SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
66–254
2000
RELIGIOUS WORKER VISA PROGRAMS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JUNE 29, 2000
Serial No. 98
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY BONO, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., General Counsel-Chief of Staff
JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chairman
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel
JIM WILON, Counsel
LORA RIES, Counsel
CINDY BLACKSTON, Professional Staff
LEON BUCK, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
HEARING DATE
June 29, 2000
OPENING STATEMENT
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Smith, Hon. Lamar S., a Representative in Congress From the State of Texas, and chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
WITNESSES
Brennan, John, Consular Officer, Department of State
Cook, Thomas, Acting Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications, Immigration and Naturalization Service
Ford, Jess, Associate Director, International Relations and Trade Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office
Patterson, Mildred, Managing Director, Visa Office, Department of State
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Brennan, John, Consular Officer, Department of State: Prepared statement
Cook, Thomas, Acting Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications, Immigration and Naturalization Service: Prepared statement
Responses to Hon. Chris Cannon's questions
Ford, Jess, Associate Director, International Relations and Trade Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office: Prepared statement
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Jackson Lee, Hon. Sheila, a Representative in Congress From the State of Texas: Prepared statement
Patterson, Mildred, Managing Director, Visa Office, Department of State: Prepared statement
Smith, Hon. Lamar S., a Representative in Congress From the State of Texas, and chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims: Prepared statement
APPENDIX
Material submitted for the record
RELIGIOUS WORKER VISA PROGRAMS
THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 2000
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in room B–352, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar S. Smith [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Present: Representatives Lamar Smith, Elton Gallegly, Charles Canady, Edward A. Pease, Chris Cannon, and Zoe Lofgren.
Staff present: George Fishman, chief counsel; Kelly Dixon, clerk; Leon Buck, minority counsel; and Nolan Rappaport, minority counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SMITH
Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order.
We are going to go on and proceed with the hearing, and then we will interrupt the hearing when we have another member arrive because I do not believe the markup will take very long.
Let me welcome the first panel and ask them to come forward and take their seats at the table. This is an oversight hearing on evaluating the religious worker visa programs. Our witnesses in the first panel are Jess Ford, Associate Director, International Relations and Trade Issues, General Accounting Office; Mildred Patterson, Managing Director, Visa Office, Department of State; John Brennan, Consular Officer, Department of State; Thomas Cook, Acting Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications, Immigration and Naturalization Service, accompanied by Fujie Ohata, Associate Commissioner for Service Center Operations, Immigration Services Division, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
I am going to recognize myself for purposes of making an opening statement, then other members will be recognized, and then we will proceed with our witnesses.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The religious worker immigrant visa program allows American religious denominations large and small to benefit from committed religious workers from overseas.
We are having this hearing because the visa program for non-minister religious workers expires at the end of the fiscal year, September 30. This subcommittee needs to decide whether to extend the program and what safeguards to prevent fraud are necessary.
When the program was created, a sunset date was included because of congressional concerns about potential fraud. In considering the scope of an extension, we also must look at the level of fraud that currently exists. We can also take this opportunity to look at fraud in the ''R'' non-immigrant religious worker visa program as well.
Fraud is in no one's interest, for as the State Department has stated: ''Any future growth in use of the program will cause the development of a waiting list. . . . This will mean that each visa fraudulently obtained will delay the issuance of an immigrant visa to legitimate religious workers.''
In 1997, the State Department's Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs wrote to me that the Department has: ''uncovered a troubling number of scams, both individual and organized, seeking to exploit this category to obtain immigration benefits illegally. . . . Most problematic are those cases that involve organized fraud rings in which documents of religious institutions in the U.S. are fabricated, or when the applicant colludes with a member of a religious institution in the U.S. to misrepresent either his or her qualifications, or the position to which the applicant is destined. The American Embassy in Moscow discovered a fraud ring in New York which fabricated documentation of several religious denominations in New York City on behalf of applicants who had no religious training and no intention of taking up religious occupations in the U.S. Several consular offices have reported suspicions that some churches in the U.S. have created fictitious positions solely to help an alien procure an immigration benefit.''
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Then ranking subcommittee member Melvin Watt and I asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a study to determine the extent of fraud in the program. In order to provide assistance to the GAO, the State Department conducted a field inquiry to obtain the views of consular offices as to the level and type of fraud. Almost half of the responding posts that had issued a substantial number of religious worker visas reported experiencing fraud and abuse.
The GAO report concluded that ''both INS and State have expressed concern about fraud in the religious worker visa program. . . .'' The report stated that INS and State Department officials were not confident that the agencies' screening processes were identifying all unqualified applicants and sponsoring organizations.
We will explore the GAO's findings at today's hearing. We will hear about possible regulatory and statutory modifications to the program that have been proposed by officials at both the State Department and INS to limit fraud. We may also hear about why none of these changes have been implemented.
My goal, as is everyone's on this subcommittee I believe, is to make the religious worker visa program a success, which operates as free of fraud and abuse as possible. So I look forward to today's testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The religious worker immigrant visa program allows American religious denominations large and small to benefit from committed religious workers from overseas.
We are having this hearing because the visa program for non-minister religious workers expires at the end of the fiscal year, September 30. This Subcommittee needs to decide whether to extend the program and what safeguards to prevent fraud are necessary.
When the program was created, a sunset date was included because of congressional concerns about potential fraud. In considering the scope of an extension, we also must look at the level of fraud that exists. We can also take this opportunity to look at fraud in the ''R'' non-immigrant religious worker visa program as well.
Fraud is in no one's interest, for as the State Department has stated: ''Any future growth in use of the program will cause the development of a waiting list. . . . This will mean that each visa fraudulently obtained will delay the issuance of an immigrant visa to legitimate religious workers.''
In 1997, the State Department's Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs wrote to me that the Department has:
''uncovered a troubling number of scams, both individual and organized, seeking to exploit this category to obtain immigration benefits illegally. . . . [Most] problematic are those cases that involve organized fraud rings in which documents of religious institutions in the U.S. are fabricated, or when the applicant colludes with a member of a religious institution in the U.S. to misrepresent either his or her qualifications, or the position to which the applicant is destined. The American Embassy in Moscow discovered a fraud ring in New York which fabricated documentation of several religious denominations in New York City on behalf of applicants who had no religious training and no intention of taking up religious occupations in the U.S. Several consular offices have reported suspicions that some churches in the U.S. have created fictitious positions solely to help an alien procure an immigration benefit.''
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Then ranking Subcommittee member Melvin Watt and I asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a study to determine the extent of fraud in the program. In order to provide assistance to the GAO, the State Department conducted a field inquiry to obtain the views of consular offices as to the level and type of fraud. Almost half of the responding posts that had issued a substantial number of religious worker visas reported experiencing fraud and abuse.
The GAO report concluded that ''both INS and State have expressed concern about fraud in the religious worker visa program. . . .'' The report stated that INS and State Department officials were not confident that the agencies' screening process was identifying all unqualified applicants and sponsoring organizations.
We will explore the GAO's findings at today's hearing. We will hear about possible regulatory and statutory modifications to the program that have been proposed by officials at both the State Department and INS to limit fraud. We may also hear about why none of these changes have been implemented.
My goal, as is everyone's on this Subcommittee, is to make the religious worker visa program a success, which operates as free of fraud and abuse as possible. I look forward to today's testimony.
Mr. SMITH. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for an opening statement?
[No response.]
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. If not, let me thank all the members who are present. We had a late night last night and all of us have made a special effort to be here early this morning. I know that Ed Pease, for example, was presiding over the House Chamber last night till past 1 a.m. and still arrived for today's hearing. So we appreciate everybody's presence.
We will now go to our first, and only, panel of witnesses. Also, although I have introduced you all, let me say that having read last night everybody's testimony, this has got to be one of the most interesting, fruitful, and productive hearings I believe this subcommittee has held. The testimony is uniformly honest I believe, direct, helpful, and offers suggestions to the subcommittee. We do not always see that in testimony of witnesses who appear before this subcommittee and we see it today. So I just want to express my appreciation at the outset for the testimony and we look forward to hearing it now.
Let me introduce first Mr. Ford and ask you to proceed.
STATEMENT OF JESS FORD, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND TRADE ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is summarize my statement briefly and would submit the whole statement for the record.
Mr. SMITH. Without objection, all statements by all witnesses today will be made a part of the record. And as you all know, try to keep your oral statement to 5 minutes, if you can.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FORD. I will do my best, sir.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the issuance of visas for religious workers entering the United States. As you know, in 1990 Congress established special immigrant and nonimmigrant visa categories for religious workers, including religious professionals and ministers, because of a domestic shortage in these positions cited by religious organizations. In 1998, the most recent year for which we have data, religious worker visas constituted about 11,000 of 6.4 million immigrant and nonimmigrant visas issued.
The Department of State and the Immigration and Naturalization Service share responsibility for issuing visas and admitting aliens into the United States. As a result of some fraud investigations in the mid-1990's, both agencies have expressed concern that some individuals and organizations that sponsor religious workers may be taking advantage of this category to enable unqualified aliens to enter and stay in the United States illegally.
My testimony today will focus on the extent and nature of any fraud that the Department of State and INS have identified in the religious worker visa program and any steps the two agencies have taken or plan to take to change the visa screening process. My testimony today is based on our March 1999 report which was done under your request.
Although INS and the State Department have identified some program fraud through the visa screening process and investigations, they do not have data or analysis to firmly establish the extent of fraud in this program. At our request, INS compiled information for a 5-year period, from 1994 to 1998, and they identified 54 investigations related to this program. Also at our request, The Department of State in 1998 surveyed I believe it was 100 of their posts, of which 83 responded, to try to determine the nature of fraud overseas.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The nature of fraud uncovered by INS and State typically involved two types of situations: The applicants making false statements about their qualifications as religious workers or their exact plans in the United States; or conspiracies between an applicant and a sponsoring organization to misrepresent material facts about an applicant's qualifications. INS and State sometimes detect fraud schemes when a sponsoring organization petitions the Service for hundreds of religious workers at one time.
Since INS and State are not confident that the agencies' screening process is identifying all unqualified applicants and sponsoring organizations, INS is considering a regulatory change and changes to the visa screening process. At the time of our report in March 1999, INS proposed a regulatory change to expressly require that immigrant religious worker visa applicants have full-time prior work experience and work for the religious organization on a full-time basis in the United States. Other changes were to include: requiring an applicant to supply additional evidence of his or her qualifications; requiring a sponsoring organization to submit additional evidence regarding its ability to financially support the applicant; and incorporating new software applications to alert reviewers to organizations filing petitions for numerous workers.
As of June 2000, the proposed regulatory change has not been made. On the proposed changes, INS indicated it will continue to support the requirement for more information from visa applicants and may include this requirement as part of the proposed regulatory change. Given that they already have the authority to request additional information from petitioning organizations, the INS says that no additional procedural changes are needed in that area.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the INS and the State Department are attempting to balance the need to screen out unqualified applicants with the original religious worker visa program's purpose of facilitating the entry of qualified religious workers into the United States.
This concludes my opening statement. I would be happy to take any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ford follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JESS FORD, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND TRADE ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the issuance of visas for religious workers entering the United States. As you know, in 1990, Congress established special immigrant and nonimmigrant visa categories for religious workers,(see footnote 1) including religious professionals and ministers, because of domestic shortages in these positions cited by religious organizations. In 1998, the most recent year for which we have data, religious worker visas constituted about 11,000 of the 6.4 million immigrant (permanent) and nonimmigrant (temporary) visas issued. The Department of State and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) share responsibility for issuing visas and admitting aliens into the United States. As a result of some fraud investigations in the mid-1990s, both agencies have expressed concern that some individuals and organizations that sponsor religious workers may be taking advantage of this category to enable unqualified aliens to enter or stay in the United States illegally.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My testimony today will focus on (1) the extent and nature of any fraud(see footnote 2) the Department of State and INS have identified in the religious worker visa program(see footnote 3) and (2) any steps these two agencies have taken or plan to take to change the visa screening progress. My testimony is based on our March 1999 report(see footnote 4) and on some additional information obtained from INS and the Department of State.
SUMMARY
Although INS and the State Department have identified some program fraud through the visa screening progress and investigations, they do not have data or analysis to firmly establish the extent of fraud in the religious worker visa program. At our request, INS compiled information showing that it has conducted 54 investigations from 1994 through 1998. In addition, a 1998 State Department survey of 83 overseas posts identified instances of potential fraud uncovered during the visa screening process. The nature of the fraud uncovered by INS and State typically involved two situations: (1) applicants making false statements about their qualifications as religious workers or their exact plans in the United States or (2) conspiracy between an applicant and a sponsoring organization to misrepresent material facts about the applicant's qualifications or the nature of the position to be filled. INS and State sometimes detect fraud schemes when a sponsoring organization petitions the Service for hundreds of religious workers at a time.
Since the INS and State were not confident that the agencies screening process was identifying all unqualified applicants and sponsoring organizations, INS, with State's support, was considering a regulatory change and changes to the visa screening process. At the time of our March 1999 review, INS had proposed a regulatory change to expressly require that immigrant religious worker visa applicants have full-time prior work experience and work for the religious organization on a full-time basis in the United States. Other changes were to include (1) requiring an applicant to submit additional evidence of his or her qualifications, (2) requiring the sponsoring organization to submit additional evidence regarding its ability to financially support the applicant, and (3) incorporating new software applications that alert reviewers to organizations filing petitions for numerous workers.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As of June 2000, the proposed regulatory change had not been made. On the procedural changes, INS indicated it will continue to support the requirement for more information from visa applicants and may include this requirement as part of the proposed regulatory change. Given that they already have the authority to request additional information from the petitioning organizations, the INS says that no additional procedural changes are needed. According to INS officials, software changes have been made to detect multiple filings by organizations.
INS and State are attempting to balance the need to screen out unqualified applicants with the religious worker visa program's original purpose of facilitating the entry of qualified religious workers. The program modifications that INS is undertaking or plans to undertake to verify the accuracy of petitions for immigrant religious visas are reasonable steps to improve program integrity. If implemented, the modifications should help to better screen visa applicants and religious organizations.
BACKGROUND
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990 established special immigrant and nonimmigrant categories for religious workers, religious professionals, and ministers.(see footnote 5) The act established an annual limit of 5,000(see footnote 6) on the number of special immigrant religious workers and religious professionals that can be admitted to the United States. According to INS data, about 85 percent of those admitted for permanent residence as religious workers in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 were already in the United States. About 17 percent of the applicants were in the United States as nonimmigrant religious workers. The others were in the United States on other types of nonimmigrant visas such as student and business visas. The legislative authority for the special immigrant provisions for religious workers and religious professionals is scheduled to expire on October 1, 2000.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To obtain an immigrant religious worker visa and permanently stay in the United States, a sponsoring individual or organization must first file a petition with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The petition must include supporting documentation showing that the religious worker will be working for a religious organization and specifying how the worker will be paid or remunerated. In addition, the documentation must state that the religious worker will not be solely dependent on other employment or the solicitation of funds for support.(see footnote 7) If INS approves the petition, the individual files an application for an adjustment of status with INS if he or she is already in the United States. If he or she is abroad, the alien files a visa application with a State overseas post. The applicants must state that they intend to work for the organization at the organization's request in a religious capacity and they have been performing religious work continuously for at least 2 years prior to applying for admission.
Nonimmigrant or temporary religious workers can be admitted under the same conditions as special immigrant religious workers, except that they are not required to have prior religious work experience, and their maximum period of stay is limited to 5 years. The authorization for admission of nonimmigrant religious workers did not contain sunset restrictions or any limit on the number that can be admitted. To obtain a nonimmigrant visa, the individual files an application, but no petition is required. The supporting documentation must establish the arrangements made, if any, for remuneration, including the amount and source of any salary; a description of any other type of remuneration; and a statement indicating whether the remuneration will be in exchange for services rendered. The majority of nonimmigrant religious workers applies and receives their visas abroad through State's overseas posts.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF FRAUD
Neither INS nor State knows the overall extent of fraud in the religious worker visa program. Both agencies have uncovered incidents of fraud in the religious worker visa program, but they do not routinely investigate questionable visa petitions and applications or report fraud information by type of visa. State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the office responsible for investigating the use of counterfeit U.S. passports and visas, has not conducted any investigations of religious worker visa fraud. In addition, State does not maintain complete statistics on the extent of fraud in this program. Individual cases of suspected fraud are generally not investigated unless the suspected fraud is part of a larger scheme to systematically circumvent immigration laws.
The agencies stated that they generally deny questionable visa petitions and applications they receive. Most are not denied for fraud, but for other reasons, such as failing to comply with statutory requirements and regulations, including failure to provide requested documents. They give fraud as the reason for the denial when they have sufficient evidence that the applicant or petitioner willfully misrepresented a material fact. State Department statistics on visa denials do not identify denials by type of visa. However, at our request, State surveyed 83 overseas posts in 1998. They reported several instances of religious worker visa fraud uncovered during processing.
Investigations Illustrate Schemes Used to Circumvent Immigration Laws
At our request, the Fraud Branch at INS' Office of Investigations in Washington, D.C. surveyed fraud units in INS district and suboffices to identify the number of active and closed fraud investigations involving religious worker visas from 1994 to 1998. The units identified 54 such investigations involving about 1,700 petitions(see footnote 8) during the 5-year period. The 54 INS investigations, of which about 40 are closed, ranged from cases involving individual fraud schemes to organized fraud rings.(see footnote 9) For example, the fraud unit in the Chicago District Office investigated 30 cases involving individuals who failed to meet the 2-year experience requirement. At least five INS investigations since 1994 have involved individuals or organizations filing petitions for hundreds of religious workers. For example, in 1995 INS investigated a pastor who filed 450 immigrant religious worker petitions covering over 900 individuals, falsifying the number of years the aliens had been members of the church. The pastor died of natural causes before an indictment could be returned, and the petitions were denied or allowed to expire. About a year ago, INS completed an investigation it started in 1994 involving suspects who provided false supporting documents to INS to show that the individuals had met the 2-year work experience requirement. This investigation, which involved over 400 petitions, ultimately led to the arrests of six individuals, guilty pleas to charges of conspiracy to commit visa fraud, and additional investigations of several similar schemes. In another case, reviewers at INS' Vermont Service Center became suspicious when one organization, which had filed about 100 petitions for immigrant visas during the previous 2 years, filed over 200 petitions the third year. The reviewers doubted that the organization could support so many full-time workers and referred the case to an INS district office fraud unit.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Some investigations were initiated because of suspicious activity that State Department consular officials identified. For example, consular officers at the U.S. embassy in Suva, Fiji, became suspicious of a church that filed petitions on behalf of 30 individuals from Fiji who were in the United States on expired visitors visas. The information was forwarded to INS for investigation. The investigation revealed that only 1 of the 30 petitions met the requirements for a religious worker visa. The post suspected that this scheme was related to a larger one involving petitions on behalf of residents of Tonga (near the Fiji Islands) to stay in the United States illegally. Also, the U.S. embassy in Bogota, Colombia uncovered a fraud scheme in which the local church was providing applicants with false documents to demonstrate that the applicants had been members of the church for the required 2-year period. The embassy's antifraud unit discovered that in some cases the applicants had recently joined the church, and in other cases, they had no membership affiliation at all.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE VISA PROCESS
INS and State reviewers told us that they were not confident that the agencies screening process is identifying all unqualified applicants and sponsoring organizations. They attributed the problem to the lack of sufficient information to determine the eligibility of visa applicants and their sponsors. To help remedy the situation, INS told us that it is developing a number of initiatives to improve its visa screening process and to detect and deter fraud. Among the actions INS was considering was a regulatory change regarding the full-time work requirement, the provision of additional documents by a petitioner, and greater use of software to verify petitioners' eligibility.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Lack of Sufficient Information
INS requires petitioners for an immigrant religious worker visa to provide three kinds of evidence: (1) the sponsoring organization must qualify as a nonprofit organization, (2) the petitioner must meet the qualifications for an immigrant religious worker visa, and (3) the petitioner will be paid or otherwise remunerated by the sponsoring religious organization.
INS and State petition reviewers have asserted that sometimes the required supporting evidence, although minimally acceptable, consists of little more than a letter from the sponsoring organization. According to INS and State, this documentation does not adequately establish an applicant's eligibility as a religious worker or the sponsoring organization's ability to pay the worker. Reviewers can deny applications or petitions pending the receipt of additional information, but such actions take more time. Furthermore, the reviewers believe that INS should require information from independently verifiable sources(see footnote 10) and that the sponsoring organizations documents should be current. They said that sometimes the sponsoring organizations submit copies of their original tax-exemption form, which may no longer be valid.
Reviewers at some of State's overseas posts raised a related issue concerning the definition of a ''religious worker''. They reported that the definition of religious worker is too broad, making the religious worker visa program an attractive vehicle for fraud and abuse. Posts sometimes struggled with what they considered to be the ''marginal'' nature of some of the religious positions the applicants said they were employed to fill. A common sentiment was that almost anyone involved with a church, aside from those occupations that were not intended to be covered by the 1990 religious worker visa legislation, for example, maintenance and cleaning staff, could qualify as a religious worker.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Full-time Work Requirement
In June 1995, INS published for comment in the Federal Register a proposed regulatory change to expressly require that the prior work experience specified for immigrant religious worker visa applications be full-time work. The proposed rule also stated that the documentation supporting an applicant's petition must indicate that the religious worker will be working for the religious organization in the United States on a full-time basis. INS officials stated that INS wanted to change the regulation to address the problem of individuals doing part-time voluntary work for a religious organization while working full-time in a secular occupation. They believe that requiring that the two years of experience be full time provides ample evidence of an individual's commitment to working for the religious organization.(see footnote 11) At the time of our report, INS told us it planned to finalize the regulatory change by October 1999. However, INS still has not implemented the change.
Additional Documentary Requirements
INS also said it was considering revising its requirements for the documents that must be initially submitted by the applicant for an immigrant visa. They were also considering incorporating these requirements in the proposed regulatory change. These additional documents could include pay stubs to show that the worker was compensated for full-time work and bank statements to demonstrate that the organizations have sufficient financial resources to support their worker or workers. Given that such document could be fabricated, INS may instead request that the intending employer or petitioner provide a description of the qualifications for the position to be filled. This information could be used during the applicant's interview to verify and corroborate that the applicant posses the right skills for the position. By adding documentation requirements, INS hoped to reduce the number of filings by unqualified applicants.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
According to a State Department official, State would participate in any changes to the requirements for immigrant visas and publish visa regulations jointly with INS. The official said that, if appropriate, State would revise its documentary requirements for nonimmigrant visas to correspond with INS' suggested revisions for immigrant visas.
Greater Use of Software to Verify Eligibility
Until recently, INS and State petition reviewers could not quickly and efficiently determine how many petitions had been filed by specific organizations. As previously noted, organizations petitioning for numbers of workers that appear to be inconsistent with the organization's membership size and financial resources to support the workers sometimes indicates fraud. However, until a pattern had been identified, the reviewers could not know if the petitions were potentially fraudulent. For example, one organization referred for investigation had 37 petitions approved in fiscal year 1996 and 76 petitions approved in fiscal year 1997 before the pattern was detected. At the time of our review, the California and Vermont INS Service Centers had developed their own systems using commercial, off-the-shelf software which they believe provided more efficient inquiry and reporting capability than the system INS headquarters provides. In addition, the two service centers were in the process of consolidating their databases so that they can share data. We were told by INS that all of the service centers now have the capability to detect multiple filers and query each other's databases.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared testimony. I would be happy to respond to any questions you or other Members may have.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Ford.
As I mentioned a while ago we might need to interrupt the hearing, and we will do so right now. So the hearing itself will stand adjourned while we take up the markup of a bill. We especially welcome the presence of the gentlewoman from California.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee considered other matters.]
Mr. SMITH. We will now return to the hearing at hand.
I will recognize Ms. Patterson for her comments.
STATEMENT OF MILDRED PATTERSON, MANAGING DIRECTOR, VISA OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. PATTERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to give the views of the Department of State on the religious worker visa program. Although, as requested, my remarks are directed at the specific topic of fraud, I wish to note that, in general, the Department believes the immigrant and nonimmigrant religious worker visa programs have been successful.
The religious worker programs are relatively small. In fiscal year 1999, we issued 8,518 nonimmigrant ''R'' visas, and 2,713 immigrant visa numbers were used for the immigrants. The Department believes that there is some measure of fraud in the religious worker programs but that the level of fraud is not necessarily greater than that of any other program. Because the Department's objective is to make all visa programs as free of fraud as possible, we have one or two suggestions for changes. Our suggestions have been developed in part from a survey of consular posts that we conducted in 1998 in order to assist the General Accounting Office in making its report.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our survey showed that a number of consular officers believed fraud in the program stemmed from statutory requirements for classification as a religious worker that are too loosely drawn. Many officers, lacking knowledge of the practices and hierarchies of unfamiliar regions, reported difficulty in determining whether particular applicants ought to be classified as religious workers at all. Others cited the lack of reliable documentation from some religious organizations.
A common sentiment was that, aside from the nonreligious occupations such as cleaning and maintenance staff or fundraiser that have been excluded by regulation, any occupation could arguably be described as a religious occupation. Additionally, absent a requirement that the alien be engaged full-time in the occupation, many posts felt compelled to issue visas to applicants whose work, while it could perhaps be described as being associated with the practice of a religion, would clearly not occupy their full time. Therefore, officers sensed the likelihood that the applicant actually intended to find additional or completely different employment once admitted into the United States, or otherwise was using the religious worker category simply as a convenient means of immigration.
In many instances, lacking knowledge of certain religions, consular officers have little ability to challenge the description of or qualifications alleged to be suitable for a particular occupation. In those cases, the officer must rely almost totally on the word of the sponsoring organization and the applicant. Such reliance becomes problematic if the denomination is newly established, very small and localized, or nontraditional.
In nonimmigrant cases in particular, consular officers have no accurate way of gauging the need of a denomination or organization in the United States for religious workers. Therefore, there have been questions raised in instances in which a large number of applicants apply for visas to work at the same individual church or organization in the United States.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, the consular officer comments I have described thus far could apply either to immigrant or nonimmigrant visa applicants. There are, however, two issues of concern relating specifically to nonimmigrants. First, there is no experiential or training requirement to obtain an ''R'' visa. The only requirements are proof of membership in the organization and proof of the intent to engage in an occupation. As I have mentioned, given the lack of a more precise definition of a religious occupation, this means in some instances that a consular officer must issue a visa to an applicant virtually without proof of the applicant's ability to do the work in question.
The problem is compounded by the fact that once in the United States the unskilled alien may then obtain the required 2 years of experience in order to qualify for adjustment of status under the immigrant religious worker program. Therefore, given the pull of U.S. lawful permanent resident status and the problems I have described in determining the bona fides of many religious worker cases, it is easy to see how an alien who has insufficient skills to qualify for other employment visa categories, or who faces a long wait to receive a family-based immigrant visa, or who has no other hope of immigration at all might find the ''R'' visa a convenient vehicle for an attempt to immigrate.
A second area of concern is that applicants for nonimmigrant religious worker visas do not have to demonstrate that they have a residence abroad they have no intention of abandoning. Given the temporary nature of many assignments of religious workers to various locations around the world, it is understandable that this might be a difficult evidentiary burden to meet, even for bona fide workers. We believe, however, that the absence from the statute of some test of intent to depart the United States is simply too great a magnet for non-bona fide aliens and it cannot be ignored.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Department has some suggestions for legislative improvements to the religious worker program. We would recommend that the subcommittee consider a refined definition of a nonimmigrant religious worker to include a requirement for full-time employment in the U.S., and a requirement for documented formal training or full-time paid experience in the specific occupation. This would help ensure that the visa applicant is actually qualified for the position sought and has a commitment to the occupation. We would also suggest that more specific language regarding the nature of the religious occupation itself be included in this statute.
Finally, we suggest that a requirement be placed in the statute that applicants for a nonimmigrant religious worker visa be able to demonstrate either that they have a residence abroad they have no intention of abandoning, or that it is the usual practice of their denomination or organization to require international transfer of their workers. We bring these suggestions to your attention because any attempt to include these requirements in regulation might be seen as an attempt by administrators to create legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. The Department of State would be pleased to work with you and your staff on changing the religious worker programs as we have suggested. I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Patterson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MILDRED PATTERSON, MANAGING DIRECTOR, VISA OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to give the views of the Department of State on the nature of fraud in the religious worker visa program. Last year the Department of State provided its views on this topic to the General Accounting Office for a study that office was conducting. I will share those views with the Subcommittee today. In doing so I will touch upon the problems consular posts have reported to us with regard to these programs and the conclusions we have drawn from their comments. However, although my remarks are directed at the specific topic of fraud, I wish to note that, in general, the Department believes the immigrant and nonimmigrant religious worker visa programs have been successful.
In comparison to other visa programs the immigrant and nonimmigrant religious worker visa programs are small. In fiscal year 1999, we issued 8,518 ''R'' visas, up from 6,845 the previous fiscal year. In fiscal year 1999, 2,713 immigrant visa numbers were used for the permanent religious worker program. Only seventeen percent of the aliens using a number received immigrant visas. The other eighty-three per cent of immigrant religious workers adjusted status in the United States. In fiscal year 1998, 4,488 immigrant visa numbers were used for the permanent program, only sixteen per cent of those workers obtained visas.
Overall, based upon several years of experience with these programs, the Department believes that, as in other visa categories, there is some measure of fraud in the religious worker programs. We do not believe, however, that the level of fraud in these programs is necessarily greater than that of other visa programs. Nevertheless, as the Department's objective is to seek to make all visa programs as free of fraud as possible, we do have one or two suggestions for changes in the programs. Our suggestions have been developed in part from a survey of consular posts that we conducted in 1998 in order to assist the General Accounting Office in making its report. First I will summarize the results of our survey and the concerns of consular officers around the world. Then I will offer the Department's suggestions for addressing those concerns.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In all, eighty-three posts responded to our request for information on the level and types of fraud that they encounter when adjudicating religious worker visas. Forty-one percent of the responding posts said they encountered some fraud in these programs. Forty-four percent did not, and eighteen percent responded that they did not receive a sufficient number of applications for religious worker visas to be able to comment. Our survey showed that a number of posts believed fraud in the programs stemmed from loosely drawn statutory requirements for classification as a religious worker. Many posts, lacking knowledge of the practices and hierarchies of unfamiliar religions, reported difficulty in determining whether a particular applicant ought to be classified as a religious worker at all. Others cited the lack of reliable documentation from some religious organizations. Many believed the applicant for a nonimmigrant religious worker visa ought to be required to demonstrate that he or she maintained a residence abroad to which he or she intended to return.
Posts noted that, as contained in the statute, the definition of religious worker is so broad that meaningful adjudication often is impossible. A common sentiment was that, aside from the non-religious occupations such as cleaning and maintenance staff or fundraiser that have been excluded by regulation, any occupation tangentially related to the religion could arguably be described as a religious occupation. Additionally, absent a requirement that the alien be engaged full-time in the occupation, many posts felt compelled to issue visas to applicants whose work, while it could perhaps be described as being associated with the practice of a religion, would clearly not occupy their full time. Therefore, posts believed that the applicant may have intended to find additional or completely different employment once admitted into the United States, or otherwise was using the religious worker category simply as a convenient means of immigration.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our posts also mentioned the fact that, given the great number and diverse nature of religious denominations, often it is extremely difficult for consular officers to determine whether occupations described by applicants are in fact bona fide religious occupations and further whether there is an actual need for the services of the applicant. In addition, different religions use common terms such as missionary, deacon, or even priest in very different ways. In many instances, lacking knowledge of certain religions, consular officers have little ability to challenge the description of or qualifications alleged to be suitable for a particular occupation. In those cases the officer must rely almost totally on the word of the sponsoring organization and the applicant. Such reliance becomes problematic if the denomination is newly established, very small and localized, or ''nontraditional.'' In nonimmigrant cases in particular, consular officers have no accurate way of gauging the need of a denomination or organization in the United States for workers. Therefore, there have been questions raised in many instances in which a large number of applicants apply for visas to work at the same individual church or organization in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, the consular officer comments I have mentioned thus far could apply either to immigrant or nonimmigrant visa applicants. There are, however, two problems with existing law that they may invite a significant element of fraud into the ''R'' nonimmigrant program. First, there is no experiential or training requirement to obtain an ''R'' visa. The only requirements are proof of membership in the organization and proof of the intent to engage in a religious occupation. As I have mentioned, given the lack of a more precise definition of a religious occupation this means in some instances that a consular officer must issue a visa to an applicant virtually without proof of the applicant's ability to do the work in question. Except in the few instances in which the application is fraudulent on its face, such cases usually come down to whether the applicant seems to have any knowledge of the basic tenets of the particular religion, assuming that the consular officer even knows what those may be. One can easily see how the open definition of religious occupation combined with the lack of a requirement for any significant religious work experience would tempt many aliens who could not otherwise qualify for a work-related visa to seek the ''R.''
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The problem is compounded by the fact that, once in the United States, the unskilled alien may then obtain the required two years of experience in order to qualify for adjustment of status under the immigrant religious worker program. Therefore, given the pull of U.S. lawful permanent resident status and the problems I have described in determining the legitimacy of many religious worker cases, it is easy to see how an alien who has insufficient skills to qualify for other employment visa categories, or who faces a long wait to receive a family-based immigrant visa, or who has no other hope of immigration at all, might find the ''R'' visa a convenient vehicle for an attempt to immigrate.
In the second instance, applicants for nonimmigrant religious worker visas do not have to demonstrate they have a residence abroad that they have no intention of abandoning. Given the temporary nature of many assignments of religious workers to various locations around the world, it is understandable that this might be a difficult evidentiary burden to meet even for bona fide workers. We believe however, that the absence from the statute of some test of intent to depart the United States is simply too great a magnet for non-bona fide aliens, so that it should not be ignored. This is especially true in light of my comments regarding the attractiveness to such aliens of the loosely defined religious worker categories.
I stated at the outset of my testimony that the Department has some suggestions for legislative improvements to the religious worker program. Given my comments, they likely are self-evident. The Department would recommend that the Subcommittee consider a refined definition of a nonimmigrant religious worker to include a requirement for significant religious work experience immediately preceding the time of application for a visa. This would help insure that the visa applicant is actually qualified for the position sought and has a commitment to the occupation. We would also suggest that more specific language regarding the nature of a religious occupation be included in the statute. Finally, we suggest that a requirement be placed in the statute that an applicant for a nonimmigrant religious worker visa be able to demonstrate either that they have a residence abroad that they have no intention of abandoning, or that it is the usual practice of their denomination or organization to periodically require international transfer of its workers. We bring these suggestions to your attention, since any attempt to include these requirements in regulation might be seen as an attempt by administrators to create legislation.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. The Department would be pleased to work with your staff on improving the religious worker programs as we have suggested. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Patterson.
Mr. Brennan.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BRENNAN, CONSULAR OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. BRENNAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you today. I will be offering a summary of my statement, Mr. Chairman.
From August 1997 to December 1999 I served as deputy to the Consul General in Warsaw, Poland, and was directly responsible for running the Immigrant Visa Section. Warsaw is one of the busiest visa-issuing posts in Europe, but the total number of immigrant and nonimmigrant religious worker visas is far less than 1 percent of the visa workload. Most applicants we saw presented legitimate, credible cases.
Nevertheless, the cases sometimes involved applicants with weak or marginal qualifications. Warsaw responded in 1998 to a survey about religious worker visa fraud in connection with a GAO study and expressed concern and frustration about the ease with which applicants with marginal experience seemed to qualify.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Most of our problematic immigrant visa cases involved applications from lay people who made no claim to a religious vocation. The most common problems in these cases were questionable or false claims of experience as a religious worker. There is no requirement in law that experience as a religious worker be gained in a full-time occupation for which the worker receives compensation. As a result, an applicant might be employed in a factory or engaged in farm work and may nonetheless claim to have worked for more than 2 years as a volunteer instructor in religious doctrine. Because of the volunteer nature of the work there are often no standard employment documents that might be used to verify the work experience.
As a practical matter, the interviewing consular officer would generally focus on the question of qualifying experience. This is an area where the consular officer is most likely to deal with information that was not available to INS when it adjudicated the petition. In Poland we encountered applicants who were going to the United States to teach religious doctrine who were unable to answer the most basic questions about the doctrine they would be teaching.
It was our experience that if the sponsoring U.S. organization maintained its original claims regarding the need for the employee and the nature of the compensation, the petition, if returned to INS, would be reaffirmed. As a result, we returned very few petitions to INS apart from those where the applicant appeared clearly to lack the required experience or the ability to do the religious work.
It was my impression while serving in the field that the qualifying criteria for immigrant religious workers are not very stringent and that, without resorting to fraud, this category can be employed by applicants who have a sympathetic sponsoring organization as a relatively easy means to get immigrant status.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Nonimmigrant religious worker visas, which require no previous religious work experience, present a different set of problems for the consular officer. The main problem is determining whether the applicant, if not an individual with a religious vocation, will be engaged in a religious occupation. Consular officers are presented with claims that a variety of seemingly mundane jobs with no clear traditional religious function are religious occupations because they are somehow related to the overall work of a religious organization.
The fact that ''R'' visa applicants do not need to demonstrate a residence abroad also strikes most consular officers as a vulnerability in this visa category.
In terms of numbers, fraud in religious worker visas was not a major problem in Warsaw. But, as a consular officer, I felt that the religious worker visa, as a result of vague eligibility criteria, presented a relatively easy path to gain immigrant status in the United States and was on occasion exploited by applicants for this purpose.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brennan follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN BRENNAN, CONSULAR OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am a consular officer and a member of the Foreign Service. Since 1985, I have done consular work in China, Japan and most recently Poland. From August 1997 to December 1999 I served as deputy to the Consul General in Warsaw, Poland, and was directly responsible for running the Immigrant Visa Section. Among my duties were training the staff to adjudicate immigrant visas, including religious worker visas, and reviewing all immigrant visa applications that were denied or were not readily approvable. Although I did not have direct responsibility for nonimmigrant visa operations, I am acquainted with the problems of adjudicating religious worker visas. Warsaw is one of the busiest visa-issuing posts in Europe, but the total number of immigrant and nonimmigrant religious worker visas is only a tiny percentage—far less than one percent—of the visa workload. This is true even though Poland seems to be a major source of religious workers. Most of the immigrant religious worker visas we issue are for the dependents of individuals who have adjusted status in the United States. As a practical matter, religious worker visa fraud constitutes a miniscule part of the anti-fraud caseload in Warsaw. Most Polish applicants we saw presented legitimate, credible cases.
Nevertheless, the cases we did see sometimes involved applicants with weak or marginal qualifications as a religious worker. Warsaw responded in 1998 to a survey about religious worker visa fraud in connection with a GAO study. In Warsaw's response, we expressed concern and frustration about the ease with which applicants with marginal experience seem to qualify for such visas. From the perspective of the consular officer, we often saw cases where, although the applicant may have satisfied the statutory criteria, it was not clear that granting the visa served to provide a religious worker to fill a needed position in the United States. It was frustrating to deal with these cases.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Most of our problematic immigrant visa cases involved applications from lay people who made no claim to a religious vocation. The most common problems in these cases were questionable or false claims of experience as a religious worker. There is no requirement in the law that experience as a religious worker be gained in a full-time occupation for which the worker receives compensation. As a result, applicants for religious worker immigrant visas are sometimes employed abroad in full-time occupations that do not involve religious work, in addition to claiming habitual engagement in a religious occupation. For example, an applicant might be employed in a factory or engaged in farm work in Poland and may nonetheless claim to have worked for more than two years as a volunteer instructor in religious doctrine. Because of the volunteer nature of the work there are often no tax, insurance or other standard employment documents that might be used to verify the work experience of the applicant. The applicant might be going to the United States to provide instruction in religious doctrine in a setting that also seems to be less than full-time work. Such cases would seem to present a broad range of questions, but as a practical matter, the interviewing consular officer would generally focus on the question of qualifying experience. This is an area where the consular officer is most likely to deal with information that was not available to INS when it adjudicated the petition. In Poland we encountered applicants who were going to the United States to teach religious doctrine, whose claims to prior experience were shaky and who were unable to answer the most basic questions about the doctrine they would be teaching.
Some cases also raised questions as to whether the applicant's services as a religious worker were needed in the United States and whether the applicant would be compensated sufficiently to make it unlikely that he or she would seek outside employment. However, it was our experience that if the sponsoring U.S. organization maintained its original claims regarding the need for the employee and the nature of the compensation, the petition, if returned, would be reaffirmed. As a result, we returned very few petitions to INS apart from those where the applicant appeared clearly to lack the required experience or the ability to do the religious work in the United States being offered by the sponsoring organization.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our efforts to investigate cases involving weak or questionable applications rarely resulted in a clear determination of fraud. As a result, most immigrant religious worker visas are issued even when there is a suspicion that they are being used as an easy path to immigration by an applicant who might otherwise find it difficult to qualify for immigrant status. It was my impression while serving in the field that the qualifying criteria for immigrant religious workers are not very stringent and that, without resorting to fraud, this category can be employed by applicants who have a sympathetic sponsoring organization as a relatively easy means to get immigrant status.
Nonimmigrant religious worker visas, which require no previous religious work experience, present a different set of problems for the consular officer. The main problem is determining whether the applicant, if not an individual with a religious vocation, will be engaged in a religious occupation. Consular officers are presented with claims that a variety of seemingly mundane jobs with no clear traditional religious function are religious occupations because they are somehow related to the overall work of a religious organization. Because every religion presents a unique set of circumstances as to what might be a traditional religious function, it is difficult to sort out these claims. These cases generally do not present questions of fraud, but they do underscore the fact that the criteria for R visa eligibility have unclear boundaries.
The fact that R visa applicants do not need to demonstrate a residence abroad that they have no intention of abandoning strikes most consular officers as a vulnerability in this visa category. R visas are sometimes issued to applicants who would otherwise be considered intending immigrants. It is difficult, however, to show that fraud is involved in such applications.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In terms of numbers, fraud in religious worker visas was not a major problem in Warsaw. But, as a consular officer, I felt that the religious worker visa, as a result of vague eligibility criteria, presented a relatively easy path to gaining immigrant status in the United States and was on occasion exploited by applicants for this purpose.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Brennan.
Mr. Cook.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS COOK, ACTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR ADJUDICATIONS, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the Immigration and Naturalization Service concerning the special immigrant religious worker provisions.
The religious worker program provides an important resource for U.S. religious denominations faced with shortage of domestic religious workers. The INS supports the legislation to continue this program.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are concerned, however, by the problems described in the March 1999 GAO report involving program fraud. We believe that reasonable modifications to the program will provide assistance to us in administering it, without limiting the ability of the bone fide organizations to obtain the workers they need. By enhancing our ability to detect and deter fraudulent petitions, we can ensure that the limited number of available religious worker visas actually are used to fill this need.
As described in the report, the fraud uncovered by INS typically involved applicants making false statements about their qualifications as religious workers or their exact plans in the United States, or a conspiracy between the applicant and the sponsoring organization to misrepresent material facts.
As described in the report, the INS and DoS have detected fraudulent schemes where a sponsoring organization has petitioned the INS for hundreds of religious workers at a time. For example, in 1995 we had a pastor that petitioned for 450 immigrant religious worker petitions covering 900 individuals, in which he misrepresented the experience of those individuals.
So we look forward to working with the committee to make sure that the parameters of the program are clear. In that regard, we would ask that the qualifying religious work preceding the date should be full-time, compensated work. Since many members of religious denominations typically perform part-time volunteer service to the religious organization, the distinction between membership and performing the religious vocation or occupation is not always clear. Problematic cases that the INS has encountered have in particular been those in which the 2 years of experience in the religious vocation or occupation has not been full-time experience.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second important parameter is that the alien be required to work for the qualifying religious organization on a full-time, compensated basis. This would not prohibit any lawful permanent resident from accepting other employment after immigration to the United States. Rather, it would simply make the religious worker requirements consistent with the existing requirements for ministers in 101(a)(27)(C), and consistent with the administration of other employment-based immigrant categories that require the alien to work in a full-time position. Requiring that the 2 years of experience be full-time, and that the alien be entering for the purpose of full-time religious work, focuses more directly on the individual's commitment to working for the religious organization, and reduces the possibility of abusing the religious worker category merely to obtain a permanent resident card and work somewhere else.
One INS initiative that was described in the GAO report is that we are revising document requirements to address some of these concerns. This increased evidentiary standard for the visa approval process will provide a more thorough adjudication and should discourage some questionable petitions. This initiative would be implemented by regulation upon the statutory extension of the religious worker program. Another issue that was mentioned in the report is asking additional information on petitioners in the United States. We are currently pursuing that in our service centers.
The GAO report also favorably noted our suggested change to the visa screening program of using new software applications that would assist the INS service centers in identifying organizations filing petition for numerous workers. All centers now have relational databases which enable them to quickly and efficiently determine how many filings have been made by a petitioning organization in order to establish a trend of multiple-filers.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In summation, we support the continuation of this provision of the immigration law and are committed to continuing to work to improve the integrity of the religious worker program. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer any of the committee's questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS COOK, ACTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR ADJUDICATIONS, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) concerning the special immigrant religious worker provisions in section 101(a)(27)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). I am Thomas Cook, Acting Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
There are three categories of special immigrant religious workers contained in the INA. Subclauses (II) and (III) of section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the INA provide for the admission as ''special immigrants'' of up to 5,000 aliens per year who: (1) for at least two years preceding the time of application have been members of a religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious organization in the United States; (2) seek to enter the United States in order to work for the organization, or for an affiliated tax-exempt organization, in a religious vocation or occupation; and (3) have been carrying on religious work continuously for at least two years immediately preceding their application for admission. These provisions, which were originally enacted in 1990 and have been extended twice, have a current sunset date of September 30, 2000. This sunset date however, does not apply to the continuing permanent definition of ''special immigrants'' covered by subclause (1) which include those individuals who enter solely for the purpose of carrying on the vocation of a minister of a religious denomination.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In my testimony today I would like to address the program and the findings contained in the General Accounting Office's (GAO) March 1999 Report GAO/NSIAD–99–67, ''Visa Issuance: Issues Concerning the Religious Worker Visa Program'' (the ''GAO report'').
The religious worker program provides an important resource for U.S. religious denominations struggling with shortages of domestic religious workers. The benefits of this program to religious organizations have been documented, for example by the April 13 testimony of several religious leaders before the Subcommittee on Immigration of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The INS supports legislation to continue this program.
We are concerned, however, by the problems described in the GAO report involving program fraud. We believe reasonable modifications to the program will provide substantial assistance to us in administering it, without limiting the ability of bona fide religious organizations to obtain the workers they need. Indeed, by enhancing our ability to detect and deter fraudulent applications in which there is no genuine purpose to engage in religious work, these changes will benefit bona fide religious denominations with a genuine need for qualified religious workers by ensuring that the limited number of available religious worker visas actually are used to fill this important need.
As described in the GAO report, the fraud uncovered by the INS or the Department of State (DOS) typically involved applicants making false statements about their qualifications as religious workers or their exact plans in the United States, or a conspiracy between an applicant and a sponsoring organization to misrepresent material facts about the applicant's qualifications or the nature of the position to be filled. The GAO report does not firmly quantify the extent of fraud in the religious worker visa program.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As described in the GAO report, the INS and DOS have detected fraudulent schemes when a sponsoring organization has petitioned the INS for hundreds of religious workers at a time. For example, in 1995 the INS investigated a pastor who filed 450 immigrant religious worker petitions covering over 900 individuals, falsifying the number of years the aliens had been members of the church. In another case, consular officers at the U.S. embassy in Suva, Fiji, became suspicious of a church that filed petitions on behalf of 30 individuals from Fiji who were in the United States on expired visitors' visas. Upon investigation, only 1 of the 30 petitions met the requirements for a religious worker visa.
The religious worker program was intended to provide religious organizations with a means of obtaining the services of workers they need. It was not intended to provide a vehicle for fraud. It was not intended to provide religious denominations with the ability to obtain green cards for members of their congregation, particularly on a ''revolving door'' basis, without a bona fide intention to employ them for religious work (we note that according to the GAO Report, about 85 percent of those admitted for permanent residence through the religious worker program in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 were already in the United States). We are certainly not suggesting that a bona fide petition for a worker already in the United States is improper, or that the majority of applicants are abusing the program. On the contrary, it clearly provides important benefits for many religious organizations and religious workers. We need to find ways of ensuring that these benefits fully continue, while deterring improper practices that hurt bona fide users among others.
We look forward to working with the Committee to make sure the parameters of the program are clear. First, that the required two years of qualifying religious work preceding the date of application be full-time, compensated work for all three categories of religious workers. Since many members of religious denominations typically perform various types of part-time volunteer service to the religious organization, the distinction between membership, and performing the religious vocation or occupation, is not otherwise meaningful. Without this clarification, the distinction is lost between the two-year denomination membership requirement of section 101(a)(27)(C)(i) and the two-year requirement of carrying on a religious vocation or religious work of 101(a)(27)(C)(iii). Everyone with two years membership in a denomination could potentially be eligible to apply for a special immigrant religious worker visa, including those members who are only casually participating in religious work on an extremely limited basis, and who are the least likely actually to continue in religious duties after obtaining lawful permanent residence in the United States. Problematic cases that the INS has encountered have in particular been those in which the two years of experience in the religious vocation or occupation has not been full-time experience.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second important parameter for all three categories of religious workers is that the alien seek to enter the United States to work for the qualifying religious organization on a full-time, compensated basis. This would not legally prohibit any lawful permanent resident from accepting any employment of his or her choice after immigration to the United States. Rather, it would simply make the religious worker requirements consistent with the existing requirements for ministers under section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii)(I), who must be seeking entry solely for the purpose of carrying on their vocation, and with the administration of other employment-based immigration categories that require documentation of an employer's intention to employ the alien in a specific full-time position for which he or she has the necessary professional qualifications. Requiring that the two years of experience be full-time, and that the alien be entering for the purpose of full-time religious work, focuses more directly on the individual's commitment to working for the religious organization, and reduces the possibility of abusing the religious worker category merely to obtain a green card and work somewhere else—an outcome that serves neither the needs of the religious organization nor the goals this program was intended to achieve.
These two improvements to the religious worker program were proposed by the INS in 1995 as a regulatory change, but were not finalized. The GAO report—which described them as ''reasonable steps to help improve program integrity''—has added to the urgency of their implementation.
The GAO report noted that INS and DOS are attempting to balance the need to screen out unqualified applicants with the religious worker program's original purpose of facilitating the entry of qualified religious workers. We are developing a number of initiatives to improve the visa screening process and to detect and deter fraud.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One INS initiative favorably described by the GAO report is to revise its documentary requirements for a religious worker immigrant petition. Specifically, we would require that the intending employer/petitioner provide a description of the qualifications for the position to be filled. The applicant, during the visa interview, would have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the consular officer that he or she possesses the skills needed for the particular position. This way there would be interrelated evidence that can be examined for internal consistency. This increased evidentiary standard for the visa approval process would provide for a more thorough adjudication and would discourage questionable petitions. It would complement our current requirement that employers establish their ability to compensate immigrant religious workers. This initiative will be implemented by regulation upon statutory extension of the religious worker program.
Another issue which was favorably noted in the GAO Report was the requirement of having the sponsoring organization submit additional evidence regarding its ability to financially support the applicant. INS is currently requiring sponsoring organizations to submit additional evidence regarding their ability to support the applicants financially. INS regulations request sufficient documentation from the employers to establish their ability to support immigrant religious workers. However, should an INS officer or consular officer continue to feel uncertain about the petitioner or applicant, they have the authority to request additional information as they see fit.
The GAO Report also favorably noted our suggested change to the visa screening program of incorporating new software applications that would assist the INS Service Centers in identifying organizations filing petitions for numerous workers. All INS Service Centers now have relational databases which enable them to quickly and efficiently determine how many filings have been made by a petitioning organization in order to establish a trend of multiple-filers. In addition, each INS Service Center has the capability to share access to each of the other Service Center's databases, greatly enhancing their ability to identify fraudulent or inconsistent petitions.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This hearing on the religious worker program provides the Committee with a good opportunity also to strengthen the integrity of the nonimmigrant religious worker provision under section 101(a)(15)(R) of the INA. Unlike many other nonimmigrant visa categories, there is no statutory requirement under current law that an ''R'' nonimmigrant have a residence in a foreign country which he or she has no intention of abandoning, or that the nonimmigrant have any qualifying work experience. As a result, ''R'' visas may be available to aliens who lack any qualifications for religious work other than membership in a denomination, and who would not qualify for even a tourist visa based on their lack of a foreign residence. We recommend making ''R'' visas more consistent with other nonimmigrant categories by adding a foreign residence requirement, and by adding a requirement of significant religious work experience immediately preceding the time of application for admission.
In summation, we support the continuation of this beneficial and important provision of our immigration law and are committed to continuing our work to improve the integrity of the religious worker program. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer the Committee's questions.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Cook.
Mr. Ford, let me address my first questions to you. We thank you for the investigation that the GAO conducted. It was most helpful. And I also appreciate the cooperation you got particularly from the State Department. I will not go back over all your good suggestions because I hope that we will incorporate those in any legislation that moves forward. And in that regard, Mr. Pease had introduced a bill that we will probably mark up I hope in the coming weeks.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Without going into the details of your suggestions, which I think are good ones, I just wanted to ask you about a couple of statements that you have in your prepared statement. You say that the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security has not conducted any investigations of religious worker visa fraud. Why is that, in your opinion?
Mr. FORD. I cannot really answer for the State Department.
Mr. SMITH. I was going to ask the State Department next, but I was hoping that——
Mr. FORD. Maybe I can give you a flavor of what we tried to do basically to find out how much fraud there really was in this program. We contacted the State Department and INS early on when we started this project and one of the problems we ran into was that there is not a lot of readily available data reported by either the State Department or INS specifically on this type of visa in terms of how much fraud there actually is in these cases. It is not regularly reported, it is not systematically reported by either organization.
So they helped us develop the da ta that is in our report. They did a survey, in the case of State Department overseas, to solicit their posts to get an idea of what the nature of the problem was. In the case of INS, we went to their investigative unit and asked them if they could give us hard information on how many investigations they had actually done. They were able to provide that information. In the case of the Diplomatic Security Service, we asked them whether or not they had conducted any cases, and basically their response to us was that they had not. I can only speculate as to why not. Perhaps they may have turned the cases over to INS for further investigation. That may be a plausible explanation. But that is all I know about it at this point.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Okay. Do you happen to know, and then I will ask them that question, are the names of the organizations that might have engaged in visa fraud available to us, or not?
Mr. FORD. Again, I am going to have to defer to my colleagues here. When we did our work, when we asked them how many investigations they had underway, I believe at the time we did our work, which was in early 1999, of the 54 cases that they provided us, I believe it was 40 were closed and the rest ongoing. They did not give us any detailed information because they were ongoing cases. I do not know, I can check our record to see for those that were closed whether we have that information, and I would be happy to submit that for the record.
Mr. SMITH. Okay. I would like to get that information if you can give it to us. Thanks.
Ms. Patterson, do you want to explain why the State Department has not conducted any investigations.
Ms. PATTERSON. Mr. Chairman, I represent the Bureau of Consular Affairs, so I cannot speak for Diplomatic Security either. My speculation is it is a question of priorities and that they are investigating other kinds of visa fraud and, unfortunately, in some cases probably much more serious.
Mr. SMITH. I do not know if they are much more serious, maybe greater numbers in other types of visas.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. PATTERSON. There are greater numbers, that is true. So I am sorry. We can ask Diplomatic Security for you and try and get you an answer.
Mr. SMITH. Okay. We will ask them as well. Thanks.
You mentioned in your testimony that there is let's call it a temptation by individuals to use the religious worker visa program who have insufficient skills to qualify for other employment visa categories, individuals who are having to face a long wait because they want to come in under family-based immigrant visa, individuals who might be tempted to use the religious worker visa as a reason to try to come in even if they are not qualified. What do you propose to try to correct this situation?
Ms. PATTERSON. I think that is where we would ask that the statute be changed so that we were looking for more significant religious work experience overseas before they could qualify for an ''R'' visa to the United States. And in order to qualify, it is a nonimmigrant visa category after all, that they have some tie abroad to their organization. Most bona fide denominations or organizations that are sending workers here are obviously established overseas. And I think that those would be a couple of points that we would like to see incorporated.
Mr. SMITH. As well as proving an intent to return I assume.
Ms. PATTERSON. Right.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Okay. The next question is that a number of consular posts have stated that the religious worker immigrant visa should be made conditional, as green cards are, for 2 years. Would you support that change as well?
Ms. PATTERSON. I think that is a good idea.
Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Brennan, you said in your testimony that many immigrant religious worker visas are issued even when there is a suspicion that they are fraudulent. What can we do to prevent this from occurring? Is the reason it occurs because definitions are too broad, the language is too general, or are there other changes that we should make to try to avoid having someone approve a visa application when they clearly have legitimate suspicions?
Mr. BRENNAN. I think that you have said it, it is because the definitions and the criteria for qualification are too broad. Just to add, when we have these suspicions we do investigate them. The primary investigative means we use are the ones at posts within the consular sections, which is where we first look into these cases. But if we cannot develop the criteria that show that there is actual misrepresentation, then the visas will be issued.
Mr. SMITH. So the fault is not yours, it is ours.
Mr. BRENNAN. No, the fault I think is simply one where if there were clearer criteria the outcomes would be different.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. That is what I mean. It is up to us to clarify the criteria.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. And if there are clearer criteria, it would be easier to verify people's qualifications and to find our what their intentions are.
Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Brennan.
The gentlewoman from California is recognized for her questions.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I read through the GAO report and I am happy to hear this testimony today. I guess I would encourage both the Immigration Service and State Department to focus in on education efforts for staff more than anything else, because it sounds that certainly no Member of Congress or any person in the Federal Government would favor fraud in any visa category, nonimmigrant or immigrant. And because we have the best country in the world and so many people want to come here, some people will attempt fraud in every visa category, and we all know that and we should guard against it.
I think we do have the tools to deny visas when there are fraudulent applications made, if we have adequate training for our staff. I know that State Department, in particular, has been underfunded for the last 5 years, and that is a shame and I hope that we can soon do better in terms of your staffing levels.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would just note that I think we are spending too much time on this issue. If you take a look at the GAO report, they estimate 3 percent fraud rate. And if you take a look at the number of visas, if that estimate is correct, we are talking about 250 cases. Now 250 cases is not a good thing, but to spend a huge amount of congressional time on 250 cases I think is preposterous.
I think some of the changes that have been suggested will create other problems. I am mindful of the letter that Congress received from Mother Teresa asking for us to continue this program and to make it a permanent program. The Sisters of Charity are not paid; they serve the poor without compensation. So to put in a payment requirement, a pay stub requirement would be counter-intuitive in terms of some religious orders. So I do think that we need to be cautious in changing our first look at what remedies can be put in place with helping our agencies enforce the law.
I was thinking about marriage fraud as I was walking over here from my office. We know that there is marriage fraud and we have the tools to prohibit the issuance of visas when marriage fraud is present. But that does not mean that we want to prohibit Americans from marrying somebody who is a foreign national. We need to be very cautious here.
So I favor no change in the law other than to make the law permanent, and I would favor increased resources for both the Immigration Service and State Department so that they might do a better job in this and other aspects.
I have a competing hearing in the Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee which I am now going to adjourn to. I thank the chairman for allowing me to make this statement.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pease, is recognized.
Mr. PEASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also have the same obligation as Ms. Lofgren, so I want to share a few things and then I am going to be leaving for that meeting as well.
First, I want to thank the panelists for some very helpful information, both in your written material and in your oral presentations. Members of the panel may or may not know that I introduced legislation on this subject, and that is not a common practice for me. I do not initiate a lot of legislation. But I have spent a good deal of time talking with religious workers in my district and they persuaded me that there is merit in this program, there is a need in this program, and so I initiated legislation to which the chairman made reference.
But I was troubled by some of the things that we were hearing regarding difficulties in administration, if not outright fraud, and being unable on my own to determine appropriate remedies for those concerns chose not to introduce legislation that would make this program permanent, but instead would give it a 3-year extension of the existing program with no changes in order to give us more time to find out what might work and what modifications might be necessary. Now I am more inclined to move in the direction of a permanent extension because you have given us some things that the committee may be able to incorporate, with your assistance, into the legislation.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are some very concrete recommendations here that make a good deal of sense to me. I do understand the concerns raised by the gentlelady from California. I think those are workable within the construct that you have provided to us, and I want you to know that I am very grateful for that. I guess I am throwing a curve at the chairman by telling him I am considering rewriting my bill at this point. But I think we can all work together on this.
I have a question on the subject of the sponsoring organizations and what requirements, if any, are currently in place regarding them, how those are reviewed as part of this process. I do not know who to direct that to.
Mr. COOK. Right now we look at the religious denomination or the religious association to that denomination for their ability to provide funds to support the alien that is coming in, and we also look at the job that they are going to offer to that alien. As we mentioned earlier, there are some jobs that are excluded by regulation and others that cover a wide range of work in the religious field.
Mr. PEASE. Is there any statutory authorization for consequences to the sponsoring organization for fraud or failure to perform as they said they would perform?
Mr. COOK. The consequence of course is the denial of the petition. But other than that, unless there is some determined fraud where an investigation occurs and indictments and charges are made, there is no other that I am aware of.
Mr. PEASE. Would statutory authorization that allows you to exclude that organization for a period of time following a determination of fraud or abuse be helpful to put I guess more of the onus on the sponsoring organization to ensure that those they bring perform as they are to perform under the law? Or do you have that authority now?
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COOK. I am not aware that we have that authority. In a couple of the other categories, such as (H)(1)(b) and some of those we do have that provision. This one, we do not have statutory authority to do that. I think if we clarified the criteria, I think that would resolve most of these issues rather than putting such a penalty on the organizations themselves.
Mr. PEASE. Well I appreciate your opinion. I do not know what my thinking is on this particular point, to be quite candid, but it just seems to me that there ought to be some consequences to the sponsoring organization, if for no other reason than to assist you in helping to sort out where you should spend your time, and maybe for them to in effect assist in enforcement since they are the ones who have agreed to sponsor the person being here. But we can discuss all of these things, and the things that you have provided I think are very helpful.
Mr. Chairman, I would look forward also to further discussions more along the line of a permanent extension but one that incorporates many of the modifications that were discussed today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Pease. You brought up a point that I had wanted to discuss as well, and that is the idea of sanctions or penalties. Because I do think you need a combination of both, as you suggested. I thank you.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Canady, is recognized.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CANADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony today. And I want to echo some of the comments that have been made previously by Ms. Lofgren.
In looking at your testimony and in listening to you, Mr. Cook, you focus on two things: One, you say that the required 2 years of qualifying religious work preceding the date of application be full-time, compensated work for all three categories of religious workers; and then you say the second important parameter for all three categories of religious workers is that the alien seek to enter the United States to work for the qualifying religious organization on a full-time, compensated basis.
I understand the thinking behind that but the problem I have with that is that I think it ends up discriminating against particular religious groups because there are certain religious groups whose fundamental tenets do not provide for full-time compensated work for the people who minister in that religion.
So I think that is something we have to be sensitive to and something we have to accommodate. Although I understand what is driving that, from one perspective that is reasonable, if you look at it from the traditional religious perspective that is quite reasonable, but I think we would end up stepping on some groups in the process. I do not know what the right answer is, but I think that is something we have to take into account because I do not think we want to move forward with something that is going to in effect exclude certain religious groups from the benefits of this program because of their religious beliefs.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Canady.
The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon, is recognized.
Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cook, you mentioned databases and the development of databases, and Mr. Ford's report of the GAO report mentions that California and Vermont INS service centers developed their own systems, I suppose that was some sort of database systems, using off-the-shelf software.
Can you tell me a little bit about what is happening in this particular area a little more than what you talked about just with the relational database. For instance, do you have a cross-department program indicating what kind of off-the-shelf software you are developing? Are you familiar with what is going on at all with that? It would seem to me that your operation is sort of the central point that gets the benefit of having all the access to that data. Is there a program that has been considered and is being implemented across the agency?
Mr. COOK. As far as benefit frauds, which is under our immigration services division, they are coordinating all of the automation across the four service centers that receive all the I–360's, which is the petitions for religious workers. So they are coordinating that. In fact, all four service centers now have access to each other's databases which makes the job a lot easier in identifying fraud trends.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
They also have an anti-fraud assessment that is going on right now in which they are going to look at the (H)(1)(b) first. But they have the I–360 as one of five other forms that they are going to be looking at as far as technology and other anti-fraud efforts to try and identify where the issues are and where they can address them. If that answers your question.
Mr. CANNON. Thank you. So all four service centers currently have some sort of database process. I take it that California and Vermont were sort of test cases. Are you familiar with what they did there with their databases? And what kind of databases are you using in the other centers?
Mr. COOK. No, I am not exactly sure. I know they are using Microsoft Access to access the reports and the data. But as to the databases, I would have to defer to our operations division and get that information.
[The information referred to follows:]
MR. THOMAS COOK'S RESPONSE TO HON. CHRIS CANNON'S QUESTION:
A. All INS Service Centers now have relational databases which enable them to quickly and efficiently determine how many filings, of any form type, have been made by a specific attorney, from a certain zip code or address, or through a petitioning organization in order to establish a trend of multiple-filers. In addition, each INS Service Center has the capability to share access to each of the other Service Center databases, greatly enhancing their ability to identify fraudulent or inconsistent petitions.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
B. The California and Texas Service Centers are using Microsoft SQL database software to input religious worker program information from CLAIMS 3.
C. The Vermont and Nebraska Service Centers are using Oracle database software to input religious worker program information from CLAIMS 3. All INS Service Centers then use Microsoft Access to query the database systems.
Mr. CANNON. As to religious workers, but also as to other workers where your division is adjudicating, do you have a process or a program in place for working with the other areas of INS to coordinate your databases so that when you adjudicate you can be more efficient in the process?
Mr. COOK. There is a data share team where we are looking and working with sharing data internally to INS and externally with the Department of State and other organizations.
Mr. CANNON. Is that going well?
Mr. COOK. The data share?
Mr. CANNON. Yes.
Mr. COOK. It is okay.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CANNON. It seems to me, and the chairman knows my concern here, it seems to me that there are great opportunities for improvement in the processing time and in detecting fraud and much of that is really, literally, truly simply and cheaply off-the-shelf but it takes sort of a department-wide or agency-wide commitment to do that.
Mr. COOK. In our agency we have created another group that does that over-arching look at what each of the different units are using as far as software, what information they are gathering to try to make sure we are not duplicating each other and that we can share the information.
Mr. CANNON. Great. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. And yes, Mr. Cannon, you are right, I did anticipate that you would focus immediately on the high tech component of immigration. You are the expert on that.
Mr. Cook, just another question or two. Back in 1995 the INS proposed to deal with some of the problems that we have heard about today by issuing regulations or finalizing regulations. Why has not the INS in 5 years issued those regulations?
Mr. COOK. We originally had them as part of a bigger package and there were some resolutions within that package that delayed the overall big package. We have now separated that out. But pending the decision of this committee, we are holding off publishing that.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. What about 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999?
Mr. COOK. A lot of it was delays in that package and working on resolutions within the proposed final regulation.
Mr. SMITH. Does it normally take 5 years to propose regulations that you say are necessary?
Mr. COOK. No. That is an anomaly, yes.
Mr. SMITH. Okay. We will hope it is that.
Thank you all for your testimonies today. As I say, it has been very helpful and I do appreciate the specific solutions that you all have recommended.
I also thank the gentleman from Utah for staying to the end as well. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Thank-you Mr. Chairman for calling this important hearing on a program that is needed in this country. The Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program, originally enacted as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990, allows religious organizations to sponsor non-minister religious workers from abroad to perform service in the United States. Examples of non-minister religious workers include but are not limited to: nuns, religious brothers, catechists, cantors, pastoral service workers missionaries, and religious broadcasters. Such individuals make important contributions to the United States by: caring for the sick and aged, providing shelter and nutrition to the most needy, supporting families in crisis, and working with religious leaders.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The program is composed of two parts. Part one, the Special Immigrant provision, provides for up to 5,000 Special Immigrant visas per year. Once granted, this type of visa allows religious workers to permanently immigrate to the United States. Under current law, this part of the program will expire on September 30, 2000.
Part two of the program, the Non-immigrant Provision, provides religious denominations and organizations with the ability to apply for temporary visas, also referred to as ''R'' visas, for foreign religious workers. These non-immigrant religious workers perform religious service in the United States for no more than five years. Unlike the Special Immigrant provision, the non-immigrant provision is permanent law and has no expiration date.
Prior to the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990, non-profit religious organizations that requested the services of foreign-born, non-minister religious workers were forced to fit their needs into the business, student, or missionary visa categories. This was problematic for religious organizations, as the established visa categories were created primarily for the needs of profit-making businesses. As a result, religious organizations were frequently unable to sponsor foreign non-minister religious workers.
By enacting the Non-immigrant Religious Worker Visa Program, Congress remedied the categorical visa problem and addressed the critical need for foreign non-minister religious workers to perform services in the U.S. Moreover, by including the Special Immigrant Religious Worker Visa Program as part of the larger act, Congress recognized the fact that some religious workers enter the United States for the sake of making long term contributions to American society.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congress is currently considering legislation that would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend the Special Immigrant provision of the Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa program, which is otherwise set to expire on September 30, 2000.
This bill, H.R. 4068, the Religious Workers Act of 2000 (the ''Religious Workers Act''), introduced by Rep. Edward Pease, would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990 by extending the special immigrant religious worker program for an additional 3 years. In other words, H.R. 4068 would extend the current admissions policy for special immigrant religious workers through FY 2003.
I am a co-sponsor and support H.R. 1871, the Mother Teresa Religious Worker Act of 1999 (the ''Mother Teresa Act''),
sponsored by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and co-sponsored by a bipartisan list of 42 Members of Congress. This bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990 to provide permanent authority for U.S. special immigrant entry by certain religious workers.
Since its enactment, the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program has been extended for two consecutive periods of three years, first in 1994 and second in 1997.
Temporary extensions of the provision have had unfavorable consequences. In the past, as expiration dates have drawn near, the Department of State and INS have slowed down and even suspended processing applications because of uncertainty regarding whether or not the provision will continue. Consequently, religious organizations have had to endure anxiety and face disruptions in their programming. Moreover, local communities have had to worry about losing vital services that religious organizations provide for them. Congress can alleviate this anxiety by permanently extending the provision.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Although the provision has a broad base of support, both the Department of State and the INS have expressed concerns about abuse and misuse in the program. Contending that the religious worker program is vulnerable to fraud, the agencies' objective is to make all visa programs as fraud-free as possible.
A controversial type of case is one dealing with a non-minister religious worker who is volunteering or working part-time for a religious establishment and obtaining full-time employment elsewhere. This kind of scenario leads many to contend that such an alien is pledging to do religious work in the United States only to gain admission to the country, and would otherwise not qualify for entrance.
Proponents of an extension acknowledge that fraud is a legitimate issue. Nevertheless, they argue that tightening the religious worker provision is an improper solution. Advocates further contend that Congress should reject any proposed modifications to the program that would make it more difficult for qualified religious workers to enter the United States. The White House has formally endorsed this position in the past. As is, the provision requires non-minister special immigrant religious workers to meet stringent qualifications before they enter the country. Any attempt to impose stricter criteria will hurt religious organizations. I support the Religious Worker Visa Program and support the concept of making the program permanent.
Thank-you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH. We stand adjourned.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
CLARIFICATION REGARDING FRAUD DENIAL RATE STATISTIC
The General Accounting Office's (GAO) report titled Issues Concerning the Religious Worker Visa Program (GAO/NSIAD–99–67) states that an INS workload report shows a religious worker fraud denial rate of 3 percent in fiscal year 1998. That INS report was discovered to be in error after the GAO report had been issued. The corrected fraud rate for religious worker petitions in fiscal year 1998 is 0.4 percent.
(Footnote 1 return)
Our testimony focuses on those in vocations such as nuns and monks and those engaged in work related to a traditional religious function, including liturgical workers, religious instructions, counselors, cantors, workers in religious hospitals, and missionaries.
(Footnote 2 return)
Immigration fraud involves the willful intent to circumvent the immigration laws of the United States by submitting false documents or misrepresenting material facts.
(Footnote 3 return)
By ''program,'' we mean all of the requirements, processes, and procedures related to the issuance of religious worker visas.
(Footnote 4 return)
See Visa Issuance: Issues Concerning the Religious Worker Visa Program (GAO/NSIAD–99–67, Mar. 26, 1999).
(Footnote 5 return)
Public Law 101–649, 104 Stat. 5004, 5027 (Nov. 29, 1990). The legislation also applies to spouses and children of religious worker.
(Footnote 6 return)
The employment-based preference limitation, under which special immigrant religious workers are included, is 140,000.
(Footnote 7 return)
The special immigrant religious workers must have been members, for at least 2 prior years, of a religious denomination having a bona fide, nonprofit, religious organization in the United States (or of a bona fide organization that is affiliated with the re as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986); they must state that they intend to enter the United States to work for the organization at the organization's request in a religious vocation or occupation; and they must have been carrying on the religious work continuously for at least 2 years immediately prior to applying for admission.
(Footnote 8 return)
To arrive at these figures, we counted the number of investigations reported by each unit responding to the INS survey and the number of petitions involved when they were identified.
(Footnote 9 return)
In contrast, INS opened over 6,000 immigration fraud investigations in fiscal year 1997.
(Footnote 10 return)
Unlike most other employment-based visas, the applicant can file a petition on his or her own behalf and, although supporting documentation from the sponsoring organization is still required the applicant can submit all of it. For most other employment-based visa categories, the potential employer must submit the petition and supporting documentation.
(Footnote 11 return)
The Service is also considered including language in regulations for nonimmigrant religious workers stating that the purpose of the religious worker is to work ''solely'' for the religious organization.