This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-198 
entitled 'Border Security: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered 
Burden on Foreign Science Students and Scholars, but Further 
Refinements Needed' which was released on February 18, 2005.

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

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

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

February 2005: 

BORDER SECURITY: 

Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered Burden on Foreign Science 
Students and Scholars, but Further Refinements Needed: 

GAO-05-198: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-198, a report to congressional requesters: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In February 2004, GAO reported that improvements were needed in the 
time taken to adjudicate visas for science students and scholars. 
Specifically, a primary tool used to screen these applicants for visas 
(the Visas Mantis program) was operating inefficiently.We found that it 
took an average of 67 days to process Mantis checks, and many cases 
were pending for 60 days or more. GAO also found that the way in which 
information was shared among agencies prevented cases from being 
resolved expeditiously. Finally, consular officers lacked sufficient 
program guidance. This report discusses the time to process Mantis 
checks and assesses actions taken and timeframes for improving the 
Mantis program.

What GAO Found: 

Mantis processing times have declined significantly. In November 2004, 
the average time to process a Mantis check was about 15 days, far lower 
than the average of 67 days we reported previously. The number of 
Mantis cases pending more than 60 days has also dropped significantly.

Although an action plan that the State Department (State) drafted was 
not fully implemented, State and other agencies took several actions in 
response to our recommendations to improve Visas Mantis and to 
facilitate travel by foreign students and scholars. These actions 
included: 
* adding staff to process Mantis cases;
* providing additional guidance to consular officers;
* developing an electronic tracking system; 
* clarifying roles and responsibilities of agencies involved in the 
Mantis process; 
* reiterating State’s policy of giving students and scholars priority 
interviews; and
* extending the validity of Mantis clearances.

Nonetheless, some issues remain unresolved.Consular officers at posts 
we visited continue to need guidance on the Mantis program, 
particularly through direct interaction with State officials 
knowledgeable about the program. Several agencies that receive Mantis 
cases are not fully connected to State’s electronic tracking system. 
This can lead to unnecessary delays in the process. Finally, students 
and scholars from China are limited to 6-month, two-entry visas.The 
Chinese government has rejected a proposal by the United States to 
extend visa validities, on a reciprocal basis, for students and 
scholars.

Decline in Mantis Processing Times, October 2003 – November 2004: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of State, in coordination with the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, (1) develop a timeframe for connecting 
agencies to the Mantis tracking system; and (2) provide officers at key 
posts more opportunities to learn through direct interaction.

In response, the Departments of State and Homeland Security said they 
are implementing our recommendations. The Department of Justice 
commented on a recommendation in the draft report, which we later 
retracted.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-198.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Jess T. Ford at (202) 512-
4128 or fordj@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results In Brief: 

Background: 

Mantis Processing Times Have Declined: 

Actions Taken to Improve the Mantis Process, but Some Issues Are 
Unresolved: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

GAO Comment: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice: 

GAO Comment: 

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Acknowledgments: 

Tables Tables: 

Table 1: Actions Taken to Improve Visas Mantis and Address Other 
Obstacles Faced by Students and Scholars in Obtaining Visas: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Visa Adjudication Process: 

Figure 2: Average Time to Close Mantis Cases by Month: 

Figure 3: Pending Mantis Cases as of November 30, 2004: 

Figure 4: Comparison of Mantis Processing Timelines for Non-Student 
Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants and Student Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants 
in Shanghai, China, June 2004: 

Abbreviations: 

CCD: Consular Consolidated Database: 

CLASS: Consular Lookout and Support System: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

INA: Immigration and Nationality Act: 

NP: Bureau of Nonproliferation: 

SAO: Security Advisory Opinion: 

SAO IP: Security Advisory Opinion Improvement Project: 

SEVIS: Student and Exchange Visitor Information System: 

TAL: Technology Alert List: 

Letter February 18, 2005: 

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

The Honorable Curt Weldon: 
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. A primary tool that the U.S. 
government uses to conduct this screening is the Visas Mantis program, 
a security review procedure involving multiple U.S. government 
agencies, which aims to identify those visa applicants who may pose a 
threat to our national security by illegally transferring sensitive 
technology. Visa applicants from China account for more than half of 
all Visas Mantis security reviews.

In February 2004, we reported[Footnote 2] and testified[Footnote 3] 
that there were delays in the Visas Mantis program and interoperability 
problems between the State Department (State) and the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) that contributed to these delays and allowed cases 
to get lost. We determined that in the spring of 2003, it took an 
average of 67 days for Visas Mantis checks to be processed and for 
State to notify consular posts of the results. Further, we reported 
that visa officers at posts lacked clear guidance and sufficient 
feedback regarding when to apply the Visas Mantis program and the 
amount of information to include in Mantis requests sent to 
headquarters. We recommended that the Secretary of State, in 
coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director 
of the FBI, develop and implement a plan to improve the Visas Mantis 
process. Specifically, we recommended that, in developing this plan, 
the Secretary should consider several actions, including establishing 
milestones; providing additional guidance to consular posts on the 
Mantis program; and working to achieve interoperable systems and 
expedite transmittal of data between agencies.

At your request, we (1) determined the length of time taken to process 
a Mantis check;[Footnote 4] and (2) assessed actions taken to implement 
our recommendation to improve the Mantis program and to address other 
issues that may affect science students' and scholars' efforts to 
obtain visas. To determine the length of time it takes to process a 
Mantis check, we obtained and analyzed data from the State Department's 
electronic tracking system for Mantis cases. To fulfill our second 
objective, we analyzed policies and procedures put in place to improve 
the Visas Mantis program and interviewed key State, Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS), and FBI officials. We also observed visa 
operations and interviewed officials responsible for maintaining Visas 
Mantis data at three consular posts in China and the U.S. embassies in 
Russia and Ukraine. We chose these five posts because they account for 
almost 71 percent of all Mantis requests. Appendix I provides more 
information on our scope and methodology. We conducted our evaluation 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results In Brief: 

State Department data show that the average time to process Mantis 
checks and notify posts is significantly lower than the average we 
previously reported for the period April-June 2003.[Footnote 5] In 
November 2004, the average Mantis processing time was about 15 days. 
Consular officials at posts we visited confirmed that they were 
receiving faster responses from Washington and also reported that the 
number of Mantis cases pending in Washington for more than 60 days had 
declined dramatically.

The Department of State and other government agencies took several 
steps in response to our February 2004 report to reduce Mantis 
processing times and address other issues that science students and 
scholars face in traveling to the United States. In response to our 
recommendation, State developed a Visas Mantis action plan, which was 
submitted to DHS on May 26, 2004. Although this plan remained in draft 
and was never fully implemented, State, DHS, and other agencies acted 
on many of the steps called for in the plan and took other measures to 
improve the Visas Mantis program. These actions included adding staff 
to process Mantis cases; providing additional guidance and feedback to 
consular posts; developing an electronic tracking system for Mantis 
cases; clarifying the roles and responsibilities of agencies involved 
in the Mantis process; reiterating State's policy of giving students 
and scholars priority scheduling for interview appointments; and 
extending the validity of Visas Mantis clearances. These initiatives 
contributed to a decline in Mantis processing times. However, some 
issues remain unresolved. Consular officers at key posts continue to 
have questions about how to apply the Mantis program and identify visa 
applicants who should receive Mantis checks. Our work suggests that 
these officers learn best through direct interaction with State 
officials knowledgeable about the program. However, State has not 
developed a program for consular officers at these posts that provides 
opportunities for routine direct interaction with agency officials, 
through such activities as videoteleconferences and one-on-one 
meetings. We also found that many agencies that receive Mantis cases 
are not fully connected to State's electronic tracking system. As a 
result, consular officers must send Mantis cases both electronically 
and by cable, and some agencies provide their responses to State via 
courier. This system can lead to unnecessary delays in the process. 
Finally, State Department officials made a proposal to the Chinese 
government to extend visa validities for students, on a reciprocal 
basis. This proposal, if implemented, could lower consular workload and 
facilitate travel by science students and scholars. However, the 
Chinese government has not agreed to the proposal.

To further refine the Mantis program, we recommend that the Secretary 
of State, in coordination with the Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security,

* develop a formal timeframe for fully connecting all necessary U.S. 
agencies and bureaus to the computer system used to track and process 
Mantis cases; and: 

* provide additional opportunities for consular officers at key posts 
to interact directly with State officials responsible for the Visas 
Mantis program. These opportunities could include more frequent 
videoteleconferences, mandatory one-on-one meetings with State 
officials knowledgeable about the program, and more visits by State 
officials to consular conferences.

We provided a draft of this report to State, DHS, and DOJ. In 
commenting on our report, State and DHS stated that they were taking 
actions to implement our recommendations. DOJ commented on a 
recommendation included in the draft, but which we chose not to include 
in the final report.

Background: 

Foreign science students and scholars generally begin the visa process 
by scheduling a visa interview. On the day of the appointment, a 
consular officer reviews the application, checks the applicant's name 
in the Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS),[Footnote 6] takes 
the applicant's digital fingerprints and photograph, 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 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act 
(INA).[Footnote 7] If the consular officer determines that the 
applicant is eligible to receive a visa, the applicant is notified 
right away and he or she usually receives the visa within 24 hours.

In some cases, the consular officer decides that the applicant will 
need a Security Advisory Opinion (SAO), a response from Washington on 
whether to issue a visa to the applicant.[Footnote 8] SAOs are required 
for a number of reasons, including concerns that a visa applicant may 
engage in illegal transfer of sensitive technology.[Footnote 9] An SAO 
based on sensitive technology transfer concerns is known as Visas 
Mantis and, according to State officials, is the most common type of 
SAO applied to science applicants. It is also the most common type of 
SAO sent from the posts we visited in China, as well as in Kiev, 
Ukraine.[Footnote 10]

The Visas Mantis process is designed to further four important national 
security objectives: 

* prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their 
missile delivery systems;

* restrain the development of destabilizing conventional military 
capabilities in certain regions of the world;

* prevent the transfer of arms and sensitive dual-use items to 
terrorists and states that sponsor terrorism; and: 

* maintain U.S. advantages in certain militarily critical technologies.

The Visas Mantis process has several steps and involves multiple U.S. 
agencies (see fig. 1). 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, published by 
the State Department in coordination with the interagency community and 
based on U.S. export control laws, includes science and technology- 
related fields where, if knowledge gained from research or work in 
these fields were used against the United States, it could potentially 
be harmful. If a Visas Mantis is needed, the consular officer generally 
informs the applicant that his or her visa is being temporarily refused 
under Section 221(g) of the INA, pending further administrative 
processing.[Footnote 11]

Figure 1: Visa Adjudication Process: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

After a consular officer decides that a Visas Mantis is necessary for 
an applicant, several steps are taken to complete the process. The 
officer or a Foreign Service National drafts a Visas Mantis SAO 
request, which contains information from the applicant's application 
package and interview. The case is then generally reviewed and approved 
by a consular section chief or other consular official at post before 
it is transmitted both electronically and through State's traditional 
cabling system. Once the request is sent, the State Department's Bureau 
of Nonproliferation and other agencies review the information in the 
cable and respond within 10 working days to State's Bureau of Consular 
Affairs. Several agencies, such as the Departments of Commerce and 
Energy, receive Mantis cases but do not routinely respond to Consular 
Affairs.

State's Bureau of Consular Affairs receives all responses pertaining to 
an applicant, summarizes them, and prepares a security advisory 
opinion. This SAO is then transmitted to the post electronically 
indicating that State does or does not have an objection to issuing the 
visa, or that more information is needed.[Footnote 12] A consular 
official at post reviews the SAO and, based on the information from 
Washington, decides whether to deny or issue the visa to the applicant. 
The officer then notifies the applicant that the visa has been denied 
or issued, or that more information is needed.

Last year, consular officers submitted roughly 20,000 Mantis cases. 
According to consular officials, the visa is approved in the vast 
majority of cases. Data provided show that less than 2 percent of all 
Mantis requests result in visa denial. However, even when the visa is 
issued, the information provided by the consular posts on certain visa 
applicants is useful to various U.S. government agencies in guarding 
against illegal technology transfer. According to State, 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.

Mantis Processing Times Have Declined: 

Mantis processing times and the number of cases pending more than 60 
days have declined significantly. In February 2004, we reported that 
the average length of time it took to process Mantis checks in 
Washington and for State to notify posts was 67 days for Mantis cases 
initiated from April--June 2003. State reported that the average Mantis 
processing time in October 2003 was 75 days. However, by November 2004, 
the processing and notification time for Mantis cases submitted was 
only about 15 days. Figure 2 demonstrates how the average Mantis 
processing time for cases submitted by all consular posts has declined 
since October 2003.

Figure 2: Average Time to Close Mantis Cases by Month: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: This graph does not include data on cases that were still pending 
as of November 2004.

[End of figure] 

State Department data also show significant improvement in the number 
of Mantis cases pending more than 60 days. In February 2004, we 
reported that 410 Visas Mantis cases submitted by seven posts in China, 
India, and Russia had been pending more than 60 days. However, recent 
data provided by the State Department show that, as of October 2004, 
only 63 cases (or 9 percent of all pending Mantis cases) had been 
pending for more than 2 months. Figure 3 shows a breakdown of all 
pending Mantis cases, sorted by the length of time they have been 
pending.

Figure 3: Pending Mantis Cases as of November 30, 2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Consular officials at the posts we visited confirmed that they were 
receiving faster responses from Washington and that the number of 
Mantis cases pending more than 60 days had declined.

Actions Taken to Improve the Mantis Process, but Some Issues Are 
Unresolved: 

In response to our February 2004 report, State, DHS, and the FBI took 
several steps to achieve this reduction in Mantis processing times. 
State submitted a Visas Mantis action plan to DHS in May 2004. Although 
this plan remained a draft and was not fully implemented, State and 
other agencies acted on many of the steps called for in the plan and 
undertook other efforts to address difficulties that students and 
scholars face in obtaining visas. These actions included establishing a 
stand-alone Mantis team; providing additional guidance to consular 
officers; creating an electronic tracking system for Mantis cases; 
clarifying the roles and responsibilities of agencies involved in the 
Mantis process; reiterating a policy to give students and scholars 
priority interviews; and extending the validity period for Mantis 
clearances. These actions contributed to a decline in overall Mantis 
processing times.

Despite these improvements, some issues remain that, if resolved, could 
further refine the Mantis process. Consular officers in key Mantis 
posts continue to have questions about how to implement the Mantis 
program. Several agencies that participate in the Mantis process are 
not fully connected electronically to State's tracking system. In 
addition, the U.S. visa reciprocity schedule with China (which accounts 
for more than half of all Mantis cases) limits students and scholars to 
6-month, two-entry visas. In order to facilitate travel, State 
Department officials proposed to extend visa validities for students 
and scholars on a reciprocal basis. However, the Chinese government did 
not agree to do so. Table 1 outlines the actions taken to improve Visas 
Mantis and the outstanding issues that need to be addressed.

Table 1: Actions Taken to Improve Visas Mantis and Address Other 
Obstacles Faced by Students and Scholars in Obtaining Visas: 

1; Action Taken: State added staff dedicated to processing Mantis cases 
and created procedures for expediting cases; 
Unresolved Issues: None.

2; Action Taken: State provided additional guidance and feedback to 
consular officers; 
Unresolved Issues: Consular officers need more direct interaction with 
State officials to understand the Mantis program.

3; Action Taken: State implemented a Mantis electronic tracking system; 
Unresolved Issues: U.S. Government agencies that receive Mantis cases 
are not yet fully connected electronically to the system.

4; Action Taken: FBI agreed that, while it would continue to receive 
Mantis cases, it would not routinely clear them; 
Unresolved Issues: None.

5; Action Taken: Agencies agreed to clear Mantis cases in 10 working 
days; 
Unresolved Issues: None.

6; Action Taken: State reiterated its policy of giving priority 
scheduling to students and scholars; 
Unresolved Issues: None.

7; Action Taken: State extended the validity of Mantis clearances; 
Unresolved Issues: None.

8; Action Taken: U.S. government proposed to extend visa validities for 
business travelers, tourists, and students and scholars in China, based 
on reciprocal treatment by China; 
Unresolved Issues: Visa validities were extended on a reciprocal basis 
for business travelers and tourists from China, but the Chinese 
government did not agree to extend visa validities for students and 
scholars.

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

State Added Staff and Created Processes for Expediting Cases: 

On February 25, 2004, the Assistant Secretary of State for Visa 
Services testified before the House Science Committee that the agency 
had taken steps to increase efficiency in the Visas Mantis process. 
These steps included creating a stand-alone Mantis team composed of 
five full-time employees dedicated to processing only Mantis cases. A 
key State official told us that he believed this action contributed 
significantly to the decline in Mantis processing times. The Assistant 
Secretary of State also testified that the agency had established 
procedures for expediting individual Mantis cases, when appropriate. 
These procedures involved faxing requests for expedition to the 
appropriate clearing agencies. Again, a key State official told us that 
closer cooperation with other agencies had led to faster Mantis 
processing times.

State Provided Additional Guidance and Feedback: 

In February 2004, we reported that consular staff at 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. As a result, State 
undertook a number of initiatives to provide guidance and feedback to 
the consular officers responsible for adjudicating cases that require 
Mantis checks. In 2004, the State Department: 

* Added a special presentation on Visas Mantis to the nonimmigrant visa 
portion of the Basic Consular Training course.

* Funded a trip by Nonproliferation (NP) and Consular Affairs (CA) 
officials to a regional consular conference in China to make 
presentations and hold discussions with consular officers on specific 
Mantis issues.

* Organized a series of videoteleconferences with posts that submit 
large numbers of Visas Mantis SAO requests to provide direct feedback 
to embassy and consular officers on the quality of their Visas Mantis 
requests.

* Began issuing quarterly reports to the field about Visas Mantis 
policy and procedural issues to "help consular officers understand the 
Visa Mantis program better, provide guidance on what cases should be 
submitted as Visas Mantis SAO requests and what information should be 
included in requests, and to give feedback on the quality of those 
requests." The first quarterly report was issued in March 2004, 
followed by two more in July and October.

* Arranged one-on-one meetings with the CA and NP offices for new 
junior officers assigned to posts with high Mantis volumes.

* Provided feedback to individual consular officers on the Mantis SAOs 
they have submitted. This initiative is designed both to recognize 
consular officers who are submitting well-documented requests that 
correctly target applicants of concern and to guide officers on what 
kind of information should be included in requests, depending on the 
type of visit the applicant plans to make. The direct feedback program 
also allows State to guide officers as to whether they are submitting 
SAO requests on the correct applicants.

* Established a classified webpage through the State Department's 
intranet for consular officers to gain access to country-specific and 
other useful information related to the Mantis program. For example, it 
identifies websites that officials in NP use when determining how to 
respond to a Mantis case.

Officers at the posts we visited stated that some of these steps were 
extremely useful, especially those initiatives that allowed for direct 
interaction with officials from Consular Affairs and Nonproliferation. 
For example, a junior officer in Guangzhou who had attended the new 
Mantis presentation in consular training and had held a one-on-one 
meeting with Consular Affairs stated that these initiatives were useful 
for understanding how the SAO process works and why it is necessary. 
Another junior officer in Shanghai stated that a videoteleconference 
his post held with NP was invaluable for addressing his questions about 
the Visas Mantis program. Consular officials in China who met with 
representatives from NP and CA at the consular conference in February 
2004 said that they found the opportunity helpful in addressing some of 
their Mantis-related questions.

State Implemented an Electronic Tracking System: 

State developed and implemented an electronic system to track Mantis 
cases. Beginning in early 2003, State invested about $1 million to 
upgrade its Consular Consolidated Database to allow for electronic 
processing and tracking of all SAOs, including Visas Mantis requests, 
and to eliminate use of its traditional cabling system. This upgrade, 
called the "SAO Improvement Project" (SAO IP), resulted in a computer- 
based system that allows posts to send Mantis requests electronically. 
Previously, consular officers relied solely on the cabling system to 
transmit Mantis cases to Consular Affairs. As we found in our February 
2004 report, this system resulted in Mantis cases getting lost due to 
cable formatting errors and duplicate cases being rejected by the FBI 
database. By attaching a unique identifier to each Mantis case, the SAO 
IP ensures that cases can be easily tracked. As an added measure, a 
block is built into the system that prevents consular officers from 
resubmitting Mantis requests on the same visa application.

The SAO IP allows the State Department to more easily produce and track 
important statistics. For example, it enables State to follow average 
Mantis processing times, the number of Mantis cases submitted by each 
post, and the amount of time each step in the Mantis process is taking.

Officials at posts we visited told us that they like being able to 
track individual cases as they go through the interagency process in 
Washington. In both Moscow and Kiev, for example, the SAO IP 
institutionalizes and expands upon tracking efforts that posts had 
begun on their own. Officials in Beijing told us that when they receive 
a public inquiry on a pending Mantis case, they can use the tracking 
system to determine the status of the case.

FBI No Longer Routinely Clears Mantis Cases: 

In July 2004, the FBI, State, and DHS reached an agreement that 
fundamentally changed the FBI's role in the Visas Mantis process. 
Officials from these agencies had determined that the FBI could fulfill 
its law enforcement role in the Mantis process without routinely 
clearing Mantis cases. Under the new "no objections policy," the State 
Department does not have to wait for an FBI response before processing 
Mantis cases, but the FBI continues to receive information on visa 
applicants subject to Mantis checks.

Prior to this change, State's policy was to wait for a response from 
the FBI before proceeding with each Visas Mantis case. If the FBI 
requested that State "put a hold" on an individual Mantis case, State 
could not provide a response to post on the case until the hold was 
removed. This policy resulted in a backlog of almost 1,000 cases and 
contributed to lengthy wait times for visa applicants. As we reported 
in February 2004, it took the FBI an average of about 29 days to 
complete clearances on Mantis cases. In fact, FBI clearance often took 
longer than any other step in the Mantis process. Once cases had been 
cleared by the FBI, it could take another 6 days before State was 
informed. Some of the Mantis cases in the random sample we reviewed 
took more than 100 days to be processed at the FBI.

The FBI's new role allows State to process Mantis cases more easily. As 
the Bureau of Consular Affairs reported to consular posts in October 
2004, "the change in the FBI's role has made it easier for us to 
respond to most Mantis SAO requests more expeditiously." The new 
agreement also allowed State to clear about 1,000 Mantis cases that the 
FBI had maintained on hold, many of them for a "very long time," 
according to State officials. Consular officers we spoke to in China, 
Russia, and Ukraine confirmed that they were beginning to receive 
clearances on Mantis cases that had been pending for long periods of 
time.

Agencies Agreed to Clear Mantis Cases in 10 Working Days: 

In November 2004, the remaining agencies responsible for clearing 
Mantis cases agreed to respond to the Bureau of Consular Affairs within 
10 working days. Before this agreement, the agencies had 15 working 
days to respond to State. As a result, the total Mantis processing time 
could not be lower than about 20 calendar days (to account for 
weekends). According to Consular Affairs, under the new rule, State 
should be able to achieve total Mantis processing times of about 15 to 
17 calendar days.

State Reiterated Its Policy of Giving Students and Scholars Priority: 

In July 2004, the Secretary of State reminded posts via cable that they 
should give priority scheduling to persons applying for F, J, and 
M[Footnote 13] visas. As explained in the cable, students and exchange 
visitors are often subject to deadlines, so posts must have well- 
publicized and transparent procedures in place for obtaining priority 
appointments for them. Data show that this policy is critical for 
ensuring that students and scholars obtain their visas in time to meet 
their deadlines. For example, between January and September 2004, non- 
student, nonimmigrant visa applicants applying in Shanghai could expect 
to wait between 1 and 2 months to obtain an interview.[Footnote 14] 
Data provided by the State Department also point to long interview wait 
times for non-student or scholar visa applicants at other posts. As of 
October 7, 2004 (when visa demand has usually declined from summer 
levels), the nonimmigrant visa interview wait time was 32 days in 
Beijing, 49 days in Guangzhou, and 34 days in Kiev. Post-specific data 
show that interview wait times for students are much shorter. For 
example, on June 15, 2004 (when visa demand is typically high), 
students and scholars in Shanghai could get an interview within 13 
days, while other nonimmigrant visa applicants had to wait 56 days. 
Figure 4 illustrates that, in June 2004, a peak visa application 
period, non-student visa applicants could wait as long as 87 days to 
receive visas, while student applicants could receive visas in as few 
as 44 days.

Figure 4: Comparison of Mantis Processing Timelines for Non-Student 
Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants and Student Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants 
in Shanghai, China, June 2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

State, DHS, and the FBI Agreed to Extend the Validity of Visas Mantis 
Clearances: 

On February 11, 2005, State issued a cable to consular posts 
establishing new maximum validities for Mantis clearances, thereby 
allowing students and others to reapply for visas without undergoing 
frequent Mantis checks. Previously, Mantis clearances were valid for 1 
year. Under that rule, if an applicant reapplied for a visa more than 1 
year after the processing of the original Mantis check, he or she would 
have to undergo another Mantis check before receiving the new visa. 
Organizations representing the international scientific community 
argued that this validity period was too short. For example, foreign 
students attending 4-year college programs had to renew their Mantis 
clearances each year.

Under the new validity periods, students can receive Mantis clearances 
valid for the length of the approved academic program up to 4 years, 
and temporary workers, exchange visitors, and intracompany transferees 
can receive clearances for the duration of an approved activity for up 
to 2 years.[Footnote 15] State estimates that this change will allow 
the agency to cut in half the total number of Mantis cases processed 
each year.

The new validity periods are the result of negotiations between State, 
DHS, and the FBI. Although State and DHS proposed extending Mantis 
clearances in the summer of 2004, the FBI argued that an extension in 
Mantis clearances would significantly reduce its capability to track 
and investigate individuals subject to the Visas Mantis program. The 
FBI informed us that without the same frequency of automatic Mantis 
notifications, it would have far less knowledge of when these 
individuals enter the country, where they go, and what they are 
supposed to do while here. As a result, the FBI made its agreement to 
State's and DHS's proposal conditional on receiving access to the US- 
VISIT system and the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System 
(SEVIS). US-VISIT is housed in DHS and is a governmentwide program for 
collecting, maintaining, and sharing information on certain foreign 
nationals who enter and exit the United States. SEVIS is a system that 
maintains information on international students and exchange visitors 
and their dependents in the United States. In February 2005, the FBI 
and DHS reached agreement on the terms of the FBI's access to these two 
systems, allowing the proposed extension of Mantis clearances to take 
effect.

Consular Officers at Key Posts Still Need Additional Guidance: 

China and Russia account for roughly 76 percent of all Mantis cases. 
However, we found that some consular officers at these posts remain 
confused about how to apply the Mantis program. For example, Beijing 
consular officers, some of them new to the post, consistently told us 
that they needed more clarity and guidance regarding how to use the 
Technology Alert List (TAL). According to a key consular official in 
Beijing, because these officers generally do not have scientific or 
technical backgrounds, they often do not understand what entries on the 
TAL mean or whether the visa applicant has advanced knowledge about the 
subject he or she plans to study in the United States. They are also 
confused about how to apply vague, seemingly benign categories. For 
example, officers in Beijing did not know whether to continue 
submitting Mantis requests for all individuals that fall under the 
category of "Communications - wireless systems, advanced," even if the 
visa applicant works for a foreign multinational corporation that is 
not a Chinese government-owned telecom enterprise. Few of the consular 
officers we spoke with in China, Russia, or Ukraine were familiar with 
the quarterly reports issued by Consular Affairs on Mantis issues. The 
only officer aware of the classified webpage maintained by the Consular 
Affairs Bureau told us that he did not find it useful because it had 
very little information on it and because it was hard for him to access 
the classified computer system, which is housed in a separate building 
far from the consular section.

We found that consular officers at the consular posts we visited did 
not have regular opportunities to interact directly with officials from 
the Nonproliferation Bureau or the Consular Affairs Bureau 
knowledgeable about the Mantis program. For example, representatives 
from State's Nonproliferation Bureau and Consular Affairs Bureau have 
visited just one consular conference--the February 2004 conference in 
China. Although new consular officers are given the option to meet with 
NP and CA officials before traveling to post, State does not require 
these one-on-one meetings for officers assigned to key Mantis posts. 
Although China accounts for more than half of Mantis requests 
submitted, only one of the country's six consular posts has held a 
videoteleconference. Kiev requested a videoteleconference in early 
2004, but had been unable to schedule one, as of December. Finally, in 
Beijing, only one of the officers who had attended the consular 
conference in February was still at post.

Agencies Are Not Connected to State's Electronic Tracking System: 

Several law enforcement, intelligence and non-intelligence agencies 
that receive Mantis cases, including the Departments of Commerce and 
Treasury, are not fully connected to State's electronic tracking 
system. This system, in addition to allowing State to track individual 
cases, was designed to eliminate the use of cables for the transmission 
of SAO cases because, according to State, they were "the source of 
garbled information and other errors that resulted in lost or delayed 
cases that required human intervention." For example, as we found in 
our February 2004 report, 700 Mantis cables that were sent from Beijing 
in fall 2003 did not reach the FBI. It took Consular Affairs about a 
month to identify that there was a problem and to provide the FBI with 
the cases.

However, since several of the agencies that receive Mantis cases are 
not yet fully connected electronically to the system they continue to 
receive Mantis cases through State's traditional cabling system. For 
the time being, consular officers send Mantis cases both electronically 
and by cable. Those agencies that are responsible for routinely 
clearing Mantis cases provide responses to State on compact discs that 
must be hand-carried between the agencies. As we found previously, this 
use of cables and couriers can lead to unnecessary delays in the 
process.

State officials informed us that they are working to establish full 
connectivity with other agencies. However, State's goals for fully 
connecting certain agencies to the system have not been met. Further, 
State has not set milestones for connecting the remaining agencies to 
the system. In July 2004, State's Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations wrote in a letter to the House Science Committee and other 
House and Senate committees that he expected the FBI to begin relying 
on the network on a regular basis by the end of that month. State and 
the FBI also signed a memorandum of understanding in July outlining the 
terms of the FBI's electronic connectivity to the system. However, it 
was not until December 2004 that the FBI had developed the ability to 
gain access to State's electronic tracking system to test the 
connection and discontinue using the cabling system. Although the FBI 
no longer actively clears Mantis cases, all agencies and bureaus that 
receive Mantis cases, regardless of whether they routinely clear cases, 
must be connected electronically to the system before use of the 
cabling system can be eliminated. State's goal was to establish 
connectivity with another intelligence agency responsible for clearing 
Mantis cases by the end of 2004, but an agency official told us that a 
deadline of February 2005 was more realistic. State has not set 
milestones for connecting the remaining agencies that receive Mantis 
cases to the tracking system. A key agency official told us that 
providing full electronic connectivity to all agencies that receive 
Mantis cases will be a gradual process.

Students and Scholars from China Are Limited to 6-Month, Two-Entry 
Visas: 

China has one of the strictest visa reciprocity schedules for students 
and scholars. Under the United States' reciprocity agreement with 
China, visas for F-1 and J-1 visa holders are only valid for up to 6 
months, with two entries into the United States allowed.[Footnote 16] 
According to a key State official, the agency's instructions to 
consular officers are to give single-entry, 3-month visas for 
applicants who undergo Mantis checks. This reciprocity schedule is one 
of the primary concerns of the international scientific community. 
Under the reciprocity schedule, if a Chinese citizen in the United 
States on an F or J visa leaves the United States, he or she will have 
to reapply for a visa.

In 2004, State Department officials entered negotiations with the 
Chinese government to revise the visa reciprocity schedule for business 
travelers, tourists, and students. However, in December, State 
officials informed us that, while the Chinese government agreed to 
extend visa validities for business travelers and tourists, it did not 
agree to do so for students and scholars. While the new agreement with 
the Chinese government may address some of the concerns that the 
business community and tourism industry hold about travel to the United 
States, students and scholars will still need to reapply for visas 
frequently.

Conclusions: 

In 2004, State, DHS, and the FBI collaborated successfully to reduce 
Mantis processing times. However, opportunities remain to further 
refine the Visas Mantis program and facilitate legitimate travel to the 
United States. As we reported in 2004, the use of the cabling system to 
transmit Mantis cases can lead to unnecessary delays in the process. 
The State Department has also noted that the cabling system is the 
source of garbled information and other errors. However, agencies 
continue to receive cases via cable because they are not yet fully 
connected electronically to State's computer database. State has not 
established milestones for connecting these agencies to the electronic 
tracking system. Additionally, because consular officers have only a 
few minutes to determine whether a visa applicant who appears at their 
interview window needs to undergo a Mantis check, it is critical that 
they fully understand the purpose of the Mantis program. Our work 
suggests that consular officers learn best through direct interaction 
with those agency officials responsible for implementing the Mantis 
program in Washington. However, because consular officers at key Mantis 
posts do not routinely have opportunities for such interaction, there 
is a risk that they may submit Mantis cases on applicants who do not 
need them or fail to submit cases when appropriate. Further, officers 
may fail to include information in their Mantis requests that is most 
useful to agencies in Washington.

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

In order to further streamline the Visas Mantis process, we recommend 
that the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, take the following two actions.

* In order to eliminate use of the cabling system in the Mantis 
process, establish milestones for fully connecting all necessary U.S. 
agencies and bureaus to the computer system used to track and process 
Mantis cases.

* Provide more opportunities for consular officers at key Mantis 
consular posts to receive guidance and feedback on the Visas Mantis 
program through direct interaction with agency officials knowledgeable 
about the program. These opportunities could include, among other 
initiatives, mandatory one-on-one meetings with officials from the 
Bureaus of Consular Affairs and Nonproliferation for new consular 
officers before they travel to post; additional visits by State 
officials to consular conferences; and more frequent 
videoteleconferences with posts that submit large numbers of Mantis 
requests.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of State, 
Homeland Security, and Justice for their comments. State, DHS, and 
Justice provided written comments on the draft (see appendixes II, III, 
and IV, respectively). State commented that it had already made 
considerable progress with regard to the report's recommendations and 
outlined the actions it had taken to do so. For example, State has 
committed to sending representatives from its Consular Affairs and 
Nonproliferation Bureaus to India, China, and Russia to engage in on- 
site discussions of Mantis issues with consular officers. In addition, 
State is in the process of negotiating and signing memoranda of 
understanding with five U.S. agencies to share Mantis data 
electronically. DHS expressed appreciation for our work to identify 
actions to improve the Visas Mantis process and stated that it will 
pursue completion of GAO's recommendations.

Justice responded to a recommendation included in the draft report that 
directed the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to 
set a formal timeframe for completing negotiations on FBI access to US- 
VISIT and SEVIS. Because the two agencies reached agreement prior to 
publication of the final draft, the recommendation is not included in 
this report. The Department of Justice also provided technical 
comments, which we have incorporated where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of 
Congress. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of State 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 [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you 
or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 
at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. Staff contacts and other key 
contributors to this report are listed in Appendix V.

Sincerely yours,

Signed by: 

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

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The scope of our work covered improvements to and implementation of the 
Visas Mantis program between February 2004 and February 2005. To 
determine how long it takes to process Visas Mantis checks, we obtained 
and analyzed data from the State Department's electronic tracking 
system for Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs). Specifically, we reviewed 
"SAO Processing Statistics" reports for all Mantis requests submitted 
to the State Department between April 1, 2004, and August 31, 2004, as 
well as other Mantis statistics produced by the State Department. These 
reports showed the average total processing time (in calendar days) for 
Mantis cases worldwide. To assess the reliability of State's data on 
Visas Mantis cases, we (1) interviewed State officials responsible for 
creating and maintaining the electronic tracking system used for Mantis 
cases, (2) observed use of the tracking system, and (3) examined data 
collected through the tracking system. We noted in our report that 
average Mantis processing times, as calculated through State's tracking 
system, do not take into account Mantis cases that are still pending. 
As a result, reported average Mantis processing times can change as 
cases that have been pending are cleared. State may also calculate 
average Mantis processing times based on the date on which a consular 
post initially drafted a Mantis case, rather than the date on which the 
consular post submitted the final draft to Washington. As a result, 
total Mantis processing times can seem longer than they really are. 
Despite these limitations, we determined that the data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of identifying trends in Mantis 
processing.

To identify and assess actions taken to implement our recommendation to 
improve the Visas Mantis program, we obtained documentation from key 
U.S. agencies, primarily the State Department, interviewed officials 
from these agencies, and observed training classes for new consular 
officers at the State Department's Foreign Service Institute. We 
reviewed the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Foreign Affairs 
Manual, the Bureau of Consular Affairs' quarterly reports on Visas 
Mantis, and other cables and related documents from that bureau. 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 and the Bureau of Nonproliferation. At 
the Department of Homeland Security, we met with officials from the 
Directorate of Border Transportation and Security. At the Department of 
Justice, we met with officials from the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation's Name Check Unit. We requested a meeting with Department 
of Justice and FBI officials to discuss negotiations with DHS regarding 
access to US-VISIT and SEVIS; they agreed to answer questions in 
writing. In August 2004, we observed classes at the Foreign Service 
Institute for newly assigned consular officers. As part of that 
training, we attended the Visas Mantis briefing that had been added to 
the curriculum for new officers in response to our recommendation in 
the February 2004 report.

To identify whether there were any remaining issues that affect the 
total amount of time it takes for science students and scholars to 
obtain visas, we analyzed data on interview wait times, spoke with 
representatives of various educational organizations, and observed a 
roundtable discussion on Mantis issues sponsored by the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee. We obtained data on interview wait times at 
consular posts worldwide from State's Bureau of Consular Affairs. We 
also obtained information on interview wait times from the consular 
posts in China and Russia. We met with representatives from the 
National Academies of Science, NAFSA: Association of International 
Educators, and the Alliance for International Education. The roundtable 
discussion we attended involved officials from the Departments of State 
and Homeland Security, as well as representatives from the 
International Institute for Education; the Association of American 
Universities; the National Institutes of Health; the National Academies 
of Science; NAFSA: Association of International Educators; and others. 
Representatives from various colleges and universities were also in 
attendance.

We conducted fieldwork at five visa-issuing posts in three countries-- 
China, Russia, and Ukraine. We chose these countries because they are 
leading places of origin for international science students and 
scholars visiting the United States and because they account for 78 
percent of all Mantis cases. During our visits to these posts, we 
observed visa operations, reviewed selected Visas Mantis data, and 
interviewed consular staff about the Visas Mantis program. 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 officials from the Office of the Defense 
Attaché; the Office of Environment, Science, Technology, and Health; 
the Office of Public Diplomacy; and the Foreign Commercial Service. In 
Beijing, we observed a meeting of the American Chambers of Commerce in 
China, where they discussed their experience with the Visas Mantis 
program. In both Shanghai and Guangzhou, we met with the Consul 
General. In Russia, we met with consular officers at the U.S. Embassy 
in Moscow. We met with the Consul General and his Deputy, as well as 
officials from the Department of Energy; the Office of Environment, 
Science, Technology, and Health; and Public Affairs. In Ukraine, we met 
with consular officers at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev. We met with the 
Deputy Chief of Mission, the Consul General and her Deputy, as well as 
officials from the Department of Energy; the Office of Public Affairs; 
and the Office of the Defense Attaché. Furthermore, in both Russia and 
Ukraine we held meetings with various organizations that sponsor summer 
work/travel exchanges, and they expressed their opinions and 
observations about the effects of U.S. visa policy on their programs.

We conducted our work from July 2004 through February 2005 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State: 

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

FEB 3 2005:

Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers: 
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "BORDER 
SECURITY: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered Burden on 
Foreign Science Students and Scholars, But Further Refinements Needed," 
GAO Job Code 320300.

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, Office of Visa 
Operations, at (202) 663-1246:

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Christopher B. Burnham:

cc: GAO - John Brummet: 
CA - Maura Harty: 
State/OIG - Mark Duda:

Department of State Comments on Draft Report "Streamlined Visas Mantis 
Program Has Lowered Burden on Foreign Science Students and Scholars, 
But Further Refinements Needed." (GAO-05-198, GAO Code 320300):

The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to comment on the 
report of the Government Accountability Office entitled: Streamlined 
Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered Burden on Foreign Science Students and 
Scholars, But Further Refinements Needed. We have already made 
considerable progress in regard to the report's recommendations and we 
have taken additional steps as well.

Monthly Videoconferences:

The Consular Affairs (CA) Bureau and the Nonproliferation (NP) Bureau 
continue to hold monthly videoconferences (DVC) with consular officers 
at leading Mantis-submitting posts, an effort that began in early 2004. 
To date we have held 10 DVCs with half a dozen more planned for the 
first half of 2005.

Meetings with Posts:

We have also stepped up efforts to provide direct guidance to consular 
officers on Visas Mantis policy and procedural issues. Representatives 
of CA and NP traveled to posts in India at the end of this month to 
engage in on-site discussions about Visas Mantis issues with consular 
officers in the three major Mantis-submitting posts. In February, CA 
officials will travel to consular conferences in China and Russia and 
will discuss Visas Mantis issues with consular officers in those 
countries.

Electronic Transmission of Data:

We have made important strides in achieving electronic connectivity for 
other Mantis clearing agencies to the Department's automated Security 
Advisory Opinion (SAO) program in the Consular Consolidated Database 
(CCD). In December 2004 the FBI namecheck unit achieved full 
connectivity to the CCD. Since that time, they have been extracting 
Mantis and other SAO data directly from the CCD, running it through 
their namecheck database, and uploading the results into the CCD. The 
electronic transmission of clearance data has helped reduce processing 
times significantly. FBI is working on a method of transferring SAO 
data from the CCD electronically to end-users within the Bureau.

We continue discussions with intelligence community entities about 
connectivity and internal distribution of SAO data and we're hopeful 
that connectivity can be achieved by mid-year. We are also in the 
process of negotiating and signing MOUs on sharing SAO data through the 
CCD with DHS, DIA, DOC, TSC and the CDC.

Visa Reciprocity for Chinese Travelers:

Regarding a change to visa reciprocity for Chinese students and 
scholars, in 2004 we reached an agreement with the Government of China 
to extend the validity of tourist and business visas from multiple 
entry/six months to multiple entry/12 months. We continue in 
discussions with the Chinese to achieve increased reciprocity for 
students and scholars.

Validity of Mantis Clearances:

We are ready to implement the proposal to increase the clearance 
validity periods for the various Mantis visa categories as soon as 
final details can be worked out. 

[End of section]

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

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

January 28, 2005:

Mr. Jess T. Ford:
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Mr. Ford:

RE: GAO-05-198, Border Security Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has 
Lowered Burden on Foreign Science Students and Scholars, But Further 
Refinements Needed (GAO Job Code 320300):

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report 
related to the Visas Mantis Security Advisory Opinion process for 
foreign science students and scholars. The Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) appreciates the work done in this review to identify 
areas where actions can be taken to improve the Visas Mantis process. A 
few areas of the report deserve comment.

Like the Department of State (DOS), DHS officials received many 
complaints from the academic, scientific, and business communities 
regarding the lengthy visa process. DHS is proud of its involvement 
with DOS to identify and implement solutions to the Visas Mantis 
process that have been successful in reducing the Visas Mantis process 
time. Both DHS and DOS agreed that awaiting a Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) clearance on Mantis cases in some instances added 
time to the process. Accordingly, DHS and DOS jointly suggested that 
the FBI become a silent partner in Mantis cases, receiving the Mantis 
information without actively clearing each case. As your report 
indicates, this change has resulted in a significant reduction in 
Mantis processing time. In addition, under DHS' visa policy authority 
in section 428 of the Homeland Security Act and the resulting 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DOS, DHS is developing a 
"backstop" function to resolve problem SAOs pending longer than a 
reasonable amount of time.

DHS and DOS also jointly agreed upon extending the Mantis validity 
periods for students, researchers, and business travelers. With respect 
to the FBI receiving access to US-VISIT, the draft report should be 
corrected to indicate that the FBI requested access to US-VISIT and 
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) information. 
Further, US-VISIT does not contain the SEVIS database. Rather, US-VISIT 
and SEVIS exchange data with each other. DHS is confident that DOJ and 
DHS will sign the data access MOU within a couple of weeks. Authority 
for extending the Mantis validity period will be sent to the DOS 
consular posts within that same time frame. DHS believes that such 
extensions will significantly improve the Mantis process for both DOS 
and affected travelers.

Finally, DHS strongly encouraged DOS to vigorously pursue longer visa 
reciprocity schedules with China to prevent Chinese students and 
researchers from having to apply for visas so frequently. While DOS was 
successful in obtaining a longer visa validity period for business 
travelers and tourists, your report correctly states that China did not 
agree to such validity periods for students. DHS will continue to 
encourage DOS negotiations with China regarding student visa validity 
periods to further streamline and improve the visa process for students.

DHS strongly believes that foreign students and scholars offer the 
United States invaluable diversity, intellectual knowledge, and are an 
economic resource. DHS will pursue completion of its own 
recommendations to improve the Mantis process, including those of the 
GAO. DHS will also continue to evaluate the visa process and policies 
to identify and implement visa improvements in accordance with the 
Administration's guiding principle of "Open Doors, Secure Borders.":

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Steven J. Pecinovsky: 

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Homeland 
Security's letter dated January 28, 2005.

GAO Comment: 

1. We have revised the report to reflect the fact that the FBI 
requested access to both US-VISIT and the Student and Exchange Visitor 
Information System and that US-VISIT does not contain SEVIS.

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice: 

U.S. Department of Justice:
Washington D.C. 20530:

FEB 7 2005:

Jess T. Ford:
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G. Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Mr. Ford:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report GAO-05-198 entitled "Border 
Security: Streamlined Visa Mantis Program Has Reduced Burden on Foreign 
Science Students and Scholars, But Further Refinement Needed." The 
Department provided its technical comments under separate cover to 
Elizabeth Singer, GAO Analyst-in-Charge. The comments below are the 
Department's formal comments for inclusion in the GAO published report.

The draft report recommends that the Secretary of Homeland Security and 
the Attorney General set a formal timetable for completing negotiations 
on the tenns of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) access to 
the US-VISIT program. We do not believe that this recommendation is 
warranted at this time. Presently, the FBI has limited access to US- 
VISIT through user accounts established at FBI headquarters. In 
addition, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have 
agreed to a pilot project in which DHS is providing sample extracts to 
the FBI of US-VISIT data. This pilot, which is scheduled to be 
completed by the middle of February 2005, is designed to identify any 
remaining technical and operational issues that need to be resolved 
before DHS can begin the routine transfer of data in US-VISIT to the 
FBI. Finally, DHS and the FBI have been negotiating a memorandum of 
understanding that will govern the sharing of information in US-VISIT 
and the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System. This agreement 
is close to completion. The FBI and DHS have agreed to the basic terns 
of the agreement. The only remaining issue involves the sharing of visa 
records, and this final issue may be resolved within the next week. 
Accordingly, because we are close to a final agreement, it is not 
necessary for the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney 
General to establish a more formal timetable for completing these 
negotiations, as the draft report recommends.

If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact 
Richard P. Theis, Acting Director, Audit Liaison Office.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Paul R. Corts:

Assistant Attorney General for Administration:

cc: Francesco Isgro, ODAG:
Cheryl Johnston, Audit Liaison, FBI: 
Dawn Burton, ODAG: 

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Justice's letter 
dated February 7, 2005.

GAO Comment: 

1. Because the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice reached 
agreement on the FBI's access to US-VISIT and SEVIS prior to 
publication of the final draft, we did not include the recommendation 
in this report. The validity period for certain Visas Mantis clearances 
was extended on February 11, 2005.

[End of section]

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Jess Ford (202) 512-4128; 
John Brummet (202) 512-5260: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to those named above, Elizabeth Singer, Carmen Donohue, 
Maria Oliver, Judith Williams, Mary Moutsos, Joe Carney, Martin de 
Alteriis, and Etana Finkler made key contributions to this report.

(320300): 

FOOTNOTES

[1] 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. In this report, we use the term "visa" to refer to 
nonimmigrant visas only. The United States also grants visas to people 
who are intending immigrants. 

[2] GAO, Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to 
Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and Scholars, GAO-04-371 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2004).

[3] GAO, Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to 
Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and Scholars, GAO-04-443T 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2004).

[4] In this report, we are defining the Mantis process as the time from 
when a post submits a Mantis cable to the State Department to the time 
when State responds to the post on the case.

[5] The average of 67 days was based on a random selection of Mantis 
cases submitted to State between April and June 2003.

[6] 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.

[7] 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 consular officer has determined that the applicant 
intends to come to the United States and remain. Section 214(b) of the 
INA presumes that every alien is an immigrant until he establishes that 
he is eligible for 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 to return home after 
visiting the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §1184(b) and 8 U.S.C. 
§1101(a)(15).

[8] According to State officials, between 2-3 percent of all 
nonimmigrant visa applications require an SAO.

[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 United States to violate United States 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] In Moscow, the most common SAO requested is Visas Bear, which is a 
check on many official visitors. Visas Mantis is the next most common 
SAO requested from Moscow.

[11] 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. 

[12] A message 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] F-1 visas are for students; J-1 visas are for exchange visitors; 
and M-1 visas are for vocational students or other nonacademic students.

[14] The shortest wait time for an interview was 31 calendar days, 
while the longest wait time was 56 calendar days. 

[15] The new clearance validity periods do not apply to applicants from 
state sponsors of terrorism. In addition, business visitors and 
visitors for pleasure would continue to receive Mantis clearances valid 
for 1 year, provided that the purpose of the visit to the United States 
has not changed.

[16] The validities of U.S. visas and the number of entries allowed are 
based on the principal of reciprocity. Visas are issued to nationals of 
another country based on that country's visa policy toward U.S. 
citizens. The period of validity of a nonimmigrant visa is the period 
during which the alien may use it in making application for admission. 
The period of visa validity has no relation to the period of time the 
immigration authorities at a port of entry may authorize the alien to 
stay in the country.

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: