Mission India FY08 Visa Referral Validation Study

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 CHENNAI 000158 CA/FPP FOR JILL NYSTROM DS/CR/CFI FOR DAVID BRACKINS DS/CR/OCI FOR GALEN NACE SIPDIS SENSITIVE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KFRD CVIS CMGT ASEC IN SUBJECT: Mission India FY08 Visa Referral Validation Study Ref: A) 08 Chennai 351, B) 08 New Delhi 3190, C) New Delhi 7, D) Chennai 157, E) 08 Chennai 392, F) 08 Chennai 382 ¶1. (SBU) Summary. Mission India recently conducted a validation study of all 1,408 approved non-immigrant visa applicants who utilized the visa referral program in FY2008 in New Delhi, Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata. The study showed that 99.4 percent of the visa recipients have entered and departed the United States, were in status or did not travel. Nine applicants (0.6 percent) -- all New Delhi referrals -- appear to be illegally present in the United States. Stricter procedures are in place since those referrals were made in order to eliminate potential overstays. End Summary. -------------- Methodology -------------- ¶2. (SBU) This is the second Mission India referral validation study to take advantage of the comprehensive entry/exit records available through the USVISIT program. As with the study for FY06 and FY07 (ref A) CA/CST compiled referral data for each post in Mission India (except for Hyderabad, which began visa adjudication in March 2009), which CA/FPP then passed to DHS to obtain ADIS entry/exit records. Each post's Fraud Prevention Unit (FPU) then culled the entry/exit data to identify potential overstays as those with an ADIS entry record but no departure record and who stayed beyond the standard admissible period (e.g. more than six months on a B1/B2 visa). The FPUs attempted to contact potential referral overstays via their reported contact telephone numbers, and if unsuccessful, the referring office at each post was enlisted to verify current contact information and/or to verify if the applicants had returned. Only nine applicants, all from New Delhi, could not be contacted, had entry but no departure records from the U.S., and had no record of legal adjustment of status with DHS. ¶3. (SBU) Overall, the results of the Mission India referral validation study for FY08 are: Total Issued Referrals: 1,408 Travel and Return, No Travel or in status: 1,397 In Status but applied for adjustment: 2 Potential Overstays: 9 (0.6 percent) The total volume of referrals decreased significantly in FY08. In FY06 and FY07, Mission India averaged 2,212 visa referral issuances per year. This drop in referrals throughout the Mission reflects the success of the visa blitz. As wait times were reduced from six months to two weeks, applicants did not necessarily need referrals to obtain appointments in a timely fashion. ¶4. (SBU) For the purposes of this study, the primary concern was to determine if applicants had remained in legal status. This does not address the fundamental question of whether each traveler acted in the true spirit of the referral program by using the visa for the purpose stated in the referral. For example, two of the referral applicants applied for adjustments of status while in the United States. The one applicant from Mumbai who did not return had a previous F-1 visa and subsequently completed his Optional Practical Training at the Voice of America (VOA) in the Hindi language service. The Public Affairs Section referred him for the purpose of returning to VOA on a J-1 visa, but he adjusted to Legal Permanent Resident status after rejoining VOA. The Political Section in New Delhi referred a second individual to attend a networking event in March 2008. The applicant in fact traveled six months later, spent six months in the U.S., and remains in the U.S. after filing for an adjustment of status. ¶5. (U) Comment. The CCD currently has no reports to compile lists of referral applicants. Mission India strongly recommends that posts be given a more robust reporting tool, and that in the meantime the CCD should include a referral report that collects names, dates of birth and passport numbers for any given date range. Mission India thanks CA/CST for producing the reports necessary to complete this study. End Comment. -------------- New Delhi Results -------------- ¶6. (SBU) In FY08, New Delhi approved 589 total Class A and Class B visa referrals. Of those 589 applicants, FPU identified nine individuals with Class B referrals who accrued unlawful presence. Four of these applicants were part of a group referral by the Foreign Commercial Service (FCS) to take part in a "scrap trade CHENNAI 00000158 002 OF 003 mission" and visit the Scrap Recycling Industry Convention and Exposition in Las Vegas. A fifth was also referred by FCS in order to attend the International Franchise Expo. While FCS only submitted these referrals in order to obtain group appointments, following common practice at that time, the profiles of these applicants indicate that they would have engendered a higher level of scrutiny in the regular visa process. One in particular had had multiple prior refusals. A review of this group after the application process led to a review of group appointment procedures and discussions with FCS about whether such referrals were in the USG interest. FCS now submits few referrals for applicants attending trade shows. ¶7. (SBU) Two of the nine overstays were Bhutanese applicants who were reportedly family members of the former Prime Minister of Bhutan. Post has reported separately on fraud (ref B) and overstays (ref C) among Bhutanese applicants. High rates of non-compliance among B1/B2 visa holders have led us to scrutinize all Bhutanese applicants more closely. Similarly, Mission India recently reported on the high rate of overstays of Tibetan applicants (ref D),two of whom were referrals. ¶8. (SBU) None of the nine overstays mentioned above came after May 2008, when new oversight procedures were put in place by Consular Section management to review incoming referrals. RSO is reviewing these cases to make sure there was no malfeasance by USG personnel. -------------- Chennai Results -------------- ¶9. (SBU) In Chennai, 545 referral applicants received visas in FY08, and none of them overstayed. The FY07 study uncovered five overstays, four of whom were related to a sitting Member of Parliament (ref E). Sixteen Class B referrals were refused, including four "executives" from Saravana Bhavan, a major South Indian hotel and restaurant chain, who appeared to be cooks. Several months later Post confirmed that the CEO for Saravana Bhavan was in fact smuggling cooks into the U.S. as executives, and he was arrested (ref F). -------------- Mumbai Results -------------- ¶10. (SBU) Mumbai received 269 referrals in FY08 and approved 260. As mentioned in para 4, only one referral applicant did not return to India, but he did remain in legal status. The Public Affairs Section referred 137 cases, almost half of Mumbai's total referrals. Of the nine refusals, two are still pending for Security Advisory Opinions, and the rest were referred by the Economic Section or by officers in New Delhi. -------------- Kolkata Results -------------- ¶11. (SBU) In FY08, Kolkata approved 14 referral applicants. All of these applicants traveled and returned to India. Referral applicants in Kolkata have a 100 percent return rate for the last three years. Referral numbers are generally low due to the short waiting period to obtain a visa appointment. Consular management will promote the use of the referral program to other officers as a public diplomacy tool. -------------- Conclusions -------------- ¶12. (SBU) Overall, Mission India's referral program appears to be working as designed and the rate of overstays for the entire Mission was less than one percent. However, even one overstay on the referral program is one too many, and each of Mission India's consular chiefs has reminded their respective posts of the criteria and procedures for referrals and how to utilize the referral program appropriately to facilitate legitimate travel of USG interest. The Minister Counselor for Consular Affairs also raised this issue during a country team meeting, which was attended via DVC by all posts in Mission India. ¶13. (SBU) The recent conviction of a former DHS employee for alien smuggling and visa fraud highlights the need for all officers to use the official referral policy as the only means of providing visa CHENNAI 00000158 003 OF 003 support. As was reported in a Diplomatic Security press release on April 13, a former immigration adjudicator with Citizenship and Immigration Services was found guilty of submitting fraudulent visa applications to the Department of Labor and to the Department of Homeland Security, for which he was paid $100,000. Witnesses from Consulate General Mumbai testified that the employee called the consulate to vouch for the veracity of the visa application, informing a consular official he was employed by the Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Service. The evidence showed that he also accessed his DHS computer to see if he or a visa recipient were under investigation. ¶14. (SBU) No malfeasance trends have been detected in the referral program, and the number of referrals is decreasing. All officers throughout Mission India are reminded that referrals can be an effective foreign policy tool, when used appropriately. Consular managers will continue to monitor the program and conduct annual 100 percent verification of referrals. ¶15. (U) This cable has been cleared by all posts in Mission India. KAPLAN