9/11 Personal Privacy

.5
Prepared by: Jay Jennings
Date Prepared: Feb. 12, 2003
Reviewed by: Type reviewer name here
Index: Type bundle index here
\ DOC Number: Type document number here
, DOC Library: 799837
Job Code: 320172

Record of Interview
Title Interview with INS on Visa Revocation Legal Issues
Purpose_ To discuss_ \t Method _ In-person interview

Contact Place_ INS_ \t Date _ February 11, 20

Cathy Muhletaler, INS-GAO attorney liaison fl \: Judy McClosk

HSJ; Mary Moutsos, OGC; Nancy Finley, OGC _

Comments/Remarks:

On February 11, 2003, we met with representatives from INS' Office of General Counsel to discuss
visa revocation and removal issues. Revocation issues included (1) instances where a person with
a valid visa presents themselves at a port of entry for inspection, but INS does not want to admit
them for security reasons, (2) persons who presented themselves at a port of entry for inspection
whose visa had been revoked but were admitted because INS was not aware of the revocation, and
(3) persons who entered the United States with a valid visa and had their visa revoked while they
were in the country. Removal issues were related to persons who entered the United States and
had not departed when their visa was revoked.

INS has encountered instances where it did not want to admit certain individuals who presented
themselves for inspection at a port of entry. In these instances, INS has contacted the Department
of State and requested that the individual's visa be revoked. State would revoke the visa; however,
there were questions of legal interpretation as to when the revocation became effective. According
to Ms. Podolny and Ms. Muhletaler, representatives from INS, the Department of Justice and the
Office of Immigration Litigation met to discuss the effective date for a visa revocation. It was
agreed that INS would prepare a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) stating that the effective
date would be the date of the visa revocation notice. According to Ms. Muhletaler, she believed
that the Departments of Justice and State were in accord on this point and that the MOU would be
drafted by March. INS' meeting with State did not cover issues 2 and 3 above. Ms. Podolny said
there was some case law on the point that gave broad discretion to the Department of State (see
Knoetze 634 F2d 207)

As to a person whose visa has been revoked but they are admitted because INS is not aware of the
revocation, or where the revocation occurs while they are in the country Ms. Muhletaler said we
need to talk to Ms. Sarah Kendall. INS may be able to place these individuals in removal
proceedings under section 237(a)(l)(A) only if they are overstays because there is no specific
^provision in that section that provides for removal on the grounds of visa revocation. INS may also
Ijplace an alien in removal proceedings under section 235(c) that provides for the removal of aliens
! iwho are inadmissible on security and related grounds. However, if INS takes such an approach it

Page 1 Record of Interview

Prepared by: Jay Jennings Index: Type bundle index here
Date Prepared: Feb. 12, 2003 DOC Number: Type document number here
Reviewed by: Type reviewer name here DOC Library: 799837
Job Code: 320172

may be required to present the evidence that warrants the alien's removal. There are concerns
about revealing such information as it may compromise intelligence gathering sources and
methods. Further, once an alien is placed in proceedings it may open a number of different
avenues of litigation, which INS would prefer to avoid.

As to removing a person who enters the United States with a valid visa and has their visa revoked,
the same comments about sections 237(a)(l)(A) and 235(c) apply as discussed above.

Auditor Note: INS does not appear to be dealing with the visa revocation issues related to our
review.

Page 2 Record of Interview

Telephone Conversation with Valerie Isbell, INS, February 20, 2003

I spoke with Valerie Isbell who works with the IBIS and NAILS lookout databases. We
discussed how revocation records are transferred from CLASS to IBIS and NAILS. Ms.
Isbell described how the various lookout databases inter-relate. She said that CLASS
interfaces with both IBIS and NAILS. CLASS has an automatic, real-time interface with
IBIS. Tape transfers upload CLASS information into NAILS weekly.

We discussed what type of data IBIS accepts from CLASS. She confirmed that IBIS
doesn't accept all CLASS information. For example, INS doesn't accept State's "p" codes
(possible or quasi) because these "possible" lookouts are not always actionable for the
INS inspector at the port of entry. She said that State uses CLASS throughout the visa
issuance process. For example, State can list an alien as a "possible criminal" in CLASS,
and then when he applies for a visa, the consular officer can ask more questions or ask
the alien to return to the consulate at a later date with more information. But at the port
of entry, when the inspector only has 30 seconds to decide if the person should be
admitted or not, the "p" codes are not actionable: knowing that the person is a "possible"
criminal does not mean that the inspector can go out and collect more information on
the person and may not have enough information to deny entry. (Auditor's note: you
would think the "possible" terrorist could be sent to secondary at the very least.)

Ms. Isbell said that INS database team is currently reviewing the P codes. She suggested
talking to CLASS technicians about which CLASS codes are fed into IBIS and NAILS and
which are not. She can tell us about it from the INS perspective, but thought that we
should also get information from State as well.

We discussed some of the IBIS print-outs we received from Lisa Custer. I mentioned that
some State lookout entries appeared to be updated on October 1, 2002. She said that INS
started doing NSEERS registrations on October 1 and CLASS entries were programmed
to do a batch update on October 1 so that all aliens needing an NSEERS registration
would be flagged in IBIS.

I asked Ms. Isbell if she would be the appropriate person to speak with regarding any
questions we had on interpreting the IBIS/ NAILS records. She said she could help us
with these questions. Although she will be on leave from Feb. 26 - March 4, she agreed to
meet us after that date. She also said that she has access to both NAILS and IBIS at her
office and could therefore help us look at specific records as needed.