This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-371 
entitled 'Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to 
Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and Scholars' which was released 
on February 25, 2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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.

Report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on 
Science, House of Representatives:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

February 2004:

Border Security:

Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate Visas for 
Science Students and Scholars:

GAO-04-371:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-371, a report to the Chairman and Ranking 
Minority Member, Committee on Science, House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study:

Each year thousands of international science students and scholars 
apply for visas to enter the United States to participate in education 
and exchange programs. They offer our country diversity and 
intellectual knowledge and are an economic resource. At the same time, 
the United States has important national security interests in 
screening these individuals when they apply for a visa. At a hearing 
held by the House Committee on Science on March 26, 2003, witnesses 
raised concern about the length of time it takes for science students 
and scholars to obtain a visa and about losing top international 
students to other countries due to delays in the visa process. GAO 
reviewed 1) how long it takes a science student or scholar from 
another country to obtain a visa and the factors contributing to the 
length of time, and 2) what measures are under way to improve the 
process and decrease the number of pending cases.

What GAO Found:

State Department (State) data are not available on how long it takes 
for a science student or scholar to obtain a visa. While State has not 
set specific criteria or time frames for how long the visa process 
should take, its goal is to adjudicate visas as quickly as possible, 
consistent with immigration laws and homeland security objectives. 
During this review, GAO found that the time it takes to adjudicate a 
visa depends largely on whether an applicant must undergo a security 
check known as Visas Mantis, which is designed to protect against 
sensitive technology transfers. Based on a random sample of Visas 
Mantis cases for science students and scholars sent from posts between 
April and June 2003, GAO found it took an average of 67 days for the 
security check to be processed and for State to notify the post. In 
addition, GAO’s visits to posts in China, India, and Russia in 
September 2003 showed that many Visas Mantis cases had been pending 60 
days or more. GAO also found that the way in which Visas Mantis 
information was disseminated at headquarters made it difficult to 
resolve some of these cases expeditiously. Furthermore, consular staff 
at posts GAO visited said they were unsure whether they were 
contributing to lengthy waits because they lacked clear guidance on 
when to apply Visas Mantis checks and did not receive feedback on 
whether they were providing enough information in their Visas Mantis 
requests. Another factor that may effect the time taken to adjudicate 
visas for science students and scholars is the wait for an interview. 
The wait time at posts GAO visited was generally 2 to 3 weeks but 
could be longer depending on the time of the year.

While State and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials 
acknowledged there have been lengthy waits, they report having 
measures under way that they believe will improve the process and that 
they are collaborating to identify and resolve outstanding Visas 
Mantis cases. In addition, State officials told GAO they have invested 
about $1 million to upgrade the technology for sending Visas Mantis 
requests. According to State officials, the new system will help to 
reduce the time it takes to process Visas Mantis cases. But despite 
State’s plans to improve the Visas Mantis process, challenges remain. 
For example, the FBI’s systems will not immediately be interoperable 
with State’s. GAO was unable to assess State’s new system since it was 
not yet functioning at the time of the review.

What GAO Recommends:

GAO is making a recommendation to the Secretary of State, in 
coordination with the Director of the FBI and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, to develop and implement a plan to improve the 
security check process known as Visas Mantis. State commented that it 
had taken some action to improve the Visas Mantis process and it would 
study our recommendation to make further improvements.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

Length of Time to Adjudicate Visas Is Unknown; Security Check Is Major 
Contributing Factor:

Agency Officials Cite Improvements:

Conclusions:

Recommendation for Executive Action:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Appendix II: Visas Mantis Cases for Science Students and Scholars:

Appendix III; Visa Statistics from Seven Posts:

Appendix IV: Distribution of Processing Time for Sample of Visas Mantis 
Cases:

Appendix V: Comments from the State Department:

GAO Comments:

Appendix VI: Comments from the Federal Bureau of Investigation:

GAO Comments:

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Staff Acknowledgments:

Tables:

Table 1: Number of Student and Exchange Visas Issued and Denied in 
Fiscal Year 2003 by Selected Nationality:

Table 2: Visas Mantis Cases for Science Students and Scholars, April to 
June 2003:

Table 3: Visa Statistics from Posts in China, India, and Russia:

Figures:

Figure 1: Visa Adjudication Process:

Figure 2: Average Time Frames for Visas Mantis Cases, April to June 
2003:

Figure 3: Distribution of Days from Transmission by Post to Receipt by 
FBI:

Figure 4: Distribution of Days from Receipt by FBI to Completion of 
Clearance:

Figure 5: Distribution of Days from Clearance by FBI to Receipt by 
State:

Figure 6: Distribution of Days from Receipt by State to State's 
Response to Post:

Figure 7: Distribution of Total Days from Transmission by Post to 
Response from State:

Abbreviations:

CLASS: Consular Lookout and Support System: 
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 
INA: Immigration and Nationality Act: 
OSTP: Office of Science and Technology Policy: 
SAO: Security Advisory Opinion: 
TAL: Technology Alert List:

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

February 25, 2004:

The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Bart Gordon: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Science: 
House of Representatives:

Each year thousands of international science students and scholars 
apply for visas[Footnote 1] to enter the United States to participate 
in education and exchange programs. Foreign science students and 
scholars offer our country diversity and intellectual knowledge and are 
also an economic resource. At the same time, the United States has 
important national security interests in carefully screening science 
students and scholars who apply for visas. At a hearing held by the 
House Committee on Science on March 26, 2003, various witnesses raised 
concerns about the length of time it takes for a science student or 
scholar to obtain a visa. Moreover, university officials in the United 
States have expressed concern about losing top international students 
to other countries due to delays in the visa process. Visa decisions 
need to be made as quickly as possible to ensure that the United States 
remains a viable place for study and scientific exchanges; at the same 
time, visa decisions must be consistent with immigration laws and 
homeland security objectives.

You requested that we (1) determine how long it takes a science student 
or scholar from another country to obtain a visa and the factors that 
contribute to the length of time and (2) review what measures are under 
way to improve the visa issuance process and decrease the number of 
pending cases.

Based on our review of State Department (State) data systems regarding 
visas, we determined that visa data are collected for students (F 
visas) and for exchange visitors (J visas), but State's data systems do 
not track science applicants within these categories. Thus, data are 
not available to report how long it takes science applicants to obtain 
a visa. However, we identified a security review procedure as the 
factor most likely to affect the timeliness of science student and 
scholar applicant visas. Consequently, we focused our review on the 
length of time it takes an applicant to acquire a visa if he or she 
must undergo a security review. Using State documents, we were able to 
compile data on science applicants for this analysis. We also reviewed 
relevant documents and interviewed officials at the Departments of 
State and Homeland Security and at the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI) in Washington, D.C. In addition, we observed visa operations and 
analyzed data obtained at seven consular posts in three countries--
China, India, and Russia. We chose these countries in consultation with 
your office because they are a major source of science students and 
scholars visiting the United States. Appendix I provides more 
information on our scope and methodology, including limitations to 
State data we reviewed.

Results in Brief:

State Department data are not available on how long it takes for a 
science student or scholar to obtain a visa. While State has not set 
specific criteria or time frames for how long the visa process should 
take, its goal is to adjudicate visas as quickly as possible, 
consistent with immigration laws and homeland security objectives. 
During our review, we found that the time it takes to adjudicate a visa 
depends largely on whether an applicant must undergo a security check 
known as Visas Mantis. Based on a random sample of Visas Mantis cases 
for science students and scholars sent for review between April and 
June 2003, we found that it took an average of 67 days for the security 
check to be processed and for State to notify the post. In addition, 
our visits to posts in China, India, and Russia in September 2003 
showed that many Visas Mantis cases had been pending 60 days or more. 
We also found that the way in which Visas Mantis information was 
disseminated at the headquarters level made it difficult to resolve 
some Visas Mantis cases expeditiously. For example, in some instances, 
Visas Mantis cases sent by posts did not get to the FBI for its 
security check because of improperly formatted requests. Furthermore, 
consular staff at the posts we visited said they were unsure whether 
they were contributing to lengthy waits because they lacked clear 
guidance on when to apply Visas Mantis checks and did not receive 
feedback on whether they were providing enough information in their 
Visas Mantis requests. Another factor that may affect the time taken to 
adjudicate visas for science students and scholars is the wait for an 
interview. The wait time at posts we visited was generally 2 to 3 
weeks, and officials in Chennai, India, told us that the wait was as 
long as 12 weeks during the summer of 2003.

While State and FBI officials acknowledged that there have been lengthy 
waits, they report having measures under way that they believe will 
improve the process and resolve outstanding cases. Both State and FBI 
have set up inquiry desks to answer questions about the status of 
pending visa applications. In addition, officials from State's Bureau 
of Consular Affairs and the FBI told us they are working together to 
identify and resolve outstanding Visas Mantis cases. These officials 
also told us that State has invested about $1 million to upgrade its 
technology for transmitting Visas Mantis requests, and the system is 
expected to be functional later this year. According to State 
officials, the new system will help to reduce the time it takes to 
process Visas Mantis cases. However, despite State's plans to improve 
the Visas Mantis process, challenges remain. For example, according to 
both FBI and State officials, the FBI's systems will not be immediately 
interoperable with State's new system. As a result, data exchange 
between State and FBI may continue to cause lengthy waits. FBI 
officials told us they are actively working with State to seek 
solutions to this problem but have not determined how the information 
will be transmitted in the meantime. We were not able to assess the 
system since it was not yet functioning at the time of our review.

To help improve the process and shorten the length of time it takes for 
a science student or scholar to obtain a visa, we are recommending that 
the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Director of the FBI 
and the Secretary of Homeland Security, develop and implement a plan to 
improve the Visas Mantis process.

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of State and 
Homeland Security and to the FBI. In commenting on our draft report, 
State indicated that it had taken a number of recent actions to improve 
the Visas Mantis process and has started to implement portions of our 
recommendation. For example, State said that it has started to provide 
feedback to posts regarding the information contained in Visas Mantis 
cables and is providing expanded briefings on the Visas Mantis process 
to new consular officers. State also said that it would study our 
recommendation to explore possibilities for further improvements to the 
Visas Mantis security check process. The Department of Homeland 
Security and the FBI did not comment on our recommendation.

Background:

The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, is the 
primary body of law governing immigration and visa operations.[Footnote 
2] Among other functions, the INA defines the power given to the 
Attorney General, the Secretary of State, immigration officers, and 
consular officers; delineates the categories of and qualifications for 
nonimmigrant visas; and provides a broad framework of operations 
through which foreign citizens are allowed to enter the United States. 
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 establishes the role of the 
Department of Homeland Security in the visa process, and a subsequent 
Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretaries of State and 
Homeland Security further outlines the visa issuance 
authorities.[Footnote 3] According to the memorandum, the Department of 
Homeland Security is responsible for establishing visa policy, 
reviewing implementation of the policy, and providing additional 
direction, while the State Department is responsible for managing the 
visa process and carrying out U.S. foreign policy.

Process for Adjudicating Visas:

The visa adjudication process has several steps (see fig. 1). Visa 
applicants generally begin the visa process by scheduling a visa 
interview.[Footnote 4] On the day of the appointment, a consular 
officer reviews the application, checks the applicant's name in the 
Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS),[Footnote 5] and interviews 
the applicant. Based on the interview and a review of pertinent 
documents, the consular officer determines if the applicant is eligible 
for nonimmigrant status under the Immigration and Nationality 
Act.[Footnote 6] If the consular officer then determines that the 
applicant is eligible to receive a visa, the applicant is notified 
right away and he or she usually receives the visa within 24 
hours.[Footnote 7]

Figure 1: Visa Adjudication Process:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

In some cases, the consular officer decides that the applicant will 
need a Security Advisory Opinion (SAO), which provides an opinion or 
clearance from Washington on whether to issue a visa to the applicant. 
SAOs are required for a number of reasons, including concerns that a 
visa applicant may engage in the illegal transfer of sensitive 
technology. An SAO based on sensitive technology transfer concerns is 
known as a Visas Mantis and, according to State officials, is the most 
common type of SAO applied to science applicants.[Footnote 8] It is 
also the most common type of SAO sent from most of the posts we visited 
in China, Russia, and India.

In deciding if a Visas Mantis check is needed, the consular officer 
determines whether the applicant's background or proposed activity in 
the United States could involve exposure to technologies on the 
Technology Alert List (TAL). The list includes science and technology-
related fields where, if knowledge gained from research or work in 
these fields were used against the United States, it could potentially 
be harmful.[Footnote 9] If a Visas Mantis is needed, the consular 
officer generally informs the applicant that his or her visa is being 
temporarily refused under Section 221(g) of the U.S. Immigration and 
Nationality Act,[Footnote 10] pending receipt of security clearance.

After a consular officer decides that a Visas Mantis is necessary for 
an applicant, several steps are taken to resolve the process. The 
officer drafts a Visas Mantis cable, which contains information from 
the applicant's application and interview. The cable is then generally 
reviewed by a consular section chief or other consular official at 
post, who then approves the Visas Mantis cable for transmission to 
Washington for an interagency security check. Once the cable is sent, 
the State Department's Bureau of Nonproliferation, the FBI, and other 
agencies review the information in the cable and provide a response on 
the applicant to the Consular Affairs section of State 
headquarters.[Footnote 11] The Bureau of Nonproliferation and other 
agencies are given 15 working days to respond to State with any 
objections. However, State has agreed to wait for a response from the 
FBI before proceeding with each Visas Mantis case.

State's Bureau of Consular Affairs receives all agency responses 
pertaining to an applicant, summarizes them, and prepares a response to 
the consular posts. A cable is then transmitted to the post which 
indicates that State does or does not have an objection to issuing the 
visa, or that more information is needed.[Footnote 12] Generally, a 
consular official at post reviews the cable and, based on the 
information from Washington, decides whether to issue the visa to the 
applicant. The officer then notifies the applicant that the visa has 
been issued or denied, or that more information is needed. According to 
consular officials, in the vast majority of the cases the visa is 
approved. However, even when the visa is issued, the information 
provided by the consular posts on certain visa applicants is very 
useful to certain agencies in guarding against illegal technology 
transfer. As a result, according to the State Department, the Visas 
Mantis program provides State and other interested agencies with an 
effective mechanism to screen out those individuals who seek to evade 
or violate laws governing the export of goods, technology, or sensitive 
information. This screening, in turn, addresses significant issues of 
national security.

Availability of State Data:

State Department data are not available on the number of visas that 
were issued or denied to science students and scholars or the length of 
time it takes to issue visas to these people. Consular Affairs 
officials told us that State's systems[Footnote 13] can track aggregate 
student or scholar data by F and J visa categories, but they cannot 
narrow their query search to specifically identify science students or 
scholars.[Footnote 14] Table 1 shows the number of visas issued and 
denied for students and scholars seeking visas by selected 
nationalities in fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 15]

Table 1: Number of Student and Exchange Visas Issued and Denied in 
Fiscal Year 2003 by Selected Nationality:

Nationality: South Korea; 
Students (F visas): Issued: 34,697; 
Students (F visas): Refused: 8,119; 
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 14,218; 
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 1,507.

Nationality: China (mainland) and Taiwan; 
Students (F visas): Issued: 31,322; 
Students (F visas): Refused: 22,995; 
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 10,171; 
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 7,003.

Nationality: Japan; 
Students (F visas): Issued: 25,962; 
Students (F visas): Refused: 1,387; 
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 11,377; 
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 305.

Nationality: India; 
Students (F visas): Issued: 20,320; 
Students (F visas): Refused: 17,973; 
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 5,311; 
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 1,718.

Nationality: Brazil; 
Students (F visas): Issued: 7,625; 
Students (F visas): Refused: 1,761; 
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 8,297; 
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 520.

Nationality: Germany; 
Students (F visas): Issued: 5,376; 
Students (F visas): Refused: 1,122; 
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 22,600; 
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 923.

Nationality: Great Britain; 
Students (F visas): Issued: 3,536; 
Students (F visas): Refused: 874; 
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 17,354; 
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 1,052.

Nationality: Russia; 
Students (F visas): Issued: 1,645; 
Students (F visas): Refused: 1,325; 
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 17,185; 
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 8,412.

Nationality: Poland; 
Students (F visas): Issued: 1,243; 
Students (F visas): Refused: 906; 
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 20,675; 
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 2,637.

Nationality: All others; 
Students (F visas): Issued: 103,853; 
Students (F visas): Refused: 71,733; 
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 156,472; 
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 30,537.

Total; 
Students (F visas): Issued: 235,579; 
Students (F visas): Refused: 128,195; 
Exchanges (J visas): Issued: 283,660; 
Exchanges (J visas): Refused: 54,614. 

Source: GAO analysis of State Department visa data.

[End of table]

In addition, State data are not available on the overall number of 
Visas Mantis cases in fiscal year 2003 or on the Visas Mantis cases by 
visa category.[Footnote 16] State's systems can track the visa process 
for individual cases but do not allow for aggregate queries of Visas 
Mantis cases. For example, State does not have data on how many Visas 
Mantis cases involved student visas.[Footnote 17] State also lacks data 
on the number of science students and scholars that undergo a Visas 
Mantis security check. Furthermore, State did not have aggregate data 
on the time frame for adjudicating a visa that required a Visas Mantis 
security check.

Length of Time to Adjudicate Visas Is Unknown; Security Check Is Major 
Contributing Factor:

The length of time for a science student or scholar to obtain a visa is 
not known, but a key factor in the time frame can be attributed to 
whether an applicant must undergo a Visas Mantis check. Since State 
could provide information on individual cases, we conducted our own 
sample of Visas Mantis cases that we obtained from State for the period 
between April and June 2003 and found that for these applicants, it 
took an average of 67 days for the security check to be processed and 
for State to notify the post of the results. Furthermore, our visits to 
posts showed that as of October 1, 2003, 410 Visas Mantis cases 
submitted by 7 posts in fiscal year 2003 were still pending after more 
than 60 days.[Footnote 18] We also found that interoperability problems 
among the systems that State and FBI use contributed to the time taken 
to process a Visas Mantis check. In addition, officials at posts we 
visited told us they were unsure whether they were adding to the 
lengthy waits by not having clear guidance on when to apply the Visas 
Mantis process and not receiving feedback on the amount of information 
they provided in their Visas Mantis requests. Aside from the time it 
takes to process Visas Mantis checks, we found during our fieldwork 
that an applicant also has to wait for an interview. Post officials and 
representatives of higher education scientific and governmental 
organizations indicated that delays in processing visas for science 
students and scholars could negatively affect U.S. national interests.

Analysis of State Data Indicates Lengthy Waits:

To obtain visa data on science students and scholars, and to determine 
how long the visa process takes, we reviewed all Visas Mantis cables 
received from posts between April and June 2003,[Footnote 19] which 
totaled approximately 5,000. Of these cases, 2,888 pertain to science 
students and scholars, of which approximately 58 percent were sent from 
China,[Footnote 20] about 20 percent from Russia, and less than 2 
percent from India. Appendix II provides additional information on the 
number of science student and scholar cases sent from each post.

We drew a random sample of 71 cases from the 2,888 science student and 
scholar visa applications to measure the length of time taken at 
selected points in the visa process. The sample of 71 cases is a 
probability sample, and results from the data in this sample project to 
the universe of the 2,888 science visa applications. We found that 
visas for science students and scholars took on average 67 
days[Footnote 21] from the date the Visas Mantis cable was submitted 
from post to the date State sent a response to the post.[Footnote 22] 
This is slightly longer than 2 months per application, on average. In 
the sample, 67 of the visa applications completed processing and 
approval by December 3, 2003. In addition, 3 of the 67 completed 
applications had processing times in excess of 180 days. Four of the 
cases in our sample of 71 remained pending as of December 3, 2003. Of 
the 4 cases pending, 3 had been pending for more than 150 days and 1 
for more than 240 days as of December 3, 2003.[Footnote 23]

In addition to our sample of 71 cases, State provided us with data on 
two samples it had taken of Visas Mantis case processing times. Data on 
the first sample was provided on December 11, 2003, and included 40 
visa cases taken from August to October 2003. Data on the second sample 
was provided on February 13, 2004, and included 50 Visas Mantis cases 
taken from November and December 2003. State indicated that both 
samples show improvements in processing times compared to earlier 
periods in 2003. Based on the documentation of how these cases were 
selected, we were unable to determine whether these were scientifically 
valid samples and therefore we could not validate that processing times 
have improved. For the first sample, the data show that 58 percent of 
the cases were completed within 30 days; for the second sample, the 
data show that 52 percent were completed within this time frame. In 
addition, the data for both samples show that lengthy waits remain in 
some cases. For example, 9 of the 40 cases had been outstanding for 
more than 60 days as of December 3, 2003, including 3 cases that had 
been pending for more than 120 days. Also, 9 of the 50 cases were still 
pending as of February 13, 2004, including 6 that had been outstanding 
for more than 60 days. State officials commented that most of the 
outstanding cases from both samples were still being reviewed by the 
agencies. Moreover, for one case sent in December 2003, the FBI showed 
no record of the Visas Mantis request.

Post Data Show Lengthy Waits in Visas Mantis Cases:

While Consular Affairs officials were not able to query their systems 
for aggregate Visas Mantis data, we were able to obtain aggregate data 
from the posts we visited. During our field visits, we found most posts 
track Visas Mantis cases they send to State. Some posts designate a 
consular official to track Visas Mantis cases while others had no 
designated officers for this purpose. Overall, we found that most posts 
kept a spreadsheet on the Visas Mantis cases, which generally contained 
Visas Mantis applicant data such as when the cable was sent to State 
and when a response was received at post. However, we found no standard 
method for data or tracking. In addition, we found that most posts did 
not have accurate data on the number of Visas Mantis cases they sent to 
headquarters in a fiscal year. Posts could provide us with F and J visa 
category data but could not break down the data by science students and 
scholars.

During our fieldwork at posts in China, India, and Russia, we obtained 
data indicating that 410 Visas Mantis cases submitted by 7 posts in 
fiscal year 2003 were still outstanding more than 60 days as of October 
1, 2003.[Footnote 24] In addition, we found numerous cases--including 
27 from Shanghai--that were pending more than 120 days as of October 
16, 2003.[Footnote 25] The following are examples of data we collected 
during our fieldwork regarding the processing of Visas Mantis 
cases:[Footnote 26]

* In September 2003, the three posts we visited in China had 
approximately 174 security checks for students and exchange visitors 
that had been pending between 60 and 120 days, and 49 that had been 
pending for more than 120 days.[Footnote 27] In Shanghai in fiscal year 
2003, it took approximately 47 days for a Visas Mantis case for a 
student or scholar to be processed from the time a cable was sent from 
post to the time the visa was issued.

* Approximately 25 percent of Chennai's Visas Mantis cases in fiscal 
year 2003 took between 60 and 120 days to process, and 58 percent took 
more than 120 days to process from application date to the date a 
response was received from Washington. Further, the average time for 
Visas Mantis cases to be processed in Chennai in fiscal year 2003 was 
approximately 5 months or 144 days. Post officials told us that the 
processing time has improved; however, the data show there are still 
lengthy waits in Chennai. For example, of the 6 visa applications 
submitted in October 2003 that required a Visas Mantis check, 4 were 
still pending as of January 9, 2004, and the other 2 took an average of 
55 days to process.[Footnote 28]

* Of the Visas Mantis applications completed in Moscow in fiscal year 
2003, approximately 21 percent took between 60 and 120 days, and 10 
percent took more than 120 days to process. In September 2003, Moscow 
had 544 outstanding Visas Mantis cases. Of these cases, about 28 
percent had been pending more than 60 days. In addition, in fiscal year 
2003, the average time to adjudicate a visa[Footnote 29] for those 
requiring a Visas Mantis security check was 53 days.

Systems Are Not Interoperable and Can Lead to Delays between Points in 
Process:

Because many different agencies, bureaus, posts, and field offices are 
involved in processing Visas Mantis security checks and each has 
different databases and systems, we found that Visas Mantis cases can 
get delayed or lost at different points in the process.[Footnote 30] We 
found that in fiscal year 2003, some Visas Mantis cases did not always 
reach their intended recipient and, as a result, some of the security 
checks were delayed. For example, we followed up with the FBI on 14 
outstanding cases from some of the posts we visited in China in 
September 2003 to see if it had received and processed the cases. FBI 
officials provided information indicating that they had no record of 3 
of the cases, they had responded to State on 8 cases, and they were 
still reviewing 3 cases. FBI officials stated that the most likely 
reasons why they did not have a record of the 3 cases from State were 
due to cable formatting errors and duplicate cases that were rejected 
from the FBI database.[Footnote 31] State did not comment on the status 
of the 14 cases we provided to the FBI for review. However, a Consular 
Affairs official told us that in fall 2003, there were about 700 Visas 
Mantis cases sent from Beijing that did not reach the FBI for the 
security check. The official did not know how the cases got lost but 
told us that it took Consular Affairs about a month to identify that 
there was a problem and provide the FBI with the cases. As a result, 
several hundred visa applications were delayed for another month.

Figure 2 illustrates some of the time-consuming factors in the Visas 
Mantis process for our sample of 71 cases. While the FBI received most 
of the cases from State within a day, 7 cases took a month or more, 
most likely because they had been improperly formatted and thus were 
rejected by the FBI's system.[Footnote 32] In more than half of the 
cases, the FBI was able to complete the clearance process the same day, 
but some cases took more than 100 days.[Footnote 33] These cases may 
have taken longer because (1) the FBI had to investigate the case or 
request additional information from State; (2) the FBI had to locate 
files in field offices, because not all of its name check files are 
electronic; or (3) the case was a duplicate, which the FBI's name check 
system also rejects. In most of the cases, the FBI was able to send a 
response--which it generally does in batches of name checks, not by 
individual case--to State within a week. The FBI provides the results 
of name checks for Visas Mantis cases to State on computer compact 
disks (CDs), which could cause delays. In December 2003, a FBI official 
told us that these CDs were provided to State twice a week. However, in 
the past, the CDs were provided to State on a less frequent basis. In 
addition, it takes time for data to be entered into State's systems 
once State receives the information. In the majority of our sample 
cases, it took State 2 weeks or longer to inform post that it could 
issue a visa. State officials were unable to explain why it took State 
this long to respond to post. Officials told us that the time frame 
could be due to a lack of resources at headquarters or because State 
was waiting for a response from agencies other than the FBI. However, 
the data show that only 5 of the 71 cases were pending information from 
agencies other than the FBI. Appendix IV provides additional 
information on the distribution of processing time for our sample of 
Visas Mantis cases.

Figure 2: Average Time Frames for Visas Mantis Cases, April to June 
2003:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Post Officials Seek Clearer Guidance and Feedback on Visas Mantis Cases 
to Expedite Process:

During our fieldwork, some consular officials expressed concern that 
they could be contributing to the time it takes to process Visas Mantis 
requests because they lacked clear guidance on determining Visas Mantis 
cases and feedback on whether they were applying checks appropriately 
and providing enough data in their Visas Mantis requests. According to 
the officials, additional information and feedback from Washington 
regarding these issues could help expedite Visas Mantis cases.

Currently, State provides some guidance to posts on Visas Mantis 
requirements and processing, including how to use the TAL to determine 
if a visa applicant should undergo a security check.[Footnote 34] 
However, consular officers told us that they would like the guidance to 
be simplified--for example, by expressing some scientific terms in more 
comprehensible language. Several consular officers also told us they 
had only a limited understanding of the Visas Mantis process, including 
how long the process takes. They told us they would like to have better 
information on how long a Visas Mantis check is taking so that they can 
more accurately inform the applicant of the expected wait. Since our 
visits to posts, State has issued additional updated guidance on 
applying the TAL.[Footnote 35] However, after receiving the new 
guidance, consular officials at some posts told us that although it was 
an improvement, the updated guidance is still confusing to apply, 
particularly for junior officers without a scientific background.

Consular officers at most of the posts we visited also told us they 
would like more feedback from State on whether the Visas Mantis cases 
they are sending to Washington are appropriate, particularly whether 
they are sending too many or too few Visas Mantis requests. They said 
they would like to know if including more information in the security 
check request would reduce the time to process an application in 
Washington. Moreover, consular officers indicated they would like 
additional information on some of the outstanding Visas Mantis cases, 
such as where the case is in the process. State confirmed that it has 
not always responded to posts' requests for feedback or information on 
outstanding cases. Officials at State's Bureau of Consular Affairs told 
us that their office facilitates the Visas Mantis process but is not in 
a position to provide feedback to consular posts on the purpose of 
Visas Mantis or how the information is being used. However, officials 
from the FBI and State's Bureau of Nonproliferation told us that 
Consular Affairs should take the lead in providing feedback to posts 
because it administers the program and supervises the consular 
officers.

Wait for an Interview Can Add Significant Time:

In addition to the time needed for Visas Mantis checks, another 
contributing factor in the length of time it takes to adjudicate a visa 
is how long an applicant must wait to get an interview appointment at 
post.[Footnote 36] State does not have data or criteria for the length 
of time applicants at its overseas posts wait for an interview, but at 
the posts we visited in September 2003, we found that it generally took 
2 to 3 weeks. Furthermore, post officials in Chennai, India, told us 
that the interview wait time was as long as 12 weeks during the summer 
of 2003 when the demand for visas was greater than the resources 
available at post to adjudicate a visa.[Footnote 37] Officials at some 
of the posts we visited indicated they did not have enough space and 
staffing resources to handle interview demands and the new visa 
requirement. Factors such as the time of year an applicant applies for 
a visa, the appointment requirements, and the staffing situation at 
posts generally affect how long an applicant will have to wait for an 
interview.

All the posts we visited had high and low seasons in which the visa 
application volume fluctuated. For example, June was the busiest month 
in Chennai, India, in 2000, 2001, and 2002, with the average number of 
visa applicants exceeding 18,000.[Footnote 38] By contrast, Chennai saw 
an average of 10,000 visa applicants in October during these same 
years. During the summer months of 2003, the high demand for visas was 
compounded by the new visa interview requirement State established in 
May 2003.[Footnote 39] The new requirement, which went into effect on 
August 1, 2003, states that, with a few exceptions, all foreign 
individuals seeking to visit the United States need to be interviewed 
prior to receiving a visa. As a result, interview volumes have 
increased at some posts we visited. For example, in September 2002, 
consular officials in Chennai interviewed 25 percent of visa 
applicants, but by August 2003, that number had increased to 75 percent 
and was projected to continue to rise. In addition, a consular official 
in Moscow estimated that the volume of interviews increased from about 
60 percent before August 2003 to about 90 percent in December 2003. 
However, the interview requirement did not have a significant effect on 
posts in China since the posts were already interviewing about 70 
percent of the visa applicants.

In early summer 2003, Consular Affairs requested that posts give 
priority to students and exchange visitors when scheduling visa 
interviews. Below are the wait times at each post we visited and some 
of the initiatives the posts have taken to accommodate applicants.

China:

At the time of our field visit in September 2003, two of the three 
posts we visited in China had a 2-week wait for an interview. However, 
applicants at one post were facing waits of about 5 to 6 weeks. The 
extended waits for interviews were due to an imbalance between demand 
for visas and the number of consular officers available to interview 
applicants and staff to answer phone lines. Consular officials told us 
that to reduce these waits, they were relying on temporary duty help 
and also planned to request an additional consular officer at post. To 
facilitate the issuance of visas to students who underwent a Visas 
Mantis security check, one post in China opened on one weekend to issue 
hundreds of visas and also allowed students and scholars to fax in 
requests for expedited interviews.[Footnote 40] In such cases, 
interviews were scheduled within a matter of days.

India:

During our field visit in September 2003, consular officers in New 
Delhi and in Chennai told us that the wait for an interview was 2 to 3 
weeks at each post. However, during the 2003 summer months, the wait 
was as long as 12 weeks in Chennai. To help reduce lengthy waits, 
applicants were allowed to interview at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi 
or at the U.S. Consulate in Calcutta. In addition, the posts we visited 
instituted longer interview hours, as well as overtime for consular 
staff and the use of temporary staff to conduct interviews to reduce 
interview wait times for all applicants. According to consular 
officials in Chennai and New Delhi, some lengthy waits were attributed 
to staffing shortages. In a May 2003 assessment conducted by Consular 
Affairs, State officials concurred that staffing levels in Chennai's 
consular section are below what is necessary to meet a rapidly 
increasing workload. Since late summer 2003, the consulate in Chennai 
has reserved interview appointments on Fridays for students and 
temporary workers. However, an official at the consulate in Chennai 
told us that unless students who go through a Visas Mantis security 
check apply 2 to 3 months in advance, a significant portion of them 
will start school late.

Russia:

Consular officials in Moscow told us that at the end of September 2003, 
the wait for an interview was 1 week, while in St. Petersburg the wait 
averaged 2 to 3 weeks. In Moscow the recent additions of new junior 
officers and longer interviewing hours have helped officers keep up 
with current visa demands. Both posts have also arranged for some visa 
applicant groups, such as business applicants and official delegations, 
to be interviewed separately. In addition, a consular official in 
Moscow told us that the post is able to accommodate most requests for 
students or scholars who need an expedited appointment.[Footnote 41] In 
St. Petersburg, approximately 5 to 10 interview slots per day are 
reserved for students and scholars.

Officials, Groups Note Impact of Visa Delays:

Although we did not attempt to measure the impact of the time it takes 
to adjudicate a visa, consular officials and representatives of several 
higher education, scientific, and governmental organizations expressed 
concern that visa delays could be detrimental to the scientific 
interests of the United States. Although they provided numerous 
individual examples of the consequences of visa delays, they were 
unable to measure the total impact of such lengthy waits.

Embassy officials in Moscow told us that visa delays are hindering 
congressionally mandated nonproliferation goals. Department of Energy 
officials at post explained that former Soviet Union scientists have 
found it extremely difficult getting to the United States to 
participate in U.S. government-sponsored conferences and exchanges that 
are critical to nonproliferation. Furthermore, many officials with whom 
we spoke cited specific examples where scientific research and 
collaboration was delayed or prevented due to delays in obtaining a 
visa. National Aeronautics and Space Administration officials at post 
also noted that up to 20 percent of their time is spent dealing with 
visa issues when they should be focusing on program issues.

During our field visits, Beijing's Deputy Chief of Mission and consular 
officials at the embassy and consulates in China stated that visa 
delays could have a negative impact on student and scholar exchanges. 
They told us that the lengthy waits to obtain a visa might lead Chinese 
students and scholars to pursue studies or research in countries where 
it is easier to obtain a visa. A consular chief in Chennai, India, 
agreed, saying that lengthy waits are also causing Indian students to 
decide to study in countries where it is easier to get a visa and, 
therefore, the United States could lose out on intellectual knowledge 
these visa applicants bring to our country. Further, embassy officials 
in Beijing reported that visa delays in nonproliferation cooperation 
and scientific exchange could have enormous and lasting consequences.

Finally, research organizations and associations of American 
universities have cited the difficulties their international students 
and faculty are having in obtaining visas. According to a survey 
conducted by a national scientific organization, applicants from 26 
different countries, most notably Russia and China, have been delayed 
or prevented from entering the United States.[Footnote 42] Another 
survey conducted by a national educational association reported that 
hundreds of students and scholars experienced delays in receiving a 
visa or were denied a visa.[Footnote 43] According to several surveys, 
scientific research was postponed, jobs were left unstaffed, and 
conferences and meetings were missed as a result of the delays.

Agency Officials Cite Improvements:

FBI and State officials acknowledged that lengthy visa waits have been 
a problem, but said they are implementing improvements to the process 
and working to decrease the number of pending Visas Mantis cases. 
Improvements include implementation of customer service initiatives, 
coordination between agencies to identify and resolve outstanding 
cases, and upgrades in information systems. In addition, State and FBI 
officials told us that the validity of Visas Mantis checks for students 
and scholars has been extended to 12 months.[Footnote 44]

State, FBI, and consular officials at posts have made customer service 
improvements related to Visas Mantis checks that allow them to address 
questions and provide information to people inquiring about a status of 
a visa case. For example, consular officials at some of the posts we 
visited told us that they have established inquiry lines at post for 
visa applicants to check the status of their case and remind consular 
officials that their case is still pending. This also helps consular 
officers to monitor cases that have been outstanding. In addition, 
State set up an inquiry desk at the beginning of 2003, and the FBI set 
one up during the summer of 2003 to accommodate calls from the public 
about the status of pending visa applications that have been submitted 
for Visas Mantis checks.[Footnote 45] State has set up a separate e-
mail address for inquiries from agencies involved in Visas Mantis 
processing. Consular Affairs officials also told us they have set up an 
inquiry line where post officials can obtain additional information on 
outstanding cases. However, some post officials told us that they would 
still like more information on how long the Visas Mantis check takes.

Officials from State's Consular Affairs and the FBI told us they are 
coordinating efforts to identify and resolve outstanding Visas Mantis 
cases. For example, Consular Affairs officials have been working with 
FBI officials on a case-by-case basis to make sure that cases 
outstanding for several months to a year are completed. However, State 
officials said they do not have a target date for completion of all the 
outstanding cases, which they estimated at 1,000 in November 
2003.[Footnote 46] According to these officials, while about 350 of 
these outstanding cases required further review or more information, 
State has not yet begun working to reconcile them.

FBI officials also told us that to address some of the delays on their 
end, such as those that occur due to problems with lost case files or 
inoperable systems, the FBI has taken several actions to improve its 
Visas Mantis clearance process. For example, the officials indicated 
that the FBI is working on automating its files and setting up a common 
database between the field offices and headquarters.[Footnote 47] FBI 
officials also told us that they have set up a tracking system for all 
SAOs, including Visas Mantis cases.[Footnote 48] In addition, they said 
the FBI has established new procedures to deal with name check files 
the agency cannot locate within a certain amount of time. In a July 
2003 letter to State, the FBI said it would notify State after 90 days 
that it could proceed with visa processing in the event that the FBI 
could not locate relevant files and there were no security concerns.

Consular Affairs officials told us that State has invested about $1 
million on a new information management system that it said would 
reduce the time it takes to process Visas Mantis cases. They described 
the new system as a mechanism that would help strengthen the 
accountability of Visas Mantis clearance requests and responses, 
establish consistency in data collection, and improve data exchange 
between State and other agencies involved in the clearance 
process.[Footnote 49] In addition, officials said the system would 
allow them to improve overall visa statistical reporting capabilities 
and data integrity for Visas Mantis cases. The new system will be 
paperless, which means that the current system of requesting Visas 
Mantis clearances by cable will be eliminated. Through an 
intergovernmental network known as the Open Source Information System, 
the new system will allow most government agencies involved in the 
Visas Mantis process, such as the FBI, to obtain visa applicant 
information and coordinate Visas Mantis responses. State officials told 
us that the system is on schedule for release early this year, and that 
the portion relating to SAOs will be operational sometime later this 
year. However, challenges remain. FBI officials told us that the name 
check component of the FBI's system would not immediately be 
interoperable with State's new system, but that they are actively 
working with State to seek solutions to this problem. However, FBI and 
State have not determined how the information will be transmitted in 
the meantime. We were not able to assess the new system since it was 
not yet functioning at the time of our review.

In addition to improvements to the Visas Mantis process, State 
officials told us that they are taking some actions to continue to 
monitor the resource needs at post. To alleviate concerns about 
staffing, Consular Affairs officials told us that temporary 
adjudicating officers are sent to the posts as needed. These officials 
also told us that State added 66 new officers in 2003 and plans to add 
an additional 80 in 2004.[Footnote 50] However, the decision to add 
these new officers was made before the new August 2003 interview 
requirements were implemented and thus it is unknown if there are 
enough resources for the task at hand. In addition, post officials told 
us that State plans to expand some consular sections, such as in 
Chennai, India, where the consulate is scheduled to undergo an 
expansion in spring 2004.

Conclusions:

Agency officials recognize that the process for issuing a visa to a 
science student or scholar can be an important tool to control the 
transfer of technology that could put the United States at risk. They 
also acknowledge that if the process is lengthy, students and scholars 
with science backgrounds might decide not to come to the United States, 
and technological advancements that serve U.S. and global interests 
could be jeopardized. Our analysis of a sample of Visas Mantis cases 
from April to June 2003 show that some applicants faced lengthy waits. 
While the State Department and the FBI report improvements in visa 
processing times, our analysis of data from the posts we visited in 
September 2003 and our contact with post officials in January 2004 show 
that there are still some instances of lengthy waits. State's and FBI's 
implementation of the Visas Mantis process still has gaps that are 
causing lengthy waits for visas. Consular officers believe that if they 
receive clearer guidance and feedback on Visas Mantis cases, they could 
help reduce the time it takes for Washington to process applications 
and provide better information to applicants. Finally, State and FBI do 
not have interoperable systems that would help complete security checks 
of visa applicants more quickly. State's new information management 
system could improve the Visas Mantis process. Nevertheless, it is 
unclear whether the new system will address all the current issues with 
the process.

Recommendation for Executive Action:

To help improve the process and reduce the length of time it takes for 
a science student or scholar to obtain a visa, we are recommending that 
the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Director of the FBI, 
and the Secretary of Homeland Security, develop and implement a plan to 
improve the Visas Mantis process. In developing this plan, the 
Secretary should consider actions to:

* establish milestones to reduce the current number of pending Visas 
Mantis cases;

* develop performance goals and measurements for processing Visas 
Mantis checks;

* provide additional information through training or other means to 
consular posts that clarifies guidance on the overall operation of the 
Visas Mantis program, when Mantis clearances are required, what 
information consular posts should submit to enable the clearance 
process to proceed as efficiently as possible, and how long the process 
takes; and:

* work to achieve interoperable systems and expedite transmittal of 
data between agencies.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We provided a draft of this report to the State Department, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Homeland Security. 
State's and FBI's written comments are presented in appendix V and VI, 
respectively. The Department of Homeland Security did not provide 
official written comments, but provided technical comments that we have 
incorporated in the report where appropriate.

The State Department commented that it is committed to providing the 
best possible visa services while also maintaining security as its 
first obligation. State indicated that it had taken a number of recent 
actions to improve the Visas Mantis process that we believe are 
positive steps in implementing our recommendation. For example, State 
said that it has started to provide feedback to posts regarding the 
information contained in Visas Mantis cables and is providing expanded 
briefings on the Visas Mantis process to new consular officers at the 
National Foreign Affairs Training Center. State also said that it would 
study our recommendation to explore possibilities for further 
improvements to the Visas Mantis security check process.

State emphasized the importance of the Visas Mantis clearance process 
in protecting U.S. national security and acknowledged that in the past 
some visa applicants have been required to wait long periods to obtain 
a visa. However, as a result of recent improvements, State claims that 
most security checks are now being completed within 30 days and 
therefore our analysis of Visas Mantis cases from April to June 2003 
does not represent current processing times. State commented that it 
had recently conducted two samples of Visas Mantis cases that show 
improvements in processing times. However, we were unable to 
independently validate either sample. In addition, the data for both 
samples show that lengthy waits remain for some cases. Moreover, 
because State's sample selection methods were different from ours, and 
because its samples would have a wide margin of error, its samples 
cannot demonstrate improvements in processing times. Thus we are not in 
a position to conclude that the Visas Mantis processing turnaround 
times have improved.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation did not comment on our 
recommendation. The FBI acknowledged that the visa program was 
overwhelmed in the summer of 2002. However, the FBI believes that it is 
now processing the name checks more quickly and today only a few 
applicants encounter a significant wait for the FBI to complete the 
security review process. The FBI indicated that it is working closely 
with State and other agencies to improve the Visas Mantis process.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 7 days 
from the report date. At that time we will send copies of this report 
to interested congressional committees and to the Secretary of State, 
the Director of the FBI, and the Secretary of Homeland Security. We 
also will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, 
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http:/
/www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff has any questions concerning this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-4128. Additional GAO contacts and staff 
acknowledgments are listed in appendix VII.

Signed by: 

Jess T. Ford, Director: 
International Affairs and Trade:

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

To determine (1) how long it takes a science student or scholar from 
another country to obtain a visa and the factors that contribute to the 
length of time and (2) what measures are under way to improve the visa 
issuance process and decrease the number of pending cases, we collected 
data from agencies in Washington, as well as at U.S. embassies and 
consulates overseas, and conducted interviews with agency officials. We 
reviewed the Immigration and Nationality Act and associated 
legislation, the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual, and cables 
and other related documents from State's Bureau of Consular Affairs. In 
addition, we reviewed State's data on visa applications and issuances 
worldwide and for selected posts. We also requested data from State to 
conduct a sample of Visas Mantis cases to help us determine the number 
of science students and scholars that were undergoing a Visas Mantis 
security check and how long those applicants waited for a visa. In 
Washington, we interviewed officials from the Departments of State, 
Homeland Security, and Justice. At State, we met with officials from 
the Bureau of Consular Affairs, the Bureau of Nonproliferation, the 
Office of the Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary, and the 
Office of Science and Cooperation in the Bureau of Oceans and 
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. At the Department 
of Homeland Security, we met with officials from the Directorate of 
Border Transportation and the Office of Policy and Planning. At the 
Department of Justice, we met with officials from the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation's Name Check Unit and country desk officers for China and 
Russia. We requested meetings with officials from the Central 
Intelligence Agency and the White House Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP), but they declined to meet with us. However, 
OSTP provided us with written answers to questions pertaining to its 
involvement in visa policies for science students and scholars.

Based on our review of State Department data systems regarding visas, 
we determined that visa data are collected for students (F visas) and 
for exchange visitors (J visas), but State's data systems do not track 
science applicants within these categories. Thus, data are not 
available to report how long it takes science applicants to obtain a 
visa. However, agency officials identified a special security review 
procedure known as Visas Mantis as the factor most likely to affect the 
timeliness of science student and scholar applicant visas. 
Consequently, we focused our review on the length of time it takes an 
applicant to acquire a visa if he or she must undergo a security 
review. Using State documents, we were able to compile data on science 
applicants for this analysis.

To obtain data for our sample of Visas Mantis cases, we asked State in 
July 2003 to provide us all the incoming Visas Mantis cables for the 
first 6 months of 2003. State indicated that our request would yield 
approximately 9,000 cables, and that such a large volume would be too 
time consuming to compile. To address State's concern, we requested 
Visas Mantis cables from April 1 through June 30, 2003. We requested 
these 3 months because they were the most recent months from our 
initial request and would include some of the summer student visa 
applicants. Because Consular Affairs did not have electronic, 
aggregated data on Visas Mantis cases, they provided us with 5,079 hard 
copy cables submitted during that time period. We reviewed the cables 
to determine which ones pertained to a science student or scholar or 
other categories, including business. The science student and research 
scholar category included applicants studying at universities or 
conducting research at universities, national laboratories, and medical 
centers. We included applicants attending conferences, symposiums, 
workshops, and meetings hosted or sponsored by universities, 
professional institutes, and other organizations. We did not include in 
our sample universe business-related cables, cables that were 
incomplete, and cables that were duplicates.

We entered all the data from the cables into an Excel spreadsheet, gave 
each a GAO number for control and identification purposes, and verified 
that there were no duplicates. We ended up with 2,888 Visas Mantis 
entries in the Excel database. From these 2,888 Visas Mantis cases, we 
took a computer-generated random sample of 124 cases and requested 
further data on those cases and their time frames from State. State 
replied that our request was too labor intensive and asked that we 
modify it. Therefore, we took a smaller subsample of 71 cases from the 
124.

Of the 71 cases we received from State, 67 were processed by December 
3, 2003. Four cases were still pending. The 71 cases yielded an average 
completion time of 67 days. This estimate is accurate to within plus or 
minus 17 days at the 95 percent level of confidence. We assessed the 
reliability of the sample data provided by State by tracing a 
statistically random sample of data to source documents. We determined 
that the data was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 
report.

State created its own two randomly selected samples of Visas Mantis 
cases. However, based on the documentation of how these records were 
selected, GAO was not able to determine whether these were 
scientifically valid samples whose results project to the entire 
population of all science student and scholar visa applications. As 
such, results reported by the agency from these application records 
should be treated as testimonial information from a judgmental[Footnote 
51] sample rather than data from a probability sample.

We conducted fieldwork at seven visa-issuing posts in three countries-
-China, India, and Russia. We chose these countries because they are 
leading places of origin for international science students and 
scholars visiting the United States. We limited our review to 
nonimmigrant visa applicants. During our visits at all of these posts, 
we observed visa operations, reviewed selected Visas Mantis data, and 
interviewed consular staff about visa adjudication procedures. In 
China, we met with consular officers at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and 
the consulates in Shanghai and Guangzhou. We also met with the Deputy 
Chief of Mission, as well as officers from the Office of Environment, 
Science, Technology, and Health in Beijing. In India, we visited the 
U.S. Embassy in New Delhi and the U.S. consulate in Chennai. We met 
with consular officers at both posts as well as the Consul General in 
Chennai and officials from the FBI and the Office of Environment, 
Science, and Technology in New Delhi. In addition, we met with three 
students who had outstanding visa applications in Chennai; a Honeywell 
business representative; and administrators, professors, and students 
at the Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research in Chennai. 
In Russia, we visited the U.S. Embassy in Moscow and the U.S. consulate 
in St. Petersburg and met with consular officials there. While in 
Moscow, we also met with officials from the economic section of the 
embassy, Office of Environment, Science, and Technology, the Department 
of Energy, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In 
addition, we spoke with a representative of the International Science 
and Technology Center in Moscow. While in the field, we collected data 
and reviewed documents pertaining to the visa process for science 
students and scholars at all posts. Because post tracking and recording 
of Visas Mantis data varied, we could not make post comparisons of 
Visas Mantis cases.

Finally, to gather information on the visa issues that science students 
and scholars face, we spoke with representatives from educational 
organizations, including the National Academies, the Association of 
International Educators, the American Council on Education, and the 
Association of American Universities. We also obtained information from 
the American Physical Society and the International Institute for 
Education.

We conducted our work from May 2003 through January 2004 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Visas Mantis Cases for Science Students and Scholars:

This appendix provides information on the Visas Mantis cables State 
received from posts between April and June 2003. Table 2 shows the 
breakdown of the 2,888 Visas Mantis cases we identified pertaining to 
science students and scholars. In our sample, we identified a total of 
57 posts that had sent one or more Visas Mantis cables to Washington.

Table 2: Visas Mantis Cases for Science Students and Scholars, April to 
June 2003:

Post: Shanghai, China; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 701.

Post: Beijing, China; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 600.

Post: Moscow, Russia; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 505.

Post: Guangzhou, China; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 197.

Post: London, United Kingdom; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 75.

Post: Chengdu, China; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 74.

Post: Hong Kong, China; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 67.

Post: Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 51.

Post: Toronto, Canada; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 41.

Post: Kiev, Ukraine; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 38.

Post: St. Petersburg, Russia; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 37.

Post: Krakow, Poland; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 36.

Post: Cairo, Egypt; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 34.

Post: Tokyo, Japan; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 34.

Post: Chennai, India; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 33.

Post: Havana, Cuba; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 32.

Post: Berlin, Germany; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 26.

Post: Bern, Switzerland; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 24.

Post: Yekaterinburg, Russia; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 24.

Post: Madrid, Spain; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 23.

Post: Shenyang, China; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 23.

Post: Ankara, Turkey; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 19.

Post: Stockholm, Sweden; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 17.

Post: Bucharest, Romania; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 14.

Post: Frankfurt, Germany; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 11.

Post: Damascus, Syria; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 10.

Post: Brussels, Belgium; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 9.

Post: Hanoi, Vietnam; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 9.

Post: Melbourne, Australia; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 9.

Post: Mumbai, India; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 9.

Post: New Delhi, India; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 9.

Post: Ciudad Juarez, Mexico; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 8.

Post: Singapore; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 8.

Post: Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 7.

Post: Istanbul, Turkey; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 7.

Post: Montreal, Canada; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 7.

Post: Ottawa, Canada; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 7.

Post: Mexico, Mexico; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 6.

Post: Seoul, South Korea; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 6.

Post: Oslo, Norway; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 5.

Post: Amman, Jordan; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 4.

Post: Lisbon, Portugal; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 4.

Post: Osaka-Kobe, Japan; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 4.

Post: Paris, France; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 4.

Post: Tel Aviv, Israel; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 4.

Post: Calgary, Canada; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 2.

Post: Dublin, Ireland; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 2.

Post: Jerusalem, Israel; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 2.

Post: Vienna, Austria; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 2.

Post: Athens, Greece; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 1.

Post: Beirut, Lebanon; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 1.

Post: Bogota, Colombia; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 1.

Post: Johannesburg, South Africa; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 1.

Post: Matamoros, Mexico; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 1.

Post: Minsk, Belarus; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 1.

Post: Taipei, Taiwan; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 1.

Post: Vladivostok, Russia; 
Number of Visas Mantis cables: 1.

Source: GAO analysis of State Department Visas Mantis cables.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Visa Statistics from Seven Posts:

This appendix provides selected visa statistical information for the 
posts we visited in China, India, and Russia. Table 3 shows the number 
of visas issued, visa refusal rates, and interview wait times at posts.

Table 3: Visa Statistics from Posts in China, India, and Russia:

Number of U.S. consular officers[A]; 
Beijing: 7; 
Shanghai: 4; 
Guangzhou: 4; 
New Delhi: 4; 
Chennai: 7; 
Moscow: 7; 
St. Petersburg: 2.

Number of visa applications in FY 2003[B]; 
Beijing: 129,927; 
Shanghai: 71,859; 
Guangzhou: 53,247; 
New Delhi: 88,525; 
Chennai: 166,676; 
Moscow: 98,553; 
St. Petersburg: 17,771.

Number of visas issued in FY 2003[B]; 
Beijing: 76,165; 
Shanghai: 44,821; 
Guangzhou: 28,602; 
New Delhi: 56,820; 
Chennai: 120,535; 
Moscow: 63,541; 
St. Petersburg: 14,302.

F-1[C] issued in FY 2003; 
Beijing: 5,233; 
Shanghai: 4,852; 
Guangzhou: 1,667; 
New Delhi: 3,981; 
Chennai: 7,544; 
Moscow: 918; 
St. Petersburg: 147.

J-1[D] issued in FY 2003; 
Beijing: 1,861; 
Shanghai: 1,268; 
Guangzhou: 371; 
New Delhi: 1,541; 
Chennai: 1,222; 
Moscow: 11,384; 
St. Petersburg: 1,666.

Number of visas refused in FY 2003[B]; 
Beijing: 53,762; 
Shanghai: 27,038; 
Guangzhou: 24,645; 
New Delhi: 30,580; 
Chennai: 46,065; 
Moscow: 35,012; 
St. Petersburg: 3,469.

Overall refusal rate FY 2003; 
Beijing: 41%; 
Shanghai: 38%; 
Guangzhou: 46%; 
New Delhi: 36%; 
Chennai: 28%; 
Moscow: 35%; 
St. Petersburg: 20%.

F-1[C] refusal rate FY 2003; 
Beijing: 63%; 
Shanghai: 44%; 
Guangzhou: 61%; 
New Delhi: 40%; 
Chennai: 50%; 
Moscow: 51%; 
St. Petersburg: 44%.

J-1[D] refusal rate FY 2003; 
Beijing: 57%; 
Shanghai: 42%; 
Guangzhou: 54%; 
New Delhi: 24%; 
Chennai: 29%; 
Moscow: 39%; 
St. Petersburg: 25%.

Wait time for interview in September 2003; 
Beijing: 2 weeks; 
Shanghai: 5-6 weeks; 
Guangzhou: 2 weeks; 
New Delhi: 2-3 weeks; 
Chennai: 3 weeks; 
Moscow: 1 week; 
St. Petersburg: 2-3 weeks.

Wait time for interview in December 2003; 
Beijing: About 4 weeks; 
Shanghai: About 4 weeks; 
Guangzhou: 3 weeks; 
New Delhi: None; 
Chennai: 3 weeks; 
Moscow: 4-5 days; 
St. Petersburg: 4-5 days. 

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by posts in China, India, and 
Russia.

[A] This number only includes Foreign Service officers working in the 
Non-Immigrant Visa Unit of the Consular Section.

[B] For the posts in China, the data we obtained does not cover the 
entire fiscal year; it covers the period from October 2002 through 
August 2003.

[C] The F category of visa is designated for students.

[D] The J category of visa is designated for exchange visitors.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Distribution of Processing Time for Sample of Visas Mantis 
Cases:

This appendix provides information on the distribution of processing 
time for our sample of Visas Mantis cases.

Figure 3: Distribution of Days from Transmission by Post to Receipt by 
FBI:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The width of the bar = 5 days.

Total number of cases = 71.

[End of figure]

Figure 4: Distribution of Days from Receipt by FBI to Completion of 
Clearance:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The width of the bar = 10 days.

Total number of cases = 70.

[A] The application was resent during our sample. We used the original 
Visas Mantis application date of July 2002.

[End of figure]

Figure 5: Distribution of Days from Clearance by FBI to Receipt by 
State:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The width of the bar = 5 days.

Total number of cases = 70.

[End of figure]

Figure 6: Distribution of Days from Receipt by State to State's 
Response to Post:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The width of the bar = 10 days.

Total number of cases = 67.

[End of figure]

Figure 7: Distribution of Total Days from Transmission by Post to 
Response from State:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The width of the bar = 20 days.

Total number of cases = 67.

[A] The application was resent during our sample. We used the original 
Visas Mantis application date of July 2002.

[End of figure]

[End of section]

Appendix V: Comments from the State Department:

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the 
end of this appendix.

United States Department of State 
Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer 
Washington, D.C. 20520:

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "BORDER 
SECURITY: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate Visas 
for Science Students and Scholars," GAO-04-371, GAO Job Code 320188.

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 Paul 
Doherty, Division Chief, Bureau of Consular Affairs, at (202) 663-1246.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Christopher B. Burnham: 

cc:
GAO - John Brummet 
CA - Maura Harty 
State/OIG - Luther Atkins 
State/H - Paul Kelly:

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report BORDER SECURITY: 
Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate Visas for 
Science Students and Scholars (GAO-04-371, GAO Code 320188):

The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to review and 
comment on the GAO draft report, "Border Security: Improvements Needed 
to Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and 
Scholars." We have a strong commitment to providing the best possible 
services to our country and this program is one of the many ways we do 
so. The balance between "secure borders and open doors" is delicate. 
While our first obligation is to the security of the nation, we also 
owe appropriate service to the legitimate traveler who wishes to come 
to this country. With that background, State has a number of 
observations for your consideration.

The report seems to assume that all nonimmigrant visa applicants are 
qualified for a U.S. visa. They are not. The Immigration and 
Nationality Act (INA) presumes that all nonimmigrant visa applicants 
are intending immigrants. They must convince the consular officer that 
they intend to return to a residence in their home country after a 
temporary visit to the United States. In addition, our experience with 
Visas Mantis cases indicates to the interagency community that some 
applicants are also ineligible because they intend to enter the U.S. to 
obtain sensitive technology illegally, thereby creating a potential 
threat to U.S. national security.

The report does not recognize the key role of the Visas Mantis 
screening process in protecting U.S. national security, particularly in 
combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their 
delivery systems, and conventional weapons. The President has made 
reference repeatedly to the fact that the U.S. Government attaches high 
priority to nonproliferation efforts. The Visas Mantis program is an 
important tool in achieving the President's nonproliferation goals. 
Through the Visas Mantis process, the U.S. has prevented the entry to 
the U.S. of foreign nationals seeking to undermine our national 
security.

The role of the Department of State in the Visas Mantis process stems 
from the requirement of Section 212(a)(3)(A) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (INA) that renders ineligible for a visa:

"Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has 
reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to 
engage solely, principally, or incidentally in any activity (1) to 
violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage 
or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the 
United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information.":

The Visas Mantis screening process for aliens who might fall within the 
purview of Section 212(a)(3)(A) of the INA was established some years 
ago, in recognition of the need to prevent the transfer of sensitive 
technology abroad. In this process, the State Department's Bureau of 
Consular Affairs (CA) acts in a coordinating role among clearing 
agencies from the major law enforcement and intelligence communities 
and responds to Visas Mantis Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) requests 
submitted by consular officers at posts abroad. The Department's Bureau 
of Nonproliferation (NP) as well as the FBI and other agencies review 
all SAO requests.

The screening process of Visas Mantis cases is in-depth and conducted 
with careful scrutiny of the applicant, his/her purpose of visit, 
academic background, employment history and associations. It is not a 
perfunctory namecheck. Some clearing agencies have agreed to a 15 
working-day processing period and the goal of all parties is to 
complete their respective reviews within that time frame. State engages 
actively with all agencies in the process to ensure that cases do not 
languish or suffer an inexplicable delay.

Given the importance of the Visas Mantis screening process to our 
national security, the Department's NP bureau carefully reviews each 
Visas Mantis SAO and responds to CA within 10 working days. In some 
cases, analysts require further information from posts. Obtaining the 
requested information from the applicant and getting it back to 
Washington can take time. Sometimes, other clearing agencies do not 
provide State with timely clearance on Visas Mantis cases. As the 
report correctly states, technological problems have accounted for some 
of the delays and you can be assured that we are tirelessly working 
through the technology challenges implicit in inter-agency programs.

Let us outline for you the steps the Visa Office has taken to meet the 
challenge of Visas Mantis processing every step of the way.

The events of September 11, 2001 triggered broader non-Mantis security 
clearance requirements for visa applicants later that year and 
throughout 2002. The Visa Office's Coordination Division (CA/VO/L/C), 
which acts in a coordinating capacity among the various Visas Mantis 
clearers, was faced with a significant increase in workload as new 
clearance requirements were added. Staffing was at first inadequate to 
handle the workload increase. However, the Department brought in 
additional human resources to help with the new workload realities and 
we continue to add resources to the Coordination Division.

Originally, the geographic analysts in CA/VO/L/C handled their own 
Visas Mantis cases in the same way that other clearances are processed. 
At the end of 2002, we decided to centralize the Visas Mantis function 
in order to increase the efficiency of the process. In January 2003 we 
created a three-person Visas Mantis team. We subsequently added 
additional personnel and now have a five-person Visas Mantis team. The 
team is exclusively dedicated to processing Visas Mantis cases.

We are confident that the Visas Mantis team is sufficiently staffed to 
handle the present workload. Should we decide additional resources are 
required, however, we will add them.

The Draft Report focuses on Visas Mantis cases that posts submitted in 
April, May and June of 2003 and the results show some delays in the 
Department's processing of these cases, which we do, of course, regret. 
However, we have conducted our own studies of Visas Mantis processing 
for subsequent time frames and believe we can demonstrate a positive 
and improving level of performance. We did a study of 40 randomly-
selected cases that posts submitted in August, September and October, 
2003 and it shows improved turnaround time from the earlier study. The 
GAO team received a copy of this study. More recently, we have done 
another random study of 50 cases from the November and December 2003 
time frame and the results show clearly that the turnaround time has 
improved even more and is well within 30 days in nearly all cases. The 
GAO report fails to note that processing times continue to drop. In 
addition, it still counts as outstanding those cases where the 
applicant never responded to requests for further information or 
provided incomplete information. Other cases are "outstanding" due to 
ongoing investigations by U.S. authorities. In neither case is the 
delay a fault of the process. In the former instance, the traveler has 
failed to work with us to reach a determination on visa eligibility. 
In the latter case, an agency charged with nonproliferation 
responsibilities is attempting to do its job.

Our more recent Visas Mantis reviews demonstrate that the GAO Draft 
Report is a snapshot in time and an analysis of past performance during 
a challenging time when agencies were still reacting to the after-
effects of September 11, 2001. Our studies clearly show that the 
turnaround times have improved dramatically. The Department invite you 
to review them to ensure the most balanced product possible. We were 
slow. We have taken strong measures to improve - and we will continue 
to do so.

Throughout 2003, we worked closely with the FBI to iron out many of the 
interoperability problems with our systems. We have addressed a number 
of issues and developed a plan to eliminate the source of several 
persistent problems related to the transmission of data, particularly 
the method used to transmit data between consular officers overseas 
and the FBI.

To meet the interoperability challenge, the Department is making a 
substantial investment (one million dollars) in the development of an 
SAO Improvement Project (SAO IP), a new automated system that will 
allow posts to make requests and other agencies to respond to them 
electronically. The cable-less system will eliminate errors in the 
transmission of data that have occurred in the past and will complete 
data transmission in near real-time. The pilot program for the new 
system has been tested successfully at several posts and we have 
already begun distributing the new system software to the field. We 
hope to have all posts up and running with the new system in the coming 
months.

As the GAO report states correctly, SAO cable formatting errors have 
been the cause of some delays in responses. The possibility of such 
errors occurring will no longer exist once SAO IP is implemented. 
Working with our partner agencies, we have identified three other 
points at which transmission errors can occur at present. We have also 
together identified solutions to these problems and are aggressively 
pursuing the requisite technical fixes.

The report recommends that we develop performance goals and 
measurements for processing Visas Mantis checks. Our performance goal, 
whenever possible, is 15 working days from the date of receipt of the 
SAO by Washington agencies, after which the Visa Office sends a 
response to post as quickly as possible upon receipt of other agency 
clearances. Some of the factors that can contribute to longer processing 
times have already been described.

The report further recommends that the Department provide clarified 
guidance to consular officers in the field about the Visas Mantis 
clearance process. The Technology Alert List (TAL) annual guidance 
cable to the field describes in some detail the procedures that 
consular officers should follow in preparing Visas Mantis cases. The 
TAL is a list of some 200 technologies that are designated through the 
interagency process as sensitive ones. The TAL cable also lists the 
specific technology fields to which consular officers should be alert. 
Despite the thorough guidance contained in the TAL cable and our 
expectation that consular officers use good analytical skills and 
judgment when deciding whether or not to submit a Visas Mantis SAO, we 
are aware that some consular officers in the field might benefit from 
more direction.

Recently we established a quality-control procedure with NP whereby 
analysts from that bureau provide the Coordination Division with 
feedback for posts on individual Visas Mantis cables. NP has started 
identifying for the Coordination Division cables that they have found 
well-prepared and contain all of the pertinent information NP analysts 
need to make an informed recommendation on visa eligibility. For 
example, NP recently praised a cable from a China post as an excellent 
example of what a Visas Mantis cable should contain for an applicant 
coming to a conference in the United States. NP also points out cables 
that do not contain sufficient information on which to reach a 
recommendation. It also called to the Coordination Division's attention 
the fact that one post was submitting Visas Mantis cables for 
applicants whose purpose of travel to the U.S. did not fall within the 
purview of the TAL. In all instances, the Coordination Division passes 
NP's comments on to the relevant post as a means of providing feedback 
and guidance to the post's consular officers. In December 2003, NP 
began providing regular Visas Mantis briefings for new consular 
officers at the National Foreign Affairs Training Center. At CA's 
expense, NP will participate in the China Consular Conference in 
February 2004 and brief on the Visas Mantis process to consular 
officers.

We would like to comment on several other points in the report.

The chart on the report's introductory page is misleading. It counts 
processing time from the date of application when, in fact, there can 
be lag time for a variety of reasons between the date of application 
and the date the SAO is submitted to Washington for interagency review. 
Some of these reasons are: the consular officer may have asked the visa 
applicant to provide more information, has decided to consult other 
experts on the Embassy or Consulate staff, or is conducting fraud-
prevention checks. Consular officers submit SAO cases to Washington 
for a Visas Mantis clearance only if all other potential 
ineligibilities have been resolved.

The report generally presents a misleading impression of delays 
although we believe that our mutual goal is as efficient a process as 
possible. For instance, on page 7, it states that in fiscal year 2003, 
410 Visas Mantis cases were still pending after more than 60 days. This 
number represents only 2.5% of the total number of Visas Mantis cases 
submitted in fiscal year 2003. The fact is that, at the present time, 
the processing time for most Visas Mantis cases is well within 30 days. 
Some of the statistics in the Report, particularly in the section on 
pages 9-10 that discusses delays at posts, also give a misleading 
impression. For example, the report states that 67% of October 2003 
Visas Mantis cases from Chennai were still pending on January 9 and 
that the other 33% of cases took an average of 55 days to process. The 
impression given is one of a significant delay situation at Chennai 
when, in fact, the total number of Chennai October 2003 cases was 3.

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment, and we hope that 
the final report will accurately reflect the fact that the Visas Mantis 
program serves important national interests, and that the Department of 
State, working with other agencies, has made considerable progress in 
making the program more effective and streamlined, while continuing to 
protect the U.S. national security at a critical time in our history.

We intend to study the report's recommendations carefully to explore 
possibilities for further improvements to the Visas Mantis screening 
process.

The following are GAO's comments on the State Department's letter dated 
February 11, 2004.

GAO Comments:

1. The report does not assume that all nonimmigrant visa applicants are 
qualified for a visa as indicated in footnote 6 on page 5 and 
discussion on pages 5-6. To further clarify that some applicants are 
eligible for a visa and some are not, we modified our discussion of the 
visa adjudication process as presented in figure 1.

2. We acknowledge the importance of the Visas Mantis screening process 
in protecting U.S. national security. We discuss the utility and value 
of the Visas Mantis process on pages 7-8. In addition, we modified 
footnote 11 on page 7 to indicate State's views on the importance of 
the Visas Mantis process.

3. On December 11, 2003, State provided us with a study of 40 randomly 
selected Visas Mantis cases that posts submitted in August, September, 
and October 2003. In addition, on February 13, 2004, State provided us 
with another random study of 50 cases from November and December 2003. 
We discuss both samples on pages 11-12 and how the data was developed.

4. We added wording to footnote 22 on page 11 to acknowledge that in 
some cases the length of time to process a Visas Mantis check is not 
under the control of State.

5. We modified the chart on the introductory page to clarify that the 
Visas Mantis processing time begins when the post sends a Visas Mantis 
cable request to Washington. The chart shows the total length of time 
it could take an applicant to obtain a visa if a Visas Mantis security 
clearance is needed.

6. Our data for the 410 Visas Mantis cases pending after more than 60 
days is based on information collected at 7 posts. We were not able to 
determine the total number of Visas Mantis cases sent in fiscal year 
2003 from these posts. In addition, at the time of our review State was 
not able to provide data on the total number of Visas Mantis cases sent 
from all posts in fiscal year 2003.

7. We modified the text on page 13 of the report to reflect the number 
of cases pending from Chennai, India. The information was provided by 
consular officials at post. For our analysis of Visas Mantis processing 
time frames, we used the date of application, not the date the Visas 
Mantis request was submitted, as stated in footnote 28.

[End of section]

Appendix VI: Comments from the Federal Bureau of Investigation:

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the 
end of this appendix.

U.S. Department of Justice:

Federal Bureau of Investigation:

Washington, D.C. 20535-0001:

February 5, 2004:

Mr. Jess T. Ford:

Director, International Affairs and Trade 
General Accounting Office 
Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Mr. Ford:

This represents the FBI's response to your draft report, "Improvements 
Needed to Reduce Time taken to Adjudicate Visas for Science Students 
and Scholars" (GAO-04-371/320188), dated January 22, 2004:

General comments: The GAO study mirrors testimony by the FBI before 
three Congressional committees and sub-committees and information 
informally provided by the FBI to Congressional members and their 
staffs. The visa program was overwhelmed in the summer of 2002.

During the subsequent months the FBI and other agencies cooperated 
closely in a series of technological and internal and external process 
improvements that brought stability and predictability to the process. 
The FBI is able to track the status of each Mantis application during 
the security review process. Today, only a few applicants encounter a 
significant wait for the FBI to complete its security review. These 
waits are primarily due to delays encountered in retrieving FBI record 
information from locations outside of Washington, D.C.

The GAO study does not accurately reflect the challenges related to the 
State Department's technology improvements. The FBI and State are 
developing interoperability between their systems. In the interim, the 
phased increase in use of electronic media by the State Department to 
submit names from its new database (versus cables from individual 
posts) is eliminating delays attributable to format errors.

Below are more specific comments to the GAO report:

Page 2: "Data are not available on how long it takes for a science 
student or scholar to obtain a visa." This statement is accurate for 
the overall process, but not for the FBI security review process. The 
FBI tracks and has available the status of each Mantis application. 
Recommend, "State Department data are not available on how long it 
takes for a science student or scholar to obtain a visa.":

Page 2: "While State and FBI officials acknowledged that there have 
been lengthy waits, they report having measures under way theybelieve 
will improve the process and resolve outstanding cases." After the 
problems of summer-fall 2002, the FBI implemented a number of 
improvements to its visa screening process. By spring 2003 the FBI had 
eliminated significant waits for all but a very small number of Visa 
Mantis applicants and, in cooperation with State, began resolving 
"stale" cases.

Page 2: "As a result, data exchange between State and FBI may continue 
to cause lengthy waits." The FBI and State are developing 
interoperability between their systems. In the interim, the phased 
increase in use of electronic media by the State Department to submit 
names from its new database (versus cables from individual posts) has 
eliminated delays attributable to format errors.

Page 10, footnote 30: The FBI ensures that State receives its response. 
Recommend the first sentence of the footnote be modified in part to 
read, "...and the FBI has no way to ensure that its results are 
forwarded to the posts.":

Page 11, Page 12, Figure 2: Discussion of times to process Visa Mantis 
on Page 11 and illustrated by Figure 2 should reference the chart 
Appendix IV, Figure 4, Page 26. This latter chart provides a more 
insightful analysis of FBI's performance in reviewing Visa Mantis 
applications.

Page 17, footnote 45: The FBI data system counts 850 pending Visas 
Mantis as of January 28, 2004. This number reflects all Visa Mantis 
submitted to the FBI since June 26, 2002. (The date the FBI automated 
its visa screening process.) The FBI name check system accurately 
reflects submissions not just from State, but also from 70 other 
government entities.

Please feel free to contact me at 202-324-2901 if you have any further 
questions.

Sincerely yours,

Signed by: 

Steven C. McCraw
Assistant Director 
Inspection Division:

The following are GAO's comments on the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation's letter dated February 5, 2004.

GAO Comments:

1. Because State's new system is not currently operational, we did not 
assess its technology improvements and therefore could not assess 
whether the information in State's new database is eliminating delays 
attributable to format errors. We discuss that FBI is working together 
with State to achieve interoperability between their systems on page 23 
of the report.

2. We modified the draft to reflect that State Department data are not 
available on how long it takes for a science student or scholar to 
obtain a visa.

3. We discuss FBI's improvements to its visa screening process, 
including cooperation with State on pages 21-23.

4. We modified the text in the footnote on page 14 to reflect that the 
FBI has no way to ensure that its Visas Mantis security check results 
are forwarded to the posts.

5. We added a footnote on page 15 to reference the distribution of 
FBI's processing times.

[End of section]

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Jess Ford (202) 512-4128 John Brummet (202) 512-4128:

Staff Acknowledgments:

In addition to the above named individuals, Jeanette Espinola, Heather 
Barker, Janey Cohen, and Andrea Miller made key contributions to this 
report. Martin de Alteriis, Carl Barden, Laverne Tharpes, and Mary 
Moutsos provided technical assistance.

FOOTNOTES

[1] In this report, we use the term "visa" to refer to nonimmigrant 
visas only. The United States also grants visas to people who intend to 
immigrate to the United States. A visa is a travel document that allows 
a foreign visitor to present himself or herself at a port of entry for 
admission to the United States. Citizens of 27 countries that 
participate in the Visa Waiver Program; Canada and certain other 
locations are not required to obtain visas for business or pleasure 
stays of short duration. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Border 
Security: Visa Process Should be Strengthened as an Antiterrorism Tool, 
GAO-03-132NI (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2002); and U.S. General 
Accounting Office, Border Security: Implications of Eliminating the 
Visa Waiver Program, GAO-03-38 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002).

[2] The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (P.L. 82-414; 8 U.S.C. 
§1101 et seq.) has been amended several times, most recently by the 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
(P.L. 104-208), the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-56), the Enhanced 
Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-173), and 
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296). 

[3] Memorandum of Understanding Between the Secretaries of State and 
Homeland Security Concerning Implementation of Section 428 of the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002, September 30, 2003. 

[4] Depending on the post, applicants can set up a visa interview by 
calling a designated number or using an online scheduling system. There 
are some special programs at posts where an applicant does not need to 
call for an appointment and can appear at the post on designated days 
or at designated times for a visa interview. In addition, in select 
cases, some applicants may not be required to appear for an interview. 

[5] CLASS is a State Department name check database that posts use to 
access critical information for visa adjudication. The system contains 
records provided by numerous agencies and includes information on 
persons with visa refusals, immigration violations, and terrorism 
concerns. 

[6] The term nonimmigrant generally refers to a foreign national 
seeking to enter the United States temporarily for one of the specific 
purposes allowed under the INA. The most common reason for denial of a 
visa is that the applicant intends to come to the United States and 
remain. Section 214(b) of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act 
presumes that every alien is an immigrant until he or she establishes 
that he or she is eligible to nonimmigrant status under the INA. Often 
this means establishing, in addition to other criteria, that the alien 
has sufficient social or economic ties to compel him or her to return 
home after visiting the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §1184(b) and 8 
U.S.C. §1101(a)(15). 

[7] At some posts the visa is issued to the applicant shortly after the 
interview or in the afternoon if the interview was in the morning, 
while at other posts, the visa is issued the next day. 

[8] Visas Mantis applies to all visa categories including student, 
business, and tourist applicants. 

[9] Under Section 212(a)(3)(A) of the INA, an applicant is rendered 
inadmissible if there is reason to believe that the applicant is 
seeking to enter the U.S. to violate U.S. laws prohibiting the export 
of goods, technology, or sensitive information from the United States. 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). 

[10] According to the State Department's consular training guide, 
generally 221(g) is applied when an applicant lacks required documents, 
or some visa processing is incomplete. 

[11] The Visas Mantis process allows all participating agencies to 
provide information and raise any particular concerns that they may 
have regarding the applicant and/or the applicant's proposed activities 
in the United States. According to State, the key role of the Visas 
Mantis process is to protect U.S. national security, particularly in 
combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their 
delivery systems, and conventional weapons. 

[12] A cable requesting more information is sent to post when State or 
other agencies involved in the Visas Mantis process require additional 
information, such as an itinerary, on a visa applicant. 

[13] There are several systems that the Consular Office uses to input 
and track visa information. For example, the Consolidated Consular 
Database includes information on all visa applications and visa 
issuances; and the Visa Information System and Tracking of Applicants 
database is used for all Security Advisory Opinions including Visas 
Mantis cables. 

[14] The F visa category applies to students in an academic or language 
training program, while the J visa category applies to exchange 
visitors. 

[15] The data from State are used for background purposes only. 
Therefore, we did not assess the reliability of the data. 

[16] State estimates that for fiscal year 2003, there were 
approximately 212,000 SAO cases processed. In addition, State estimates 
that about 2.2 percent of all visa applications result in an SAO, but 
it could not provide a percentage specific to Visas Mantis. 

[17] State officials told us that their systems are used for tracking 
of case processing and were not designed to capture specific 
information, such as how many students and scholars undergo a Visas 
Mantis check. 

[18] We define pending as any visa application that has neither been 
issued nor denied. 

[19] For more information on our methodology for obtaining the Visas 
Mantis sample, see appendix I.

[20] Post officials in Beijing told us that the number of Visas Mantis 
cases from China sent during our sample period was less than what it 
has been for corresponding months in previous years. They stated that 
the outbreak of SARS significantly reduced the number of visa 
applicants at all posts in China. 

[21] The 95 percent confidence interval for the average number of days 
to process a science visa application is between 50 and 84 days. 

[22] According to State, factors that contribute to the length of time 
it takes to process a Visas Mantis check include ongoing investigations 
by clearing agencies or requests for additional applicant information. 
Once State sends a response regarding a Visas Mantis check, the post 
has to contact the applicant to issue or deny the visa. However, we did 
not attempt to determine how long this process takes. 

[23] In December 2003, the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs 
reported that the time frame in our sample and the ensuing months 
represented the peak season in the Visa Office as the demands 
pertaining to students and other summer travel generated large numbers 
of SAO requests. She also indicated that the processing environment 
during our sample time frame no longer exists, and that the Visa Office 
is responding to post within 30 days on every case, provided that there 
is timely input from the agencies reviewing the case. 

[24] Outstanding cases include those where the posts have not heard 
back from State headquarters and those where State has responded to the 
posts by indicating that additional information or review time is 
needed. The number of outstanding Visas Mantis cases is based only on F 
and J Visas Mantis cases for the posts in China but include other visa 
categories for the remaining posts we visited. 

[25] The 27 cases pending from Shanghai are student and scholar cases. 

[26] Appendix III provides additional data on the posts we visited. 

[27] The data we obtained from Beijing included all pending SAO cases, 
not just Visas Mantis cases. However, according to a consular officer, 
almost all were Visas Mantis cases. 

[28] The processing time frames for Chennai cases are from the 
application date to the date of response from Washington. It does not 
include the time between the response to post and visa issuance. 

[29] This refers to the time between when the visa application was 
received at post to when the post received the Visas Mantis response 
from State for completed cases. This does not include the interview 
wait time or the time it takes to issue the visa once the response is 
sent back from Washington. 

[30] Posts have no way to ensure that State receives the Visas Mantis 
request, State has no systematic check to know if the FBI receives the 
cases, and the FBI has no way to ensure that its results are forwarded 
to the posts. Information regarding a case may potentially be sent back 
and forth between different agencies and offices several times before a 
decision can be made on whether to issue a visa. 

[31] Posts enter visa applicant information into State's system, which 
then generates a Visas Mantis cable. If the post does not format the 
cable according to the standard State specifications, the FBI's system 
will not recognize the information in the cable. Examples of duplicates 
in the FBI's system may include (1) any application that shows up more 
than once within 120 days and (2) more than one application with the 
same name and date of birth. 

[32] The FBI considers improperly formatted cables an error and asks 
State to resend the cable. 

[33] For additional information on the distribution of FBI processing 
times see figure 4 in appendix IV.

[34] U.S. Department of State, Using the Technology List: Update 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 12, 2002) and U.S. Department of State, 
Standard Operating Procedures No. 22: Revision to Visas Mantis 
Clearance Procedure (Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2003).

[35] U.S. Department of State, Standard Operating Procedure 41: Using 
the Technology Alert List (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2003). 

[36] There are other contributing factors to the length of time it 
takes to adjudicate a visa --for example, when a consular officer asks 
an applicant for additional documentation or information, such as proof 
of income or, in the case of student applicants, school acceptance 
information. 

[37] According to Consular officials, the wait time for an interview in 
Chennai, India averaged about 3 to 4 weeks and was 12 weeks for a short 
period of time during the summer of 2003.

[38] Data for 2000-2002 are the most recent available. 

[39] U.S. Department of State, Border Security--Waiver of Personal 
Appearance for Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants--Revision to the 
Regulations (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2003). 

[40] Because the post had received hundreds of security check responses 
from Washington within a short time frame, consular officers were not 
able to issue the visas within normal post hours. 

[41] In late 2003, Moscow also instituted an online appointment system 
to more efficiently schedule interviews. 

[42] American Physical Society, Survey of Physics PhD-granting 
Departments (College Park, Md.: September 2002). 

[43] Association of American Universities, AAU Survey on International 
Students and Faculty (Washington, D.C.: November 2003).

[44] Following an interagency consultation, State authorized a 12-month 
validity clearance for Visas Mantis applicants who are returning to a 
program or activity and will perform the same functions at the same 
facility or organization that was the basis for the original Visas 
Mantis check. This means that a student or scholar who had received a 
visa after a Visas Mantis check could reapply for a new visa without 
having to undergo another Visas Mantis check, provided that certain 
conditions are met. U.S. Department of State, Standard Operating 
Procedure No. 45: Revision to Visas Mantis Clearance Process 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2003). 

[45] State officials also told us that an applicant can verify that 
State is reviewing the application, but it does not provide any 
detailed information about how long it will take or where the 
application is in the process. 

[46] In November 2003, State officials estimated that there were about 
2,000 to 2,200 Visas Mantis cases pending in its system. Half of these 
cases had just recently been entered into the system, while the other 
half had been pending in the system for some time. 

[47] In January 2004, FBI officials told us that they were working on 
acquiring funding to set up a central records repository so that FBI 
case records could be housed in one place.

[48] The tracking system allows FBI officials to see where a Visas 
Mantis case is in the name check process at the FBI. 

[49] The new system is aimed at improving the entire SAO process, which 
includes Visas Mantis. For the purpose of this report, we focus only on 
the Visas Mantis portion of the system. 

[50] In fiscal year 2003, Consular Affairs established 39 consular 
officer positions funded with Machine Readable Visa fees. In addition, 
27 consular officer positions were established with Diplomatic 
Readiness Initiative funding. 

[51] A judgmental sample is a nonprobability sample because the 
elements are handpicked and expected to serve the research purpose.

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

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

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: