
Security and State, the Attorney General, and appropriate 
congressional committees. In addition, the report is available at no 
charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made significant 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

Rebecca Gambler: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: I-129F Petition for Alien Fiancé(e), as of December 10, 
2014: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 6 page form: USCIS Form I-129F; OMB No. 1615-
0001; Expires 06/30/2016] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: International Marriage Broker Regulation Act Information 
Pamphlet for K-Visa Applicants: 

Information on the Legal Rights Available to Immigrant Victims of 
Domestic Violence in the United States and Facts about Immigrating on 
a Marriage-Based Visa: 

Purpose: 

Immigrants are particularly vulnerable because many do not speak 
English, are often separated from family and friends, and may not 
understand the laws of the United States. For these reasons, 
immigrants are often afraid to report acts of domestic violence to the 
police or to seek other forms of assistance. Such fear causes many 
immigrants to remain in abusive relationships. 

This pamphlet will explain domestic violence and inform you of your 
legal rights in the United States. The International Marriage Broker 
Regulation Act (IMBRA) requires that the U.S. Government provide 
foreign fiance(e)s and spouses immigrating to the United States 
information about their legal rights as well as criminal or domestic 
violence histories of their U.S. citizen fiance(e)s and spouses. One 
of IMBRA's goals is to provide accurate information to immigrating 
fiance(e)s and spouses about the immigration process and how to access 
help if their relationship becomes abusive. 

What is domestic violence? 

Domestic violence is a pattern of behavior when one intimate partner 
or spouse threatens or abuses the other partner. Abuse may include 
physical harm, forced sexual relations, emotional manipulation 
(including isolation or intimidation), economic and/or immigration 
related threats. While most recorded incidents of domestic violence 
involve men abusing women or children, men can also be victims of 
domestic violence. 

Domestic violence may include sexual assault, child abuse, and other 
violent crimes. Sexual assault is any type of sexual activity that you 
do not agree to, even with your spouse, and can be committed by 
anyone. Child abuse includes: physical abuse (any injury that does not 
happen by accident, including excessive punishment), physical neglect 
(failure to provide food, shelter, medical care or supervision), 
sexual abuse, and emotional abuse (threats, withholding love, support 
or guidance). 

Under all circumstances, domestic violence, sexual assault, and child 
abuse are illegal in the United States. All people in the United 
States (regardless of race, color, religion, sex, age, ethnicity, or 
immigration status) are guaranteed protection from abuse under the 
law. Any victim of domestic violence — regardless of immigration or 
citizenship status —can seek help. An immigrant victim of domestic 
violence may be eligible for immigration protections. 

If you are experiencing domestic violence in your home, you are not 
alone This pamphlet is intended to help you understand U.S. laws and 
know how to get help if you need it. 

What are the legal rights for victims of domestic violence in the 
United States? 

All people in the United States, regardless of immigration or 
citizenship status, are guaranteed basic protections under both civil 
and criminal law. Laws governing families provide you with: 

* The right to obtain a protection order for you and your child(ren). 

* The right to legal separation or divorce without the consent of your 
spouse. 

* The right to share certain marital property. In cases of divorce, 
the court will divide any property or financial assets you and your 
spouse have together. 

* The right to ask for custody of your child(ren) and financial 
support. Parents of children under the age of 21 often are required to 
pay child support for any child not living with them. 

Consult a family lawyer who works with immigrants to discuss how any 
of these family law options may affect or assist you. 

Under U.S. law any crime victim, regardless of immigration or 
citizenship status, can call the police for help or obtain a 
protection order. 

Call police at 911 if you or your child(ren) are in danger. The police 
may arrest your fiance(e), spouse, partner, or another person if they 
believe that person has committed a crime. You should tell the police 
about any abuse that has happened, even in the past, and show any 
injuries. Anyone, regardless of immigration or citizenship status, may 
report a crime. 

Likewise, if you are a victim of domestic violence you can apply to a 
court for a protection order. A court-issued protection order or 
restraining order may prohibit your abuser from calling, contacting, 
approaching, or harming you, your child(ren), or other family members. 
If your abuser violates the protection order, you can contact the 
police, who may arrest the abuser. Applications for protection orders 
are available at most courthouses, police stations, women's shelters, 
and legal service offices. 

If your abuser accuses you of a crime, you have basic rights, 
regardless of your immigration or citizenship status, including: the 
right to talk to a lawyer; the right to not answer questions without a 
lawyer present; the right to speak in your defense. It is important to 
talk with both an immigration lawyer and a criminal lawyer. 

What services are available to victims of domestic violence and sexual 
assault in the United States? In the United States, victims of crime, 
regardless of immigration or citizenship status, can access help 
provided by government or nongovernmental agencies, which may include 
counseling, interpreters, emergency housing, and even monetary 
assistance. 

The national telephone numbers or "hotlines" listed below have 
operators trained to help victims 24 hours a day free of charge. 
Interpreters are available and these numbers can connect you with 
other free services for victims in your local area, including 
emergency housing, medical care, counseling, and legal advice. If you 
cannot afford to pay a lawyer you may qualify for a free or low-cost 
legal aid program for immigrant crime or domestic violence victims. 

National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-SAFE (1-800-799-7233) 
1-800-787-3224 (TTY); 
[hyperlink, http://www.ndvh.org]. 

National Sexual Assault Hotline of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National 
Network (RAINN) 1-800-656-HOPE (1-800-656-4673); 
[hyperlink, http://www.rainn.org]. 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 1-800-THE-LOST (1-
800-843-5678) [hyperlink, http://www.missingkids.com]. 

The National Center for Victims of Crime 1-800-FYI-CALL (1-800-394-
2255) 1-800-211-7996 (TTY); 
[hyperlink, http://www.ncvc.org]. 

Note: These are organizations whose primary mission is safety and 
protection. 

If I am a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or other crime, 
what immigration options are available to me? 

There are three ways immigrants who become victims of domestic 
violence, sexual assault, and some other specific crimes may apply for 
legal immigration status for themselves and their child(ren). A 
victim's application is confidential and no one, including an abuser, 
crime perpetrator or family member, will be told that you applied. 

* Self-petitions for legal status under the Violence Against Women Act 
(VAWA). 

* Cancellation of removal under VAWA. 

* U-nonimmigrant status (crime victims). 

These immigration benefits each have specific requirements that must 
be established. Consult an immigration lawyer who works with victims 
of domestic violence to discuss how any of these immigration benefits 
may affect or assist you. 

How does the marriage-based immigration process work? 

The marriage-based immigration process involves several steps to 
obtain legal immigration status in the United States, and over time, 
to be eligible for citizenship. These steps depend on the type of 
marriage-based visa you travel on to the United States, as well as 
other factors. The following information is an overview of some of 
these types of visas, as well as information on your legal rights.
K-I nonimmigrant status (as the fiance(e) of a United States citizen): 
You are required to either marry the United States citizen within 90 
days of entry or to depart the United States. Following your marriage 
to the U.S. citizen fiance(e) who petitioned for you, you must file an 
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form 1-
485). If your Form 1-485 is approved, your status will be adjusted 
from a K nonimmigrant to that of a conditional permanent resident. You 
will have that conditional status for two years. 

If you remain in the U.S. without marrying the U.S. citizen who 
sponsored your K-1 visa, or marry someone else, you will violate the 
terms of your visa, have no legal status, and may be subject to 
removal proceedings or other penalties. 

K-3 nonimmigrant status (as the spouse of a United States citizen): 
You are allowed to enter the United States temporarily while waiting 
for approval of a family-based visa petition (I-130). Once the 1-130 
is approved, you are entitled to lawful permanent residence (green 
card) and will need to file an Application to Register Permanent 
Residence or Adjust Status (Form 1-485). 

All other marriage-based immigration status holders should refer to 
the information given to them from the U.S. consulate. Additional 
information may be found online at [hyperlink, http://www.uscis.gov]. 

What are the penalties for marriage fraud? Immigrants who commit 
marriage fraud may be subject to removal proceedings and may be barred 
from receiving future immigration benefits in the United States. 
Conviction for marriage fraud can involve imprisonment for up to five 
(5) years and fines up to $250,000 (U.S. currency). 

If I am married to a U.S. citizen who filed immigration papers on my 
behalf, what is my immigration status? 

If you have been married less than 2 years when your Form 1-485 is 
approved, you will receive conditional residence status from USCIS. 
Ninety (90) days before the second anniversary of your conditional 
residence, you and your spouse generally must apply together to remove 
the conditions on your lawful residence. To do so, you must prove the 
marriage is in "good faith" and valid. Once the conditions are 
removed, you have permanent residency that is not dependent on your 
U.S. spouse. 

If you have been married more than 2 years when your Form 1-485 is 
approved, you will receive permanent residence status from USCIS. On 
that date you will no longer be dependent on your U.S. citizen spouse 
for immigration status. 

There are three situations when the law allows conditional residents 
the option to request a waiver of the requirement that you and your 
spouse file jointly to request removal of the conditions. 1) The 
removal of the conditional resident from the U.S. would result in 
extreme hardship; Or 2) The marriage was legally terminated, other 
than by death, and the applicant was not at fault for failing to file 
a timely application to remove the conditional basis of his or her 
status; Or 3) During the marriage the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent 
resident spouse subjected the conditional resident to battery or 
extreme cruelty. All three waivers are filed on Form I-171 and require 
you to prove your marriage was in "good faith" and not fraudulent. 

What other ways does the U.S.government try to inform foreign 
fiancé(e)s and spouses about their rights and protect them and their 
children from abuse? 

The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA) is a 
law in the United States that changes the marriage-based immigration 
process to help foreign fiancé(e)s and spouses. IMBRA mandates that 
the U.S. Government give immigrating foreign fiancé(e)s and spouses 
information and self-help tools to help protect them against violence 
form the partners who sponsor the visas. Immigrating fiancé(e)s and 
spouses are often unfamiliar with the U.S. laws and unsupported by 
family or friends to escape violence at home. 

IMBRA requires this pamphlet to be written and distributed to tell you 
about laws and services that can help you in the United States if you 
are abused. IMBRA prevents U.S. citizens from sponsoring multiple 
visas for foreign fiancé(e)s and spouses of U.S. citizens if they have 
a history of violent crimes. IMBRA requires the U.S. government to 
give fiancé(e)s and spouses of U.S. citizens a copy of the criminal 
background check that USCIS does on U.S. citizen sponsors, as well as 
a copy of the visa sponsorship application. 

How does the U.S. government regulate "International Marriage Brokers"? 

If an agency qualifies as an "international marriage broker," it is 
required to give you background information on the U.S. client who 
wants to contact you, including information contained in Federal and 
State sex offender public registries, and get your written permission 
before giving the U.S. client your contact information. The agency is 
required to give you a copy of this pamphlet. It is prohibited from 
doing business with you if you are under 18 years of age. 

Can I rely on the criminal background information on my U.S. citizen 
fiancé or spouse? 

The criminal information compiled by the agency comes from various 
public sources, as well as information provided by the U.S. citizen 
client on immigration applications. USCIS does not have access to all 
criminal history databases in the United States. The U.S. citizen 
sponsor may no tell the truth in the sponsorship application. It is 
also possible the U.S. citizen has a history of abusive behavior but 
was never arrested or convicted. Therefore, the criminal background 
information you receive may not be complete. The intent of IMBRA is to 
provide available information and resources to immigrating fiancé(e)s 
and spouses. Ultimately you are responsible for deciding whether you 
feel safe in the relationship. 

Can foreign fiancé(e)s and spouses who are victims of domestic 
violence also be victims of human trafficking? 

Other forms of exploitation including human trafficking can sometimes 
occur alongside domestic violence, when the exploitation involves 
compelling or coerced labor, services, or commercial sex acts. 

Help regarding human trafficking may be found at: 

National Human Trafficking Resource Center: 
1-888-373-7888; 
(24 hours a day, 7 days a week); 
hyperlink, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/trafficking]. 

Human Trafficking and Worker Exploitation Task Force Hotline, U.S. 
Department of Justice: 
1-888-428-7581; 
(Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm) 
hyperlink, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/tpwetf.php] 

More information can be found at our website or by calling the toll 
free number listed below. 

USCIS General Information: 

In the United States, telephone toll free to: 
1-800-870-3676, or: 
Visit our internet website at hyperlink, http://www.uscis.gov]. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

November 25, 2014: 

Rebecca Gambler: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Re: Draft Report GAO-15-3, "Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed
to Fully Implement the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act" 

Dear Ms. Gambler: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft rep mi. The 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and 
conducting its review and issuing this report. 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is committed to 
ensuring the full implementation of International Marriage Broker 
Regulation Act (IMBRA), including the consistent adjudication of 
petitions and the collection of appropriate and reliable data. USCIS 
already has both short- and long-term actions on-going and planned to 
improve the implementation of IMBRA. 

The draft report contained three recommendations with which the 
Department concurs. Specifically, GAO recommended that the Director of 
USCIS: 

Recommendation 1: Set a target time frame for completing the agency's 
review and revisions to the I-129F petition. 

Response: Concur. USCIS and the Department of Justice have completed 
their collaboration on the addition of IMBRA-related questions to Form 
I-129F, Petition for Alien Fiance(e). The USCIS Service Center 
Operations Directorate (SCOPS) has drafted the revised Form I-129F and 
instructions, and will distribute them for internal USCIS review and 
concurrence in December 2014. Once internal review is complete, the
revised form and instructions will undergo a public comment process, 
which includes posting the drafts for 60- and 30-day public comment 
periods, updating any necessary changes, and obtaining final approval 
prior to final publication. USCIS estimates that this entire process 
will take approximately nine months. Once completed, corresponding
revisions will be made to the Form I-129F standard operating 
procedures. Estimated Completion Date (ECD): September 30, 2015. 

Recommendation 2: Ensure that IMBRA-required data elements will be 
collected in an automated manner with the release of the electronic I-
129F petition. 

Response: Concur. The USCIS SCOPS and Office of Transformation 
Coordination will work closely together to identifY all data that will 
be collected from the Form I-129F in the USCIS Electronic Immigration 
System. ECD: December 31, 2016. 

Recommendation 3: Provide additional training to officers who 
adjudicate 1-129F petitions on the IMBRA-related requirements in the 
adjudication process. 

Response: Concur. USCIS SCOPS developed a training presentation 
specific to the consideration of IMBRA issues. The presentation will 
be provided to all four US CIS service centers. All officers 
adjudicating the Form I-129F will be required to complete the course 
before the end of January 2015. ECD : January 31, 2015. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this 
draft report. Technical comments were previously provided under a 
separate cover. Please feel free to contact me if you have any 
questions. We look forward to working with you in the future. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim H. Crumpacker, CIA, CFE: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State: 
Comptroller: 
P.O. Box 150008: 
Charleston, SC 29415-5008: 

November 25, 2014: 

Dr. Loren Yager: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Dear Dr. Yager: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report,
"Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed to Fully Implement the
International Marriage Broker Regulation Act" GAO Job Code 441 193.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for incorporation
with this letter as an appendix to the final report. 

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Kathryn Flachsbart, Director, Consular Training Division, Bureau of 
Foreign Service Institute at (703) 302-7161. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Christopher H. Flaggs: 

Enclosure: As stated. 

cc: GAO - Rebecca Gambler: 
CA- Michele T. Bond: 
State/OIG - Norman Brown: 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed to Fully Implement the 
International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (GAO-15-3, GAO Code 
441193): 

The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to comment on the 
GAO report entitled “Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed to 
Fully Implement the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act.” 

Recommendation 2: To ensure that fiancé(e)s and spouses applying for K 
visas receive and understand the information to be provided to them 
under the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) and 
that consular officers adhere to documentation guidance in the FAM, we 
recommend that the Secretary of State incorporate the FAM's IMBRA-
related documentation requirements in the Foreign Service Institute's 
training curriculum for entry-level and mid-level consular officers. 

CA Response to Recommendation 2: 

The Department agrees with this recommendation. The Foreign Service 
Institute (FSI) will strengthen the training it provides to consular 
professionals on their responsibility to provide information to 
immigrating fiancé(e)s and spouses regarding their legal rights in 
compliance with the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act. 

In the Basic Consular Course (PC530), a six-week course that is 
mandatory for all entry-level consular adjudicators, FSI will expand 
training on consular roles and responsibilities in cases requiring 
IMBRA consideration by explicitly emphasizing the requirement to: 

1) Identify applicants with relevant visa classifications; 

2) Distribute the DHS/USCIS IMBRA pamphlet to those applicants; 

3) Confirm each applicant's understanding of their rights and the 
services available to them in the United States; and, 

4) Enter clear case notes indicating the applicant has received, read, 
and understood the IMBRA pamphlet. 

FSI will also incorporate similar IMBRA instructional content into 
courses for managers, including Consular Section Chief Basics (PC550) 
and Visa Issues for Mid-level Officers (PC557). They will also cover 
this topic in the course Workshop for Immigrant Visa Foreign Service 
Nationals (PC123), as Locally Employed Staff are frequently the first 
consular staff members to review applicant case files. 

This expanded coverage will assist mid-level consular managers, entry-
level adjudicators, and supporting staff in articulating and carrying 
out consular responsibilities to implement the FAM's IMBRA-related 
documentation requirements. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Rebecca Gambler, (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Kathryn Bernet (Assistant 
Director), Frances Cook, Monica Kelly, Connor Kincaid, Stanley 
Kostlya, Thomas Lombardi, Linda S. Miller, Jessica Orr, Michelle 
Woods, and Jim Ungavarsky made significant contributions to this work. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(K). The K nonimmigrant visa category has 
four classifications: a K-1 visa is for a fiancé(e), a K-2 visa is for 
a fiancé(e)'s minor child, a K-3 visa is for a spouse, and a K-4 visa 
is for a spouse's minor child. In general, a visa allows a foreign 
citizen to travel to a U.S. port of entry and request permission of an 
immigration inspection officer with the Department of Homeland 
Security's (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to enter the 
United States for an identified period of time. A nonimmigrant visa 
permits travel to the United States on a temporary basis. 

[2] Enacted on January 5, 2006, as sections 831 through 834 of the 
Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act 
of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-162, §§ 831-34, 119 Stat. 2960, 3066-77 
(2006), as amended by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act 
of 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-4, §§ 807-8, 127 Stat. 54, 112-17, IMBRA's 
provisions are generally codified at sections 1184(d), 1184(r), and 
1375a of Title 8, United States Code. In general, IMBRA defines an IMB 
as an entity that charges fees for providing dating, matrimonial, 
matchmaking services, or social referrals between U.S. and foreign 
national clients by providing contact information or otherwise 
facilitating communication between them. See § 1375a(e)(4) (defining 
IMB and describing the types of entities that do and do not qualify as 
IMBs). 

[3] See §§ 1184(r)(4)(B)(ii), 1375a(a)(5)(A), (b)(1), (d)(3)-(4). 
Appendix I presents USCIS's Form I-129F Petition for Alien Fiancé(e). 

[4] See § 1375a(a)(5)(A), (b)(1). The visa applicant must also be 
informed that such criminal background information is based on 
available records and may not be complete. 

[5] See § 1375a(d). 

[6] See § 1375a(d)(6)(A). For purposes of this report, the term 
"beneficiary" will also be used to describe the foreign client of an 
IMB, and the term "petitioner" will also be used to describe the U.S. 
client of an IMB. 

[7] See § 1375a(f)(1)-(3) (requiring that GAO report on, among other 
things, IMBRA's impact on the nonimmigrant visa process.) We reported 
that agencies had implemented some but not all of the requirements in 
IMBRA. We recommended, among other things, that USCIS develop 
mechanisms to check all petitioners for prior I-129F filings and, in 
consultation with State, notify beneficiaries of any prior filings. In 
addition, we recommended that USCIS, in consultation with State and 
DOJ, develop a framework for the investigation, referral, and 
prosecution of potential IMB violations of IMBRA. USCIS concurred with 
and has taken steps to address the recommendations, as we discuss in 
this report. See GAO, International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 
2005: Agencies Have Implemented Some, but Not All of the Act's 
Requirements, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-862] 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 8, 2008). 

[8] See § 1375a(f)(4). 

[9] § 1375a(f)(3), (4)(C). 

[10] Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management 
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide). Fifth Edition, (Newtown Square, PA: 
2013). 

[11] USCIS, Information on the Legal Rights Available to Immigrant 
Victims of Domestic Violence in the United States and Facts about 
Immigrating on a Marriage-Based Visa. (Washington D.C., Jan. 7, 2011). 
IMBRA mandated DHS, in consultation with DOJ and State, to develop an 
information pamphlet to provide beneficiaries with information on, 
among other things, the K visa application process and legal rights 
and resources for immigrant victims of domestic violence, abuse, and 
other crimes. See § 1375a(a). See appendix II for a copy of the 
pamphlet. 

[12] Department of Justice, Report to Congress Concerning the 
International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, July 26, 2013. See Pub. 
L. No. 113-4, § 808(a)(2), 127 Stat. at 114. 

[13] According to USCIS officials, prior to fiscal year 2013, I-129F 
petitions were adjudicated at all of the four USCIS service centers. 
However, as of fiscal year 2013, I-129F petitions are primarily 
adjudicated at two service centers--California and Texas Service 
Centers. The Nebraska Service Center primarily adjudicates I-129F 
petitions for K-3 visas. 

[14] The IVO database provides automated support for visa 
adjudications, such as case record maintenance, and tracking, 
scheduling, and reporting on applicant interviews. 

[15] GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21-3.1] (Washington, D.C.: 
November 1999), and Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic 
Training and Development Efforts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 
2004). We used this human capital guide's attributes of effective 
training and development programs to assess State's training and 
guidance for consular officers. The guide was developed through 
consultations with experts in government, the private sector, 
academia, and nonprofit organizations; by examination of laws and 
regulations related to federal training and development; and by 
conducting an extensive review of literature on training and 
development issues. The guide is intended to help GAO and agency 
officials analyze and report on training and development issues within 
specific agencies and programs. 

[16] The five consular posts, (rank ordered by number of K-1 visa 
applications processed) included Manila, Philippines; Guangzhou, 
China; Ciudad Juárez, Mexico; London, United Kingdom; and Bogotá, 
Colombia. 

[17] CLAIMS 3 is USCIS's electronic case management system for 
immigration applications and petitions. 

[18] We selected this time period to follow on from our 2008 report on 
the status of IMBRA implementation, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-862], for which we had obtained and 
analyzed available data for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 

[19] Pursuant to IMBRA, a petitioner that has filed multiple prior I-
129Fs must receive a waiver before his or her petition will be 
approved. See § 1184(d)(2). See figure 4 in this report for additional 
detail on IMBRA waivers. 

[20] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21-3.1] and 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[21] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21-3.1]. 

[22] GAO, Immigration Benefits: Consistent Adherence to DHS's 
Acquisition Policy Could Help Improve Transformation Program Outcomes, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-66] (Washington, D.C.: 
November 2011), and Information Technology: Near-Term Effort to 
Automate Paper-Based Immigration Files Needs Planning Improvements, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-375] (Washington, D.C.: 
March 2006). DHS Office of Inspector General, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services Information Technology Management Progress and 
Challenges, OIG-14-112 (Washington, D.C.: July 2014). 

[23] See §§ 1101(a)(15)(K)(i), 1184(d)(1). Admission into the United 
States on a K visa is for a specified period of time, at which point 
the K visa expires, requiring the noncitizen fiancé(e) or spouse to 
depart the United States, and upon failure to do so rendering the 
fiancé(e) or spouse removable from the country.See § 1227(a)(1) (C)(i). 

[24] §§ 1101(a)(15)(K)(ii), 1184(r)(1)-(3). 

[25] See § 1186a. 

[26] The number of I-129F petitions approved in a fiscal year will not 
equal numbers of K visas issued in the same fiscal year because, for 
example, State may adjudicate the visa applications in a subsequent 
fiscal year. 

[27] For a K-1 (fiancé[e]) I-129F petition, the petitioner must 
establish that the petitioner and fiancé(e) have previously met in 
person within 2 years of filing the petition (subject to a waiver at 
the Secretary of Homeland Security's discretion), have a bona fide 
intention to marry, and are legally able and actually willing to marry 
within 90 days of the beneficiary's arrival in the United States. See 
§ 1184(d). For a K-3 (spouse) I-129F, the petitioner must establish 
the bona fide marital relationship to the beneficiary. See § 
1101(a)(15)(K)(ii). 

[28] In accordance with IMBRA, petitioners must disclose on their I-
129F petitions convictions for any of the following specified crimes: 
(1) domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse and neglect, dating 
violence, elder abuse, and stalking, or an attempt to commit any of 
these crimes; (2) homicide, murder, manslaughter, rape, abusive sexual 
contact, sexual exploitation, incest, torture, trafficking, peonage, 
holding hostage, involuntary servitude, slave trade, kidnapping, 
abduction, unlawful criminal restraint, false imprisonment, or an 
attempt to commit any of these crimes; and (3) at least three 
convictions for crimes relating to a controlled substance or alcohol 
not arising from a single act. See § 1184(d)(1), (d)(3)(B), (r)(1), 
(r)(5)(B). The italicized text in the preceding sentence reflects a 
recent amendment to IMBRA that is not included in the current version 
of the I-129F petition. See Pub. L. No. 113-4, § 807(a), 127 Stat. at 
112. Similarly, the I-129F petition does not incorporate a recent 
amendment to IMBRA requiring that petitioners disclose information on 
any permanent protection or restraining order issued against the 
petitioner relating to any of IMBRA's specified crimes. See id. 

[29] See §§ 1184(d)(2)(A), (r)(4), 1375a(a)(5)(A)(iii)-(v). 

[30] See § 1375a(d)(5)(B)(iii). 

[31] The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 prohibits 
DHS from approving any family-based petition, including a fiancé(e) 
petition, for any petitioner convicted of a specified offense against 
a minor unless the DHS Secretary, in the Secretary's sole and 
unreviewable discretion, determines that the petitioner poses no risk 
to the beneficiary. Pub. L. No. 109-248, § 402, 120 Stat. 587, 622-23 
(2006) (amending 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(K), 1154(a)(1)(A)-(B)). 

[32] See § 1184(d)(2)(C). 

[33] See § 1375a(a)(1)-(2), (5)(A). IMBRA does not require that 
petitioner information on the number of prior I-129F petitions be 
mailed to a K visa applicant in all cases, but State includes this 
information in the application package it mails to applicants if 
provided by USCIS. See §§ 1184(r)(4)(B), 1375a(a)(5)(A)(v)(III). 

[34] See § 1375a(a)(5)(A)(iii), (b) (providing further that such 
information must be provided in the primary language of the visa 
applicant and that the visa applicant be informed that such criminal 
background information is based on available records and may not be 
complete). 

[35] See § 1375a(d)(2)-(3). 

[36] § 1375 a(d)(6)(A); Pub. L. No. 113-4, § 808(a)(2), 127 Stat. at 
114. An IMB that violates or attempts to violate IMBRA may be subject 
to civil penalties of not less than $5,000 and not more than $25,000 
for each violation and, in certain circumstances, may be subject to 
criminal penalties, including fines and 1 to 5 years' imprisonment. § 
1375a(d)(5). 

[37] TECS (not an acronym), is a CBP-owned multi-agency computer 
system of electronic alerts for terrorists, drug traffickers, and 
other criminal offenders. TECS provides access to criminal records 
databases and allows its users to interface with all 50 states and the 
District of Columbia via the National Law Enforcement 
Telecommunications Systems. 

[38] TECS interfaces with FBI's NCIC database. NCIC is a computerized 
index of criminal justice information with links to files on, for 
example, foreign fugitives, known or suspected terrorists, and the 
National Sex Offender Registry. 

[39] Consistent with IMBRA, the waivers for filing limits apply only 
to K-1 petitioners. See § 1184(d). 

[40] In accordance with IMBRA, USCIS exercises discretion in 
determining whether to grant or deny a waiver, except in the case of a 
mandatory waiver, which must be granted if the petitioner satisfies 
the statutory criteria. See § 1184(d)(2). 

[41] Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management 
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide). 

[42] USCIS's I-129F petition, as a means for requesting information 
from the public, is subject to review by OMB, which may approve such a 
collection for up to 3 years at a time. Pursuant to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, which provides the statutory framework for the 
federal government's collection, use, and dissemination of 
information, federal agencies must generally seek public comment on 
the proposed collection and submit the proposed collections for review 
and approval by OMB before requiring or requesting information from 
the public. See 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-21. In the case of proposed 
revisions to an active collection, such revisions may not be 
implemented unless submitted to OMB for review; however, public 
comment is not required unless the agency considers the revisions to 
be significant or substantive. At a minimum, revisions to the I-129F 
petition, which constitute a means by which USCIS collects information 
necessary to determine whether to provide a federal benefit (e.g., an 
immigration benefit), must be submitted for review and approval by OMB. 

[43] In October 2014, USCIS updated its website for the I-129F, 
Petition for Alien Fiancé(e), to include a section entitled "Special 
Instructions" for completing the I-129F petition. These instructions 
state that the information on IMBRA's filing limits contained on the I-
129F petition is inaccurate, instructs petitioners to follow the Form 
I-129F Petition Instructions, and includes accurate descriptions of 
the filing limits. 

[44] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-862]. 

[45] See 9 FAM 41.81 PN3. 

[46] As required by IMBRA, State translated the pamphlet, which 
includes information about the K nonimmigrant visa application process 
and the legal rights and resources available should a beneficiary 
become a victim of domestic violence, into at least 14 foreign 
languages and is currently working with DHS and DOJ to review the 
languages to ensure they are the most relevant. See 8 U.S.C. § 
1375a(a)(4). 

[47] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-862]. 

[48] The FAM assigns responsibility for the determination of whether 
the beneficiary understood the pamphlet to the officer's professional 
judgment. 

[49] Regarding the remaining 80 of the 227 cases, State consular 
officials in Washington, D.C., said that possible reasons the 
interview may not have taken place are that the interview has yet to 
be conducted with the K visa applicant, or the case may not have been 
sent from USCIS to State for adjudication. 

[50] In 1 of the 48 cases, interview notes were not provided. 
According to Consular Affairs officials in Washington, D.C., this case 
was under review at the time of our data request, and accordingly, the 
case notes were not available within IVO. 

[51] Cases identified as having partial documentation are those for 
which consular officers provided partial notations or references to 
the IMBRA pamphlet by, for example, noting "IMBRA given," "IMBRA 
disclosures," or "IMBRA brochure" in the case notes. Thus, the 
partially documented category was used to indicate instances for which 
we could not readily determine whether the IMBRA pamphlet was 
received, read, and understood in accordance with the FAM. 

[52] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[53] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21-3.1]. 

[54] State's Basic Consular Course is a mandatory 6-week training 
course for entry-level consular officers and is offered approximately 
47 times a year. 

[55] See § 1375a(d)(5)-(6); Pub. L. No. 113-4, § 808(a), 127 Stat. at 
114. 

[56] USCIS and U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), also a 
component of DHS, have a memorandum of agreement describing the 
process by which USCIS may refer suspected cases of fraud to ICE's 
Identity and Benefit Fraud Unit for investigation. According to USCIS 
officials, isolated cases of potential IMBRA violations by IMBs would 
likely not be referred to ICE for further investigation because ICE 
focuses its resources on investigating large-scale benefit fraud, such 
as marriage or visa fraud. Thus, ICE officials told us that individual 
cases of failing to comply with IMBRA requirements would be a lower 
priority for investigation. 

[57] DOJ, Report to Congress Concerning the International Marriage 
Broker Regulation Act, (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2013). 

[58] § 1375a(f)(3), (4)(c). Specifically, IMBRA, as amended, mandates 
that DHS, State, and DOJ collect and maintain data necessary for our 
review. We focused on DHS because IMBRA reporting requirements 
primarily focus on data DHS is to collect and maintain. 

[59] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-862]. In response, 
USCIS officials told us in 2008 that for the data elements currently 
not available in summary or reportable format, USCIS was actively 
seeking to modify CLAIMS to capture these data. 

[60] Because individual case files are maintained in various 
locations, such as USCIS service centers or at State's overseas 
consular posts, and because of the large volume of cases involved, it 
is not feasible to summarize or review the reliability of certain data 
that are not maintained electronically. 

[61] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-66]. 

[62] Testimony by Leon Rodriguez, USCIS Director, before the House 
Committee on the Judiciary, Oversight of U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, July 29, 2014. 

[63] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21-3.1]. 

[64] While IMBRA mandates the collection of data on the number of 
waiver requests submitted, approved, and denied, USCIS collects data 
on waivers required--that is, USCIS collects data on the number of 
petitions for which its officials determine a waiver is necessary for 
approval. We reviewed the reliability of the waivers' required data, 
as they were the only electronic data collected by USCIS on IMBRA 
waivers.  

[65] The May 2014 revisions also highlighted that the multiple filer 
field in CLAIMS 3 should include the total number of K-1 and K-3 I-
129Fs filed by the petitioner. The August 2013 SOP did not specify the 
type of I-129F (K-1 versus K-3) to include in determining the number 
of prior petitions. 

[66] See § 1184(d)(2). 

[67] Errors we found were in waiver data from petitions submitted from 
March 2012 through March 2014, when the August 2013 SOP was in effect. 
The June 2014 SOP clarifies that only one IMBRA waiver should apply 
per petition. 

[68] See § 1184(d). According to USCIS policy, the criminal waiver, 
also referred to as an extraordinary circumstances wavier, is 
available for petitioners who have filed more than two K-1 I-129Fs, or 
have had a K-1 I-129Fapproved less than 2 years before the filing date 
of the current petition and have a record of violent criminal offenses 
against a person or persons. The I-129F petition lists the crimes 
(i.e., the IMBRA-specified crimes) for which a waiver is required. See 
§ 1184(d)(3). 

[69] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21-3.1]. 

[70] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
"E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]