Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments
of State and Homeland Security

Ruth Ellen Wasem
Specialist in Immigration Policy
May 6, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41093
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

Summary
Foreign nationals (i.e., aliens) not already legally residing in the United States who wish to come
to the United States generally must obtain a visa to be admitted, with certain exceptions noted in
law. The Departments of State (DOS) and Homeland Security (DHS) each play key roles in
administering the law and policies on the admission of aliens. Although the DOS’s Consular
Affairs is responsible for issuing visas, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services (USCIS) in
DHS approves immigrant petitions, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in DHS
operates the Visa Security Program in selected embassies abroad, and the Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) in DHS inspects all people who enter the United States. In addition, the
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has a
significant policy role through its adjudicatory decisions on specific immigration cases.
Although there was a discussion of assigning all visa issuance responsibilities to DHS when the
department was being created, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) opted not to do
so. Rather, P.L. 107-296 drew on compromise language stating that DHS issues regulations
regarding visa issuances and assigns staff to consular posts abroad to advise, review, and conduct
investigations, and that DOS’s Consular Affairs continues to issue visas.
The case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who allegedly attempted to ignite an explosive device
on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on December 25, 2009, refocused attention on the
responsibilities of the Departments of State and Homeland Security for the visa process. He was
traveling on a multi-year, multiple-entry tourist visa issued to him in June 2008. State Department
officials have acknowledged that Abdulmutallab’s father came into the Embassy in Abuja,
Nigeria, on November 19, 2009, to express his concerns about his son, and that those officials at
the Embassy in Abuja sent a cable to the National Counterterrorism Center. State Department
officials maintain they had insufficient information to revoke his visa at that time. In the
aftermath of the Abdulmutallab case, policymakers explored what went wrong and whether
statutory and procedural revisions were needed.
Some have expressed the view that DOS has too much control over visas, maintaining that the
Homeland Security Act intended DHS to be the lead department and DOS to merely administer
the visa process. Proponents of DOS playing the principal role in visa issuances assert that only
consular officers in the field have the country-specific knowledge to make decisions about
whether an alien is admissible and that staffing 250 diplomatic and consular posts around the
world would stretch DHS beyond its capacity. Whether the visa security roles and procedures are
adequately funded may arise as the budget issues are considered.
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has introduced legislation (H.R. 1741) that
would give the Secretary of Homeland Security “exclusive authority to issue regulations,
establish policy, and administer and enforce the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) and all other immigration or nationality laws relating to the functions
of consular officers of the United States in connection with the granting and refusal of a visa.”
This report will be updated as significant developments occur.

Congressional Research Service

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Overview on Visa Issuances ........................................................................................................ 1
Immigrant Visas.................................................................................................................... 2
Nonimmigrant Visas ............................................................................................................. 2
Statutory Basis of Current Visa Policy......................................................................................... 3
Immigration and Nationality Act ........................................................................................... 3
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002.............................................. 4
§428 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 .......................................................................... 4
2003 Memorandum of Understanding ............................................................................. 5
Visa Security Program Memoranda of Understanding...................................................... 6
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.................................................... 6
Consular Screening Procedures ................................................................................................... 6
Visa Revocation .......................................................................................................................... 8
New Visa Revocation Regulations......................................................................................... 9
DHS Visa Security Program ...................................................................................................... 10
Current Issues ........................................................................................................................... 11
Competing Interests ............................................................................................................ 11
Broadening Visa Revocation Authority................................................................................ 12
Acceptance of VSP in Consular Posts.................................................................................. 13
Effectiveness of the Visa Security Program ......................................................................... 14
Resources for Visa Security................................................................................................. 15
DOS Visa Processing and Security Funding .................................................................. 15
DHS Visa Security Program Funding ............................................................................ 15

Tables
Table 1. Department of State Border Security Program Resource Summary ............................... 15
Table 2. Department of Homeland Security Visa Security Program Budget Estimates ................ 16
Table A-1. Visa Issuance Policy Roles and Tasks: Comparison of Major Homeland
Security Proposals.................................................................................................................. 20

Appendixes
Appendix A. Legislative History of the Visa Functions in the Homeland Security Act of
2002 ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix B. Legislation on the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Pertaining to Visa
Security ................................................................................................................................. 22

Congressional Research Service

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 24

Congressional Research Service

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

Introduction
Foreign nationals (i.e., aliens) not already legally residing in the United States who wish to come
to the United States generally must obtain a visa to be admitted.1 Under current law, three
departments—the Department of State (DOS), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and
the Department of Justice (DOJ)—play key roles in administering the law and policies on the
admission of aliens.2 DOS’s Bureau of Consular Affairs (Consular Affairs) is responsible for
issuing visas, DHS’s Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau (USCIS) is charged with
approving immigrant petitions, DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operates the
Visa Security Program in selected embassies abroad, and DHS’s Customs and Border Protection
Bureau (CBP) is tasked with inspecting all people who enter the United States. DOJ’s Executive
Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has a significant policy role through its adjudicatory
decisions on specific immigration cases.3
The case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who allegedly attempted to ignite an explosive device
on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on December 25, 2009, refocused attention on the
responsibilities of the Departments of State and Homeland Security for the visa process. He was
traveling on a multi-year, multiple-entry tourist visa issued to him in June 2008. 4 State
Department officials have acknowledged that Abdulmutallab’s father came into the Embassy in
Abuja, Nigeria, on November 19, 2009, to express his concerns about his son, and that those
officials at the Embassy in Abuja sent a cable to the National Counterterrorism Center.5 State
Department officials maintain they had insufficient information to revoke his visa at that time. In
the aftermath of the Abdulmutallab case, policymakers explored what went wrong and whether
statutory and procedural revisions were needed.
The 112th Congress continues to be interested in these issues of visa security. The policy questions
center on whether immigration law needs to be strengthened, whether funding should be
increased, and which agency should take the lead.
Overview on Visa Issuances
There are two broad classes of aliens that are issued visas: immigrants and nonimmigrants.
Humanitarian admissions, such as asylees, refugees, parolees and other aliens granted relief from
deportation, are handled separately under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Those
aliens granted asylum or refugee status ultimately are eligible to become legal permanent

1 Authorities to except or to waive visa requirements are specified in law, such as the broad parole authority of the
Attorney General under §212(d)(5) of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the specific authority of the Visa
Waiver Program in §217 of INA.
2 Other departments, notably the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Department of Agriculture (USDA), play roles
in the approval process depending on the category or type of visa sought, and the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) sets policy on the health-related grounds for inadmissibility discussed below.
3 For an analysis of the transfer of immigration functions and activities to the Department of Homeland Security, see
CRS Report RL31560, Homeland Security Proposals: Issues Regarding Transfer of Immigration Agencies and
Functions
; and CRS Report RL31584, A Comparative Analysis of the Immigration Functions in the Major Homeland
Security Bills
, both by Lisa M. Seghetti and Ruth Ellen Wasem. (Archived reports, available upon request.)
4 Ian Kelly, On-the-Record Briefing, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, December 28, 2009.
5 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
1

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

residents (LPRs).6 Illegal aliens or unauthorized aliens include those noncitizens who entered the
United States without an official inspection at a port of entry, entered with fraudulent documents,
or who violated the terms of their visas after entering the United States.
Immigrant Visas
Aliens who wish to come to live permanently in the United States must meet a set of criteria
specified in the INA. They must qualify as
• a spouse or minor child of a U.S. citizen;
• a parent, adult child, or sibling of an adult U.S. citizen;
• a spouse or minor child of a legal permanent resident;
• an employee that a U.S. employer has gotten approval from the Department of
Labor to hire;
• a person of extraordinary or exceptional ability in specified areas;
• a refugee or asylee determined to be fleeing persecution;
• winner of a visa in the diversity lottery; or
• having met other specialized provisions of law.7
Petitions for immigrant (i.e., LPR) status are first filed with USCIS by the sponsoring relative or
employer in the United States. If the prospective immigrant is already residing in the United
States, the USCIS handles the entire process, which is called “adjustment of status.” If the
prospective LPR does not have legal residence in the United States, the petition is forwarded to
Consular Affairs in their home country after USCIS has reviewed it. The Consular Affairs officer
(when the alien is coming from abroad) and USCIS adjudicator (when the alien is adjusting status
in the United States) must be satisfied that the alien is entitled to the immigrant status.
Nonimmigrant Visas
Aliens seeking to come to the United States temporarily rather than to live permanently are
known as nonimmigrants.8 These aliens are admitted to the United States for a temporary period
of time and an expressed reason. There are 24 major nonimmigrant visa categories, and over 70
specific types of nonimmigrant visas are issued currently. Most of these nonimmigrant visa
categories are defined in §101(a)(15) of the INA. These visa categories are commonly referred to
by the letter and numeral that denotes their subparagraph in §101(a)(15), e.g., B-2 tourists, F-1
foreign students, H-1B temporary professional workers, or J-1 cultural exchange participants.

6 For background and further discussion of humanitarian cases, see CRS Report RL31269, Refugee Admissions and
Resettlement Policy
, by Andorra Bruno, and CRS Report RS20844, Temporary Protected Status: Current Immigration
Policy and Issues
, by Ruth Ellen Wasem and Karma Ester.
7 For a more complete discussion of LPR categories and a statistical analysis of admissions trends, see CRS Report
RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
8 For a full discussion and analysis of nonimmigrant visas, see CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration Policy on
Temporary Admissions
, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. (Hereafter cited as RL31381, Temporary Admissions.)
Congressional Research Service
2

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

Most visitors, however, enter the United States without nonimmigrant visas through the Visa
Waiver Program (VWP). This provision of INA allows the Attorney General to waive the visa
documentary requirements for aliens coming as visitors from 35 countries (e.g., Australia, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, and Switzerland). Since aliens entering through VWP do not
have visas, CBP inspectors at the port of entry perform the background checks and admissibility
reviews.9
Statutory Basis of Current Visa Policy
Today’s visa issuance policy dates back to 1924, when Congress first passed legislation assigning
consular officers with the responsibility to approve or deny visas.10 The Immigration Act of 1924
codified a decree in 1917 as a consequence of World War I that proclaimed aliens must present
certain documents as a prerequisite to entering the United States. When the Senate Committee on
the Judiciary was tasked with investigating the immigration system in 1947,11 their report offered
the following observation:
After a study of this problem, the Congress provided in the Immigration Act of 1924 for a
double check of aliens by separate independent agencies of the Government, first by consular
officers before the visas were issued, and by immigration officers after the aliens reached the
port of entry. If a double check was essential 25 years ago to protect the United States
against criminals or other undesirables, it is the opinion of the subcommittee that it is even
more necessary in the present critical condition of the world to use the double check to
screen aliens seeking to enter the United States.12
This view prevailed in 1952 when Congress codified the various statutes on immigration and
nationality into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (P.L. 82-414), which remains the
basis of governing law.
Immigration and Nationality Act
The powers and duties of the Secretary of State are delineated in §104 of the INA. Most
significantly, §104 (a) states: “The Secretary of State shall be charged with the administration and
the enforcement of the provisions of this Act and all other immigration and nationality laws
relating to (1) the powers, duties and functions of diplomatic and consular officers of the United
States, except those powers, duties and functions conferred upon the consular officers relating to
the granting or refusal of visas;....
”13 The INA specifically gives consular officers the sole
authority to issue visas in §221 of the act.14 Over the years, the courts have held that consular

9 CRS Report RL32221, Visa Waiver Program, by Alison Siskin.
10 Immigration Act of May 26, 1924; 43 Stat. 153.
11 During the 80th Congress, Senate Resolution 137 directed the Senate Committee on the Judiciary to make a full and
complete investigation of the entire immigration system, which passed on July 26, 1947.
12 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United
States, report pursuant to S. Res.137.
, committee print, 81st Cong., 2nd sess., April 20, 1950.
13 8 U.S.C. 1104.
14 8 U.S.C. 1201.
Congressional Research Service
3

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

decisions are not appealable.15 Under proscribed circumstances, the Secretary of State may direct
a consular officer to deny a visa to a particular inadmissible alien.16
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002
After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress enacted the Enhanced Border
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-173), which aimed to improve the visa
issuance process abroad, as well as immigration inspections at the border. It expressly increased
consular officers’ access to electronic information needed for alien screening. Specifically, it
required the development of an interoperable electronic data system to be used to share
information relevant to alien admissibility and removability and the implementation of an
integrated entry-exit data system. It also required that all visas issued by October 2004 have
biometric identifiers, and DOS met that deadline for biometric visas. In addition to increasing
consular officers’ access to electronic information needed for visa issuances, it expanded the
training requirements for consular officers who issue visas.
§428 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) contained language stating that DHS is responsible
for formulating regulations on visa issuances. In §428, the Secretary of DHS is expressly tasked
as follows:
...shall be vested exclusively with all authorities to issue regulations with respect to,
administer, and enforce the provisions of such Act, and of all other immigration and
nationality laws, relating to the functions of consular officers of the United States in
connection with the granting or refusal of visas, and shall have the authority to refuse visas
in accordance with law and to develop programs of homeland security training for consular
officers (in addition to consular training provided by the Secretary of State), which
authorities shall be exercised through the Secretary of State, except that the Secretary shall
not have authority to alter or reverse the decision of a consular officer to refuse a visa to an
alien
... 17
The HSA also enabled DHS to assign staff to consular posts abroad to advise, review, and
conduct investigations, which is discussed more fully below. It further stated that DOS’s Consular
Affairs continued to be responsible for issuing visas. The HSA required DHS and DOS to reach
an understanding on how the details of this division of responsibilities would be implemented.18

15 Some critics of transferring the visa function to DHS warned that visa issuance “adjudication” might become subject
to judicial appeals or other due process considerations if a stateside agency, such as DHS, assumed responsibility. As a
result, §428(f) of the HSA stated: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to create or authorize a private right of
action to challenge a decision of a consular officer or other United States official or employee to grant or deny a visa.”
16 §428(c) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296)
17 §428 (b)(1) of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296).
18 For a complete account of this debate, see Appendix A.
Congressional Research Service
4

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

2003 Memorandum of Understanding
On September 28, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-Secretary of Homeland
Security Thomas Ridge signed the memorandum of understanding (MOU) implementing §428 of
the HSA. The MOU described each department’s responsibilities in the area of visa issuances.
Among its major elements, the MOU stated that DOS may propose and issue visa regulations
subject to DHS consultation and final approval. It further stated that DHS shall assign personnel
to diplomatic posts, but that DOS will determine who, how many, and the scope of their
functions.
Then-Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Maura Harty described several key
responsibilities that remain with the DOS.
The Secretary of State will have responsibility over certain visa decisions, including
decisions of a foreign policy nature.... He will also be responsible for establishing visa
validity periods and fees based on reciprocity. In the case of visa validity periods, however,
he will consult with Homeland Security before lengthening them, and Homeland Security
will have authority to determine that certain persons or classes of persons cannot benefit
from the maximum validity period for security reasons. The Secretary of State will also
exercise all the foreign policy-related grounds of visa denial enumerated in Section 428 and
the additional provision, not specifically enumerated, under which we deny visas to persons
who have confiscated the property of American citizens without just compensation.19
She emphasized that the MOU “recognizes that the Secretary of State must have control over
officers in his chain of command.” She further stated that “DHS officers assigned visa duties
abroad may provide input related to the evaluations of consular officers doing visa work, but the
evaluations themselves will be written by State Department consular supervisors,” and that
“direction to consular officers will come from their State Department supervisors, and all officers
assigned abroad, including DHS, come under the authority of the Chief of Mission.”20
In congressional testimony during October 2003, C. Stewart Verdery, Jr., as then-DHS Assistant
Secretary for Border and Transportation Security Policy and Planning, discussed DHS’ role in
visa security. Verdery reported that DHS officers were already in Saudi Arabia reviewing all visa
applications prior to adjudication (as required by §428(i) of P.L. 107-296). He indicated that
officers in Riyadh and Jeddah also provided assistance, expert advice and training to consular
officers on fraudulent documents, fingerprinting techniques and identity fraud. More specifically,
he stated:
As part of the review process, DHS officers at home and abroad have full access to a variety
of law enforcement databases, including the National Crime Information Center (NCIC);
Treasury Enforcement Communication System (TECS); Interagency Border Inspections
System (IBIS); National Security Entry Exit System (NSEERS); Student Exchange and
Visitor Information System (SEVIS); Biometric 2-print fingerprint system (IDENT); and
Advanced Passenger Information System (APIS). They also have access to selected legacy-
INS automated adjudications data and certain commercial databases.21

19 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee On Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship,
Visa Issuance: Our First Line of Defense for Homeland Security, hearing, Sept. 30, 2003.
20 Ibid.
21 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism,
The Post 9/11 Visa Reforms and New Technology: Achieving the Necessary Security Improvements in a Global
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

Visa Security Program Memoranda of Understanding
Additionally, §428 of the HSA gave the Secretary of DHS the authority to assign DHS employees
to diplomatic and consular posts, which became the statutory basis of the Visa Security Program
(VSP). In 2004, DHS and DOS signed a MOU on administrative aspects of assigning personnel
overseas as part of the VSP. Among other things, this MOU described administrative support,
security, facilities, security awareness training, and information systems for VSP personnel.
On January 11, 2011, DHS and DOS signed another MOU which further delineates the roles,
responsibilities, and collaboration of VSP agents, consular officers, and diplomatic security
officers in daily operations of VSP at posts overseas. The 2011 MOU discusses general
collaboration between ICE and State for VSP operations; roles and responsibilities of VSP agents
and consular officers and routine interaction between the officers and agents; development of
formal, targeted training and briefings by VSP agents for consular officers and other U.S.
government officials at post; clarification of the dispute resolution process; and collaboration
between diplomatic security officers and VSP agents on visa and passport fraud investigations.22
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
Congress also relied on recommendations made by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission) to revise visa security policies. The
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458) mandated
improvements in technology and training to assist consular and immigration officers in detecting
and combating terrorist travel. Among other provisions, it required the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in consultation with the Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center, to establish a
program to oversee DHS’s responsibilities with respect to terrorist travel and required the
Secretary of State to establish a Visa and Passport Security Program within the Bureau of
Diplomatic Security at the Department of State.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act added requirements for an in-person
consular interview of most applicants for nonimmigrant visas between the ages of 14 and 79. It
further mandated that an alien applying for a nonimmigrant visa must completely and accurately
respond to any request for information contained in his or her application.
Consular Screening Procedures
Foreign nationals seeking visas must undergo admissibility reviews performed by DOS consular
officers abroad.23 The visa applicant is required to submit his or her photograph and fingerprints,
as well as full name (and any other name used or by which he or she has been known), age,

(...continued)
Environment, hearing, Oct. 23, 2003.
22 For further discussion on the issues leading up to this MOU, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Border
Security: DHS’s Visa Security Program Needs to Improve Performance Evaluation and Better Address Visa Risk
Worldwide
, GAO-11-315, March 31, 2011, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-315.
23 USCIS adjudicators also conduct admissibility reviews for petitions filed within the United States, and CBP
inspectors do so when aliens seek entry to the United States.
Congressional Research Service
6

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

gender, and the date and place of birth. Depending on the visa category, certain documents must
be certified by the proper government authorities (e.g., birth certificates and marriage licenses).
All prospective LPRs must submit to physical and mental examinations, and prospective
nonimmigrants also may be required to have physical and mental examinations.
These reviews are intended to ensure that aliens are not ineligible for visas or admission under the
grounds for inadmissibility spelled out in the INA.24 These INA §212(a) inadmissibility criteria
are
• health-related grounds,
• criminal history,
• security and terrorist concerns,
• public charge (e.g., indigence),
• seeking to work without proper labor certification,
• illegal entrants and immigration law violations,
• ineligible for citizenship, and
• aliens previously removed.
Consular officers use the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) to screen visa applicants.
Records of all visa applications are now automated in the CCD, with some records dating back to
the mid-1990s. Since February 2001, the CCD has stored photographs of all visa applicants in
electronic form; since 2007, the CCD has begun storing 10-finger scans. In addition to indicating
the outcome of any prior visa application of the alien in the CCD and comments by consular
officers, the system links with other databases to flag problems that may have an impact on the
issuance of the visa. These databases linked with the CCD include DHS’s Automated Biometric
Identification System (IDENT) and FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System
(IAFIS) results, and supporting documents.
The CCD also links to the DHS’s Traveler Enforcement Compliance System (TECS), which
enables CBP officers at ports of entry to have access to CCD.25 A limited number of consular
officers have recently been granted access to DHS’Arrival Departure Information System
(ADIS). 26 ADIS tracks foreign nationals’ entries into and most exits out of the United States.
DOS credits access to ADIS with its ability to identify previously undetected cases of illegal
overstays in the United States.
For some years, consular officers have been required to check the background of all aliens in the
“lookout” databases, specifically the Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) database,
which contained over 26 million records in 2009.27 According to Janice Jacobs, Assistant

24 §212(a) of the INA.
25 Consular officers do not have direct access to the TECS database.
26 Unclassified congressional staff briefing by Assistant Secretary of State Janice Jacobs, January 11, 2010.
27 For information on other watchlists, see CRS Report RL33645, Terrorist Watchlist Checks and Air Passenger
Prescreening
, by William J. Krouse and Bart Elias. (Hereafter cited as RL33645, Terrorist Watchlist Checks and Air
Passenger Prescreening
.)
Congressional Research Service
7

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, the CLASS database grew by approximately 400% after
September 11, 2001.
This increase in the quantity and quality of CLASS records is largely the result of improved
data sharing between the Department of State and the law enforcement and intelligence
communities. In 2001, only 25 percent of records in CLASS came from other government
agencies. Now, almost 70 percent of CLASS records come from other agencies.28
The Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) system requires a consular officer abroad to refer selected
visa cases for greater review by intelligence and law enforcement agencies.29 The current
interagency procedures for alerting officials about foreign nationals who may be suspected
terrorists, referred to in State Department nomenclature as Visa Viper, began after the 1993 World
Trade Center bombing and were institutionalized by enactment of the Enhanced Border Security
and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. If consular officials receive information about a foreign
national that causes concern, they send a Visa Viper cable (which is a dedicated and secure
communication) to the NCTC. In 2009, consular posts sent approximately 3,000 Visa Viper
communications to NCTC.30
In a similar set of SAO procedures, consular officers send suspect names, identified by law
enforcement and intelligence information (originally certain visa applicants from 26
predominantly Muslim countries), to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for a name check
program called Visa Condor.31 There is also the “Terrorist Exclusion List” (TEL), which lists
organizations designated as terrorist-supporting and includes the names of individuals associated
with these organizations.32
Visa Revocation
After a visa has been issued, the consular officer as well as the Secretary of State has the
discretionary authority to revoke a visa at any time.33 A consular officer must revoke a visa if
• the alien is ineligible under the INA §212(a) grounds of inadmissibility to receive
such a visa, or was issued a visa and overstayed the time limits of the visa;
• the alien is not entitled to the nonimmigrant visa classification under INA
§101(a)(15) definitions specified in such visa;

28 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Five Years After the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Act: Stopping Terrorist Travel
, 111th Cong., 1st sess., December 9, 2009.
29 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism,
The Post 9/11 Visa Reforms and New Technology: Achieving the Necessary Security Improvements in a Global
Environment
, hearing, October 23, 2003.
30 Unclassified congressional staff briefing by Assistant Secretary of State Janice Jacobs, January 11, 2010.
31 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism,
The Post 9/11 Visa Reforms and New Technology: Achieving the Necessary Security Improvements in a Global
Environment
, hearing, October 23, 2003.
32 For further discussion of terrorist screening, see CRS Report RL32564, Immigration: Terrorist Grounds for
Exclusion and Removal of Aliens
, by Michael John Garcia and Ruth Ellen Wasem.
33 §221(i) of the INA; 8 U.S.C. §1201(i).
Congressional Research Service
8

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

• the visa has been physically removed from the passport in which it was issued; or
• the alien has been issued an immigrant visa.34
The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) instructs: “in making any new determination of ineligibility
as a result of information which may come to light after issuance of a visa, the consular officer
must seek and obtain any required advisory opinion.” This applies, for example, to findings of
ineligibility under “misrepresentation,” “terrorist activity” or “foreign policy.” FAM further
instructs: “pending receipt of the Department’s advisory opinion, the consular officer must enter
the alien’s name in the CLASS under a quasi-refusal code, if warranted.”35 According to DOS
officials, they sometimes prudentially revoke visas (i.e., they revoke a visa as a safety
precaution).36
When a consular officer suspects that a visa revocation may involve U.S. law enforcement
interests, FAM instructs the consular officer to consult with law enforcement agencies at post and
inform the State officials of the case, to permit consultations with potentially interested entities
before a revocation is made. 37 The rationale for this consultation is that there may be legal or
intelligence investigations that would be compromised if the visa were revoked and that law
enforcement and intelligence officials may prefer to monitor the individual to further investigate
their actions and associates.
Visa revocation has been a ground for removal in the INA §237(a)(1)(B) since enactment of P.L.
108-458 in December 2004. That provision (§5304 of P.L. 108-458) permits limited judicial
review of removal if visa revocation is the sole basis of the removal.
New Visa Revocation Regulations
On April 27, 2011, the DOS promulgated regulations that broadened the revocation authority.
(a) Grounds for revocation by consular officers. A consular officer, the Secretary, or a
Department official to whom the Secretary has delegated this authority is authorized to
revoke a nonimmigrant visa at any time, in his or her discretion.
(b) Provisional revocation. A consular officer, the Secretary, or any Department official to
whom the Secretary has delegated this authority may provisionally revoke a nonimmigrant
visa while considering information related to whether a visa holder is eligible for the visa.
Provisional revocation shall have the same force and effect as any other visa revocation
under INA 221(i).
(c) Notice of revocation. Unless otherwise instructed by the Department, a consular officer
shall, if practicable, notify the alien to whom the visa was issued that the visa was revoked or
provisionally revoked. Regardless of delivery of such notice, once the revocation has been
entered into the Department’s Consular Lookout and Support System

34 22 C.F.R. §41.122 Notes N1.
35 22 C.F.R. §41.122 Notes PN3.
36 Testimony of Janice L. Jacobs, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services, in U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, Visa Issuance,
Information Sharing and Enforcement in a Post-9/11 Environment: Are We Ready Yet?
hearing, July 15, 2003.
37 22 C.F.R. §41.122 Notes PN9.2-1.
Congressional Research Service
9

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

(CLASS), the visa is no longer to be considered valid for travel to the United States. The
date of the revocation shall be indicated in CLASS and on any notice sent to the alien to
whom the visa was issued.
(d) Procedure for physically canceling visas. A nonimmigrant visa that is revoked shall be
canceled by writing or stamping the word ``REVOKED” plainly across the face of the visa,
if the visa is available to the consular officer. The failure or inability to physically cancel the
visa does not affect the validity of the revocation.38
These new regulations seek to address a series of concerns that have been raised in recent years
about the visa revocation process, especially relating to the timely transmission of information
among federal agencies.39
DHS Visa Security Program
As mentioned above, §428 of the HSA gave the Secretary of DHS the authority to assign DHS
employees to diplomatic and consular posts. The duties of these DHS employees were delineated
in §428 as
• provide expert advice and training to consular officers regarding specific security
threats relating to the adjudication of individual visa applications or classes of
applications;
• review any such applications, either on the initiative of DHS or upon request by a
consular officer or other person charged with adjudicating such applications; and,
• conduct investigations with respect to consular matters under the jurisdiction of
the Secretary of DHS.
This statutory language established what is currently known as the Visa Security Program (VSP).
The ICE Office of International Affairs (OIA) operates the VSP in high-risk consular posts. As
described by DHS, the VSP sends ICE special agents with expertise in immigration law and
counterterrorism to diplomatic posts overseas to perform visa security activities, which aim to
complement the DOS visa screening process with law enforcement resources not available to
consular officers.
The first VSP units were established in Saudi Arabia, as required by §428. In October 2005, VSP
units were set up in: Manila, Philippines; Abu Dhabi and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates; and
Islamabad, Pakistan. By the end of 2007, there were VSP units in: Cairo, Egypt; Caracas,
Venezuela; Montreal, Canada; Hong Kong, China; and Casablanca, Morocco. That year, the VSP
proposed a five-year expansion plan, which proposed to concentrate expansion to the highest risk
posts with the goal of covering 75% of the highest risk visa activity by 2013.40

38 U.S. Department of State, “Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as
Amended,” 76 Federal Register 23477-23479, April 27, 2011.
39 For examples of past critiques, see U.S. General Accounting Office, New Policies and Procedures Are Needed to Fill
Gaps in the Visa Revocation Process
, GAO 03-798, June 18, 2003; and U.S. General Accounting Office, Border
Security: Additional Actions Needed to Eliminate Weaknesses in the Visa Revocation Process
, GAO-04-795, July 13,
2004.
40 Office of Inspector General, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Visa Security Program, U.S. Department
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

One of the major tasks of the VSP agents is to screen visa applicants to determine the applicant’s
risk profile. Unlike consular officers, VSP agents have access to DHS’s Traveler Enforcement
Compliance System (TECS), a substantial database of law enforcement and border inspection
information. The ICE agent further vets visa applicants who are possible matches, performing
additional research and investigation of the visa applicant (e.g., in-depth searches in law
enforcement databases and other information systems, examining documents, and consulting with
consular, law enforcement, or other officials).41
VSP agents are supposed to engage in informal discussions with consular officers, as well as
develop formal, targeted training and briefings to inform consular officers and others about
threats to the visa process. They “identify and monitor the threat environment and trends in the
visa applicant pool specific to their post and host country... Examples of topics covered in these
briefings include fraud trends in specific visa categories and how to identify fraudulent
documents and imposters.”42 Aimed at improving VSP integration in the SAO process, Congress
appropriated $5 million to establish an SAO review unit within VSP headquarters in FY2007.43
Current Issues
Competing Interests
Some have expressed the view that DOS retains too much power and control over visa issuances.
They maintain the Homeland Security Act intended DHS to be the lead department and that DOS
was to merely administer the visa process. They warn that consular officers are too concerned
about facilitating tourism and trade to scrutinize visa applicants thoroughly.44 Some argue that
visa issuance is the real “front line” of homeland security against terrorists and that the principal
responsibility should be in DHS, which does not have competing priorities of diplomatic relations
and reciprocity with foreign governments.
Not long after the attempted bombing of Flight 253, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Senator Joseph Lieberman, stated: “I believe,
incidentally, that we ought to take a look at taking the visa application and admission
responsibility from the State Department. It doesn't really fit with foreign policy anymore.” The
Chairman continued, “And in an age of terrorism, I think the Department of Homeland Security
ought to be handling visas abroad.”45

(...continued)
of Homeland Security, July 2008. (Hereafter OIG, Visa Security Program, July 2008.)
41 OIG, Visa Security Program, July 2008.
42 OIG, Visa Security Program, July 2008.
43 House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, “Summary of the Fiscal 2007 Supplemental Funding Legislation,”
press release, April 23, 2007.
44 Proponents of this view often cite: Office of Inspector General, Review of Nonimmigrant Visa Issuance Policy and
Procedures
, U.S. Department of State, Memorandum Report ISP-I-03-26, December 2002, http://oig.state.gov/
documents/organization/16215.pdf.
45 Senator Joseph Lieberman appearing on ABC’s “This Week”, January 3, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
11

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

Others are recommending further deliberation before changing the law, observing that today’s
visa security policies grew out of lessons learned from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.46
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Senator Patrick Leahy, stated “After
Congress passed major legislation in 2004 to implement the 9/11 Commission’s
recommendations, and after the country invested significant resources to upgrade security
systems and reorganize our intelligence agencies, the near tragedy on Christmas Day compels us
to ask what went wrong and what additional reforms are needed.”47
Proponents of the current division of responsibilities argue that it strikes the proper balance
between the two departments and reflects the bifurcation envisioned in the Homeland Security
Act. They maintain that it plays off the strengths of the two departments and allows for
refinement of the implementation in the future.48 Proponents of DOS playing the lead role in visa
issuances assert that only consular officers in the field have the country-specific knowledge to
make decisions about whether an alien is admissible and that staffing approximately 250
diplomatic and consular posts around the world would stretch DHS beyond its capacity.49
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has introduced legislation (H.R. 1741) that
would give the Secretary of Homeland Security “exclusive authority to issue regulations,
establish policy, and administer and enforce the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) and all other immigration or nationality laws relating to the functions
of consular officers of the United States in connection with the granting and refusal of a visa.”
Broadening Visa Revocation Authority
As discussed above, the INA gives the authority to revoke a visa at any time to the Secretary of
State and consular officers, but the Secretary of Homeland Security does not have the authority to
revoke visas.50 As consequence, a re-occurring issue is whether the Secretary of Homeland
Security should have the authority to revoke visas and to immediately remove a foreign national
whose visa has been revoked. Legislation to amend the INA to give such authority in DHS has
been introduced in recent congresses, and H.R. 1741 in the 112th Congress would do so. Some
have maintained that a foreign national should be immediately removed if the visa that enabled
his or her entry has been revoked. They have recommended that grounds for removal in INA
§212(a) should be amended to expressly state visa revocation as a basis for deportation. Some
further argue that aliens whose visas are revoked should not be entitled to a hearing before an
immigration judge to determine if the alien should be deported.51 Others have asserted that

46 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Securing America’s Safety: Improving The Effectiveness of Anti-
Terrorism Tools and Inter-Agency Communication
, Statements of DOS Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy and DHS
Assistant Secretary David Heyman, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., January 20, 2010.
47 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Securing America’s Safety: Improving The Effectiveness of Anti-
Terrorism Tools and Inter-Agency Communication
, Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., January
20, 2010.
48 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee On Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship,
Visa Issuance: Our First Line of Defense for Homeland Security, hearing, Sept. 30, 2003.
49 Proponents of this view often cite the conclusions of this report: U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Strengthened Visa Process Would Benefit from Improvements in Staffing and Information Sharing, GAO-05-859,
September, 2005, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05859.pdf.
50 §221(i) of the INA; 8 U.S.C. §1201(i).
51 P.L. 108-458 permits limited judicial review of removal if visa revocation is the sole basis of the removal.
Congressional Research Service
12

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

current law balances the broader discretion given to the consular officers abroad with the explicit
standards of the grounds for inadmissibility and the legal process for removing aliens from the
United States. They further have maintained that consular officers often make “prudential
revocations” of visas that they subsequently re-issue and that anecdotal cases of mistaken
identities suggest that the alien screening databases are not sufficiently precise to be the basis for
removal without a hearing.
Acceptance of VSP in Consular Posts
The statutory language of §428(d) of P.L. 107-296 makes clear that authority of the chief of
mission remained intact despite the added authorities given to DHS.52 It states that nothing in that
provision may be construed to alter or affect the authority of a chief of mission under §207 of the
Foreign Service Act of 1980.53 Ultimately, it is the DOS chief of mission at a particular consular
post who determines whether to accept a VSP unit.54 A 2008 report of the DHS Office of
Inspector General discussed tensions between DOS and DHS in establishing VSP units abroad.
Some DOS headquarters officials have said that ICE special agents do not need to be posted
overseas to conduct their visa security activities. The DOS officials said ICE special agents
are able to access the law enforcement databases and information systems used in the
screening and vetting process remotely. VSP managers said that experienced law
enforcement agents assigned overseas provide unique added value at overseas posts. ICE
special agents assigned to VSUs [shorthand for VSP units] use their expertise in immigration
and nationality law, investigations, document examination, intelligence research, and
counterterrorism to complement the consular visa adjudication process with law enforcement
vetting and investigation. In addition, ICE special agents assigned to VSUs at post focus on
identifying “not yet known” terrorists and criminal suspects.... 55
Top-level DOS leadership has stated they are fully supportive of the VSP and are coordinating
with DHS to expand the units to additional consular posts.56 The 2011 GAO report continued to
find difficulties in the working relationships between VSP agents and consular officials, but cited
the January 2011 MOU as a corrective step. 57

52 The chief of mission is defined as the principal officer in charge of a diplomatic facility of the United States,
including any individual assigned to be temporarily in charge of such a facility. This person, normally the ambassador,
is the personal representative of the President to the country of accreditation. He or she is responsible for the direction,
coordination, and supervision of all US Government executive branch employees in that country (except those under
the command of a United States military commander).
53 22 U.S.C. 3927.
54 For more on this process, see National Security Decision Directive–38.
55 OIG, Visa Security Program, July 2008.
56 Unclassified congressional staff briefing by Assistant Secretary of State Janice Jacobs, January 11, 2010; and, U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Securing America’s Safety: Improving the Effectiveness of Anti-
terrorism Tools and Interagency Communication
, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., January 20, 2010.
57 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Border Security: DHS’s Visa Security Program Needs to Improve
Performance Evaluation and Better Address Visa Risk Worldwide
, GAO-11-315, March 31, 2011, http://www.gao.gov/
products/GAO-11-315.
Congressional Research Service
13

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

Effectiveness of the Visa Security Program
The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently released an evaluation of the VSP that
identified several shortcomings. In addition to noting the tensions between the consular officials
and the VSP agents, GAO was especially concerned about the lack of standard operating
procedures for VSP agents across the various posts. GAO also found that “VSP agents perform a
variety of investigative and administrative functions beyond their visa security responsibilities
that sometimes slow or limit visa security activities, and ICE does not track this information in
the VSP tracking system, making it unable to identify the time spent on these activities.” Staffing
shortages and the use of temporary duty assignments, GAO further observed, created coverage
problems and delays in some posts. Variability in the consistency and quality of training was cited
as well.58
Perhaps most importantly, GAO stated that ICE has not expanded VSP to key high-risk posts
despite well-publicized plans to do so.
In 2007, ICE developed a 5-year expansion plan for the VSP, but ICE has not fully followed
or updated the plan. For instance, ICE did not establish 9 posts identified for expansion in
2009 and 2010. Furthermore, the expansion plan states that risk analysis is the primary input
to VSP site selection, and ICE, with input from State, ranked visa-issuing posts by visa risk,
which includes factors such as the terrorist threat and vulnerabilities present at each post.
However, 11 of the top 20 high-risk posts identified in the expansion plan are not covered by
the VSP. Furthermore, ICE has not taken steps to address visa risk in high-risk posts that do
not have a VSP presence. Although the expansion of the VSP is limited by a number of
factors, such as budgetary limitations or limited embassy space, ICE has not identified
possible alternatives that would provide the additional security of VSP review at those posts
that do not have a VSP presence. 59
The absence of VSP in these high-risk posts is a matter of particular congressional concern. This
issue has arisen at congressional oversight and appropriations hearings in recent years. 60 H.R.
1741 would require DHS to conduct on-site review of visas issuances at all visa-issuing posts in
Algeria; Canada; Colombia; Egypt; Germany; Hong Kong; India; Indonesia; Iraq; Jerusalem,
Israel; Jordan; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Kuwait; Lebanon; Mexico; Morocco; Nigeria; Pakistan;
the Philippines; Saudi Arabia; South Africa; Syria; Tel Aviv, Israel; Turkey; United Arab
Emirates; the United Kingdom; Venezuela; and Yemen.

58 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Border Security: DHS’s Visa Security Program Needs to Improve
Performance Evaluation and Better Address Visa Risk Worldwide
, GAO-11-315, March 31, 2011, http://www.gao.gov/
products/GAO-11-315.
59 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Border Security: DHS’s Visa Security Program Needs to Improve
Performance Evaluation and Better Address Visa Risk Worldwide
, GAO-11-315, March 31, 2011, http://www.gao.gov/
products/GAO-11-315.
60 For examples, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 budget request for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 110th Cong.,
1st sess., February 2008; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Securing America’s Safety: Improving
The Effectiveness of Anti-Terrorism Tools and Inter-Agency Communication
, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., January 20, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
14

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

Resources for Visa Security
DOS Visa Processing and Security Funding
The adjudication and issuance of visas are largely fee-based, rather than a government service
funded by direct appropriations. For the most part, prospective immigrants and nonimmigrants
cover the costs of visa processing. The Consular Affairs immigrant visa application processing
fee is $355, and the nonimmigrant processing fee is $131.61 Moreover, the 107th Congress
permanently authorized the collection of Machine-Readable Visa (MRV) fees at $65—or the cost
of the machine-readable visa service if higher—and a $10 surcharge for machine-readable visas
in nonmachine-readable passports. These MRV fees are credited as an offsetting collection used
by DOS to recover costs of providing consular services.62
Table 1. Department of State Border Security Program Resource Summary
(dollars in thousands)
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Category
Actual
Actual
CR
Request
Machine Readable Visa (MRV) Fees
830,948
926,135
1,005,639
1,076,663
Western Hemisphere Travel Surcharge
248,889
294,258
315,000
365,750
Enhanced Border Security Program Fees
257,600
319,404
628,913
598,570
Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee
40,000
42,865
40,000
44,000
Affidavit of Support Fee
10,000
0
0
0
Total Border Security Program Expenses
$1,387,437
$1,582,662
$1,989,552
$2,084,983
Source: Secretary of State, FY2011 Congressional Budget Justifications, Vol. 1, Department of State Operations
(2010) and FY2012 Congressional Budget Justifications, Vol. 1, Department of State Operations (2011).

In the FY2012 Budget Request of the President, DOS presents the Consular Affairs visa
operations as part of its Border Security Program. As Table 1 indicates, DOS requested an
increase in its Border Security Program from $1.990 billion in FY2011 to $2.085 billion in
FY2012, and would rely on the use of additional fee receipts to increase the overall funding. The
question of whether DOS is adequately funded to process visas expeditiously while maintaining
visa security procedures may arise as the budget is debated.63
DHS Visa Security Program Funding
The VSP has been growing in terms of funding as well as units located abroad. The FY2009
budget request (the final year of President George W. Bush’s Administration) was $11.8 million

61 DOS lists its fees at http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1263.html.
62 §103 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act (P.L. 107-173)
63 For legislative tracking of the FY2011 State Department appropriations, see CRS Report R41228, State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs: FY2011 Budget and Appropriations
, by Marian Leonardo Lawson, Susan B.
Epstein, and Tamara J. Resler.
Congressional Research Service
15

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

for the VSP, with $3.4 million to create two additional overseas VSP units in high-risk locations.64
Congress almost doubled President Bush request of $11.8 million to $22.4 million in FY2009.
Funding in FY2010 fell short of President Barrack Obama’s Administration request of $32.2
million, as Congress appropriated $30.7 million for the VSP.65
DHS has reported expanding the number of VSP units in high-risk consular posts by two each
year in FY2009 and in FY2010, but acknowledges that Congress has required DHS to use the
remaining two-year enhancement funds of $3.4 million it received for expansion by the close of
FY2010 pursuant to its five-year expansion plan (discussed above) or the funds will be lost.66
DHS also stated that 63 ICE special agents were trained to become Visa Security Officers in
FY2009.67
Table 2. Department of Homeland Security Visa Security Program
Budget Estimates
(dollars in thousands)

FY2009 Actual
FY2010 Actual
FY2011 CR
FY2012 Request
Salaries and
$22,354 %27,614 $29,489 $29,489
Expenses
FTEs 36
45
67
67
Source: Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Fiscal Year 2011
Overview Congressional Justification, (2010) and Fiscal Year 2012 Overview Congressional Justification, (2011).
The Obama Administration requested that the VSP be funded at the same level in FY2012 as
Congress funded it in FY2011—$29.5 million.68 The modest size of the VSP with 67 full-time
equivalent staff (FTEs) has led some to question how many VSP units DHS will be able to
realistically staff. Some members of Congress are questioning how long it will take DHS to staff
the 40 consular posts it deemed “high-risk” locations with the current level of funding.
Congressman Gus Bilirakis, the Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight, has called for Congress to shift
funding from DHS administrative functions to the VSP.69 As discussed above, however, others
note that the expansion of the VSP has been stymied as much by questions of how much added-
value it brings and the inter-department negotiations, as it has been by funding.70 For example,

64 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, President’s Fiscal Year
(FY) 2009 budget request for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),
Testimony of Assistant Secretary
Julie Myers, 110th Cong., 1st sess., February 2008.
65 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justifications, FY2010, February 2009.
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs_congressional_budget_justification_fy2010.pdf.
66 In the FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations Act, Congress appropriated $5 million to the VSP to enhance its
Security Advisory Opinion Unit. House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, “Summary of the Fiscal 2007
Supplemental Funding Legislation,” press release, April 23, 2007.
67 U.S. Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Fiscal Year 2011 Overview
Congressional Justification
, February 2010.
68 The initial FY2011 Continuing Resolution set the VSP at $30, 686,000, but it was cut by $1,197,000 in the final
FY2011 CR. For legislative tracking of the FY2011 Department of Homeland Security appropriations, see CRS Report
R41189, Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations, coordinated by Jennifer E. Lake.
69 Mickey McCarter, “Bilirakis Demands Funding for More Visa Security Units,” Homeland Security Today, March 3,
2010.
70 OIG, Visa Security Program, July 2008.
Congressional Research Service
16

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

several Republican Senators reported that the application for Yemen has been pending since
September 2008, and applications for Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Frankfurt and Amman have been
waiting for approval since September 2009.71

71 Letter from Charles Grassley, Senator, Jeff Sessions, Senator, and Orin Hatch, Senator, et al. to Janet Napolitano,
Secretary of Homeland Security, January 14, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
17

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

Appendix A. Legislative History of the Visa
Functions in the Homeland Security Act of 2002

When the 107th Congress weighed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security,
considerable debate surfaced about whether or not any or all visa issuance functions should be
located in the new department. Enactment of P.L. 107-296 addressed most of these issues, but a
few concerns remained after the implementation of the act. Varied viewpoints are discussed
below.
As announced on June 6, 2002, the Administration’s proposal for a homeland security department
would have included Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) among the agencies
transferred to a new homeland security department. The stated goal of the Administration’s
proposal was to consolidate into a single federal department many of the homeland security
functions performed by units within various federal agencies and departments. The
Administration would have placed all functions of INS under the border and transportation
security division of the proposed department. The narrative of the June 6, 2002, plan did not go
into details, however, it appeared that under the plan Consular Affairs in the Department of State
would have retained its visa issuance responsibilities. This proposal precipitated considerable
discussion on where the visa issuance should be located.
Option: Locating all Functions in DHS
Voices in support of moving Consular Affairs’s visa issuance responsibilities to the proposed
DHS asserted that consular officers emphasize the promotion of tourism, commerce, and cultural
exchange and are lax in screening foreign nationals who want to come the United States. Media
reports of the “Visa Express” that DOS established in Saudi Arabia to allow travel agents to pre-
screen nonimmigrants raised considerable concern, especially reports that several of the
September 11 terrorists allegedly entered through “Visa Express.” Critics argued that visa
issuance was the real “front line” of homeland security against terrorists and that the
responsibility for this function should be in a department that did not have competing priorities of
diplomatic relations and reciprocity with foreign governments.
Some argued that keeping the INS adjudications and Consular Affairs visa issuances in different
departments would perpetuate the types of mistakes and oversights that stem from inadequate
coordination and competing chains of command. Most importantly, they emphasized the need for
immigration adjudications and visa issuances—as well as immigration law enforcement and
inspections activities—to be under one central authority that has border security as its primary
mission.
Option: Locating Functions in Different Agencies
Proponents of retaining visa issuances in Consular Affairs asserted that only consular officers in
the field would have the country-specific knowledge to make decisions about whether an alien
was admissible and that staffing 250 diplomatic and consular posts around the world would
stretch the proposed homeland security department beyond its capacity. They also pointed out that
under current law, consular decisions are not appealable and warned that transferring this
adjudication to homeland security might make it subject to judicial appeals or other due process
considerations. The MRV fees, as some point out, have become an important funding stream,
Congressional Research Service
18

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

contributing almost 10% of DOS total budget. They maintained that the problems Consular
Affairs evidenced in visa issuances have already been addressed by strengthening provisions in
the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act
(P.L. 107-173).
Those who supported retained immigrant adjudications and services in DOJ and visa issuances in
DOS point to the specializations that each department brings to the functions. They asserted that
the “dual check” system in which both INS and Consular Affairs make their own determinations
on whether an alien ultimately enters the United States provides greater security. Proponents of
the joint DOJ-DOS responsibilities argued that failures in intelligence gathering and analysis, not
lax enforcement of immigration law, were the principal factors that enabled terrorists to obtain
visas. Others opposing the transfer of INS adjudications and Consular Affairs visa issuances to
DHS maintained that DHS would be less likely to balance the more generous elements of
immigration law (e.g., the reunification of families, the admission of immigrants with needed
skills, the protection of refugees, opportunities for cultural exchange, the facilitation of trade,
commerce, and diplomacy) with the more restrictive elements of the law (e.g., protection of
public health and welfare, national security, public safety, and labor markets).
Homeland Security Act
Representative Dick Armey, Majority Leader and Chair of the Select Committee on Homeland
Security, introduced the President’s proposal as H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
H.R. 5005 would have transferred all of the functions of INS to the newly created department
under its Border Security and Transportation Division. As introduced, H.R. 5005 would have
bifurcated visa issuances so that DHS would set the policies and DOS would retain responsibility
for implementation.
During the week of July 8, 2002, the House Committees on Judiciary, International Relations, and
Government all approved language on visa issuances that retained DOS’s administrative role in
issuing visas, but added specific language to address many of the policy and national security
concerns raised during their respective hearings. Breaking with the Administration, the House
Judiciary Committee approved language that would have placed much of INS’s adjudication and
service responsibilities—including its role in approving immigrant petitions—with a new Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services headed by an Assistant Attorney General at DOJ.
When the House Select Committee on Homeland Security marked up H.R. 5005 on July 19,
2002, it approved language on immigrant processing and visa issuances consistent with the House
Judiciary Committee recommendations. As reported, H.R. 5005 clarified that the Secretary of
DHS would have issued regulations regarding visa issuances and would have assigned staff to
consular posts abroad to provide advice and review and to conduct investigations, and that
Consular Affairs would have continued to issue visas. It would have further expanded the
exclusion authority of the Secretary of State by permitting the Secretary to exclude an alien when
necessary or advisable in the foreign policy or security interests of the U.S., giving the Secretary
of State an authority even broader than that in law before the 1990 Immigration Amendments
reformed the grounds for exclusion. It also would have clarified that decisions of the consular
officers are not reviewable.
During the floor debate on H.R. 5005, only one immigration-related amendment was considered,
and it would have moved the consular visa function to DHS. The amendment offered by
Representative David Weldon failed, and the House went on to pass H.R. 5005 on July 26, 2002.
Congressional Research Service
19

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

Table A-1 summarizes what department would be responsible for visa issuance activities under
the various bills.72
The National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002 reported by the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee (S. 2452) on June 24, 2002, included the immigration
enforcement functions of INS and the Office of International Affairs but did not transfer any of
the other immigration services and visa issuance functions. Representative Mac Thornberry
sponsored H.R. 4660, a bill similar to S. 2452 as introduced, that would have created a homeland
security department but also did not transfer any of the immigration adjudications and visa
issuances functions.
Table A-1. Visa Issuance Policy Roles and Tasks: Comparison of Major Homeland
Security Proposals
H.R. 5005
H.R. 5005
Task/Role INA
S.
2452
S.Amdt.
4471 Introduced
Passed
P.L. 107-296
Issuing
State State Homeland
Homeland sets
Homeland
Homeland
nonimmigrant
regulates; State
policy; State
regulates; State
regulates; State
visas abroad
issues
administers
issues
issues
Changing
nonimmigrant
Justice Justice Homeland
Homeland
Justice
Homeland
visas
Approving
immigrant
Justice Justice Homeland
Homeland
Justice
Homeland
(LPR)
petitions
Issuing
State State Homeland
Homeland sets
Homeland
Homeland
immigrant
regulates; State
policy; State
regulates; State
regulates; State
visas
issues
administers
issues
issues
Adjusting
immigrant
Justice Justice Homeland
Homeland
Justice
Homeland
(LPR) status

The Senate Government Reform Committee acted on a substitute for S. 2452 on July 24, 2002,
and that language became S.Amdt. 4471. S.Amdt. 4471 differed somewhat on the issues of
immigration adjudications and visa issuances from the Administration’s proposal and H.R. 5005
as passed. The Senate amendment would have transferred all of INS to a newly created DHS
under two new bureaus (the Bureau of Immigration Services and the Bureau of Enforcement and
Border Affairs) in a Directorate of Immigration Affairs. Similarly to H.R. 5005 as passed, the
Senate amendment would have given the Secretary of DHS authority to issue regulations on visa
policy; however, it would have permitted the Secretary of the new department to delegate the
authority to the Secretary of State. In contrast to the House-passed bill and S. 2452 as introduced,
S.Amdt. 4471 would have established an Under Secretary for Immigration Affairs in DHS who

72 For discussion of the issues and options for transfering immigration functions and activities to DHS, see CRS Report
RL31560, Homeland Security Proposals: Issues Regarding Transfer of Immigration Agencies and Functions; and CRS
Report RL31584, A Comparative Analysis of the Immigration Functions in the Major Homeland Security Bills, both by
Lisa M. Seghetti and Ruth Ellen Wasem. (Archived reports available upon request.)
Congressional Research Service
20

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

would have handled immigration and naturalization functions as well as immigration enforcement
and border functions.
On November 13, 2002, Majority Leader Armey introduced and the House passed H.R. 5710 as a
compromise bill to establish a Department of Homeland Security. Among its many provisions,
H.R. 5710 retained the language clarifying that—although DOS’s Consular Affairs would
continue to issue visas—the Secretary of DHS would issue regulations regarding visa issuances
and would assign staff to consular posts abroad to advise, review, and conduct investigations. It
also would permit the Secretary of the new department to delegate the authority to the Secretary
of State. H.R. 5710 would transfer all of INS to two new bureaus in DHS: the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Border Security. The former would
report directly to the Deputy Secretary for Homeland Security, while the latter would report to the
Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security. Language similar to H.R. 5710 passed
the Senate on November 19, 2002, as S.Amdt. 4901 to H.R. 5005. The House agreed to the
Senate amendment on November 22, and the President signed it as P.L. 107-296 on November
25, 2002.
Congressional Research Service
21

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

Appendix B. Legislation on the 9/11 Commission
Recommendations Pertaining to Visa Security

The report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known
as the 9/11 Commission) offered its assessment of how visa and immigration inspection failures
contributed to the terrorist attacks. The 9/11 Commission contended that “(t)here were
opportunities for intelligence and law enforcement to exploit al Qaeda’s travel vulnerabilities.”
The report went on to state: “Considered collectively, the 9/11 hijackers
• included known al Qaeda operatives who could have been watchlisted;
• presented fraudulent passports;
• presented passports with suspicious indicators of extremism;
• made detectable false statements on visa applications;
• made false statements to border officials to gain entry into the United States; and
• violated immigration laws while in the United States.”73
The report maintained that border security was not considered to be a national security matter
prior to 9/11, and as a result neither the State Department’s consular officers nor the former
Immigration and Naturalization Service’s inspectors and officers were considered full partners in
national counterterrorism efforts.74
The 9/11 Commission made several recommendations that underscore the urgency of
implementing legislative provisions on visa policy and immigration control that Congress enacted
several years ago. They also suggested areas in which Congress could take further action. The
specific recommendations were as follows:
• Targeting travel is at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting
their money. The United States should combine terrorist travel intelligence,
operations, and law enforcement in a strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist
travel facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility.
• The U.S. border security system should be integrated into a larger network of
screening points that includes our transportation system and access to vital
facilities, such as nuclear reactors.
• The Department of Homeland Security, properly supported by the Congress,
should complete, as quickly as possible, a biometric entry-exit screening system,
including a single system for speeding qualified travelers.
• The U.S. government cannot meet its own obligations to the American people to
prevent the entry of terrorists without a major effort to collaborate with other
governments.75

73 U.S. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, Executive
Summary, pp. 13-14, July 2004.
74 The 9/11 Commission Report, Executive Summary, p. 14, July 2004.
75 For a discussion of these recommendations, see The 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 12.4, pp. 383-389, July 2004.
Congressional Research Service
22

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

Other 9/11 Commission recommendations, notably those related to intelligence policy and
structures, have been the focus thus far of congressional consideration and media attention. The
9/11 Commission prepared a subsequent report that deals expressly with immigration issues.76
During the 108th Congress, legislation implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations (S.
2845, H.R. 10, S. 2774/H.R. 5040 and H.R. 5024) had various provisions that would affect visa
issuances. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458), a
compromise version of these bills that included some—but not all—of the immigration provisions
under consideration, was signed on December 17, 2004.
Most notably, House-passed S. 2845 would have expanded the terror-related grounds for
inadmissibility and deportability to include additional activities, such as receiving military-type
training by or on behalf of a terrorist organization.77 P.L. 108-458 would make deportable any
alien who has received military training from or on behalf of an organization that, at the time of
training, was a designated terrorist organization.
Among the other provisions in the 9/11 Commission implementation bills were: acquire and
deploy technologies (e.g., biometrics) to detect potential terrorist indicators on travel documents;
establish an Office of Visa and Passport Security; and train consular officers in the detection of
terrorist travel patterns. H.R. 10 (as reported by the House Judiciary Committee on September 27
and passed by the House as S. 2845 on October 8, 2004) included provisions to establish an
Office of Visa and Passport Security in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security of the Department of
State to target and disrupt individuals and organizations at home and in foreign countries that are
involved in the fraudulent production, distribution, or use of visas, passports and other documents
used to gain entry to the United States. It also would have clarified that all nonimmigrant visa
applications are reviewed and adjudicated by a consular officer, and would assign anti-fraud
specialists to the top 100 posts that experience the greatest frequency of fraudulent documents.
P.L. 108-458 establishes a Visa and Passport Security Program within the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security at the Department of State.
As passed by the Senate on October 8, 2004, S. 2845—as well as House-passed H.R. 10—would
increase the number of consular officers by 150 over the preceding year, annually FY2006
through FY2009. Both bills also had provisions aimed at improving the security of the visa
issuance process by providing consular officers and immigration inspectors greater training in
detecting terrorist indicators, terrorist travel patterns and fraudulent documents.78 These provision
were retained by the conferees in P.L. 108-458.


76 U.S. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Monograph on 9/11 and Terrorist Travel,
August 2004.
77 CRS Report RL32564, Immigration: Terrorist Grounds for Exclusion and Removal of Aliens, by Michael John
Garcia and Ruth Ellen Wasem.
78 CRS Report RL32616, 9/11 Commission: Legislative Action Concerning U.S. Immigration Law and Policy in the
108th Congress
, by Michael John Garcia and Ruth Ellen Wasem.
Congressional Research Service
23

Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of State and Homeland Security

Author Contact Information

Ruth Ellen Wasem

Specialist in Immigration Policy
rwasem@crs.loc.gov, 7-7342


Congressional Research Service
24