T5 B65 Gao Visa Docs 6 Of 6 Fdr- May 02 Dos Cable- Curbing Visa Referral Abuse- Santo Domingo 863

PO L view telegram) 1] P 232258Z MAY 02 FM SECSTATE WASHDC TO ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS PRIORITY SPECIAL EMBASSY PROGRAM KABUL POUCH DUSHANBE POUCH UNCLAS STATE 100799

VISAS •• INFORM CONSULS E.0.12958: N|A TAGS: CVIS, CMGT SUBJECT: Curbing the Potential for Visa Referral System Abuse • The Santo Domingo Example __—

~——~^~-^___

v^

REF: A) SANTO DOMINGO 1506 (NOTAL) B) STATE 57402 C) STATE 96111 1. The Visa Office is retransmitting the following cable, originally sent by Santo Domingo (ref a), as an example of steps other posts might find useful in mitigating vulnerability to referral system abuse. As noted in refs b and c, Chiefs of Mission and consular section chiefs should be cognizant of recent convictions in U.S. courts of cases involving visa referral fraud. Post leadership should consider what additional steps within the guidelines of 9 FAM Appendix K may be appropriate in preventing possible abuse of the referral system at their mission. 2. Begin Text: Thank you for your recent cable reminding Chiefs of Mission of the need to protect the integrity of the Mission Visa Referral Program. During the last year, we here not only revised our own program, but went to great effort to educate our staff concerning its requirements and place in. overall nonimmigrant visa operations. The result has been\t just a referral program which clearly supports US interests and is more secure from possible abuse, but a great reduction in time spent by mission officers responding to requests for help with inappropriate visa applications.

view telegramU] 3. As you know, with perhaps ten percent of Dominican , nationals already in the U.S., demand and pressures for visas in this country are extremely high. Over the years a climate had developed at this post in which Mission staff, ! faHing to understand that the referral program was j intended only to facilitate visas of official interest to the US Government, submitted referrals that fell outside this standard. Part of the problem was confusion in the ^L \ text of post's Visa Referral Program memo. Whatever the causes, the Nonimmigrant Visa Unit of the Consular Section was beset with applications for "B" and even "A" referrals for persons of no official interest. Referred applicants included the low-level employees, distant relations, domestic servants, and friends of contacts -• or sometimes just local friends and acquaintances of Mission staff. 4. Though "B" referrals were certainly the category most often abused, even "A" referrals were regularly submitted on behalf of persons of no official interest. The result was not just added work for our NIV Unit, but for the whole Mission. Staff wasted time filling out and following up on inappropriate referrals, while being inappropriately drawn into visa work in other ways: listening to pleas for help with refused cases and calling the NIV Unit •- or senior

program and our reputation as a Mission. 5. Beginning last year, the Charge supported revision of the Visa Referral Memo and a broad, continuing effort to educate Mission staff on the required standard of USG interest for all referrals. The Chief of Visa Operations (CVO) and the NIV Chief have now met with all State Department sections and other Mission agencies. FSNs, along with American staff, have been invited to attend, since it was frequently they who served as conduits to their supervisors for visa requests from contacts. 6. In these meetings, the CVO and NIV Chief have pointed out that irregularities in visa referrals can be the subject of criminal investigations (sometimes after the individuals making and accepting them had left post). Referrals must be strictly monitored and controlled. All referrals must specify the nature of the US national Page 2

; \r or even post management - for information or to

\e "if s

view telegram[1] interest in the issuance of a visa, both to facilitate decisions on whether or not to accept referred cases and to maintain records. 7. In discussions with staff, CVO and NIV Chief have gone beyond referrals to discuss routine procedures for applicants, as well as general criteria for visa issuance. They stressed that, for cases not involving official interest. Mission officers might write letters of introduction/recommendation for visa applicants favorably known to them to bring to interviews. Such letters, focusing on the recommending officer's knowledge of the applicant's ties to the host country, might help interviewing officers determine whether or not the presumption of intent to immigrate under the Immigration and Naturalization Act had been overcome. While such letters could help visa interviewing officers, Mission staff (and visa applicants recommended by them) had to understand that decisions could only be made at the time of interview, based on all information available at that time. 8. In addition, CVO and NIV Chief provided letters for Mission officers to present to their professional contacts, describing for them the circumstances in which they could and could not expect official support for a visa application. They also made available "business cards" summarizing standard visa application procedures, for staff to pass on to persons approaching them for help with visas. 9. Obviously, these activities have involved a considerable investment of my staff's time. Thankfully, as mentioned at the outset, they have more than repaid the investment. The NIV Unit reports that the number of inappropriate visa referrals has dropped almost to zero over the course of the last year (along with a similar decline in calls from Mission staff seeking reversals of visa decisions). 10. There has also been a corresponding decrease in the amount of time spent by non-consular staff responding to requests from contacts for help with visa cases of all kinds, a real plus in terms of productivity. Last but not least, we are proud to be getting out to our contacts the message that Mission staff cannot and will not officially support visa applications of no official interest to the US

o

view telegram! 1] Government. By so doing, we have improved our Mission's reputation for correct procedures and immunity to outside pressures. 11. Several lessons for our post have emerged from this process: -- The standard of direct U.S. Government interest must be clearly stated as the only one qualifying any visa application for consideration under the Visa Referral program, whether as an "A" or "B" referral. This needs to be strongly supported by the Chief of Mission. -- It must also be made clear that the only persons qualifying for "derivative status" under this standard are the spouses and minor children of persons of USG interest. (At our post at least, to accept the argument that it is in the US national interest to ingratiate ourselves with our contacts by enabling them to ingratiate themselves with their own friends and associates, is an open door for abuse.) -- The annual exercise of re-issuing the Mission Visa Referral Memorandum is necessary but not sufficient. Especially at posts like this one, where pressures on officers to help out with visa cases of all kinds are so intense and many of our multi-agency staff have had limited experience overseas, there must also be opportunities for dialogue between consular and non-consular staff to ensure that rules and procedures are understood. End text. 12. CA applauds the proactive efforts of Embassy Santo Domingo to tighten appropriately referral procedures at post. While we realize that every detail of these procedures are not suitable for every post, every mission should take the potential for referral system abuse as seriously as Santo Domingo, and tighten/reform procedures as necessary. Proper visa referral systems are not only a mission productivity issue; in the post-September 11 environment, maintaining proper control over Embassy referral programs is a border security issue as well. POWELL Page 4