Prepared by: Kate Brentzel Index: Type bundle index here

Date Prepared: 1/28/03 DOC Number: 787951

Reviewed by: DOC Library: Type library name here
Job Code:320172

Record of Interview
Title Interview with Richard Beer, Coordination Office (part of the
Visa Office which handles Security Advisory Opinions)
Purpose To discuss Condor 105 visa revocations
Contact Method In-person interview
Contact Place State Department Columbia Plaza
Contact Date January 27, 2003
Participants State: Richard Beer and Sarah Thanes
GAP: Judy McCIoskey, Kate Brentzel
Comments/Remarks:

We had several follow-up questions for Richard Beer on the Condor 105 and other visas that had
been revoked between September 12, 2001 and December 31, 2002.

I. The Condor 105

A. How did the number of Condors which had been received after the 30 day wait get
reduced from 200 to 105 and then, in Dec. 2002, to 46?

Mr. Beer said the reason that the number of names had been reduced from 200 to 105 is because
when the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF) notified State's Coordination Office that
it had negative information on certain visa applicants, it referred to cable numbers. In some cases,
the Condor cables that the FTTTF had received from posts had many names on them (Jakarta, for
example, sent in Condor cables with the names and biographic data for many people, not just one
person). Thus, when the FTTTF notified the Coordination office that it had a problem with
applicants on a certain Condor cable, Mr. Beer did not know which of the many individuals on the
cable were problematic. Thus, he included all of the individuals on the cable in his Condor count.
By October 2002, when State sent GAO the list of names, Mr. Beer had already clarified with
FTTTF which names were problematic and which names had been included on a multi-name
Condor cable but about which the FTTTF had no derogatory information.

Since GAO received the list of 105 names (in a letter dated October 7, 2002), GAO learned that the
list of Condor revocation cases had been reduced even further, to 46 names. At a meeting with INS
lookout inspector Lisa Custer we learned that State had sent her a list of 46 names in December
2002. Mr. Beer said that there were only 46 names outstanding on the Condor list in December
because the FTTTF had cleared the other 59 names. He said that as of January 27, he had heard
back from the FTTTF on even more names. He said that the FTTTF continues to review the cases
and continues to clear names. He said that approximately 70 of the original 105 have been cleared
by FTTTF by email (the task force emails the Coordination office to state that, upon further
investigation, they no longer have objection to the individual).

Page 1 Record of Interview

 / Prepared by: Kate Brentzel Index: Type bundle index here
f Date Prepared: 1/28/03 DOC Number: 787951
Reviewed by: DOC Library: Type library name here
Job Code:320172

B. What information did the Coordination Office receive from FTTTF on each of the
Condor 105?
Mr. Beer said that when the FTTTF sent over information on the Condor 105, it would send his
office a short email stating that the task force asserted that the applicant was ineligible for a visa,
but that there was no supporting evidence in this email. Mr. Beer said that State's response was to
pradentially revoke the visa. A prudential revocation does not mean that State necessarily agrees
that the applicant is ineligible for a visa, it means that State agrees that there is a possible reason to
deny the applicant a visa and that, by revoking the visa, State will get the applicant to apply again,
upon which State can re-evaluate the applicant's eligibility (in the case of the Condor 105
revocations, posts are required to submit a Security Advisory Opinion cable to headquarters before
re-issuing to an applicant whose visa had been prudentially revoked). Mr. Beer said the standard of
evidence State requires to make a "prudential" revocation is pretty low; the assertion they received
from the FTTTF, which did not include actual information on the applicant, was sufficient. Mr.
Beer said that a prudential revocation says that State has "reason to suspect" not "reason to
believe."

We asked Mr. Beer when State had received these emails and whether anyone had saved the
emails from the FTTTF. He said that Jim Pritchett had been saving these emails for some time but
that he "lost" them due to a problem with his hard drive. Mr. Beer said that Zee Withrow at the
FTTTF was the one who was emailing him, but that Ms. Withrow's last day at the FTTTF was
January 24.

We asked how soon after the email was received that State would revoke the visa (since we don't
know the date of these emails from FTTTF, we won't know for sure what the time lag is; unless we
can get the original emails from FTTTF directly). Mr. Beer said that it would probably have taken a
few days before the revocations were made.

C. Entries into CLASS

As Catherine Barry told us in our entrance conference, revocations require three actions: sending a
revocation certificate to INS, entering the revocation into CLASS, and sending a cable to post.
Since we already have revocation certificates and cables for almost all of the 105, we asked Mr.
Beer for documentation on CLASS entries. He said that there would not be a way to tell when the
revocation information was entered into CLASS, although State has a policy to make the CLASS
entries the same day the revocation is made. He said that when a consular officer enters the
lookout into CLASS, he has to specify whether it is a 212a3a or 212a3b case. He also said that
prudential revocations are listed as "p" entries in CLASS. "P" entries are "quasi refusal codes,"
meaning "possible." The lookout code for someone whose visa was revoked prudentially under
212a3b would be entered as a "P3b" for "possible terrorist activity." "P" entries in CLASS do not
download into IBIS.

Mr. Beer said that State realized that prudential revocations entered into CLASS with a "p" code
would not download into IBIS so it created a new revocation code for CLASS: "VRVK" which
means "visa revoked." Mr. Beer could not remember exactly when the new code went into effect
but he thinks it was August 12, 2002.

Page 2 Record of Interview

Prepared by: Kate Brentzel Index: Type bundle index here
Date Prepared: 1/28/03 DOC Number: 787951
Reviewed by: DOC Library: Type library name here
Job Code: 320172

D. Why do some revocation certificates for the Condor 105 say 212a3 and some say
212a3B?

Mr. Beer did not know the answer to this question.

E. Why do some revocation certificates for the Condor 105 say 212a3 while the
individual's adjudication history says 212a3B?

Mr. Beer did not know the answer to this question.

II. Universe of all visas revoked on terrorism concerns (212a3) from 9-11-01 to 12-31-02.

We have heard conflicting information from State regarding the total number of visas revoked for
terrorism concerns from September 11, 2001 to December 31, 2002. At our entrance conference
with State, Mr. Beer said he thought the number would be small, but at this meeting, he revised his
estimate and said it could be a large number. We asked if they could estimate the total number
would be so that we could decide if we wanted to see all revocations or just a sample from the
total. Mr. Beer said that he could search cable archives for "212a3" and get an estimate of the total
number for us. He said that many of these other revocations came as a result of posts sending in
Visas Viper on suspected terrorists. Then TEPOFF creates a lookout on this person and searches
the Consular Consolidated Database to see if any visas had already been issued to the person. If
they had, the visas would be revoked.

Page 3 . Record of Interview