Order Code RL32234
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology Program (US-VISIT)
Updated August 18, 2004
Lisa M. Seghetti
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Stephen R. Viña
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
Program (US-VISIT)
Summary
Congress first mandated that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) implement an automated entry and exit data system that would track the arrival
and departure of every alien in §110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The objective was, in part, to
develop a mechanism that would be able to track nonimmigrants who overstayed
their visas as part of a broader emphasis on immigration control. Following the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks there was a shift in priority for implementing the
system. While the tracking of nonimmigrants who overstayed their visas remained
an important goal, border security has become the paramount concern.
Legislation enacted from 1997 to 2000 changed the scope and delayed
implementation of §110 of IIRIRA. For example, the INS Data Management
Improvement Act rewrote §110 to require the development of a system using data
currently collected with no new documentary requirements. The Visa Waiver
Permanent Program Act of 2000 required the development and implementation of a
“fully automated entry and exit control system” covering all aliens who enter the
United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) at airports and seaports.
Following the terrorist attacks, provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-
56) and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act of 2002 (Border Security
Act; P.L. 107-173) encouraged a more expeditious development of the system and
directed that biometric identifiers be used in passports, visas and other travel
documents. The Border Security Act requires all U.S. ports of entry to have
equipment and software installed that will allow biometric comparison and the
authentication of all visas and other travel and entry documents by October 26, 2004.
Tracking the entry and exit of most foreign nationals at U.S. ports of entry is not
a small undertaking. In FY2003 there were over 427 million inspections conducted
at U.S. ports of entry, of which 62% were foreign nationals from other countries.
Moreover, implementing the requirements of an automated entry and exit data system
is not without controversy. Some observers fear that the full implementation of US-
VISIT will cause massive delays at U.S. ports of entry, primarily at land ports of
entry. Some believe that the cost of implementing such a system would outweigh the
benefits. Others express concern about the inadequacy of current infrastructure, and
the lack of consensus with respect to the type of biometric technology that should be
used in travel documents. Many continue to question the purpose of such a system.
Some argue that resources should be directed at immigration interior enforcement,
rather than on an expensive system whose capability is not fully known.
The automated entry and exit data system was administratively renamed the
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT). It is
reportedly going to be implemented in phases over the next several years. While the
9/11 Commission generally endorsed the US-VISIT Program, it recommended
accelerated implementation, as well as several enhancements to the program. This
report will be updated to reflect new developments.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Volume of Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
U.S. Ports of Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Exit Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Statutory History and Other Related Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Mandate to Create an Automated Entry and Exit Data System . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Significant Modifications in the Automated Entry and Exit Data System . . 5
Related Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Enhancements to the Automated Entry and Exit Data System . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Related Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Machine-Readable Travel Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Electronic Passenger Manifest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Requirement for Biometric Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Technology Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Status of US-VISIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Implementation Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Current Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The 9/11 Commission Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Electronic Manifest Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Visa Waiver Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Selected Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Scope and Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Visa Waiver Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
New Documentary and Data Collection Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Possible Documentary Exemptions and Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
US VISIT and Canadian and Mexican Nationals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Implementation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Infrastructure and Facility Needs at the Border . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Interior Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Privacy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Information Technology Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Training Needs and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Facilitation of Travel and Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Feasibility of Implementation and Policy Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix I: Summary of Authority for Biometric Identifiers in Travel
Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix II: Electronic Manifest Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix III: Visa Holders That Are Exempt from the Fingerprinting
and Photographing Requirements Under DHS Interim Final Rule,
January 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Appendix IV: Comparison of Current Law Deadlines and the
Administration’s Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix V: Comparison of the Mexican Laser Visa Requirements with
Canadian Documentary Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology Program (US-VISIT)
Introduction
Congress first mandated that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) implement an automated entry and exit data system that would track the arrival
and departure of every alien in §110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA; P.L. 104-208).1 The objective for
an automated entry and exit data system was, in part, to develop a mechanism that
would be able to track nonimmigrants who overstayed their visas as part of a broader
emphasis on immigration control. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
there was a marked shift in priority for implementing an automated entry and exit
data system. While the tracking of nonimmigrants who overstayed their visas
remained an important goal of the system, border security has become the paramount
concern with respect to implementing the system.
This report provides a summary of the statutory history of the automated entry
and exit data system, which was recently renamed the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant
Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program by the Bush Administration.2 It
also discusses other laws that affect the implementation of the system and provides
an analysis of the documentary requirements under current law. The report also
discusses efforts to implement the program and selected issues associated with its
development and implementation. This report will not discuss two related programs–
National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) program3 and the
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) program,4 — which
reportedly will be incorporated into the automated entry and exit data system.
1 §110 of IIRIRA is located in Division C of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act
of FY1997.
2 An October 2003 Department of Homeland Security Press Release refers to the program
as the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology. In May 2003, Asa
Hutchinson, Under Secretary of the Border and Transportation Security Division in the
Department of Homeland Security had announced the Administration’s intent to rename the
automated entry and exit data system the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indication
Technology Program or US-VISIT. See U.S. Department of State, “Ridge Announces New
U.S. Entry-Exit System,” press release, Apr. 29, 2003, at [http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/
pol/terror/texts/03042901.htm]. The terms US-VISIT program and automated entry and exit
data system will be used interchangeably throughout this report.
3 For additional information on NSEERS, see CRS Report RL31570, Immigration Alien
Registration,
by Andorra Bruno.
4 For additional information on SEVIS, see CRS Report RL32188, Monitoring Foreign
Students in the United States: The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
, by
Alison Siskin.

CRS-2
Volume of Entries
Tracking the entry and exit of most foreign nationals at U.S. ports of entry is not
a small undertaking. In FY2003 there were over 427 million inspections conducted
at U.S. ports of entry, of which 62% were foreign nationals from other countries.
Most observers contend that implementing an automated entry and exit data system
at the nation’s air ports of entry would pose the least number of problems when
compared to land or sea ports of entry because the capacity to record alien arrivals
and departures at land and sea ports of entry is not as fully developed.5 Nonetheless,
air ports of entry pose unique challenges that could hamper the full implementation
of such a system.
U.S. Ports of Entry
There are over 300 air, land and sea ports of entry in the United States. The
majority of travelers enter the United States at a land port of entry. In FY2003, 79%
of all travelers seeking entry into the United States entered at a land port of entry.
Land borders are unique because traffic at these crossings could consist in varying
combinations of cars, pedestrians, bicycles, trucks, buses, and rail. Moreover, land
ports of entry pose various challenges to the creation of an automated alien tracking
system due to their location, infrastructure, geography and traffic volume, which can
vary extensively among ports of entry.
Air and sea ports are faced with some of the same challenges present at land
ports. However, the impact is not as intense as it is at land ports of entry. While land
ports of entry have heavy traffic volume that could make implementing such a
program difficult, some air port officials and observers express concern that
implementing the system could also disrupt the flow of traffic at air ports of entry.
Airports have tried to delay the implementation of an automated entry and exit data
system (and reportedly they were effective in pushing back the implementation date
of the Administration’s first increment of the program to January 5, 2004), primarily
due to concerns of the potential slow down in the flow of traffic at the nation’s air
ports of entry. In addition to possible congestion at the nation’s air ports of entry,
some fear that the exit process may not be fully developed due to inadequate space.
The current exit process being used at two ports of entry (one air and one sea port of
entry) requires separate space away from the inspections station.
Sea ports of entry, which account for approximately 3% of all travelers seeking
entry to the United States in FY2003, also pose challenges to the implementation of
an automated entry and exit data system. Similar to other ports, sea ports do not have
the necessary infrastructure, particularly with respect to implementing exit controls.
Moreover, some sea ports of entry are not staffed full-time with immigration or
customs inspectors.
5 As discussed in the next section, air ports of entry have a long history of collecting the
Arrival/Departure Record (Form I-94) from foreign nationals.

CRS-3
The Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-94
For many years, the former INS had recorded nonimmigrant arrivals at airports
on Form I-94, the Arrival/Departure Record, which is a paper-based system that
contains information that is later keyed into the Nonimmigrant Information System
(NIIS).6
Form I-94 is a perforated numbered card and is composed of an arrival portion
collected upon entry and a departure portion that is returned to the alien passenger.
Upon departure, the reverse-side of the departure portion is completed by the
departure carrier and submitted to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at
the port of departure. Under current regulations, the outbound carrier has 48 hours
to submit the departure Form I-94 to DHS.
Due to the cumbersome nature of this process and its unreliability, Congress
required that commercial carriers transporting passengers to or from the U.S. deliver
arrival and departure manifest information electronically to DHS no later than
January 1, 2003. These reports are to be integrated with data systems maintained by
the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of State (DOS) at ports of entry
or at consular offices.7
Exit Control
The I-94 Arrival/Departure Record is routinely collected from applicable foreign
nationals at air and sea ports. Reportedly, it is rarely collected from applicable
foreign nationals exiting at land ports. According to many, implementing the exit
process of an automated entry and exit data system at most ports of entry will entail
expanding the infrastructure, which may be challenging at some ports (see discussion
in Selected Issues section). The Administration is currently in the first phase of
implementation of the system; and reportedly the exit process is operable at two ports
of entry. The full implementation of the exit process will be one of the challenges
to the successful development of an automated entry and exit data system (see
discussion in Implementation of US-VISIT).
Statutory History and Other Related Laws
There are four principal laws that extend and refine §110 of IIRIRA to require
the development and implementation of an integrated entry and exit data system:
! The INS Data Management Improvement Act (DMIA; P.L. 106-
215);
! The Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act (VWPPA; P.L. 106-396);
6 NIIS provides limited data on the arrivals and departures of non-immigrants admitted for
short visits such as those individuals traveling for pleasure or business. NIIS interfaces with
several other immigration databases.
7 8 U.S.C. 1365a(b).

CRS-4
! The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA
PATRIOT Act; P.L. 107-56); and
! The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (Border
Security Act; P.L. 107-173).
Following the terrorist attacks, several provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act
and the Border Security Act further required the implementation of an automated
entry and exit data system and called for enhancements in its development. The
provisions in both Acts have several common elements:
! encourage a more expeditious development of the automated entry
and exit data system;
! require that biometric identifiers be used in all visas and other travel
documents; and
! require that the system be interoperable with other law enforcement
and national security databases.
Accordingly, implementation of the relevant provisions in these five laws together
are intended to result in an integrated, automated entry and exit data system that now
includes the use of biometric identifiers.
Mandate to Create an Automated Entry and Exit Data System
Section 110 of IIRIRA required the Attorney General to develop an automated
data system that would record the entry and exit of every alien arriving in and
departing from the United States by September 30, 1998.8 Under this initial
authorization, the Attorney General was required to develop an automated entry and
exit control system not later than two years after the enactment of IIRIRA in 1996.
The automated entry and exit data system would have created a record for every alien
arriving in the U.S. and paired it with the record for the alien departing the United
States. The automated entry and exit data system was also supposed to enable the
Attorney General to identify, through online searching procedures, lawfully admitted
nonimmigrants who remained in the United States beyond the period authorized by
the Attorney General.
The act also mandated that the Attorney General report to Congress annually
after the development of an automated entry and exit data system on the following:
! the number of recorded departures by country of nationality;
! the number of recorded departures matching recorded arrivals of
nonimmigrants by country of nationality; and
! the number of aliens who arrived as nonimmigrants or visitors under
the visa waiver program and have overstayed their visas.
8 P.L. 104-208, Div. C, Tit. I, §110 (formally codified at 8 U.S.C. §1221 note) (currently
codified at 8 U.S.C. §1365a).

CRS-5
Congress amended §110 of IIRIRA in P.L. 105-259 to require the
implementation of the system before October 15, 1998. Congress further amended
§110 in the FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277) by extending the deadline for the implementation
of the automated entry and exit data system to March 30, 2001, for land border ports
of entry and sea ports of entry (but otherwise leaving the October 15, 1998 deadline
for air ports of entry); and prohibiting significant disruption of trade, tourism or other
legitimate cross-border traffic once the automated entry and exit data system was in
place.9
Significant Modifications in the Automated Entry
and Exit Data System

In June of 2000, Congress substantially amended §110 of IIRIRA in the
Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of
2000. This act renamed the automated entry and exit data system the “Integrated
Entry and Exit Data System” and included provisions that (1) rewrote IIRIRA §110
to require the development of a system using data currently collected with no new
documentary requirements; (2) set staggered deadlines for the implementation of the
system at air, sea, and land border ports of entry; (3) established a task force to
evaluate the implementation of the system and other measures to improve legitimate
cross-border traffic; and (4) expressed a sense of Congress that federal departments
charged with border management should consult with foreign governments to
improve cooperation.
Related Provisions
While statutorily distinct from §110, the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act
of 2000 also mandated the development and implementation of a “fully automated
entry and exit control system” covering all aliens who enter the United States under
the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) at airports and seaports.10 Under the VWP,
nationals from certain countries are allowed to enter the U.S. as temporary visitors
(nonimmigrants) for business or pleasure for up to 90 days without first obtaining a
visa from a U.S. consulate abroad.
The Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act included many provisions designed
to strengthen documentary and reporting requirements. Most notably, the VWPPA
included a provision that mandated that by October 1, 2007, all entrants under the
VWP must have machine-readable passports.11 It has been stipulated by DHS that
9 P.L. 105-277, Tit. I (Dept. of Justice), §116, 112 Stat. 2681-68.
10 P.L. 106-396, §205 (codified at 8 U.S.C. §1187).
11 The USA Patriot Act and the Border Security Act added and modified various
requirements in the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act. For a more thorough discussion
on the Visa Waiver Program, as amended, see CRS Report RL32221, Visa Waiver Program,
by Alison Siskin.

CRS-6
the VWP arrival/departure information has effectively been incorporated into the
broader entry-exit system component mandated by the DMIA.12
In late 2001 and 2002, Congress passed two additional laws affecting the
development of the automated entry and exit data system, particularly with respect
to the use of use biometric identifiers: the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) and the
Border Security Act (P.L. 107-173).
Enhancements to the Automated Entry and
Exit Data System13

In the USA PATRIOT Act, Congress required the Attorney General and the
Secretary of State to jointly develop and certify a technology standard with the
capacity to verify the identity of persons applying for a U.S. visa or such persons
seeking to enter the United States pursuant to a visa.14 The USA PATRIOT Act also
encouraged the full implementation of the integrated, automated entry and exit data
system “with all deliberate speed and as expeditiously as practicable” and called for
the immediate establishment of the Integrated Entry and Exit Data System Task
Force, as described in §3 of the DMIA.15 The act also directed the Attorney General
and Secretary of State to focus on the utilization of biometric technology and tamper
resistant documents in the development of the integrated, automated entry and exit
data system.
The Border Security Act further advanced requirements set forth in IIRIRA by
requiring the Attorney General to implement an integrated entry and exit data system.
In developing the entry and exit data system, the act requires: (1) the Attorney
General and the Secretary of State to implement a technology standard in compliance
with the USA PATRIOT Act16 at U.S. ports of entry and at consular posts abroad; (2)
the establishment of a database containing the arrival and departure data from
machine-readable visas, passports and other alien travel documents; and (3) all
security databases relevant to admissibility decisions under §212 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act be integrated with other immigration databases and systems and
12 Carrier Arrival and Departure Electronic Manifest Requirements, 68 Federal Register
30280, 30359 (May 27, 2003); see also 69 Federal Register 468, 469.
13 For additional information on immigration-related border security provisions in the USA
PATRIOT Act and the Border Security Act, see CRS Report RL31727, Border Security:
Immigration Issues in the 108th Congress
, by Lisa M. Seghetti.
14 According to the act, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State were to develop and
certify a technology standard through the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) and in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, federal law enforcement and
intelligence agencies, and the Congress.
15 Ibid., at §414.
16 Section 403(c) of the USA PATRIOT Act requires the development and certification of
a technology standard that can be used to verify the identity of persons (1) applying for a
U.S. visa or (2) seeking entry into the United States pursuant to a visa.

CRS-7
interoperable with federal law enforcement agencies and the intelligence
community.17
Related Requirements
Machine-Readable Travel Documents. The Border Security Act required
the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to issue machine-readable, tamper-
resistant visas and travel documents that will utilize biometric identifiers by October
26, 2004. The Border Security Act also required all U.S. ports of entry to have
equipment and software installed by October 26, 2004 that will allow biometric
comparison and the authentication of all visas and other travel and entry documents
issued to aliens. The act also required by the same date that all VWP countries have
a program in place to issue tamper-resistant, machine-readable, biometric passports
that comply with the biometric and document identifying standards established by the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).18 P.L. 108-299, however,
extended the deadline to October 26, 2005. In essence, on or after October 26, 2005,
any alien applying for admission under the VWP must present a passport that is
tamper-resistant, machine-readable, and uses ICAO-compliant biometric identifiers
(unless the unexpired passport was issued prior to that date). With respect to Laser
Visas (previously referred to as Mexican Border Crossing Cards), the act extended
until September 30, 2002, the deadline for such visas to contain a biometric identifier
that matches the biometric characteristic of the card holder.19
As previously mentioned, the Border Security Act required the automated entry
and exit data system be interoperable with other federal law enforcement agencies
and the intelligence community data systems. The act required the interoperable data
system to have the capacity to compensate for disparate name formats among the
various databases and be able to search names that are linguistically sensitive. It
required linguistically sensitive algorithms to be implemented for at least four
languages designated as high priorities by the Secretary of State.20 The act required
the President to establish a commission by October 26, 2002, to oversee the
development and progress of the interoperable data system.
Electronic Passenger Manifest. The Border Security Act required airline
carriers to provide the Attorney General with electronic passenger manifests before
arriving in or departing from the United States and repealed a provision that required
airport inspections to be completed within 45 minutes of arrival.21
17 The interoperable data system is also known as Chimera.
18 In May 2003, ICAO finalized standards for biometric identifiers, which asserted that facial
recognition is the globally interoperable biometric for machine readable documents with
respect to identifying a person.
19 Border Crossing Cards are issued to Mexican nationals under specified conditions, see
discussion below.
20 The act also required that an additional language algorithm be implemented annually for
three years following the implementation of the highest priority languages.
21 The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (P.L. 107-71) also required the electronic
(continued...)

CRS-8
Requirement for Biometric Identifiers22
Congress first mandated biometrics in travel documents in IIRIRA by requiring
Border Crossing Cards (BCCs, now referred to as Laser Visas) for Mexican nationals
to have a biometric identifier that is machine readable. The act required that the
biometric identifier match the biometric characteristic of the card holder in order for
the alien to enter the United States. In addition to IIRIRA, the USA PATRIOT Act
and the Border Security Act both required the use of biometrics in travel documents.
Technology Standards. The USA PATRIOT Act required the Attorney
General and the Secretary of State, through the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), to develop and certify a technology standard, such as
fingerprints and facial photographs, that can be used to verify the identity of persons
seeking a visa to enter the United States. With respect to developing and certifying
a technology standard, the act also required the Attorney General and the Secretary
of State to consult with the Secretary of the Treasury and other relevant federal law
enforcement and intelligence agencies. The act required the technology standard to
be a “cross-agency, cross-platform electronic system” that is fully integrated with
other federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies’ databases. It also required
the technology standard to be accessible to all consular officers who are responsible
for issuing visas, all federal inspection agents at U.S. ports of entry, and all law
enforcement and intelligence officers who are determined by regulations to be
responsible for investigating or identifying aliens admitted to the United States
through a visa.
The Border Security Act, in advancing requirements set forth in IIRIRA,
authorized the funding and implementation of a technology standard (e.g.,
biometrics). The act required the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to issue
machine-readable, tamper-resistant visas and travel documents that have biometric
identifiers by October 26, 2004. On January 5, 2004, DHS promulgated an interim
final rule that amended portions of 8 C.F.R. §§214.1, 215.8, and 235.1 to include
language for the biometric requirements of US-VISIT (see Appendix I for a
discussion on the authority and implementation of the biometric identifier
requirements).23
21 (...continued)
transmission of passenger manifests prior to an aircraft or vessel’s arrival at a U.S. port of
entry.
22 The US-VISIT program incorporates the use of biometric technology in travel documents
to track foreign visitors moving through the nation's air, land, and sea points of entry. A
biometric identifier is a physical characteristic or other attribute unique to an individual
(such as a fingerprint, a facial photograph or an iris scan) that can be collected, stored, and
used to verify the claimed identity of a person. To verify identity, a similar physical
characteristic or attribute is taken from the person who presents himself and it is compared
against the previously collected identifier.
23 The Border Security Act also requires the installation of biometric identifier readers and
scanners at all ports of entry by Oct. 26, 2004. It requires that the biometric data readers and
scanners be accurate according to domestic and international standards and that they be able
(continued...)

CRS-9
Status of US-VISIT
The US-VISIT program was established to respond to several congressional
mandates that require DHS to create an integrated, automated entry and exit data
system that (1) uses available data to produce reports on alien arrivals and departures;
(2) deploys equipment at all ports of entry to allow for the verification of aliens’
identities and the authentication of their travel documents through the comparison of
biometric identifiers; and (3) records alien arrival and departure information from
biometrically authenticated documents.24 The program is reportedly going to be
implemented in phases over the next several years in compliance with congressional
mandates and include resources and services from a number of federal, state, local,
and foreign entities to meet these requirements.25
In May 2003, Asa Hutchinson, Under Secretary of the Border and
Transportation Security Directorate in DHS announced the Administration’s intent
to rename the automated entry and exit data system the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant
Status Indication Technology program or US-VISIT.26 An October 2003 Department
of Homeland Security Press Release, however, refers to the program as the United
States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program or US-VISIT.
According to DHS, US-VISIT is a comprehensive program that will replace the
currently existing NSEERS program, integrate the SEVIS program, and encompass
the congressional requirements of the integrated, automated entry and exit data
system.
Implementation Phases
The Administration has announced plans to implement the program in four
increments, with the first three increments constituting a temporary system. While
details are not available, the US-VISIT Fact Sheet states the first three increments
will include the interfacing, enhancement and deployment (at air, sea and land ports
of entry) of existing system capabilities, which is in line with a Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report. According to a GAO report, “DHS has
23 (...continued)
to authenticate documents.
24 See generally, 8 U.S.C. §§1187, 1365a and note, 1379, 1731-31.
25 DHS currently reports the following entities to be key participants in the implementation
of US-VISIT: The Departments of State, Transportation, Justice, and Commerce, the
General Services Administration, the CIA, other countries, state and local law enforcement
and within the DHS — the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Science
and Technology Directorate, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the
Transportation and Security Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, the Citizenship and Immigration Service, and the Data
Management Improvement Act Taskforce.
26 The deadlines for implementing the US-VISIT program at high-traffic land ports of entry
are Dec. 31, 2004, and for all other ports of entry, Dec. 31, 2005, see U.S. Department of
State, “Ridge Announces New U.S. Entry-Exit System,” press release, Apr. 29, 2003, at
[http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/texts/03042901.htm].

CRS-10
preliminary plans showing that it intends to acquire and deploy a system that has
functional and performance capabilities that satisfy the general scope of capabilities
required under various laws ... [to include] the capability to (1) collect and match
alien arrival and departure data electronically; (2) be accessible to the border
management community ...; and (3) support machine readable, tamper-resistant
documents with biometric identifiers at ports of entry.”27 GAO observed, however,
that the initial plan lacks sufficient information with respect to “... what specific
capabilities and benefits [that] will be delivered, by when, and at what cost ...”28
The first increment of the Administration’s plan became effective January 5,
2004 and includes an entry process at 115 air and sea ports of entry and an exit
process at one air port of entry and one sea port of entry. On August 3, 2004, DHS
announced its plans to expand the “exit pilot programs” at an additional 12 airports
and two seaports.29 While the entry process appears to be in compliance with current
law at selected air and sea ports of entry, the exit process is not fully developed. This
may be problematic for many, since an alien who is required to provide biometrics
at the time of departure may be found to have overstayed the period of his or her last
admission if available evidence indicates that he or she did not leave the U.S. when
required to do so.30 DHS, however, maintains that aliens will not be penalized for
failing to provide biometrics on departure where the Department has not yet
implemented the departure facilities or procedures at the specific port where the alien
chooses to depart.31 Moreover, DHS intends to focus its enforcement of the departure
requirements on cases where aliens “willfully and unreasonably fail to comply.”32
Current Operations33
On January 5, 2004, DHS implemented an Interim Final Rule that, in essence,
provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security or his delegate may require aliens
to provide fingerprints, photographs or other biometric identifiers upon arrival in or
27 GAO Report GAO-03-563, “Information Technology: Homeland Security Needs to
Improve Entry Exit System Expenditure Planning,” June 2003.
28 Ibid.
29 The airports added are: Baltimore/Washington International; Newark International; O’hare
International; William B. Hartsfield International; Philadelphia International; Dallas/Fort
Worth International; Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County; McCarran International; Luis
Munoz Marin International in San Juan, Puerto Rico; Phoenix Sky Harbor International; San
Francisco International; Agana, Guam International; and Denver International. The seaports
added are: San Pedro and Long Beach, California. See August 3, 2004 Federal Register,
Volume 69, Number 148.
30 69 Federal Register 468, 473.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 For a summary of the Administration’s implementation of the biometric requirements, see
Appendix I.

CRS-11
departure from the U.S.34 Initially, DHS plans to take a digital photograph and two
fingerprints from each nonimmigrant alien who presents a visa at designated air or
sea ports of entry. DHS reportedly chose to collect two fingerprints and a photograph
of the alien’s face, in part, because they are currently less intrusive than other forms
of biometric collections and because of the effectiveness of such techniques.
Moreover, NIST, in consultation with DOJ and DOS, has determined that two
fingerprints and facial photographs are sufficient forms of biometrics for the purpose
of the US-VISIT program. DHS has commented, however, that it may collect
additional biometric data as the deployment of more comprehensive technologies
becomes feasible.
Upon arrival at a designated air or sea port of entry, inspectors will scan two
fingerprints of the foreign national with an inkless device and will take a digital
photograph of the person. Initially, the biometric information collected will be
entered into an existing system called Automated Biometric Fingerprint Identification
System (IDENT). The alien’s fingerprint and photographs are compared against the
biometric information already stored in IDENT to determine whether there is any
information that would indicate the alien is inadmissible.
For departures at designated air and sea ports, the foreign national traveler will
go to a work station or kiosk to scan his travel documents, have his photograph
compared, and provide his fingerprints on the same type of device used at entry. The
departure information that a traveler provides will be verified and matched against
any available information that he or she provided upon inspection and that was
previously stored in the systems that comprise US-VISIT. Generally, all the
information collected will be used to (1) identify persons who have overstayed their
authorized periods of admission; (2) compile the overstay reports required by DMIA;
and, (3) help DOS and DHS make determinations as to whether the person is eligible
for future visas, admission, or other discretionary immigration benefits.
Under the interim final rules implemented on January 5, 2004, 114 air ports and
15 sea ports require that nonimmigrants who apply for admission pursuant to a
nonimmigrant visa provide biometric information at time of arrival.35 Biometric
information to be provided at a nonimmigrant’s departure, on the other hand, is
currently only required at 13 airports and at three seaports, as discussed above. The
Secretary has the authority under current regulations to establish pilot programs at up
to fifteen air or sea ports of entry through which the Secretary may require an alien
admitted pursuant to a nonimmigrant visa who is departing from the United States
to provide biometric identifiers.36 Although the biometric requirements initially only
apply to nonimmigrant visa-holders who travel through designated air and sea ports,
34 69 Federal Register 468.
35 Notice to Nonimmigrant Aliens Subject To Be Enrolled in the United States Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology System, 69 Federal Register 482, Jan. 5, 2004.
36 8 C.F.R. §235.1(d)(1).

CRS-12
DHS anticipates expanding the program, through separate rulemaking to include
other groups of aliens and more ports, including land border ports of entry.37
Under DHS’ initial regulations, biometric identifiers are not required for U.S.
citizens, lawful permanent residents of the United States or for travelers who seek to
enter the United States through the VWP. Subsequent DHS regulations, however,
now require VWP participants to submit to the requirements of the US-VISIT
program. Additionally, foreign nationals entering the United States through land
ports of entry currently do not need to provide biometric identifiers; however, they
must comply with other requirements in law. With respect to Canadian citizens who
enter through the designated air and sea ports of entry, biometric identifiers will be
required, unless the Canadian citizen is temporarily visiting the United States and
does not apply for admission pursuant to a nonimmigrant visa. Nonimmigrant
Mexican visa holders must also present biometric identifiers if they enter through the
designated air and sea ports of entry. The Interim Final Rule also exempts 17 other
categories of individuals from providing biometric identifiers upon entry to or exit
from the United States (see Appendix III). An inspector retains the discretion,
however, to collect an alien’s biometric information in order to determine the exact
age of the alien and whether he or she is exempt from the biometric requirements.
The 9/11 Commission Report. The National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission)was created to investigate “facts
and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.”38 The 9/11
Commission published its report in July 2004, and it is anticipated that additional
reports on immigration and border security, among other issues, will be forthcoming.
In its report, the 9/11 Commission noted the following with respect to the US-VISIT
system:
Since September 11, the United States has built the first phase of a biometric
screening program, called US VISIT... So far, however, only visitors who
acquire visas to travel to the United States are covered. While visitors from “visa
waiver” Countries will be added to the program, beginning this year, covered
travelers will still constitute only about 12 percent of all noncitizens crossing the
U.S. borders...
While the commission called for the expeditious implementation of the US-
VISIT program, it noted the following with respect to biometrics: “biometrics have
been introduced into an antiquated computer environment” and that “replacement of
these systems and improved biometric systems will be required.” The 9/11
Commission also recommended the consolidation of the various border screening
systems with the US-VISIT system, including frequent traveler programs such as
NEXUS and the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspections
(SENTRI).39
37 69 Federal Register 468, 470.
38 The Commission was established pursuant to P.L. 107-306.
39 See [http://www.9-11commission.gov/].

CRS-13
Electronic Manifest Requirements
One of the basic legislative mandates of US-VISIT is that the system integrate
the available alien arrival and departure data that exist in any Department of Justice
(now DHS) or DOS database system. This includes the systems that incorporate
carrier manifest data on passengers and crew members who are entering or leaving
the United States via air or sea — generally, the Advance Passenger Information
System (APIS) for arrivals and the Arrival Departure Information System (ADIS) for
departures.40
In addition to the information captured by the electronic manifests, APIS and
ADIS include information gathered from VWP aliens and information on visa
applications and recipients received through the DataShare program with DOS. The
information provided by the APIS and ADIS databases are run against the
Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) which contains “lookouts” on
individuals submitted by more than 20 law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
According to DHS, by the time a traveler gets to an air or sea port of entry, inspectors
have identified the aliens that need to be scrutinized more closely or that may be
inadmissible.41
Under current regulations, a commercial aircraft or vessel must electronically
transmit arrival and departure manifests to DHS officials for each passenger not
currently exempt from the manifest requirements pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §231.1 or
§231.2 (see Appendix II). These manifests must contain the data elements specified
in INA §231, as amended, for each passenger listed on the manifest. Arrival
manifests must be submitted electronically to DHS prior to the arrival of the
commercial aircraft or vessel. Electronic departure manifests, under 8 C.F.R. §231.2,
must be submitted to DHS officials within 48 hours of departure.42 Under current
regulations, arrival and departure manifest data are not required to be submitted by
U.S. citizens, a returning lawful permanent resident alien of the United States, and
new immigrants to the United States or aircraft and vessels arriving in the United
States directly from Canada, or departing to Canada.43
40 Current law already requires that passenger manifests be submitted electronically prior
to an aircraft or vessel’s arrival at a U.S. port of entry. Section 402 of P.L. 107-173 and
§115 of P.L. 107-71.
41 69 Federal Register 468, 471.
42 On Jan. 3, 2003, DOJ proposed a rule that would require commercial carriers transporting
any person by air to any port within the U.S. from any place outside the U.S. to submit an
electronic arrival passenger manifest to federal officials no later than 15 minutes after the
flight departs from the last foreign port or place and for departure manifest, no later than 15
minutes before the flight or vessel has departed the U.S. See Manifest Requirements Under
Section 231 of the act, 68 Federal Register 292, 294 (Jan. 3, 2003).
43 8 C.F.R. §§231.1 (Arrival manifest for passengers) and 231.2 (Departure Manifest for
passengers).

CRS-14
Visa Waiver Program
The entry-exit system must also include the arrival and departure for any visitor
who transits through the air and seaports and is admitted under the Visa Waiver
Program. The VWP allows nationals from 27 countries to enter the United States as
temporary visitors for business or pleasure without first obtaining a visa from a U.S.
consulate abroad. The VWPPA states that no alien arriving by air or sea may be
granted a visa waiver under INA §217, on or after October 1, 2002, unless the carrier
is submitting passenger information electronically to the VWP entry-exit system, as
required by the Secretary. Carriers must electronically transmit passenger arrival data
in accordance with 8 C.F.R. §217.7 for every applicant for admission under the VWP
that the carrier transports by air or sea to a U.S. port of entry. Carriers are only
required to transmit departure passenger information for those departing VWP
passengers who were admitted to the U.S. under the VWP after arriving at a port of
entry. Travelers entering the United States pursuant to the VWP are not affected by
the biometric requirements of US-VISIT.
The obligation of carriers to submit information on VWP passengers in support
of the entry-exit system mandated by §217(h) of the INA appears to be currently
separate from a carrier’s obligation to submit arrival and departure manifests for
persons transported on commercial aircraft or vessels pursuant to §231 of the INA.
However, it has been proclaimed by the DHS that the requirements of the DMIA (i.e.,
the electronic manifest requirements) have effectively resulted in the integration of
the VWP arrival/departure information into the primary entry-exit system component
of the US-VISIT program.44
Selected Issues
Scope and Authority
While the Administration has seemingly gone to great lengths to clarify the
processes involved with the US-VISIT program, many concerns have surfaced. Some
have questioned the integration of US-VISIT with the VWP, while others have found
the existence of too many potential exceptions problematic. Some observers have
suggested that the program may not be in compliance with congressional mandates.
Generally, the specific requirements and procedures that a traveler must abide by to
enter the United States through the US-VISIT program are detailed in agency
regulations.
Visa Waiver Program. The VWP, while statutorily distinct, is linked to US-
VISIT’s components and implementation in many respects. From existing
regulations it appears that a comprehensive exit-entry system has the potential to
44 See 69 Federal Register 468,469. An Oct. 11, 2002 DOJ Interim Rule indicates that it is
DOJ’s goal to develop a single procedure for the electronic transmission of passenger and
crew arrival and departure information that will satisfy the requirements of both sections
217 and 231 of the act. See Passenger Data Elements for the Visa Waiver Program, 67
Federal Register 63246, 63248, Oct. 11, 2002.

CRS-15
draw on two sets of data requirements — one that puts forth criteria for electronic
arrival and departure data manifests and is the basis of the §110 system, and a
separate one that contains requirements for electronic data submissions under the
VWP (see Appendix II for comparison). The current regulations, notwithstanding,
DHS claims the VWP elements have effectively been included in the general
electronic manifest requirements. Indeed, the DOJ proposed a rule on January 3,
2003, that would effectively prohibit a VWP passenger from entering the country
unless the carrier transporting such an alien electronically transmits passenger arrival
and departure data in accordance with 8 C.F.R. §231.1 for each VWP passenger
being transported.45 Still, until such time as the anticipated regulation combining
these two electronic requirements is published, there are apparently two distinct
electronic reporting requirements that should be complied with.
With respect to biometrics, travelers entering the United States pursuant to the
VWP are not affected by US-VISIT’s biometric requirements. Foreign nationals who
participate in the VWP, however, will not be admitted under the program on or after
October 26, 2004, without a machine-readable, tamper-resistant passport that meets
ICAO biometric standards for photographs, unless the passport has not expired and
was issued prior to that date.46 Thus, while VWP travelers may currently be entering
the United States free of the US-VISIT biometric requirements, under current law
they are suppose to operate under VWP biometric requirements similar to US-VISIT
by October 26, 2004. Moreover, it should be noted that many have commented on
the unlikelihood of VWP countries meeting the October 26, 2004 deadline to produce
machine-readable, tamper-resistant passports that meet international biometric
standards.47
New Documentary and Data Collection Requirements. The scope of
§110 of IIRIRA as amended is much narrower than originally enacted since it does
not require the development of a system that would record the entry and exit of every
alien
arriving and departing from the United States. Instead, §110 of IIRIRA as
amended by the DMIA, requires that a system be developed to record alien arrivals
and departures, without establishing additional documentary requirements. Nothing
in the amended §110 of IIRIRA should be interpreted as requiring the Attorney
General or the Secretary of State to collect new types of documents or data from
aliens, particularly aliens who have had document requirements waived under
§212(d)(4)(B) of the INA by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State acting
jointly on the basis of reciprocity with respect to foreign contiguous territories or
adjacent islands.48
45 68 Federal Register 292, 295.
46 8 U.S.C. §1732(c)(2).
47 See Statement of Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, in U.S.
Congress, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Infrastructure
and Border Security, Integrity and Security at the Borders: The US VISIT Program, hearing,
108th Cong., 2004.
48 In addition, §110 does not permit the Attorney General or the Secretary of State to require
documents or data from aliens that are inconsistent with the North American Free Trade
(continued...)

CRS-16
Nonetheless, IIRIRA §110 does not “reduce or curtail any authority of the
Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary of State under any other provision
of law” to require new documentary or data collection information.49 Thus, while
§110 of IIRIRA restricts the Attorney General and the Secretary of State from
imposing new documentary or data collection requirements upon aliens under §110
of IIRIRA, it does not reduce the authority of the Attorney General or the Secretary
of State from developing new documentary or data collection requirements from
other provisions of law.50
DHS claims there is no conflict between the requirement for biometric
identifiers and DMIA’s prohibition on new documentary or data collection
requirements.51 DHS supports its conclusion with the “no reduction in authority”
clause of the DMIA, claiming the biometric requirements found in the Interim Final
Rule are supported by statutory authority “outside the four corners of DMIA.”52 For
example, DHS cites §403(c) and §414 of the USA PATRIOT Act and §§ 302-303 of
the Border Security Act, as laws passed after the DMIA that encourage and require
DHS to develop and utilize a biometric technology for the implementation of the
automated entry and exit data system. While these provisions do not appear to give
the Secretary of DHS or DOS the explicit authority to promulgate new data collection
or documentary requirements under §110 per se, the broad grant of authority in these
provisions to implement an integrated entry-exit system that utilizes biometric
technology, combined with the generous discretion that is often afforded agencies
implementing congressionally mandated programs by courts, seemingly provides
strong support for the use of biometric identifiers.
Other authority cited by DHS, includes INA §§ 214, 215 and 235. Of particular
importance is INA §215 which allows the President to promulgate regulations for
alien departure and arrival. The President pursuant to Executive Order 13323
delegated his authority to promulgate these regulations to the Secretary of DHS. This
delegation, and its result — the Secretary’s new authority to promulgate regulations
for the entry and exit of aliens — would likely correct any apparent deficiency in the
authority cited by DHS. Still, the fact that DHS claims that it may collect additional
biometric data as the deployment of more comprehensive technologies becomes
feasible may raise questions as to whether these new requirements are truly consistent
with §110's mandate that no new documentary or data collection requirements be
imposed.
48 (...continued)
Agreement.
49 8 U.S.C. 1365a(c)(2).
50 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 146, (May 23, 2000), pp. H3570-H3571.
51 69 Federal Register 468, 475.
52 Ibid.

CRS-17
Possible Documentary Exemptions and Exceptions.53 Under some
circumstances not all the information required by US-VISIT must be submitted. For
example, visa information may be omitted in the event a passenger is traveling
pursuant to the VWP (though the VWP has its own requirements). Visa and/or
passport requirements may be waived upon the joint determination of the Attorney
General and the Secretary of State under 22 C.F.R. §41.2. Individuals from certain
countries may also be exempt from providing a passport or visa under 8 C.F.R.
212.1.
With respect to biometrics, seventeen categories of individuals are exempt from
providing this kind of information. Determining an exemption may become a highly
complicated task for a potentially under-manned and untrained staff. While no
particular nation is completely exempted from biometrics, there may be one
exception that could provide the avenue for exempting very large numbers of aliens.
Under 8 C.F.R. §235.1(d)(iv)(C), the Secretary of Homeland Security and the
Secretary of State may jointly determine that a “class of aliens” are exempted from
the biometric requirements. Though it is unclear from the regulations how broadly
a “class of aliens” may be defined, case law demonstrates that the phrase has been
accepted to include all aliens from certain nations.54 Moreover, this exception could
potentially lead to a listing of persons similar to the listed individuals who are already
exempted from the visa and passport requirements under 22 C.F.R §41.2 and 8
C.F.R. 212.1.
Notwithstanding US-VISIT’s formal regulations and guidelines, applicants may
be processed in a manner different than anticipated due to a number of reasons, some
of which may include national security concerns, emergencies, and travel delays. For
example, DHS reserves the right to require identifying information from any
individual whom it has reason to believe may not be who he or she claims or feels
is not entitled to enter.55 In addition, certain aliens whose presence in the United
States warrants monitoring for national security reasons remain subject to the
NSEERS special registration procedures.56 Mitigation strategies — to speed-up the
screening process — have also been developed by DHS in the event immigration and
customs processing are hampered by significant delays.57 The mitigation strategies
53 For a fuller discussion on documentary exemptions and exceptions, see CRS
Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Waiving the Documentary Requirements for
Visas and Passports to Enter the United States
, by Ruth Ellen Wasem and Andorra Bruno,
Oct. 27, 2003.
54 Sale v. Haitian Ctrs., Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993) (upholding an executive order that
directed the Coast Guard to intercept vessels illegally transporting passengers from Haiti to
the United States and to return those passengers to Haiti without first determining whether
they may qualify as refugees, partly on 8 U.S.C. §1182, which provides the President with
the authority to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens”).
55 69 Federal Register 468, 472.
56 8 C.F.R. 264.1(f).
57 See 69 Federal Register 468, 474; see also Paul Sperry, “New Anti-terror Program
Contains Hidden Loophole,” WorldNetDaily (Jan. 8, 2004) (describing a DHS memorandum
(continued...)

CRS-18
have caused some controversy as some believe that if used, they could be a loophole
for some foreign nationals to enter the United States.
US VISIT and Canadian and Mexican Nationals.58 The Canadian
government has expressed strong opposition to implementation of an automated entry
and exit data system at northern ports of entry. Notwithstanding, Canadian citizens
are exempt from some of the US-VISIT program requirements. For example,
Canadian nationals and some Canadian landed immigrants are not required to present
a passport, and are often not required to obtain a visa.59 Moreover, Canadian
nationals are generally not required to obtain an I-94 form if they are entering the
United States temporarily for business or pleasure.60 Canadians who enter the United
States for purposes other than business or pleasure (e.g., employment, trade and
diplomatic activities, etc.) are issued an I-94 form but may be able to omit their
passport number and visa information from the I-94 pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §212.1, if
they have not visited outside the Western Hemisphere.61 Upon departure, the
Canadian government collects the I-94 departure records for U.S. immigration
officials.
With respect to biometrics, Canadians arriving at the designated air or sea port
of entry must, in general, comply with the biometric requirements. However, those
Canadian citizens who travel on temporary visits to the United States and who do not
apply for admission pursuant to nonimmigrant visas do not have to supply the
biometric information currently required by law.62 Finally, manifests are not required
from aircraft or vessels arriving directly from Canada. Accordingly, a Canadian
citizen who is exempt from the passport and visa requirements under 8 C.F.R.
§212.1, has arrived in the United States on an aircraft originating in Canada (i.e., no
manifest required by vessel), and intends to travel temporarily in the United States
without applying for admission pursuant to nonimmigrant visas (i.e., no biometrics
required) is exempted from the documentation requirements of the US-VISIT
program; however, such an individual would still be subject to routine inspection by
57 (...continued)
that requires the collection of biometrics be ceased, if processing wait times exceed one
hour), available at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36511].
58 For a comparison of documentary requirements for Canadian and Mexican nationals to
enter into the United States, see Appendix V.
59 Section 212(d)(4) of the INA permits the Attorney General and the Secretary of State
acting jointly to exempt certain foreign nationals from the documentary requirements to
enter the United States. See also 22 U.S.C. §41.2 (allowing the Secretary of State and AG
to waive Canadian nationals’ visa and passport requirements if they have not visited outside
the Western Hemisphere).
60 8 C.F.R. §235.1(f)(i) (exempting aliens described in 8 C.F.R. §212.1 and 22 C.F.R. §41.33
(Canadian Border Identification Crossing Card)).
61 See 68 Federal Register 292, 293 (citing 8 C.F.R. §212.1).
62 69 Federal Register 468, 472.

CRS-19
federal officials at the border. It is not clear, however, what documents would be
examined to verify Canadian citizenship.63
The Mexican government and some observers have long complained about the
difference in treatment of its nationals at the border when compared to Canadian
nationals. Mexican nationals applying for admission to the United States as visitors
are required to obtain a visa or hold a Mexican Border Crossing Card, now referred
to as the Mexican “laser visa” (for a comparison of the Mexican Laser Visa
requirements with Canadian documentary requirements see Appendix IV).64 The
laser visa is used by citizens of Mexico to gain short-term entry (up to six months)
for business or tourism into the United States. It may be used for multiple entries and
is good for ten years. Mexican citizens can get a laser visa from the Department of
State (DOS) Bureau of Consular Affairs if they are otherwise admissible as B-1
(business) or B-2 (tourism) nonimmigrants.65 It will not be clear what the full impact
of US-VISIT will be on Mexican nationals until it is implemented at land ports of
entry.
Under existing regulations, a biometric characteristic of a bearer of a laser visa
must be matched against the biometric on the laser visa before the bearer may be
63 A Data Management Improvement Act (DMIA) Task Force report published in January
2003 lists the following as acceptable documentation for entry into the United States:
! Canadian citizens or British subjects with residence in Bermuda or
Canada– oral declaration and identification; or proof of citizenship and
residence in Bermuda or Canada;
! Canadian landed immigrant with British common nationality
identification and proof of landed immigrant status; and
! Canadian landed immigrant without British common nationality
passport with nonimmigrant visa.
See DMIA Task Force First Annual Report to Congress, Dec. 2002. Appendix C of the
DMIA Report lists those nationals that are considered to have common nationality with
citizens of Britain.
64 Although no longer called a border crossing card (BCC), the statutory authority for the
laser visa derives in part from the provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
that defines “border crossing card”:
... a document of identity bearing that designation issued to an alien who is
lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or to an alien who is a resident in
foreign contiguous territory, by a consular officer or to an immigration officer
for the purpose of crossing over the borders between the United States and
foreign contiguous territory in accordance with such conditions for its issuance
and use as may be prescribed by regulations ... (§101(a)(6))
The other key provision is §212(a)(7)(B)(i) of INA, which declares “any nonimmigrant not
in possession of a passport valid for a minimum of six months and ... is not in possession of
a valid nonimmigrant visa or border crossing identification card at the time of application
for admission, is inadmissible.” This provision makes the BCC an official document on par
with the nonimmigrant visa to enter the United States.
65 From 1992 to 1998, border crossing cards were also issued to Canadian citizens. DOS and
the former Immigration and Naturalization Service ceased issuing the BCC and the
combination B-1/B-2 visa and BCC to Canadian citizens, British subjects who reside in
Canada and landed immigrants in 1988.

CRS-20
admitted.66 This requirement applies at all ports of entry, including land borders. If
the individual intends to go 25 miles or further inland and/or stay longer than 72
hours, they are also required to obtain a Form I-94. Upon departure, Mexican
nationals who had to complete an I-94 form are to deposit them into boxes at ports
of entry.
Implementation Issues
In its most basic form US-VISIT is an automated entry and exit data system that
tracks the arrival and departure of most foreign nationals to and from the United
States. The 2001 terrorist attacks, however, have led many to view US-VISIT as
more than a tracking system. Although not formally described as the following,
some have pegged US-VISIT as a travel log, a mechanism to collect data, a risk
assessment tool, a mechanism to reduce document fraud, and a terrorist and criminal
watch list.
Many observers have expressed concern with the implementation of US-VISIT.
Observers fear that the full implementation of US-VISIT will cause massive delays
at U.S. ports of entry, primarily at land ports of entry. Some believe that the cost of
implementing such a system would outweigh the benefits. Others expressed concern
about the inadequacy of current infrastructure, and the lack of consensus with respect
to the type of biometric technology that should be used in travel documents.67 Many
continue to question the purpose of such a system. Some argue that resources should
be directed at immigration interior enforcement, rather than on an expensive system
whose capability is not fully known.
Infrastructure and Facility Needs at the Border. Many maintain that the
successful development of an automated entry and exit data system may require the
United States and quite possibly its neighbors (Canada and Mexico) to expand
infrastructure at land border crossings. The current infrastructure at most U.S. ports
of entry reportedly is not sufficient to accommodate the demands of an automated
entry and exit data system. For example, according to some observers, at many land
ports of entry additional lanes may be necessary to accommodate the number of
individuals seeking entry into the United States who will need to be processed
through the system. Moreover, in order to record the departure of every alien leaving
the United States through a land port entry, there needs to be a “port of exit” that has
sufficient lanes, staff and resources. Additionally, the sending or receiving countries
(i.e., Canada and Mexico) may not have the same number of lanes or the necessary
infrastructure to create additional lanes that would accommodate the amount of
traffic entering and leaving the country via a United States port of entry. Some
contend that this could lead to significant delays as travelers try to make their way
through ports of entry. Others assert that the cost of expanding the infrastructure
would be great.
66 See 8 C.F.R. §212.1(c)(3).
67 NIST published a Report to Congress in January 2003 that contends that two fingerprints
and facial photograph are adequate biometrics.

CRS-21
With respect to air and sea ports of entry, concerns similar to those about land
ports of entry have been expressed. For example, securing adequate space and
facilities may prove challenging at many air and sea ports of entry, particularly for
the exit process. Moreover, in many instances passengers are inspected on board
vessels because of inadequate or nonexistent inspection areas at sea ports of entry.
With respect to the northern border, many businesses as well as the Canadian
government fear that the implementation of such a system would clog the border.68
There have been reports that the Canadian government may introduce a plan that
would have Canadian Customs officials collect exit information on non-citizens and
pass it on to United States officials. Such a plan could further aid the United States
in identifying non-citizens who may enter the country. Moreover, as the United
States begins to implement the US-VISIT program, the demand for improved
infrastructure may be critical for its development. It is unclear if Canada will
facilitate such a system by extending its infrastructure at the relevant border
crossings.
Interior Enforcement. One of the purposes of the US-VISIT program is to
track nonimmigrants who overstay the terms of their visas. It is not clear if the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will have adequate resources
to track down those who overstay their visas once the US-VISIT program is
implemented. Many have argued that enforcement of immigration law within the
interior of the country has lacked sufficient resources. Prior to the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks, the Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS) had less
than 2,000 immigration agents to enforce immigration laws within the United States;
and during a 2002 hearing, the former INS Commissioner, James Ziglar, testified that
the terrorist attacks prompted the INS to reassign many investigators to work on
terrorism investigations.69 Although that number has not changed since the terrorist
attacks, the merging of the interior enforcement function of the former INS and the
investigative arm of the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) within the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the Directorate of Border and
Transportation Security in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has brought
the number of agents to over 5,500.70
Although the number of interior enforcement agents has doubled since the
consolidation of the former INS and Customs, many continue to express concerns
that the number is insufficient to adequately enforce immigration laws. Moreover,
although the consolidation increased the number of interior enforcement agents,
Customs needs to continue to carry out its interior enforcement missions of stemming
the flow of illicit drugs and deterring money laundering, among other things. These
68 This fear may be unwarranted because under current law and DHS regulations, Canadian
nationals and legal permanent residents of Canada would be exempt from the requirements
of the US-VISIT program.
69 Testimony of INS Commissioner James Ziglar, in U.S. House, Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, hearing on
the President’s FY2003 Budget Request, Mar. 7, 2002.
70 Michael Garcia, Director of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, July
23, 2003 speech at the Heritage Foundation.

CRS-22
critics argue that if the intent of the entry and exit system is to document
nonimmigrants who overstay their visas, then more resources should be directed at
interior enforcement and integrating existing immigration databases rather than on
developing and implementing a new system.
Privacy Issues. The US-VISIT Program’s Increment I Privacy Impact
Assessment was made available to the public on December 18, 2003. Many
observers stress the importance of having individual’s privacy rights protected due
to the potential for unauthorized use of personal information. While some observers
maintain that current law71 requires a privacy impact assessment before developing
and purchasing new technology that will collect or store personal information
electronically, the Administration maintains that it is using existing databases during
the first phase of the program’s implementation. Some observers, however, view the
introduction of biometrics as evidence that the Administration is using new
technology. The Administration published a privacy impact assessment prior to the
actual implementation of the program. And, according to the National Institutes of
Standards and Technology (NIST) in its report to Congress:
... the biometric data that the U.S. government would collect from foreign
nationals ... disclose a limited amount of personal information ... and do not raise
significant privacy concerns. Specifically, the personal information disclosed by
the biometric data relates to the identity.... Facial photographs do not disclose
information that the person does not routinely disclose to the general public, and
their use to verify identity obviously raises no serious privacy concerns.
Moreover, fingerprints disclose very little other information about a person other
than the person’s identity. Accordingly, their use as a biometric does not raise
the sorts of privacy concerns that might arise from the use of other biometrics
that, in addition to verifying identity, could also conceivably disclose secondary
(e.g., medical, health-related) information).72
Information Technology Interoperability. The USA PATRIOT Act called
for the automated entry and exit data system to interface with federal law
enforcement databases. It also called for the integration of IDENT and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification
System (IAFIS). Additionally, the USA PATRIOT Act along with the Border
Security Act required the former INS to integrate all of its databases. Several GAO
studies criticized the former INS for having antiquated databases and failing to
integrate its system.73 Reportedly, the Administration is currently using the IDENT
system to capture two, flat fingerprints instead of 10 fingerprints. While the two
fingerprint system is sufficient for identifying a person, some contend that two
71 The E-Government Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-347).
72 U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of State and NIST Report to Congress, Jan.
2003, Use of Technology Standards and Interoperable Databases with Machine —
Readable, Tamper — Resistant Travel Documents
.
73 See for example a series of GAO reports: U.S. General Accounting Office, INS:
Overview of Recurring Management Challenges
, GAO Report 02-168T, Oct. 17, 2001 and
Securing America’s Borders: INS Faces Information Technology Planning and
Implementation Challenges
, GAO Report 02-148T, Oct. 11, 2001.

CRS-23
fingerprints may not be sufficient to return a match from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s ten fingerprint system.
Critical to the success of border security is the ability to process information in
real time quickly enough to accommodate the pace and volume of work. Without
information obtained in real time, there is a potential for a backlog to occur. The
issue of making real time information available to the immigration inspectors
processing foreign nationals seeking entry at U.S. ports of entry is highlighted at
many of the nation’s sea ports of entry. As previously mentioned, many inspections
of travelers seeking entry into the United States at a sea port of entry occurs on board
the vessel. Immigration inspectors use the Portable Automated Lookout System
(PALS), which is a laptop computer that contains a CD-ROM that is updated
monthly and contains lookout information on individuals who are deemed
inadmissible to the United States. Although some may view this method as
problematic, primarily due to the potential for the information to be outdated, sea
vessels like their air carrier counterparts, are required under law to submit passenger
manifests in advance to their arrival at a U.S. port of entry. Submitting the passenger
information in advance of arrival, allows the immigration inspector to query real time
databases.
Databases. While some observers question the ability of US-VISIT to carry
out its mission, many agree that the program’s usefulness will depend, in large part,
on the quality and accuracy of the various watchlists that are integrated with the
immigration databases that comprise US-VISIT. It is unclear, however, how many
watchlists are included in US-VISIT and whether they are integrated.
In addition to the first hand knowledge immigration inspectors must have, they
also must be familiar with the numerous databases. Moreover, DOS and DHS use
IDENT to store the biometrics for those foreign national travelers who are subject to
the US-VISIT program requirements. Some contend that the IDENT database, which
contains recidivism and lookout data on foreign nationals who have previously been
apprehended, should not be used to store the biometrics of admissible foreign
nationals. They argue that in addition to the number of databases that are accessed
through the US-VISIT program, the inclusion of biometrics on inadmissible foreign
nationals with those who are admissible in IDENT may confuse the inspector.
Training Needs and Resources. Prior to the transfer of immigration and
customs functions to DHS, the agencies (INS and the U.S. Customs Service) cross-
trained their inspectors to perform primary inspections. Upon referral to secondary
inspections, however, a more experienced inspector with the designated agency
would perform the inspection (i.e., an immigration matter would be referred to an
immigration inspector and a customs matter would be referred to a customs
inspector). Some have expressed concern that the discretion given to immigration
inspectors and the complexity of immigration law requires substantial training.
Moreover, inspectors must have knowledge of the various documents and databases
that are used to determine admissibility. Inspectors at U.S. ports of entry must make
an immediate determination that an undocumented alien, or someone who has
questionable documents, should be excluded or detained for further processing by an
immigration court.

CRS-24
Now that DHS has implemented its “one face at the border” initiative, some
have questioned the adequacy of training that is provided to the non-immigration
inspectors. Observers view the US-VISIT program as one more layer of technology
that must be mastered by the immigration inspector. While some contend that the
first increment of the program has not introduced new technology, others contend
that inspectors who may not already be familiar with current immigration databases
are now expected to be competent with the US-VISIT database.
Facilitation of Travel and Commerce. Many contend that programs such
as NEXUS, the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI)
and the Free and Secure Trade (FAST) program that facilitate the speedy passage of
low risk, frequent travelers and commerce are essential. The number of travelers
who took advantage of automated inspections has risen over the recent years, peaking
to 2.6 million in FY2002.74 It is not clear how these programs will be incorporated
into US-VISIT; and how participants of these programs will be vetted through the
system.75
Feasibility of Implementation and Policy Questions. Many have
questioned the feasibility of implementing the US-VISIT program. While many
observers question the ability of the administration to meet the congressionally
mandated time line, others question the financial burden of implementing such a
system. Some contend that until the limits and capabilities of US-VISIT are
determined, it will be difficult to assess its progress towards its mission. Proponents,
however, point to the success stories that have been reported since the
implementation of US-VISIT as providing proof that the program is achieving its
mission.
74 Congressional Research Service analysis of the former Immigration and Naturalization
Service workload data.
75 For additional information on SENTRI and NEXUS, see CRS Report RS21335, The
Immigration and Naturalization Service's Port Passenger Accelerated Service System
, by
Lisa M. Seghetti.

CRS-25
Appendix I: Summary of Authority for Biometric
Identifiers in Travel Documents
DHS maintains that the requirement that foreign nationals provide biometric
identifiers when they seek admission to the United States is apparently supported by
the Department’s broad authority to inspect aliens contained in the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) §235 (Inspection by Immigration Officers).76 DHS also claims
various other provisions in the INA support the use of biometric identifiers, including
§212 (grounds of inadmissibility); §217 (requirements for the VWP); §231 (the
electronic passenger manifest requirements); §237 (grounds of removability); and
§286(q) in combination with INA §235 and §404 of the Border Security Act
(authority for alternative inspection services).
DHS also cites INA §215 as a provision that can require foreign nationals to
provide biometric identifiers when they seek admission to the U.S. Section 215(a)
of the INA allows the President to regulate the arrival and departure of aliens. On
January 2, 2004, however, President Bush signed an Executive Order titled
Assignment of Functions Relating to Arrivals in the Departures From the United
States,
delegating his authority to promulgate regulations governing the departure of
aliens to the Secretary of DHS.77 In essence, under §215 and with this new
delegation of authority, the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of
the Secretary of State, has the authority to issue new rules and regulations which may
require certain aliens to provide biometric identifiers.
This delegation became increasingly significant in light of the Interim Final
Rule promulgated by DHS on January 5, 2004, which allows the Secretary of DHS
to require certain aliens to provide finger prints, photographs, or other biometric
identifiers upon arrival in or departure from certain air and sea ports in the U.S.78
Initially, this rule only applies to nonimmigrant visa-holders who travel through the
designated 114 air and 15 sea ports listed in DHS’s Federal Register Notice to
Nonimmigrant Aliens Subject To Be Enrolled in the United States Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology System
on January 5, 2004.79
In general, the Interim Final Rule amends portions of 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.1, 215.8,
and 235.1 to include language for biometric requirements. For example, §235.1(d),
which provides for the scope of the examination of persons applying for admission,
was amended to provide the Secretary of DHS with the authority to now require
finger prints, photographs or other biometric identifiers during the inspection process
from nonimmigrant aliens seeking admission pursuant to nonimmigrant visas. In
addition, under amended §235.1(d), the failure of an applicant for admission to
comply with the biometric requirements may result in a determination of
76 See 69 Federal Register 468, 469.
77 Exec. Order No. 13323; 69 Federal Register 241 (Jan. 2, 2004).
78 69 Federal Register 468.
79 Notice to Nonimmigrant Aliens Subject To Be Enrolled in the United States Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology System, 69 Federal Register 482 (Jan. 5, 2004).

CRS-26
“inadmissibility” under INA 212(a)(7). Section 235.1 was also amended to exclude
a number of categories of travelers. Section §235.1(f) was amended to clarify that
all nonimmigrant aliens will be issued the Form I-94, Arrival Departure Record,
regardless of whether they come through air, sea, or land ports of entry (unless
otherwise exempted).
Under amended §214.1(a), which addresses requirements for admission,
extension, and maintenance of status, an alien’s admission is now conditioned on
compliance with the entry-exit examination process described by 8 C.F.R. §235.1,
if applicable to the nonimmigrant alien. Furthermore, if the alien is required to
provide biometrics and other information upon departure pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 215.8,
the nonimmigrant alien’s failure to comply may constitute a failure of the alien to
maintain the terms of his or her immigration status.
8 C.F.R. §215.8 was created to provide the Secretary of Homeland Security the
right to establish pilot programs at up to 15 air or sea ports of entry (to be designated
through further notice in the Federal Register), through which the Secretary may
require aliens who are departing from the U.S from those ports to provide
fingerprints, photographs, or other biometric identifiers. Under current regulations,
only aliens departing Baltimore/Washington International Airport and Miami,
Florida’s official port of entry are required to submit biometrics upon departure.80
80 Ibid.

CRS-27
Appendix II: Electronic Manifest Requirements
Electronic data transmission
Contents of electronic
requirements under the Visa Waiver
arrival/departure manifests
Program
(INA §231(c))
(8 C.F.R. §217.7)
Complete name
Complete name
Date of birth
Date of birth
Citizenship
Nationality
Sex
Gender or sex
Passport number and country of issuance
Document number
Country of residence
Country of document issuance
U.S. visa number, date, and place of
Document type (passport, visa, alien
issuance, where applicable
registration card)
Alien registration number, where
Airline International Air Transport
applicable
Association (IATA) carrier code or vessel
U.S. address while in the U.S.
Contact name and number
Such other information the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of State
and the Secretary of the Treasury
determines as being necessary for the
identification of the persons transported
and for the enforcement of the
immigration laws and to protect safety
and national security.
Date and time of scheduled flight or
vessel departure from the U.S.
Port of arrival
Port of departure
Airline flight number, or tail number for
private or corporate aircraft
Traveler status (passenger, crewmember)

CRS-28
Appendix III: Visa Holders That Are Exempt from the
Fingerprinting and Photographing Requirements
Under DHS Interim Final Rule, January 200481
Exempt category
Explanation of category
A-1
Diplomatic or Consular officers, close relatives
A-2
Other foreign government officials or Employees,
close relatives
C-3a
In Transit-foreign government officials, close
relatives
G-1
Principal recognized foreign government
representative to an international organization,
staff, spouse, and children
G-2
Other recognized foreign government
representative to an international organization,
staff and close relatives
G-3
Nonrecognized foreign government
representative to an international organization,
and close relatives
G-4
International organization officers or employees
and close relatives
NATO-1
Principal permanent representative to NATO and
staff, spouses and children
NATO-2
Other representative to NATO and staff, spouses
and children
NATO-3
Official clerical staff accompanying NATO
representatives, spouses and children
NATO-4
“Officials” of NATO, spouses and children
NATO-5
NATO experts, spouses and children
NATO-6b
NATO civilians, spouses and children
Children under the age of 14
Persons over the age of 79
Classes of aliens the Secretary of
DHS and Secretary of State
jointly determine shall be exempt
An individual alien the Secretary
of DHS, the Secretary of State, or
the Director of CIA determines
shall be exempt
a. Except for attendants, servants, or personal employees of accredited officials.
b. Exemptions for categories A-1 and 2, C-3, G-1 to 4 and NATO-1 to 6, will not be provided if the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of DHS jointly determine that a class of such aliens should
be subject to the biometric identifier requirements.
81 8 C.F.R. §235.1(d)(iv).

CRS-29
Appendix IV: Comparison of Current Law Deadlines and the Administration’s Implementation
Provision of the law
Provision
Current law deadline
Implementation
§403(c)(1)
Requires the development and certification of a technology
O c t o b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 3 ;
The National Institute of
Technology Standard
standard that can be used to verify the identity of persons
however, P.L. 107-173 set
Science and Technology (NIST)
(Biometrics)
seeking a visa to enter the United States.
a January 26, 2003
published a Report to Congress
P.L. 107-56a;
deadline.
in January 2003 that determined
§202(a)(4)
the types of biometrics that
P.L. 107-173b
should be used.c The
§202(a)(4) and
Administration published an
§302(a)(b)
Interim Final Rule that amends
portions of 8C.F.R. §214.1,
215.8 and 235.1.
§403(c)(2)
Requires the technology standard that is developed to be a
October 26, 2003
See above
Technology Standard
“cross-agency, cross-platform electronic system” that is
(Biometrics)
fully integrated with law enforcement and intelligence
P.L. 107-56a
information relevant to confirming the identity of persons
applying for a visa to enter the U.S. or seeking entry into
the country.
§403(c)(4)
Requires a report that describes the development,
April 26, 2003
See NIST’s Report to
Technology Standard:
implementation, efficacy and privacy implications of the
(18 months after
Congress, published in January
Reporting Requirement
technology standard and database system.
enactment of the act,
2003.c
(Biometrics)
thereafter every two
P.L. 107-56a
years)

CRS-30
Provision of the law
Provision
Current law deadline
Implementation
§414(b)
With respect to developing an integrated entry/exit data
October 26, 2004 (per P.L.
See 69 Federal Register 468
Entry/Exit Data System:
system, requires the issuance of visas with biometric
107-173)
Visa Requirements
identifiers that are tamper-resistant.
P.L. 107-56a;
§303(b)(1)
P.L. 107-173b
§414(c)
Requires the entry/exit data system interface with federal law
None specified
The Administration maintains
Entry/Exit Data System
enforcement databases.
that the US-VISIT program
P.L. 107-56a
includes the interfacing,
enhancement and deployment of
existing system capabilities.
§303(a)
Requires a report to Congress on the assessment of actions
November 14, 2002
See NIST report referenced above
Machine Readable Visas
necessary to fully achieve the implementation of biometric
(180 days after enactment)
and Travel Documents:
identifiable, machine-readable, tamper-resistant visas and other
Reporting Requirement
travel documents, and the installation of equipment and
P.L. 107-173b
software at all U.S. ports of entry that reads and authenticates
the biometric identifiable documents by 10/26/04.
§303(b)(2)
Requires the installation of biometric data readers and scanners
October 26, 2004
Deadline has not passed.
Visa Requirements
at all ports of entry.
P.L. 107-173b
§402(a)(e)
Requires the transmission of an electronic arrival and departure
January 1, 2003
8 C.F.R. §231.2
Electronic Passenger
manifest to an immigration officer for all commercial vessels
Manifest
or aircraft bringing passengers to or from the U.S.
P.L. 107-173b
Source: CRS summary of selected provisions in P.L. 107-56 and P.L. 107-173.
a. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act OF 2001.
b. The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002.
c. U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of State and NIST Report to Congress, Jan. 2003, Use of Technology Standards and Interoperable Databases with Machine-Readable,
Tamper -Resistant Travel Documents.

CRS-31
Appendix V: Comparison of the Mexican Laser Visa Requirements
with Canadian Documentary Requirements
Agency
Mexican border crossing card
Canadian border crossing card
DOS
22 CFR 41.32 Nonresident alien Mexican border crossing identification cards;
22 CFR 41.33 Nonresident alien Canadian border crossing
combined border crossing identification cards and B-1/B-2 visitor visas
identification card (BCC)
“Consular officers assigned to a consular office in Mexico ... may issue a border crossing
identification card ... in combination with a B-1/B-2 nonimmigrant visitor visa (B-1/B-2
No longer in effect.
Visa/BCC), to a nonimmigrant alien who is a citizen and resident of Mexico; seeks to enter
the United States as a temporary visitor for business or pleasure as defined in INA
101(a)(15((B) for periods of stay not exceeding six months; and is otherwise eligible for
a B-1 or B-2 temporary visitor visa or is the beneficiary of a waiver under INA
212(d)(3)(A) of a ground of ineligibility, which waiver is valid for multiple applications for
admission into the United States and for a period of at least ten years and which contains
no restriction as to extensions of temporary stay or itinerary.”
DHS
8 CFR 212.6 Border crossing identification cards
8 CFR 212.6(b) Border crossing identification cards
“(a) Application for Form DSP-150, B-1/B-2 Visa and Border Crossing Card, issued by
DOS
. A citizen of Mexico, who seeks to travel temporarily to the United States for
No longer in effect.
business or pleasure without a visa and passport, must apply to DOS ...”
DHS
8 CFR 235.1(f) Form I-94, Arrival Departure Record
No similar regulation
“(1) Unless otherwise exempted, each arriving nonimmigrant who is admitted to the United
States shall be issued ... a Form I-94 as evidence of the terms of admission. A Form I-94
issued at a land border port-of-entry shall be considered issued for multiple entries unless
specifically annotated for a limited number of entries ...”
DHS
8 CFR 235.1(f) Form I-94, Arrival Departure Record
8 CFR 235.1(f) Form I-94, Arrival Departure Record
“(1)(iii) ... Form I-94 is not required by... any Mexican national who is ... in possession of
“(1)(i) ... Form I-94 is not required by citizens of Canada” (see
a Form DSP — 150, B-1/B-2 Visa and BCC, containing a machine-readable biometric
8 CFR 212.1(a)) who is admitted as a visitor for business or
identifier, issued by DOS and is applying for admission as a temporary visitor for business
pleasure or admitted to proceed in direct transit through the
or pleasure from contiguous territory” (see CFR 212.1(c)(i)).
United States.”

CRS-32
Agency
Mexican border crossing card
Canadian border crossing card
DHS
8 CFR 235.1(f) Form I-94, Arrival Departure Record
No similar regulation
“(1)(iii) ... Form I-94 is not required by ... any Mexican national who is ... entering soley
for the purpose of applying for a Mexican passport or other official Mexican document at
a Mexican consular office on the United States side of the border” (see CFR 212.1(c)(ii)).
DHS
8 CFR 235.1(f) Form I-94, Arrival Departure Record
No similar regulation
“(1)(iii) ... Form I-94 is not required by ... any Mexican national who is in possession of a
passport and valid visa who is admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor for a period not to exceed
72 hours to visit within 25 miles of the border.”
DHS
8 CFR 235.1(f) Form I-94, Arrival Departure Record
No similar regulation
“(1)(iv) ... Form I-94 is not required by ... bearers of Mexican diplomatic or official
passports ...”
DHS
8 CFR 235.1(f) Form I-94, Arrival Departure Record
No similar regulation
“(1)(iii) ... Form I-94 is not required by ... any Mexican national who is exempt from a visa
and passport ... or is in possession of a passport and valid visa who is admitted as a
nonimmigrant visitor at the Mexican border Port of entries in the state of Arizona at Sasabe,
Nogales, Mariposa, Naco, or Douglas for a period not to exceed 72 hours to visit within the
state of Arizona and within 75 miles of the border.”
Source: CRS presentation of selected DHS regulations.