T5 B64 Gao Visa Docs 2 Of 6 Fdr- 1-27-03 Gao Interview Re Condor 105 Visa Revocations 584

Prepared by: Kate Brentzel Date Prepared: 1/28/03 Reviewed by:

Index: Type bundle index here DOC Number: 787951 DOC Library: Type library name here Job Code:320172

Record of Interview Title Purpose Contact Method Contact Place Contact Date Participants

Interview with Richard Beer, Coordination Office (part of the Visa Office which handles Security Advisory Opinions) To discuss Condor 105 visa revocations In-person interview State Department Columbia Plaza January 27, 2003 State: Richard Beer and Sarah Thanes GAP: Judy McCIoskey, Kate Brentzel

Comments/Remarks: We had several follow-up questions for Richard Beer on the Condor 105 and other visas that had been revoked between September 12, 2001 and December 31, 2002. I. The Condor 105 A. How did the number of Condors which had been received after the 30 day wait get reduced from 200 to 105 and then, in Dec. 2002, to 46? Mr. Beer said the reason that the number of names had been reduced from 200 to 105 is because when the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF) notified State's Coordination Office that it had negative information on certain visa applicants, it referred to cable numbers. In some cases, the Condor cables that the FTTTF had received from posts had many names on them (Jakarta, for example, sent in Condor cables with the names and biographic data for many people, not just one person). Thus, when the FTTTF notified the Coordination office that it had a problem with applicants on a certain Condor cable, Mr. Beer did not know which of the many individuals on the cable were problematic. Thus, he included all of the individuals on the cable in his Condor count. By October 2002, when State sent GAO the list of names, Mr. Beer had already clarified with FTTTF which names were problematic and which names had been included on a multi-name Condor cable but about which the FTTTF had no derogatory information. Since GAO received the list of 105 names (in a letter dated October 7, 2002), GAO learned that the list of Condor revocation cases had been reduced even further, to 46 names. At a meeting with INS lookout inspector Lisa Custer we learned that State had sent her a list of 46 names in December 2002. Mr. Beer said that there were only 46 names outstanding on the Condor list in December because the FTTTF had cleared the other 59 names. He said that as of January 27, he had heard back from the FTTTF on even more names. He said that the FTTTF continues to review the cases and continues to clear names. He said that approximately 70 of the original 105 have been cleared by FTTTF by email (the task force emails the Coordination office to state that, upon further investigation, they no longer have objection to the individual).

Page 1

Record of Interview

/ f

Prepared by: Kate Brentzel Date Prepared: 1/28/03 Reviewed by:

Index: Type bundle index here DOC Number: 787951 DOC Library: Type library name here Job Code:320172

B. What information did the Coordination Office receive from FTTTF on each of the Condor 105? Mr. Beer said that when the FTTTF sent over information on the Condor 105, it would send his office a short email stating that the task force asserted that the applicant was ineligible for a visa, but that there was no supporting evidence in this email. Mr. Beer said that State's response was to pradentially revoke the visa. A prudential revocation does not mean that State necessarily agrees that the applicant is ineligible for a visa, it means that State agrees that there is a possible reason to deny the applicant a visa and that, by revoking the visa, State will get the applicant to apply again, upon which State can re-evaluate the applicant's eligibility (in the case of the Condor 105 revocations, posts are required to submit a Security Advisory Opinion cable to headquarters before re-issuing to an applicant whose visa had been prudentially revoked). Mr. Beer said the standard of evidence State requires to make a "prudential" revocation is pretty low; the assertion they received from the FTTTF, which did not include actual information on the applicant, was sufficient. Mr. Beer said that a prudential revocation says that State has "reason to suspect" not "reason to believe." We asked Mr. Beer when State had received these emails and whether anyone had saved the emails from the FTTTF. He said that Jim Pritchett had been saving these emails for some time but that he "lost" them due to a problem with his hard drive. Mr. Beer said that Zee Withrow at the FTTTF was the one who was emailing him, but that Ms. Withrow's last day at the FTTTF was January 24. We asked how soon after the email was received that State would revoke the visa (since we don't know the date of these emails from FTTTF, we won't know for sure what the time lag is; unless we can get the original emails from FTTTF directly). Mr. Beer said that it would probably have taken a few days before the revocations were made. C. Entries into CLASS As Catherine Barry told us in our entrance conference, revocations require three actions: sending a revocation certificate to INS, entering the revocation into CLASS, and sending a cable to post. Since we already have revocation certificates and cables for almost all of the 105, we asked Mr. Beer for documentation on CLASS entries. He said that there would not be a way to tell when the revocation information was entered into CLASS, although State has a policy to make the CLASS entries the same day the revocation is made. He said that when a consular officer enters the lookout into CLASS, he has to specify whether it is a 212a3a or 212a3b case. He also said that prudential revocations are listed as "p" entries in CLASS. "P" entries are "quasi refusal codes," meaning "possible." The lookout code for someone whose visa was revoked prudentially under 212a3b would be entered as a "P3b" for "possible terrorist activity." "P" entries in CLASS do not download into IBIS. Mr. Beer said that State realized that prudential revocations entered into CLASS with a "p" code would not download into IBIS so it created a new revocation code for CLASS: "VRVK" which means "visa revoked." Mr. Beer could not remember exactly when the new code went into effect but he thinks it was August 12, 2002.

Page 2

Record of Interview

Prepared by: Kate Brentzel Date Prepared: 1/28/03 Reviewed by:

Index: Type bundle index here DOC Number: 787951 DOC Library: Type library name here Job Code: 320172

D. Why do some revocation certificates for the Condor 105 say 212a3 and some say 212a3B? Mr. Beer did not know the answer to this question. E. Why do some revocation certificates for the Condor 105 say 212a3 while the individual's adjudication history says 212a3B? Mr. Beer did not know the answer to this question. II. Universe of all visas revoked on terrorism concerns (212a3) from 9-11-01 to 12-31-02. We have heard conflicting information from State regarding the total number of visas revoked for terrorism concerns from September 11, 2001 to December 31, 2002. At our entrance conference with State, Mr. Beer said he thought the number would be small, but at this meeting, he revised his estimate and said it could be a large number. We asked if they could estimate the total number would be so that we could decide if we wanted to see all revocations or just a sample from the total. Mr. Beer said that he could search cable archives for "212a3" and get an estimate of the total number for us. He said that many of these other revocations came as a result of posts sending in Visas Viper on suspected terrorists. Then TEPOFF creates a lookout on this person and searches the Consular Consolidated Database to see if any visas had already been issued to the person. If they had, the visas would be revoked.

Page 3

.

Record of Interview