T5 B44 Student Tracking 3 Of 6 Fdr- 12-11-03 Draft Outline- 19 Hijackers And Immigration 122

DRAFT 12/11/03 Could the 19 hijackers have been detected or stopped at any point through their contact with the U.S. immigration and borders system - by consular officials abroad, federal inspection services at the U.S. point of entry, or by immigration officials in the U.S.? 1. Consular officials - watchlist A. Opportunities 1. Watchlisted? 2. Legally excludable under INA? B. Hijackers 1. Al Midhar - should have been watchlisted/excluded w/out waiver? 2. Al Hazmi - should have been watchlisted/excluded w/out waiver? C. Findings: 1. Al Midhar: failure to wl Midhar in [date] 2000 was part of a larger failure of tracking him that represented the best opportunity for unraveling the plot at that stage? 2. Al Hazmi 2. Consular officials - document examination A. Opportunities 1. Non-terrorism specific fraud a. previous visa under same name - false statement? Checkable? Material? Correction policy? b. Minor incompleteness - sufficient? c. Support documentation adequate? d. Adulterated passport - altered, photo-sub, forged 2. Terrorist specific fraud B.

Hijackers 1. 2. 3.

C. Findings: 3. Consular officials - interviews A. Opportunities 1. Interview could have yielded derogatory information? 2. Access by consular officials to origin country information? No information? 3. Interview after Visa Express application entry? 4. Interview policy based on 214(b) only - result correct? 5. Interview policy informed by nonspecific terrorism intelligence?

DRAFT 12/11/03 a. b. c. d.

Viper meetings? Informal contact with agency? Reporting/briefing from State? Interview conducted by 1C?

B. Hijackers C. Findings: 1. We will never know if an interview could have detected problems? Policy of non-interview based on ... Budgets, priorities. Visa officer could not have been expected to interview? Policy level Mary Ryan could not have been expected to propose altering policy to Secretary? Congress would/not have altered? 2. [U.S. aviation security system] 3. Point of entry - watchlist D. Opportunities E. Hijackers F. Findings 4. Point of entry - interviews A. Opportunities 1. Primary (APIS) 2. Secondary B. Hijackers. 1. xx 2. xx 3. xx C. Findings. Had x resulted from secondary inspections of x, plot would/not have been disrupted. Role of x 5. Point of entry - document examination A. Opportunities 1. Primary 2. Secondary B. Hijackers C. Findings. Variation on consular? 6. [Entry without inspection - border enforcement] N/A 7. Interior enforcement - overstays of NIVs

DRAFT 12/11/03 A. Opportunities B. Hijackers C. Findings. Which hijackers could/not have been stopped at what date in the plot? Current rate of overstay enforcement is x% of estimated overstays. Relationship of overstays to criminal conduct? To properly enforce overstays x would have been needed. Congress focused on SW border. AG on criminal aliens. Congressional interest? Current policy? 8. Immigration status changes - watchlist A. Opportunities. Which status changes? B. Hijackers. Who? C. Findings. Which hijackers could/not have been stopped at what date in the plot? 9. Immigration status changes - interview A. Opportunities. Which status changes? B. Hijackers. Who? C. Findings. 10. Immigration status changes - document examination A. Opportunities. Which changes? B. Hijackers Who? C. Findings. Drivers licenses could/not have been detected as fraudulent? Leading to denial of x? Impact on plot? J - where do student tracking and exit/entry fit?